Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

On 12/12/2018 at 9:41 PM, RR503 said:

With you here on the Lex-63 connection. Instead of making heavy-handed and questionably necessary investments like ESA, Fulton Center, CBTC, etc, we should be focusing on this sort of 'quick win' investment -- there are *so* many little things we could do with massive effect for low cost. Others on the I'd say are the reconfiguration of the Astoria terminal, a station in Livonia Yard, crossover replacement at Jamaica Center, a flyover for Dyre, etc, etc. 

About deinterlining 36: the interlocking there isn't inherently limited by geometry or configuration. I'd at least attempt to operate interlined service through there before we throw in the towel -- the (E) is quite popular for a reason, after all... 

Not only should there be a station in Livonia Yard, the line should be extended a little bit farther down (on an elevated structure) to a terminus between Spring Creek Towers (Starrett City) and the adjacent shopping mall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

Not only should there be a station in Livonia Yard, the line should be extended a little bit farther down (on an elevated structure) to a terminus between Spring Creek Towers (Starrett City) and the adjacent shopping mall. 

That's something that does need to be done.  I previously also thought of extending the (3) and (4) (with some reconfiguring, including a full-length peak-direction express track) to where it could come in above the existing Rockaway line and stop at both Aqueduct-North Conduit and Howard Beach-JFK, terminating there.  Such would give those near the IRT a 1-2 seat ride to the Casino at Aqueduct and JFK.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/12/2018 at 7:51 PM, shiznit1987 said:

 

People (Including myself) aren't going to be too pleased about losing (R) service on Queens Blvd. It's actually IMHO tied with the (F) for being the second favorite on QB after the (E). No one will ride a local (M) that goes through 63rd st. Also, this doesn't really solve the 36st issue. It's a nice thought though. 

If we're going to go for De-interlining Queens, then we need to simply bite the bullet a build an underground transfer from 63rd/Lex to 59th/Lex so everything flows like this:

(F)(M) 63 st/QB Express

(C)(E) 53 st/QB Local -> 8th Ave Express/Brooklyn

(A) 168 st to WTC 8th Ave Local 

(B) 207st to Brighton Beach via CPW/6th Ave Exp

(D) Current route

(N)(Q) To SAS via Broadway Express + Bridge

(R) Astoria/Broadway Local

WIth the exception of the (B) and (D) joining at 145st, the entire B divison is completely merge-less going Bronx/Queens Bound. 

I like it. Maybe the only thing I’d do differently is the have the (C) and (M) be the locals and keep the (E) and (F) as the expresses on QBL. Though I wonder if times have changed enough since 1990, that Washington Heights/CPW line riders will accept a full time local (A) train. After all, it was back then that riders didn’t want the (A) running local full time to/from 168th Street, with the (orangeQ) replacing it to/from 207th Street. 

As someone who regularly rode QBL from 2012-15, I wonder just how popular the (R) really is there. I definitely remember it being SRO in the morning - though not nearly as crowded as the (E) or (F) - from Queens to Manhattan, then losing a lot of its riders at Lexington-59th. But there were plenty of times during the height of pm rush where I got the (R) at Lex and there would be lots of seats available, while that would not be the case with the (N) or (Q). So I tend to question the loss of the (R) and direct QBL-Broadway service being a big loss to QBL riders overall. For some, it might be. But maybe not to the extent of other proposed changes to QBL. Making the (E) a full time QBL local, for example, would almost certainly affect far more QBL riders. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I like it. Maybe the only thing I’d do differently is the have the (C) and (M) be the locals and keep the (E) and (F) as the expresses on QBL. Though I wonder if times have changed enough since 1990, that Washington Heights/CPW line riders will accept a full time local (A) train. After all, it was back then that riders didn’t want the (A) running local full time to/from 168th Street, with the (orangeQ) replacing it to/from 207th Street. 

As someone who regularly rode QBL from 2012-15, I wonder just how popular the (R) really is there. I definitely remember it being SRO in the morning - though not nearly as crowded as the (E) or (F) - from Queens to Manhattan, then losing a lot of its riders at Lexington-59th. But there were plenty of times during the height of pm rush where I got the (R) at Lex and there would be lots of seats available, while that would not be the case with the (N) or (Q). So I tend to question the loss of the (R) and direct QBL-Broadway service being a big loss to QBL riders overall. For some, it might be. But maybe not to the extent of other proposed changes to QBL. Making the (E) a full time QBL local, for example, would almost certainly affect far more QBL riders. 

