Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I fail to see how that proposal is realistic...

What I meant by that was using the Current Phase 3 plan for Second Avenue Subway. And to use a little bit to no new infrastructure at all. (With the exception of SAS phase 3) 

 

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

But there's barely any new capacity anywhere. It's exactly the same as today.

I don't really support deinterlining if it isn't going to result in concrete benefits. Pumping the Broadway Express 100% to 96 St, an (M) via 63rd, a (K) via 53rd and spare capacity on 8th does actually increase the amount of capacity. This doesn't.

Alright. Broadway Express 100% to 96th Street and 125th Street will work until the issue of Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway and I not too keen on the idea of building a Lower Level at 72nd Street. The reason for that is that is that it'll makes no sense to dead end (N) and (Q) trains at 72nd Street, let alone the (T) or any other Second Avenue Route (which mind you has little to no connections to other routes especially the West Side routes under the current plan). Unless you're going to build a Queens Extension to say, Northern Blvd or LaGuardia Airport which would be far into the future. 

As for an (M) to 63rd, I understand the reason for it along with bringing back the (K) as a Queens Blvd Local Route, but I fail to understand how that'll add any new capacity. If our current practices with the current signaling system is not addressed, then that could lead to capacity constraints with the Interlockings and Crossovers at Queens Plaza, 36th Street, and don't get me started on Forest Hills. The schedules for each line would have to be so well adjusted that there can not be any time for any train to be held for another one to go by. (In other words, so that we don't have the issues that current QBL trains have today). I want to find a better alternative as opposed to having an (E)(F)(K)(M) service pattern. A question I'd like to being up about this proposal: Is 8th Avenue interlined south of 50th Street or No?

I also advocate for increase in overall train capacity in the subway system. But what sets me apart from all of you is that I want to look for an alternative solution that doesn't include any elements from any of your proposals. Even if that means failing 100 times to do so. 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra
Left out some key words
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
5 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright. Broadway Express 100% to 96th Street and 125th Street will work until the issue of Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway and I not too keen on the idea of building a Lower Level at 72nd Street. The reason for that is that is that it'll makes no sense to dead end (N) and (Q) trains at 72nd Street, let alone the (T) or any other Second Avenue Route (which mind you has little to no connections to other routes especially the West Side routes under the current plan). Unless you're going to build a Queens Extension to say, Northern Blvd or LaGuardia Airport which would be far into the future. 

So, lemme get this straight. Because SAS was planned terribly, we should screw everyone over for it? It's one thing to lay out the best you can do with phase 3 existing, it's a whole other to say that such a frankly terrible extension is a good idea. SAS suffers from two things: forced interlining (solvable with 72 LL) and a complete lack of larger systemic relevance. Literally every line in NYC goes far beyond the core; SAS does not. In its current incarnation, it's a long shuttle. This situation is aggravated by the fact that it remains on the East Side for most of its trip -- an area with precious few transfer possibilities through most of its length. 

If SAS 3 was ever built, I'd do it to 72 LL, and I'd link the south end the Manhattan Bridge. Then it's not just a shuttle, and it lets the Jamaica line get Midtown. From 72, you then have the opportunity of proceeding north to the Bx, or east to Queens -- both markets in need of more service. 

12 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 As for an (M) to 63rd, I understand the reason for it along with bringing back the (K) as a Queens Blvd Local Route, but I fail to understand how that'll add any new capacity. If our current practices with the current signaling system is not addressed, then that could lead to capacity constraints with the Interlockings and Crossovers at Queens Plaza, 36th Street, and don't get me started on Forest Hills. The schedules for each line would have to be so well adjusted that there can not be any time for any train to be held for another one to go by. (In other words, so that we don't have the issues that current QBL trains have today). I want to find a better alternative as opposed to having an (E)(F)(K)(M) service pattern. A question I'd like to being up about this proposal: Is 8th Avenue interlined south of 50th Street or No?

Balanced frequencies (everyone gets 15tph) and unf**ked junction ops should not have to be subjects of debate. Those are basic functions of any transit system, and are features the NYC subway sported until about 1975. 