With regards to Washington Heights, anyone riding above 125st will most certainly be bailing for the (B)(D) Trains. If for anything, this is a big boon for Upper Manhattan as 6th Ave > 8th Ave. CPW riders between 125th and 59th get a dedicated line that doesn't go to Brooklyn, reducing delays and making service more consistent.  

 

As far as the issue with Queens Blvd is concerned, can we survive without the (R) ? Yes. But there has to be some kind of payoff to make it worth it. Splitting 6th/63st and 8th/53st into express and local still keeps the 36st merge as an issue (times 2, since now you have merges onto express and local) plus whatever QB Local that goes into 63st will be a ridership hole, causing the (E)(F) to be even more crowded. The thing with the (R) is that people between 71st and Roosevelt are willing to ride it all the way into Manhattan for the benefit of the (4)(5)(6) transfer or for being on Broadway. Take those benefits away and you'll have even more people bailing at Roosevelt, which is already dangerously crowded. 

To me, if we're going to lose the (R), then at minimum the connection between 63rd and 59th needs to be built. Have Expresses go down 63rd and Locals down 53rd. There's no way any QB Local should be going down 63rd street. That's only a half-step above bringing back the (G) (which granted, I would like back on weekends)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As far as the issue with Queens Blvd is concerned, can we survive without the (R) ? Yes. But there has to be some kind of payoff to make it worth it. Splitting 6th/63st and 8th/53st into express and local still keeps the 36st merge as an issue (times 2, since now you have merges onto express and local) plus whatever QB Local that goes into 63st will be a ridership hole, causing the (E)(F) to be even more crowded. The thing with the (R) is that people between 71st and Roosevelt are willing to ride it all the way into Manhattan for the benefit of the (4)(5)(6) transfer or for being on Broadway. Take those benefits away and you'll have even more people bailing at Roosevelt, which is already dangerously crowded. 

 To me, if we're going to lose the , then at minimum the connection between 63rd and 59th needs to be built. Have Expresses go down 63rd and Locals down 53rd. There's no way any QB Local should be going down 63rd street. That's only a half-step above bringing back the  (which granted, I would like back on weekends)

I'm with you that this deinterlining is best done with some ancillary improvements (63/59 connection, Astoria improvements), but I'm not so sure that the interlined 36th service pattern is as bad as you make it out. For one, the merge itself is little different in its design than 59th (salient difference being that 59th is across 25mph switches, vs 20 for 36); operated well, it should be capable of handling 30tph/track with ease. 

As for your points about the issues with (M) via 63, yes, the fact that there'll be full express duplication will reduce local loads, but I question the extent to which that'll matter. The only folks who really use the (R) are those taking the (4)(5) to Lower Manhattan; others are Western segment QB riders who simply stay on the (R) to destinations in Midtown/transfers to the Lex. That former demographic isn't completely insignificant, yes, but I would think their presence on the express will break said trains. And this (M) would get good use, I'd think. 63 is no 53, but 8th is no 6th and Astoria is growing fast (and this (M) would have a nice cross-platform to the (N)(Q) at 63).  

I also feel its worth noting that in all these deinterlining discussions, we forget that the world doesn't end after the peaks. Sure, that's the most systemically stressful time of day, but an absorbable peak-hour transfer can become a ten or fifteen minute ordeal at other times. Of course, we have to be willing to take some of those losses, but in a case such as this one, where deinterlining facilitates (but does not increase) capacity provided, I think it's worth looking at interlined alternatives. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you that this deinterlining is best done with some ancillary improvements (63/59 connection, Astoria improvements), but I'm not so sure that the interlined 36th service pattern is as bad as you make it out. For one, the merge itself is little different in its design than 59th (salient difference being that 59th is across 25mph switches, vs 20 for 36); operated well, it should be capable of handling 30tph/track with ease. 

As for your points about the issues with (M) via 63, yes, the fact that there'll be full express duplication will reduce local loads, but I question the extent to which that'll matter. The only folks who really use the (R) are those taking the (4)(5) to Lower Manhattan; others are Western segment QB riders who simply stay on the (R) to destinations in Midtown/transfers to the Lex. That former demographic isn't completely insignificant, yes, but I would think their presence on the express will break said trains. And this (M) would get good use, I'd think. 63 is no 53, but 8th is no 6th and Astoria is growing fast (and this (M) would have a nice cross-platform to the (N)(Q) at 63).  

I also feel its worth noting that in all these deinterlining discussions, we forget that the world doesn't end after the peaks. Sure, that's the most systemically stressful time of day, but an absorbable peak-hour transfer can become a ten or fifteen minute ordeal at other times. Of course, we have to be willing to take some of those losses, but in a case such as this one, where deinterlining facilitates (but does not increase) capacity provided, I think it's worth looking at interlined alternatives. 