Really speaking, (E)(F)(K)(M) is the only way to maximize capacity in the area. Short of giving 8th Ave a third northern outlet, there is no other way to get that corridor to full throughput; two services have to go over 53. This then cascades; (M) bumped to 63, (R) bumped to Astoria (contingent on a better Ditmars, or efficient turning at QBP), and we arrive at (E)(F)(K)(M). Here is a map of today's issue (absolute capacity perspective:

zlxhfBq.jpg

Here's one way to mitigate it:

y97ua3e.jpg

_____________________________________

All of that said, I think that outside the context of Queens (which is damn near its breaking point), deinterlining needs to take a back seat. Of the +/- 275tph we could but do not run, interlined absolute capacity reductions account for only 30. Now, of course, there are the service capacity kills that result from interlining's complexity (Dekalb being a great example), but I think it's a wee bit disingenuous to say that they are an immutable reality; we once operated all sorts of wild interlining with virtually no capacity/reliability penalty. I think if there was a big effort made to improve junction ops which still couldn't rid merges of this 'delay vector' nature, then there absolutely should be a conversation about reducing their number, but I have yet to see such a push. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright, new proposal. Keep in mind that this proposal goes off the assumption that SAS is complete. 

(R) Trains are rerouted to Astoria and Are Extended to LaGuardia Airport and trains now house at 36th-38th Street Yard as currently planned. In the Long term, a new Yard in Astoria would be built using part of ConEd land. Some trains will short turn at 9th Avenue on the (D) line so that trains, can access the yard. (Note: Routes south of Dekalb are not deinterlined) 

Canal Street Station complex would be rebuilt from top to bottom (or bottom to top depending on your preception of it). The Express (N) and (Q) platforms would be widened by 10 feet on each side. The track alignment on the (R) and (W) platforms would be pushed inward to allow for wider platforms. Mezzanine pathways would be adjusted to allow for More Direct Transfers between the ((4) Overnights) (6)(J)(Z)(N)(Q)(R)(W). As for the (J) Platforms, the former Northbound Platforms will be reopened in case of a Provision for the Second Avenue Subway (T). Now while the Hanover Square option has better coverage for Underserved Neighborhoods, it lacks Connections with other lines and a Brooklyn Extension is almost not Feasible. 

As Much as I support Deinterlining Broadway, I don't support building a Lower Level at 72nd Street because I'm worried of Feasibility and to preserve a Future one seat Ride for SAS riders who are looking to Travel Second Avenue North to South and vice versa, thus I'll keep a little bit of Interlining on Broadway. (N) trains will use the Tracks just North of 57th Street-7th Avenue to turn onto the Express tracks instead of using the interlocking's between 34th Street-Herald square and Times Square-42nd Street. They will continue to serve Astoria, but now alongside the (R) line. The (W) would be eliminated under this plan and for a reason I'm about to get to in a bit.

57 Street Interlocking

credit to Vanshnookenraggen for creating the Geographically accurate NYC subway Track map. 

On Queens Blvd, there will be a service rearrangement. 

Some may argue that the (M) should use the Unused capacity in the 63rd Street tunnel, but I partially disagree with that. A second SAS route will run with the (T) under my proposal and use the 63rd Street tunnel with the (F) under my proposal. Both routes will run express in Queens to Jamaica Center and 179th Street. The (M) will continue to be local on Queens Blvd and the (E) will now be converted to a Local Route, still running at 15TPH, but this time to Jamaica - 179th Street, trains could still serve Jamaica Center, but that would require an Extension to Rochdale similar to the 1968 Program For Action, which is Not what I'm proposing today. Overall Service would look like this:

(E) - WTC to Jamaica-179th Street; QB Local via 53rd Street

(F) - Coney Island to Jamaica-179th Street; QB Express via 63rd Street

(M) - Metropolitan Av to Forest Hills-71st Avenue or Jamaica-179th Street via 53rd Street

(V) - Hanover Square via 2nd Avenue to Jamaica Center; QB Express via 63rd Street. 

An alternative option is to swap the Express Local alignment of my proposed (E) and (V)

Any thoughts?

Finally decided to draw the exact layout of north of 57th (which I've been mentioning/describing for years), to show the easiest solution. It's actually constructed as a "Flying junction", and the 60th St. tracks don;t become the local tracks, but rather "wye" into both the local and express trackways, from inbetween them. Only the local trackways were never used. The orginal four track line was built to veer west and continue uptown, and the 63rd St. connection simply cut across the ROW, to head east.

 

b018f48c6f94084a571673c983d31b86.jpg

 

So right away, the north trackway (A2) leads right into the north 63rd St. track (G2), but a concrete room has been constructed on the trackbed. That can easily be removed, as it is simply block construction.

It's southbound, where the local A1 trackway veers away from G1, and then the columns between A1-3-4, etc. are present, that more work would have to be done (to remove the columns, the load bearing of the tunnel roof will have to be redistributed with all new horizontal beams). This will be the main problem.

At one point, before it was mandated that the full SAS would have to be planned (and not just the uptown "stubway") in order to receive the funding, they were talking about reconfiguring the whole Prince-Canal st. junction, to allow the SAS and express to feed directly to the downtown tracks, and the local tracks would then lead across the bridge.
This would require a tremendous amount of construction, including most likely, property acquisition (you would have to make the tunnel wider to have the trackways make the swap, and there isn't much space on Broadway).

But just making this relatively simple modification north of 57th, then they could have a local connect to 63rd, and the express switch over to 60th, without crossing over each other. (good for unplanned reroutes and G.O's as well).

Even if they did just the northbound, that would help a lot. with the reroutes. They really should look into doing this now, because when the (M) is carrying a huge chunk of the (L) riders next year, this cutting it at Essex or Chambers everytime something goes wrong anywhere on the IND (especially Queens, of course), isn't going to cut it.
If in Queens (or the (F) rerouted via 53rd), it will be better to cut the (Q) back to 57th, and then let all (M)'s run to 96th. With the northbound connection, the northbound express could be the "pocket" for the (Q), and yet some could still run around this on the local, and run through, so that there is still access from Bway above 34th, to SAS, and it would alleviate congestion with the single pocket filled; (and (R)'s could be run through 63rd if needed) and the southbound track would still be open for the through service in the reverse direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

Why are we keeping Broadway service on QB? The only reason it's still there is for Lex express access; the SAS connection makes that a waste. I'd take that chance to amp up 8th with a 4th service, no? 

I also don't completely follow the rationale behind (M) to SAS. If we want better Jamaica line connectivity, why don't we do what @vanshnookenraggen proposed -- (B)(D) out that way, and SAS to Brooklyn? Sure, that kills the Staten Island idea, but it keeps SAS bound to the network at large (think about all those transfers in Brooklyn), and does the same for the Jamaica/Myrtle complex. 

Otherwise, I think it's a completely defensible plan. 

Funnily enough, they were actually slated to go over the river -- a new bridge from Burke Ave would have carried the (D) on its lower level. IIRC this is written up in The Routes Not Taken. 

How about we do this then:

(A) unchanged

(C) now express in Brooklyn and south of 59th; extended to Lefferts

(E) unchanged

(K) WTC- somewhere on Union Tpk via Union Tpk local, QBL local, 53rd and so on

(B) now operates to Metropolitan

(D) now operates as Jamaica El express 

(F) now express on Hillside and on Culver with Bergen lower reopened

(M) operates 179th-Church via QBL local, 63rd, 6th local and Culver local

(G) extended to Kings Highway

(N) Fordham Plaza-CI via 3rd, 2nd and so on

(Q) 125th-St.Nicholas- CI via 125th, 2nd and so on.

(R) Astoria/LGA- Euclid

(J) unchanged

(Z) now operates Bowery or Canal-Bay Ridge

(V) somewhere on Union Tpk-CI via Union Tpk express, bypass, 2nd express and so on

(T) 72nd lower-Brighton beach via 2nd local and so on

(W) eliminated

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

How about we do this then:

(A) unchanged

(C) now express in Brooklyn and south of 59th; extended to Lefferts

(E) unchanged

(K) WTC- somewhere on Union Tpk via Union Tpk local, QBL local, 53rd and so on

(B) now operates to Metropolitan

(D) now operates as Jamaica El express 

(F) now express on Hillside and on Culver with Bergen lower reopened

(M) operates 179th-Church via QBL local, 63rd, 6th local and Culver local

(G) extended to Kings Highway

(N) Fordham Plaza-CI via 3rd, 2nd and so on

(Q) 125th-St.Nicholas- CI via 125th, 2nd and so on.