When you mentioned an interlinked 36th Service, one alternative that came into my mind was adding a third local service on QBL. (No, not the (G), but rather that (K) local service you proposed). The terminal procedures at Forest Hills would need to be redone in order for this to work. The (M) would be booted to 63rd Street under this plan. The (R) would remain unaltered for the most part since people here have expressed their concerns about losing (R) QBL service (maybe at the very least, it can run as a rush hour split service between QBL and Astoria with all non-peak trains running to Astoria with the (W)). (As a QBL rider myself, I wouldn’t mind the loss because I know my alternatives). I think that this’ll help a lot of people, but one downside is that this’ll force some more interlining on 8th Avenue. Under this alternative, (E) trains will go express in Manhattan and replace the (C) after Canal Street and down to Euclid Avenue. (C) trains will terminate at WTC with the (K). Again, terminal procedures would need to be redone in order for this to work. Besides, I think that 8th Avenue can Handle 2 local services terminating at WTC. The positives outweigh the negatives in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

When you mentioned an interlinked 36th Service, one alternative that came into my mind was adding a third local service on QBL. (No, not the (G), but rather that (K) local service you proposed). The terminal procedures at Forest Hills would need to be redone in order for this to work. The (M) would be booted to 63rd Street under this plan. The (R) would remain unaltered for the most part since people here have expressed their concerns about losing (R) QBL service (maybe at the very least, it can run as a rush hour split service between QBL and Astoria with all non-peak trains running to Astoria with the (W)). (As a QBL rider myself, I wouldn’t mind the loss because I know my alternatives). I think that this’ll help a lot of people, but one downside is that this’ll force some more interlining on 8th Avenue. Under this alternative, (E) trains will go express in Manhattan and replace the (C) after Canal Street and down to Euclid Avenue. (C) trains will terminate at WTC with the (K). Again, terminal procedures would need to be redone in order for this to work. Besides, I think that 8th Avenue can Handle 2 local services terminating at WTC. The positives outweigh the negatives in this case. 

I mean that's certainly something you could do, but you're still sacrificing 10tph of Manhattan-Queens capacity. As soon as you connect Lex 63 to Lex 59, the raison d'etre for the (R)goes away; I'd rather do that.

I also think that there's something (well, more than something) to be said for matching frequencies. The (E) and (F) will be running at 15tph, so if you want anything to merge with them evenly, the counterpart will have to run at a frequency that can be expressed as 15tph*2^n, or 15tph, 7.5tph, 3.75tph etc. Running 10tph each of these three services means you can't do that, and you'll thus have terminal intervals that look like 4:00, 4:00, 8:00, 4:00, 8:30, 3:30, etc.

That irregularity, by the way, is the prevailing reality across the system today. Really only the high frequency corridors (QB and Lex express) run anything remotely near perfect headways; pretty much everyone else runs whatever service level meets their loading guideline in a manner that works with their merge patterns, so the folks up at OP get to merge, for example, 10tph of (D) with 9tph of (N), 10tph of (B), 18tph of (A), and then again with 10tph of (B). If you want to talk about drivers of gaps, start there. The irregularity in headways inherent in that sort of schedule organization means that you'll have trains facing consistently less crowding than others, which creates an environment much more friendly to operational variability, which in turn throws this carefully calibrated nonsense off, defeating the purpose of the whole exercise.

Back to QB, though, I'd do the (E)(F)(K)(M) organization. Assuming 8th deinterlining, that means we've created a situation where we can schedule pretty freely, as the only other lines dealt with by any corridor 'resident' are the (G) and the (J). The obvious move (and the one I'd definitely go for) would be 15tph for everyone, but if you're good with predictable irregularities, you could just as easily go for 20tph of (F) and (K)/10 of (E) and (M) or 20tph (E) and (M)/10 (F)(K). Of course, in scenario 2, a good number of (M)s would head down Culver--maybe call them <M> or (V) or something. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you that this deinterlining is best done with some ancillary improvements (63/59 connection, Astoria improvements), but I'm not so sure that the interlined 36th service pattern is as bad as you make it out. For one, the merge itself is little different in its design than 59th (salient difference being that 59th is across 25mph switches, vs 20 for 36); operated well, it should be capable of handling 30tph/track with ease. 