(R) Astoria/LGA- Euclid

(J) unchanged

(Z) now operates Bowery or Canal-Bay Ridge

(V) somewhere on Union Tpk-CI via Union Tpk express, bypass, 2nd express and so on

(T) 72nd lower-Brighton beach via 2nd local and so on

(W) eliminated

 

There's only two tracks on the WIlly B. How do you expect to fit the (B) , (D) , (J) , and   (Z) all in there? That would be a massive capacity cut on all those lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

There's only two tracks on the WIlly B. How do you expect to fit the (B) , (D) , (J) , and   (Z) all in there? That would be a massive capacity cut on all those lines.

The (Z) wouldn't be there anyways as it would operate to Bay Ridge instead. If capacity is a problem, cut the (Z) and run the (J) Essex-Bay Ridge instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The (Z) wouldn't be there anyways as it would operate to Bay Ridge instead. If capacity is a problem, cut the (Z) and run the (J) Essex-Bay Ridge instead.

And regardless, you'd need to extend ALL stations on the Broadway-Brooklyn and Myrtle portion to 600' to accommodate the (B) and (D) and maybe on the (L) (elevated portion) as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The (Z) wouldn't be there anyways as it would operate to Bay Ridge instead. If capacity is a problem, cut the (Z) and run the (J) Essex-Bay Ridge instead.

If the (B) and (D) are extended via the Williamsburg Bridge, that sort does make the (J) superfluous. Probably should just run it between Essex and Canal. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The (Z) wouldn't be there anyways as it would operate to Bay Ridge instead. If capacity is a problem, cut the (Z) and run the (J) Essex-Bay Ridge instead.

This would obviously mean re-opening the abandoned side of Canal and maybe even rebuilding the bridge at the west end of the Canal Station on the Nassau Line that used to be a walkway between the "downtown" and "uptown" tracks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2018 at 11:56 PM, bobtehpanda said:

There's only two tracks on the WIlly B. How do you expect to fit the (B) , (D) , (J) , and   (Z) all in there? That would be a massive capacity cut on all those lines.

Well, unless you rearrange the signals and install some low vibration rails. (Or something similar to what was done to the Myrtle Viaduct) Then, maybe you can add an additional 5-6 TPH on the Williamsburg bridge. I don't really know though. Maybe someone here can shed some light on this topic. 

On 11/13/2018 at 3:54 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

The (Z) wouldn't be there anyways as it would operate to Bay Ridge instead. If capacity is a problem, cut the (Z) and run the (J) Essex-Bay Ridge instead.

Good point. The (Z) is basically the (J) anyways. 

On 11/13/2018 at 4:21 PM, Wallyhorse said:

And regardless, you'd need to extend ALL stations on the Broadway-Brooklyn and Myrtle portion to 600' to accommodate the (B) and (D) and maybe on the (L) (elevated portion) as well.

That is true, though how long will that take and wouldn't some stations (Crescent-Alabama) be too close to each other if you do this? 

21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If the (B) and (D) are extended via the Williamsburg Bridge, that sort does make the (J) superfluous. Probably should just run it between Essex and Canal. 

Well, you could run the (J) as some rush hour local route which follows the current route. Then the (D) could run peak express. Thus would probably include modifications such as adding a 3rd track between Broadway Junction. If the capacity allows you to do such. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, unless you rearrange the signals and install some low vibration rails. (Or something similar to what was done to the Myrtle Viaduct) Then, maybe you can add an additional 5-6 TPH on the Williamsburg bridge. I don't really know though. Maybe someone here can shed some light on this topic. 

 

How do low vibration rails have anything to do with this? How can "rearranging" the signals add 5-6 TPH?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I actually had a long discussion with @vanshnookenraggen about this Marcy issue, and then ran some analyses of my own. It seems that the issue isn't so much just the curve, but its juxtaposition with the Marcy station (which frequently sees long-ish dwells) and then the interlocking with the express track, which restricts (J) and (Z)s to 10-15 mph leaving. If Marcy's middle track was reconnected with the bridge tracks, you'd in all likelihood be able to get a good capacity bump, as only half of all trains would be platforming (and thus suffering dwell) at Marcy. 

Something similar would have to be done on the Essex end. To mitigate the crawl into that station, Nassau trains would have to arrive on the middle track, and all 6th trains on the north track. This'd require some switch relocation (doing that today would mean Nassau and Chrystie trains would merge briefly just west of Essex), but that's hardly some massive investment. 

Fix all of these, and you're left with an arguably more complex bottleneck: Myrtle. It was once operated at 27tph (8tph diverging IIRC), but realistically, such high throughput through a flat junction is just asking for trouble -- service plans can't assume clear skies, so to speak. So do what this forum has been proposing for years: grade separation via the upper level. 

In the longer term (to shamelessly lift an idea from Vanshnook), I'm an advocate for moving the Marcy station west over the bus terminal. Build it out with generously sized island platforms and three tracks to make New York's first true intermodal transport hub. Et voila -- fixed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/12/2018 at 9:53 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

What I meant by that was using the Current Phase 3 plan for Second Avenue Subway. And to use a little bit to no new infrastructure at all. (With the exception of SAS phase 3) 

 

Alright. Broadway Express 100% to 96th Street and 125th Street will work until the issue of Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway and I not too keen on the idea of building a Lower Level at 72nd Street. The reason for that is that is that it'll makes no sense to dead end (N) and (Q) trains at 72nd Street, let alone the (T) or any other Second Avenue Route (which mind you has little to no connections to other routes especially the West Side routes under the current plan). Unless you're going to build a Queens Extension to say, Northern Blvd or LaGuardia Airport which would be far into the future. 

As for an (M) to 63rd, I understand the reason for it along with bringing back the (K) as a Queens Blvd Local Route, but I fail to understand how that'll add any new capacity. If our current practices with the current signaling system is not addressed, then that could lead to capacity constraints with the Interlockings and Crossovers at Queens Plaza, 36th Street, and don't get me started on Forest Hills. The schedules for each line would have to be so well adjusted that there can not be any time for any train to be held for another one to go by. (In other words, so that we don't have the issues that current QBL trains have today). I want to find a better alternative as opposed to having an (E)(F)(K)(M) service pattern. A question I'd like to being up about this proposal: Is 8th Avenue interlined south of 50th Street or No?

I also advocate for increase in overall train capacity in the subway system. But what sets me apart from all of you is that I want to look for an alternative solution that doesn't include any elements from any of your proposals. Even if that means failing 100 times to do so. 

Perhaps (E)(F)(K)(M) by itself won’t necessarily add a lot more capacity. But by also eliminating the (N) switching between express and local and running the (R) to Astoria, then you’d be freeing up a lot of extra capacity to run more trains on QBL, 8th Avenue and Broadway. And you’d be able to provide more SAS service with both the (N) and (Q) there. It’s only when you get to SAS Phase 3 and adding in the (T) train, that this could get messed up. But we’re a long way off from the (T) train’s debut and I think there’s still plenty of time to figure out a better way to build and operate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

In the longer term (to shamelessly lift an idea from Vanshnook), I'm an advocate for moving the Marcy station west over the bus terminal. Build it out with generously sized island platforms and three tracks to make New York's first true intermodal transport hub. Et voila -- fixed. 

This would Require a restructuring of the Spacing between the Stops. So what I'm guessing is that you're proposing the following:

 - The 2 tracks on the east Side of the Williamsburg Bridge turn to Meet up with Broadway with the Thrid track forming in Between the 2

- A New Station (Havemeyer Street - WIlly'B Bus Terminal) would be build with 2 large Island Platforms and 3 tracks. This new station would have to replace Marcy Avenue Station and connect with the Bus Terminal underneath. This would be beneficial to a Brooklyn Bus Network Redesign (done right)

 - I guess you can move Hewes Street slightly west by a few 100' (this probably won't be necessary at all) 

- A new Union Avenue Station to connect the (G) with the (J)(M). This will replace Loimer Street and Hewes Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sending the (J) to Bay Ridge with no Upper/Midtown Manhattan service is ridiculous. When the (brownM) went there it wasn't as popular as the (R). I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen. But it shouldn't happen with it being the sole local train via 4 Av.