As for your points about the issues with (M) via 63, yes, the fact that there'll be full express duplication will reduce local loads, but I question the extent to which that'll matter. The only folks who really use the (R) are those taking the (4)(5) to Lower Manhattan; others are Western segment QB riders who simply stay on the (R) to destinations in Midtown/transfers to the Lex. That former demographic isn't completely insignificant, yes, but I would think their presence on the express will break said trains. And this (M) would get good use, I'd think. 63 is no 53, but 8th is no 6th and Astoria is growing fast (and this (M) would have a nice cross-platform to the (N)(Q) at 63).  

I also feel its worth noting that in all these deinterlining discussions, we forget that the world doesn't end after the peaks. Sure, that's the most systemically stressful time of day, but an absorbable peak-hour transfer can become a ten or fifteen minute ordeal at other times. Of course, we have to be willing to take some of those losses, but in a case such as this one, where deinterlining facilitates (but does not increase) capacity provided, I think it's worth looking at interlined alternatives. 

We will agree to disagree on 36st. Don't get me wrong, it's it the worst switch in the system? Not even close. But I ride the (E) almost every working day Queens-Bound and we almost *never* fail to wait for an (F) coming up the ramp (And the (F) behind him never fails to have to wait for the (E) behind us). In a perfect world, a basic merge procedure like what you're talking about would be a non-issue, but I have lost most confidence in the ability of MTA Ops to not let this become a breakpoint. When you've had a train stop for "train traffic ahead" at 15 min headways you don't take anything for granted. 

As for sending QB Locals down 63rd st, here's something to consider: Getting on at 65th St in the morning, the (R) is standing room only 80-85% of the time. The (M), while not nearly as crowded, has a healthy amount of people on it too. These are folks who rode from as far as 67th Ave who are choosing to stay local rather than blast the (E)(F) at Roosevelt. If you make the QB Local more inconvenient for them, they'll bail for the (E)(F) and it'll be like the 2001 service changes never happened (This is why I compared it to bringing back the (G)) The (R) most definitely pulls it's weight in keeping the (E)(F) from becoming slammed. In your (K)(M) scenario, there's zero incentive to stay on the local since the (K) is just a local (E) and the (M) will be downright pointless for most. Roosevelt will become downright dangerous during rush hours (As an aside, Woodhaven needs to be made an express stop). 

 

I understand where you and LGA are coming from. If we're going to simplify service patterns, then for QB we need to keep loading habits in mind. It's not like the Upper Manhattan IND where people are just looking for the express no matter what ave it's going down. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

We will agree to disagree on 36st. Don't get me wrong, is it the worst switch in the system? Not even close. But I ride the (E) almost every working day Queens-Bound and we almost *never* fail to wait for an (F) coming up the ramp (And the (F) behind him never fails to have to wait for the (E) behind us). In a perfect world, a basic merge procedure like what you're talking about would be a non-issue, but I have lost most confidence in the ability of MTA Ops to not let this become a breakpoint. When you've had a train stop for "train traffic ahead" at 15 min headways you don't take anything for granted. 

Hmm, I see your point. I’ve been caught in the mess of an (E) train having to Cross in front of an (F) train myself on most days of the week. It’s quite annoying to deal with. 

 

11 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

As for sending QB Locals down 63rd st, here's something to consider: Getting on at 65th St in the morning, the (R) is standing room only 80-85% of the time. The (M), while not nearly as crowded, has a healthy amount of people on it too. These are folks who rode from as far as 67th Ave who are choosing to stay local rather than blast the (E)(F) at Roosevelt. If you make the QB Local more inconvenient for them, they'll bail for the (E)(F) and it'll be like the 2001 service changes never happened (This is why I compared it to bringing back the (G)) The (R) most definitely pulls it's weight in keeping the (E)(F) from becoming slammed. In your (K)(M) scenario, there's zero incentive to stay on the local since the (K) is just a local (E) and the (M) will be downright pointless for most. Roosevelt will become downright dangerous during rush hours (As an aside, Woodhaven needs to be made an express stop).

I do agree with making Woodhaven Blvd an express station and I wonder why that hasn’t been done yet. As for your point about being no incentive on staying on the local (K)(M), that can be countered by making sure that there is a strict schedule on QBL; day for example at Roosevelt, a (K) train pulls in and there should be an (F) right across the platform. Same is vice verca with the (E) and (M). And since I believe that the terminal procedures at Forest Hills should be redone in order to turn around more trains, that’s where my rush hour (R) would come in. It would keep a balance between the locals and Express. As for your case about 63rd Street, I’m guessing what you’re trying to say here is that the 63rd Street tunnel should be more prioritized to handle Express service, while local service uses 60th and 53rd? Say for example, prior to Phase 3:

(E)(R) local via 53rd and 60th

(F)(M) Express via 63rd

After Phase 3: 

(E)(M)(R) local via 53rd and 60th

(F) (SAS (V)) Express via 63rd

 

10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

What incentive is there currently to stay on the (R)?

A one seat ride to Lexington 59th just so you can transfer to the (4)(5) Express. I personally use this connection myself on some occasions. (Usually when I’m coming from Brooklyn and decide not to take the (J) home from ENg or if I’m doing something important in Downtown Brooklyn/Manhattan)

 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:
Quote

 

Hmm, I see your point. I’ve been caught in the mess of an (E) train having to Cross in front of an (F) train myself on most days of the week. It’s quite annoying to deal with. 


 

Exactly. Even going Manhattan bound if a (F) and (M) reach the junction at the same time you've created a delay. At least the way things are now you have zero chance of an issue Manhattan-Bound. 

Quote

I do agree with making Woodhaven Blvd an express station and I wonder why that hasn’t been done yet.

$$$

 

Quote

As for your point about being no incentive on staying on the local (K)(M), that can be countered by making sure that there is a strict schedule on QBL; day for example at Roosevelt, a (K) train pulls in and there should be an (F) right across the platform. Same is vice verca with the (E) and (M). And since I believe that the terminal procedures at Forest Hills should be redone in order to turn around more trains, that’s where my rush hour (R) would come in. It would keep a balance between the locals and Express.

Any plan that hinges upon either passenger or MTA Operations discipline is doomed to fail. It's not that your planning is bad, it's that the human factor will make sure everything catches fire. Even lets say the MTA somehow pulled off the (K)(F)/(E)(M) combo @ Roosevelt, (K) passengers will wait for the (E) behind said (F) along with the (M) passengers that will surely bail. That (E) will become un-boardable and the spill over effect will reek havoc on QB. Even with a best case scenario of passengers switching for (F) trains you still lose that local/express passenger balance. 

 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:
Quote

 

As for your case about 63rd Street, I’m guessing what you’re trying to say here is that the 63rd Street tunnel should be more prioritized to handle Express service, while local service uses 60th and 53rd? Say for example, prior to Phase 3:

(E)(R) local via 53rd and 60th

(F)(M) Express via 63rd

After Phase 3: 

(E)(M)(R) local via 53rd and 60th

(F) (SAS (V)) Express via 63rd

 

Yes. Sending locals through 63rd st means anyone wanting the East Side is forced onto the (E) which is the last thing needed. 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:
Quote

A one seat ride to Lexington 59th just so you can transfer to the (4)(5) Express. I personally use this connection myself on some occasions. (Usually when I’m coming from Brooklyn and decide not to take the (J) home from ENg or if I’m doing something important in Downtown Brooklyn/Manhattan)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I was looking around Alon Levy's site and I found this article about an NYC subway expansion Proposal from 3 weeks ago.:

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/11/29/new-york-city-subway-expansion-proposal/

Some of these extensions are okay, but the rest are outright ridiculous in my opinion. I recommend looking for yourselves cause I don't want to spoil anything.

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

We will agree to disagree on 36st. Don't get me wrong, it's it the worst switch in the system? Not even close. But I ride the (E) almost every working day Queens-Bound and we almost *never* fail to wait for an (F) coming up the ramp (And the (F) behind him never fails to have to wait for the (E) behind us). In a perfect world, a basic merge procedure like what you're talking about would be a non-issue, but I have lost most confidence in the ability of MTA Ops to not let this become a breakpoint. When you've had a train stop for "train traffic ahead" at 15 min headways you don't take anything for granted. 

Oh, I no way contest that it's a shittily operated junction. I just think that when dealing with operational problems, your first course of action should be to suggest operational solutions. Given that this is the proposals thread after all, I'd say that's completely in order.

After doing a blanket review of signalization to ensure that 2 minute service headways/100 second minimums are achievable across all relevant line section, I'd write more precise schedules (it's all done today in 30 second increments, and general policy is to account for the potential for downstream delays by just throwing a 2 minute hold or two in there somewhere) that not only reflect little nuances in operation, but are also accurate enough to hold T/Os to a constant and realistically achievable standard for operation. I'd expand this to C/Rs, too. They should be given dwell guidelines for each station, and should be allowed to liberally close the doors on people (I hear local recycle use is in the works). The results of this (ie a train's en-route OTP) should be fed back to train crews in real-time so they can adjust their style as they go. 