 

The (R) plays a big role as it is being the sole train that is local in three boroughs. And connecting popular Neighborhoods like Astoria and Bay Ridge to the city.

If you guys are saying that having the (G) run to 71st Av wouldn't work. Then the (J) alone to Bay Ridge wouldn't work

 

Edited by subwaykid256
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

Sending the (J) to Bay Ridge with no Upper/Midtown Manhattan service is ridiculous. When the (brownM) went there it wasn't as popular as the (R). I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen. But it shouldn't happen with it being the sole local train via 4 Av.

 

The (R) plays a big role as it is being the sole train that is local in three boroughs. And connecting popular Neighborhoods like Astoria and Bay Ridge to the city.

If you guys are saying that having the (G) run to 71st Av wouldn't work. Then the (J) alone to Bay Ridge wouldn't work

 

The thing is, there is a big difference between those examples.

From Jackson Heights / Roosevelt Avenue to 34th Street / Herald Square, according to a test I made the (F) takes 17 minutes, the (M) takes 21 minutes, and the (R) takes 24 minutes. That is a 4 to 7 minute difference, which is not always significant enough to warrant a transfer. Having the local go to Manhattan would ease some crowding on the express. On the other hand, from 36th Street in Brooklyn to 34th Street / Herald Square, the (D)(N) takes 24 minutes each, and the (R) takes a whopping 37 minutes. That is a much larger 13 minute difference, which people are much less likely to wait for. Surely enough, most people from Bay Ridge transfer to a (D) or (N) train anyways, so they don't need the (R) to take them all the way there. The (J) in Manhattan has lots of transfers which will allow everyone to get where they are going with minimal transfers if they are not taking the (D) or the (N) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, subwaykid256 said:

Sending the (J) to Bay Ridge with no Upper/Midtown Manhattan service is ridiculous. When the (brownM) went there it wasn't as popular as the (R). I'm not saying that it shouldn't happen. But it shouldn't happen with it being the sole local train via 4 Av.

 

The (R) plays a big role as it is being the sole train that is local in three boroughs. And connecting popular Neighborhoods like Astoria and Bay Ridge to the city.

If you guys are saying that having the (G) run to 71st Av wouldn't work. Then the (J) alone to Bay Ridge wouldn't work

 

If I may add to the previous two comments, the (brownM) was a failure because it only hit the low ridership portion of 4th local (n/o 36) and otherwise served as a clearly second rate alternative to the (D) on West End. 

And Re: QB, the analogy also breaks down in terms of ridership dynamics. Save for the (J) and Rockaway (A) — neither of which transit LIC en route to Midtown — Queens transit lines have generally high originating ridership density. This means that the number one priority is creating core-bound throughput; trains will be filled in the final local segment before the core, if nothing else. So, for example, while many riders will dump (M)(R) at Roosevelt, they will be plenty full after hitting all the stops between Roos and QP, along with QP itself (and Court Square, in the case of the (M)). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, W4ST said:

The thing is, there is a big difference between those examples.

From Jackson Heights / Roosevelt Avenue to 34th Street / Herald Square, according to a test I made the (F) takes 17 minutes, the (M) takes 21 minutes, and the (R) takes 24 minutes. That is a 4 to 7 minute difference, which is not always significant enough to warrant a transfer. Having the local go to Manhattan would ease some crowding on the express. On the other hand, from 36th Street in Brooklyn to 34th Street / Herald Square, the (D)(N) takes 24 minutes each, and the (R) takes a whopping 37 minutes. That is a much larger 13 minute difference, which people are much less likely to wait for. Surely enough, most people from Bay Ridge transfer to a (D) or (N) train anyways, so they don't need the (R) to take them all the way there. The (J) in Manhattan has lots of transfers which will allow everyone to get where they are going with minimal transfers if they are not taking the (D) or the (N) .

 

17 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Bay Ridgite here: everyone transfers from the (R) to another line unless they're going to Lower Manhattan (or the farthest, SoHo), which the (J) also serves.

The farthest I'll consider staying on the (R) is Cortlandt.

 

16 hours ago, RR503 said:

If I may add to the previous two comments, the (brownM) was a failure because it only hit the low ridership portion of 4th local (n/o 36) and otherwise served as a clearly second rate alternative to the (D) on West End. 

And Re: QB, the analogy also breaks down in terms of ridership dynamics. Save for the (J) and Rockaway (A) — neither of which transit LIC en route to Midtown — Queens transit lines have generally high originating ridership density. This means that the number one priority is creating core-bound throughput; trains will be filled in the final local segment before the core, if nothing else. So, for example, while many riders will dump (M)(R) at Roosevelt, they will be plenty full after hitting all the stops between Roos and QP, along with QP itself (and Court Square, in the case of the (M)). 

All of this is why I came up with the idea of a (J) / (Z) split where both trains run to Chambers: (J) (max 12TPH) terminating and beginning on the "Express Tracks" (plus a limited number of rush-hour trains that end and begin at Broad Street) and the (Z) (max 9TPH) terminating and beginning on the "Local Tracks," with a simple, cross-platform transfer between the two (late nights, the (Z) can be extended to Essex if need be).  The (Z) basically can supplement the (R) in Brooklyn or even replace the (R) there at all times and if nothing else eliminate the late-night (R) shuttle since this (Z) would be making ALL of the (R) stops except Whitehall and the (N) and (Q) run local at that time anyway.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

All of this is why I came up with the idea of a (J) / (Z) split where both trains run to Chambers: (J) (max 12TPH) terminating and beginning on the "Express Tracks" (plus a limited number of rush-hour trains that end and begin at Broad Street) and the (Z) (max 9TPH) terminating and beginning on the "Local Tracks," with a simple, cross-platform transfer between the two (late nights, the (Z) can be extended to Essex if need be).  The (Z) basically can supplement the (R) in Brooklyn or even replace the (R) there at all times and if nothing else eliminate the late-night (R) shuttle since this (Z) would be making ALL of the (R) stops except Whitehall and the (N) and (Q) run local at that time anyway.  

Yes, let's play LIRR on the subway...

I've never objected to Nassau supplement service on 4th, or a Nassau-95th Shuttle route. What I take issue with is your fascination with the Bridge stubs. If you must make this new route not an extended (J), turn it at Essex middle, giving it transfers at Canal/Essex, and keeping (J) riders' access to Fulton. Turning at Chambers is a pretty objectively bad idea. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RR503 said:
22 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

All of this is why I came up with the idea of a (J) / (Z) split where both trains run to Chambers: (J) (max 12TPH) terminating and beginning on the "Express Tracks" (plus a limited number of rush-hour trains that end and begin at Broad Street) and the (Z) (max 9TPH) terminating and beginning on the "Local Tracks," with a simple, cross-platform transfer between the two (late nights, the (Z) can be extended to Essex if need be).  The (Z) basically can supplement the (R) in Brooklyn or even replace the (R) there at all times and if nothing else eliminate the late-night (R) shuttle since this (Z) would be making ALL of the (R) stops except Whitehall and the (N) and (Q) run local at that time anyway.  

Yes, let's play LIRR on the subway...

I've never objected to Nassau supplement service on 4th, or a Nassau-95th Shuttle route. What I take issue with is your fascination wit

h the Bridge stubs. If you must make this new route not an extended (J), turn it at Essex middle, giving it transfers at Canal/Essex, and keeping (J) riders' access to Fulton. Turning at Chambers is a pretty objectively bad idea. 

Say, If the (brownM) and (R) were swapped before the 2010 budget cuts, would Nassau be in a better position of not?

What'd I'd prefer is that (J) trains supplement (R) trains on 4th Avenue like you said, since it would be a boon for those along 4th Avenue.