All of this is important, of course, because a train attempting to merge at 30tph is hitting a window that is, at the very most, a minute wide. That's easily doable if you're near your origin terminal, but if the train in question began its run in Far Rockaway (as would be true for one of the 8th Avenue services suggested here), you need good (and I mean good) runtime management and schedule adherence. 

The operation of the merge itself comes down to the competency of the tower ops running it. Provided STs and well-timed DGTs, the limiting factor becomes train prioritization in the case of conflicts, and the time it takes for Tw/Os to assign the routes. Assuming that Tw/Os have a decent idea of how the junction works, the driving factor there becomes the availability of data on the trains--OTP, follower performance, and most importantly, identity. B division ATS/ISIM-B is nearly complete, so that deals with that. Then it's just a matter of putting all these pieces together...

20 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

 As for sending QB Locals down 63rd st, here's something to consider: Getting on at 65th St in the morning, the (R) is standing room only 80-85% of the time. The (M), while not nearly as crowded, has a healthy amount of people on it too. These are folks who rode from as far as 67th Ave who are choosing to stay local rather than blast the (E)(F) at Roosevelt. If you make the QB Local more inconvenient for them, they'll bail for the (E)(F) and it'll be like the 2001 service changes never happened (This is why I compared it to bringing back the (G)) The (R) most definitely pulls it's weight in keeping the (E)(F) from becoming slammed. In your (K)(M) scenario, there's zero incentive to stay on the local since the (K) is just a local (E) and the (M) will be downright pointless for most. Roosevelt will become downright dangerous during rush hours (As an aside, Woodhaven needs to be made an express stop). 

I think there's a law of induced demand case to be made here. You're absolutely right (and I really can see this one both ways) that (K)(M) local would discourage through local ridership, but with all that capacity heading to Manhattan, I must wonder whether or not there will be riders who are willing to take the 2-3 minute time penalty to keep their seat/avoid the jangly mess at Roosevelt. There's also the matter of intra-Queens commuters -- I've noticed more and more (though still comparatively few) peak riders getting off at local stops to, I assume, access jobs along that stretch of Northern that's going from industrial to more commercial. 

What this really comes down to is a matter of priorities. Do we want to return to the days of 2.5 sq. ft./rider on the (E)(F)? No. But I think that said analysis has to be run in the context of this service plan, and has to be weighted against the ever-increasing volume of off-peak travel, and the effects full deinterlining would have on it. And again, there are arguments both ways -- one plus that hits me where I live (literally) would be the fact that a deinterlined QB with 10 or 12 tph of (M) would allow the (F) frequencies necessary to support Culver express...but I digress. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Oh, I no way contest that it's a shittily operated junction. I just think that when dealing with operational problems, your first course of action should be to suggest operational solutions. Given that this is the proposals thread after all, I'd say that's completely in order.

After doing a blanket review of signalization to ensure that 2 minute service headways/100 second minimums are achievable across all relevant line section, I'd write more precise schedules (it's all done today in 30 second increments, and general policy is to account for the potential for downstream delays by just throwing a 2 minute hold or two in there somewhere) that not only reflect little nuances in operation, but are also accurate enough to hold T/Os to a constant and realistically achievable standard for operation. I'd expand this to C/Rs, too. They should be given dwell guidelines for each station, and should be allowed to liberally close the doors on people (I hear local recycle use is in the works). The results of this (ie a train's en-route OTP) should be fed back to train crews in real-time so they can adjust their style as they go. 

All of this is important, of course, because a train attempting to merge at 30tph is hitting a window that is, at the very most, a minute wide. That's easily doable if you're near your origin terminal, but if the train in question began its run in Far Rockaway (as would be true for one of the 8th Avenue services suggested here), you need good (and I mean good) runtime management and schedule adherence. 

The operation of the merge itself comes down to the competency of the tower ops running it. Provided STs and well-timed DGTs, the limiting factor becomes train prioritization in the case of conflicts, and the time it takes for Tw/Os to assign the routes. Assuming that Tw/Os have a decent idea of how the junction works, the driving factor there becomes the availability of data on the trains--OTP, follower performance, and most importantly, identity. B division ATS/ISIM-B is nearly complete, so that deals with that. Then it's just a matter of putting all these pieces together...

I think there's a law of induced demand case to be made here. You're absolutely right (and I really can see this one both ways) that (K)(M) local would discourage through local ridership, but with all that capacity heading to Manhattan, I must wonder whether or not there will be riders who are willing to take the 2-3 minute time penalty to keep their seat/avoid the jangly mess at Roosevelt. There's also the matter of intra-Queens commuters -- I've noticed more and more (though still comparatively few) peak riders getting off at local stops to, I assume, access jobs along that stretch of Northern that's going from industrial to more commercial. 

What this really comes down to is a matter of priorities. Do we want to return to the days of 2.5 sq. ft./rider on the (E)(F)? No. But I think that said analysis has to be run in the context of this service plan, and has to be weighted against the ever-increasing volume of off-peak travel, and the effects full deinterlining would have on it. And again, there are arguments both ways -- one plus that hits me where I live (literally) would be the fact that a deinterlined QB with 10 or 12 tph of (M) would allow the (F) frequencies necessary to support Culver express...but I digress. 

Those holds are put in to account for flagging, and it is hard to determine where the time needs to be added in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Those holds are put in to account for flagging, and it is hard to determine where the time needs to be added in.

That’s a reality created by poor GO coordination. Recently they seem to have completely given up on actually scheduling service — they just pad people to hell and hope for the best. 

In a perfect world, you’d know how long the flagging section will be, where it will be, when it will be, etc, and then you’ll do some simple math to create the necessary supplementary runtime. 

Regardless, the holds and padding I’m talking about are of the type they throw into peak service in areas where they’re not needed/are not enforced. They simply exist so that schedulers don’t have to fix the actual drivers of increased runtime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

That’s a reality created by poor GO coordination. Recently they seem to have completely given up on actually scheduling service — they just pad people to hell and hope for the best. 

In a perfect world, you’d know how long the flagging section will be, where it will be, when it will be, etc, and then you’ll do some simple math to create the necessary supplementary runtime. 

Regardless, the holds and padding I’m talking about are of the type they throw into peak service in areas where they’re not needed/are not enforced. They simply exist so that schedulers don’t have to fix the actual drivers of increased runtime.

They are understaffed from what I have heard, and the hiring freeze doesn't help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

I'm just curious if the (A) is going local? what will serve Far Rockaway & Lefferts? 

Well, depends on what you mean by that. If the (A) goes local between 168/207 to WTC. Then you can have the (E) take over the Rockaways/Lefferts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

I'm just curious if the (A) is going local? what will serve Far Rockaway & Lefferts? 

If you're talking about the (A) going local (late nights), it runs between 207 and Far Rockaway as a local. Then a shuttle train between Euclid Avenue and Lefferts takes effect serving that branch.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

They are understaffed from what I have heard, and the hiring freeze doesn't help.

Absolutely. But some of it is policy, too. Andy is setting a new tone for the upper echelons, but much of middle management is still running as they did -- ie without any creativity or respect for service delivery. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Absolutely. But some of it is policy, too. Andy is setting a new tone for the upper echelons, but much of middle management is still running as they did -- ie without any creativity or respect for service delivery. 

Or, they have had the ideas to do so for years but have been rebuffed by their higher ups until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Or, they have had the ideas to do so for years but have been rebuffed by their higher ups until now.

Some people have had those ideas, yes. But I’m hearing that those people are generally in the wrong places to implement their visions, and are moreover being stymied in their efforts by the remaining ‘old guard,’ or simply people who mean well but don’t know how to work things well. 

People like to blame Prendergast and his ilk for the ops issues we face today, and they’re right, but that doesn’t excuse the folks in middle management that went along with/promoted those ways of thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

If you're talking about the (A) going local (late nights), it runs between 207 and Far Rockaway as a local. Then a shuttle train between Euclid Avenue and Lefferts takes effect serving that branch.

I know that but I was referring to this new idea that started a page back

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have New Deinterlining proposal. This is my second version of an NYC subway deinterlining proposal, here's version 1 if anyone is interested:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1z4vb4o4cjIAayT2l33AFtx2IOvjBj1aL&amp;usp=sharing\

Please Note that Version one included a few infrastructure adjustments and extensions as part of the proposal, version 2 of my deinterlining proposal will not include these things with the exception of Phase 2 of the Second Avenue Subway. However, I left a layer where I think such extensions would be useful. With that out of the way, let's get on to the proposal itself. 

Bottleneck #1: Rogers Junction:

I really liked the proposal that @RR503 made to deinterline Rogers Junction, so I added my own twist to it. 