I made that same idea @Wallyhorse when I first came to the forums. I realize how much I've grown since then and I'm still growing so that I can make better proposals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Say, If the (brownM) and (R) were swapped before the 2010 budget cuts, would Nassau be in a better position of not?

What'd I'd prefer is that (J) trains supplement (R) trains on 4th Avenue like you said, since it would be a boon for those along 4th Avenue.

I made that same idea @Wallyhorse when I first came to the forums. I realize how much I've grown since then and I'm still growing so that I can make better proposals.

I don't think it would have changed anything. The (brownM)(V) combo was a pretty genius restructuring of service; I think it would have happened regardless of where lines ran. 

With you on (J) if it goes to Bay Ridge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Say, If the (brownM) and (R) were swapped before the 2010 budget cuts, would Nassau be in a better position of not?

What'd I'd prefer is that (J) trains supplement (R) trains on 4th Avenue like you said, since it would be a boon for those along 4th Avenue.

I made that same idea @Wallyhorse when I first came to the forums. I realize how much I've grown since then and I'm still growing so that I can make better proposals.

Swapped in what sort of way? Service hours? Or (brownM) going to Bay Ridge and (R) going to Bay Pkwy/9th Ave?

 I mean, at one time, Nassau was more popular. But that was decades ago, probably around the time of World War Two. It certainly wasn’t by 1967, when the Chrystie Street connection opened. 

Interestingly, on more than one occasion I saw a proposal (both on SubChat and in the forums) to run the (T) via Nassau/Montague to Bay Ridge, displacing the (R), which would have been rerouted via the (D) line to Bay Pkwy or 9th Ave. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Swapped in what sort of way? Service hours? Or (brownM) going to Bay Ridge and (R) going to Bay Pkwy/9th Ave?

 I mean, at one time, Nassau was more popular. But that was decades ago, probably around the time of World War Two. It certainly wasn’t by 1967, when the Chrystie Street connection opened. 

Interestingly, on more than one occasion I saw a proposal (both on SubChat and in the forums) to run the (T) via Nassau/Montague to Bay Ridge, displacing the (R), which would have been rerouted via the (D) line to Bay Pkwy or 9th Ave. 

 

I meant swapped as in terms of the actual routes themselves. The (T) via Nassau would work too and I see that as a likely outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought of a new proposal yesterday that goes in sync with the proposal @RR503 and @Around the Horn made. It's a rearrangement of overnight service. 

One thing I want to make clear about this proposal is that ALL services would gain an increase. 

(1) - Increased overnight service

(2) and (3) swap roles in Manhattan since the (2) is a longer route after all. (3) trains would be local in my proposal after 96th Street. They will terminate at South Ferry to keep the local coverage that there currently is overnight on 7th Avenue.

(4) - increased service (possibly have it run express in Brooklyn, I personally wouldn't prefer that for overnight.)

(5)(6)(7) - increased service (unaltered in terms of their physical routes) 

(A) - truncated from 207th to WTC since CPW would be deinterlined. 

(B)(C)(W)(Z) cut overnight like how they currently are. 

(E) trains will now cover the express in Queens and Manhattan overnight since the (K) would now run local. During overnight hours, the (K) would be truncated to WTC and terminate there with the (A) and the (E) can terminate at Euclid to connect to the Lefferts shuttle and the Rockaways. If that doesn't work, then the (K) can terminate at Euclid and the (E) to Mott Avenue going express in Brooklyn.

(D)(F)(G)(J)(L)(M)- increased overnight service (unaltered in the overnight routing)

Since Broadway would be deinterlined in this proposal, it would force a few changes. 

(N) trains would no longer need to go to Manhattan overnight since the (R) would be covering Astoria. So here's how routing would go:

(N) - Coney Island - Atlantic Avenue - Barclays Center. 4th Avenue express as to not get in the way of local (D) and (R) trains. (Increased service) 

(Q) - Unaltered in terms of it's route (overnight) but it gets increased service. 

(R) - Gets service increase and overnight Extension to Astoria. 

The Franklin Avenue shuttle would operate normally. 

Any thoughts? 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.