Nostrand Avenue will only be served by the (2) in my proposal. Therefore, (2) train service will be boosted to 18-19 TPH in order to meet the demand along the Nostrand Avenue corridor. This benefit might hurt the (3) line since it'll be have to be reduced to 11-12 TPH, which wouldn't be too impactful for Manhattanites since the (2) and (3) follow the same route between 135th Street and Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn. For it's entire route, the (3) will remain unaltered due to the fact that it needs Yard access to Livonia. This will mean that only the locals will be interlined along Rogers Junction. As for the expresses, the (4) and (5) will both go down Utica. If I'm not mistaken, @RR503, you said in your post regarding Rogers that Utica can only turn around up to 20 TPH. So if that's the case, then the (4) train in this proposal, will run with the (3) line to New Lots Avenue, running at 14-16 TPH during the Peak Periods. The (5) train will now run to Utica during the Weekday Hours with 10 TPH, while an additional 5-6 TPH terminates and turns around at Bowling Green. During other times of the Week, the (4) train will terminate at Utica Avenue as it does today. 

Bottleneck #2: Broadway and Dekalb Avenue:

Broadway is fairly simple. Get rid of the merge and you'll be left with the (N) and (Q) splitting even between 30 TPH to 96th/125th Street (15TPH for the (N) and 15 TPH for the (Q) ). The (R) and (W) will have the local tracks themselves and will be going to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd with an uneven split between 24 TPH (15 TPH for the (R) and 9 TPH for the (W) line). As for Dekalb Avenue itself, if fixing the practices with MTA Operations is not enough, then the most logical solution is to swap the roles of the (D) and (Q) trains. Yes, there are concerns with the fact that Brighton Riders prefer Broadway, West End riders prefer 6th Avenue service, and the long confusing transfer at Atlantic Avenue. However, I must remind you all that Broadway and 6th Avenue are merely just walking distance from one another. Therefore, most riders will still have a one seat ride. As stated in Vanshnookenraggen's post about The R Train, LaGuardia Airport, and the ripple effect in Transit, "The merges at 36th Street and Prospect Park would Still occur but have far less of an impact as trains run as set pairs along their entire route". Therefore, deinterlining Broadway and Dekalb would have a huge impact in overall train service and capacity. All tracks in the Manhattan Bridge will run at Maximum capacity. The (B) and (D) will now serve Brighton with an uneven Split of 30 TPH (which I'll get to in a bit) while the (N) and (Q) cover West End and Sea Beach. All 5 Lines that pass by Dekalb on a daily basis will be subject to increased service.

Bottleneck #3: Central Park West (Between 59th Street and 145th):

Most proposals that involve deinterlining Central Park West involve having all expresses heading one direction while all locals head in another direction. I disagree with that notion and even presented that in Version 1 of my Deinterlining map. Unlike Version 1 of my map, Version 2 gives express priority to 6th Avenue. (B) trains will now run from Brighton Beach to Inwood-207th Street with 12 TPH during the peak Hours, now becoming a full express route. Please note that the (B) will still only run on weekdays. The (D) Train now runs from Coney Island via Brighton to Norwood-205th Street, running at 18 TPH during Peak Hours. CPW Local service will now be served by the (A), which will now run as a full local route between 168th Street and World Trade Center, running at 26 TPH during peak periods. A select 11-12 TPH will run via Grand Concourse to preserve (D) peak express service in the Bronx. The increased service in Grand Concourse will be done to relieve some crowding on the (4) line (which would reduce an additional 2-3% on Lexington). But whatever happens to the (C) is what I'm about to explain.

Bottleneck #4: Queens Blvd and 8th Avenue: 

This is a bottleneck that I can speak for since the bottlenecks that occur on Queens Blvd are unbearable at times. As discussed earlier in this thread, I believe that the 63rd Street tube should be prioritized with the Express service because the (E) is basically crushloaded during the rush hours. Making the (E) local would shift ridership by a ton. The (E) will swap roles with the (M) and the (M) is shifted to the 63rd Street tunnel.  Speaking of the 63rd Street tunnel, the (F) and (M) will both run 15 TPH each along 63rd Street and along QB Express. (M) trains terminate at Jamaica Center (with a select few trains going to Jamaica-179th Street) while the (E) terminates at Forest Hills (with some restrucuring of (MTA) Op.'s at Forest Hills). 7 Southbound (M) trains will Short Turn at 2nd Avenue while the rest head to Metropolitan Avenue. Southbound (E) trains will replace the (A) between 50th Street and the Rockaways/Lefferts Running at 20 TPH. As for the (C), it will supplement the (E) for it's entire route Until Euclid Avenue and will no longer serve CPW running at 10-12 TPH during peak periods. Select trains will short tun at 42nd Street. 

As for everything else, here is a Link to the map, let me know what your thoughts on this are. 

  • Thumbs Down 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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