Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RollOver]

Looks like it's time for me to begin my proposals, but I'll do it one by one. Give me more time with the others.

 

Off-peak headway changes

 

As you can see, everything is overall the same, except there are at least three changes. This may not sound like an actual proposal, however.

 

The & run every 4-6 minutes (12 trains an hour) during middays and evenings, but every 10 minutes (6 trains an hour) on weekends.

 

The & run every 4-6 minutes (12 trains an hour) during middays, evenings and weekends.

 

Reason given: These fully isolated lines can run frequently since they don't share a track with any other line along their runs and there's little to no delays. However, flagging with track/signal maintainers and weekend GOs may be a problem though.

 

The & run every 5-10 minutes (8-9 trains an hour) during middays and evenings, but every 10 minutes on weekends (6 trains an hour).

 

Reason given: Queens lack subway service big time and the buses that these two lines connect to at their easternmost ends of their respective branches have a bulk amount of riders who have about half-hour or so commutes via the buses before getting on an express train to/from Manhattan. Short waiting time and every second counts for riders on these two lines due to the buses taking a half-hour or so to get the passengers to the Queens Blvd expresses for Manhattan or going home.

 

The is also the second longest line in the system and interacts with three other lines along its run, so that's part of the reason why it should run a bit more frequently between the hours of 10 AM and 3 PM & between the hours of 8 PM and 12 midnight, Monday through Friday. That way, riders can wait at most 10 minutes for it and keeping it entirey R160s during middays, evenings and weekends helps alot more because they have more doors than the R46s, which means short boarding and dwelling time. Plus, the R160s accelerate alot more quicker than the R46s. There should only be at least six sets of R46s on this second longest line in the system (yes, I understand there aren't enough R160s to make it entirely of those), not a whole bunch or a mixed. That way, they would only be needed to run during rush hours at most.

 

All other lines run every 10 minutes (6 trains an hour), while the split branches of the and the Rockaway Park Shuttle run every 20 minutes (3 trains an hour). Part of the reason is because of how complex the subway system is, especially on the B Division. I'll do some changing to most or all of the bottlenecks in the system, but I'll save that for my next proposal or so.

 

Reason given:

 

Between 135 St and Franklin Av is where the combined headways on the & are frequent enough. Same goes for the & between 149 St-Grand Concourse and Franklin Av. An extra 2 minute wait for each of these four lines shouldn't even bite by the way. The upper WPR, Livonia, Jerome and Dyre branches do not need more service due to relatively low ridership and the constant flagging with track/signal maintainers, as well as weekend GOs that affect service at times.

 

As for the , well...its two branches, especially the second, have vastly low ridership outside of the rush hour commute as well as JFK and summer beach goers. The Lefferts branch perfer skipping stops and abysmal express service headways than more frequent local service and making all stops. Surprise, surprise. Ridership in the Rockaway peninsula is extremely low because demand for transit is low. As for Brooklyn and Manhattan, riders can also take the local just in case the express is running an additional 5-10 minutes late or so. The local is almost never busy anyway, so riders shouldn't even have any problem finding a seat or space. At least forcing some riders to take the local is better than flooding the express. In fact, everytime I ride the during the aforementioned time periods, all I see are the seats filled up with fewer standees (and nearly empty at times too). It also seems less delayed as well, because it runs express.

 

As for the , riders dump it for the Queens Boulevard Express or the in Manhattan and Brooklyn, leading to relatively light loads on the system's local counterpart/feeder line. Even the Straphangers Campaign confirmed that this line has the highest chance of getting a seat. Plus, the Montague Street Tube has the lowest ridership of any East River crossings in the entire subway system. So the does not need to be frequent, unless you want it to delay the other two lines it interacts with along its run. It already scrapes the walls along its entire run as it does anyway. It should always stay entirely R46s for this purpose. It's a part-time line anyway.

 

As for all other lines, probably because Crosstown, Nassau Street, West End, Sea Beach and Brighton don't need the added service (three of those corridors of which, actually are nearby to each other, somewhat).

 

That's all for now. You'll see my next proposal tomorrow or so.

[Union Tpke]

How about shortening the train so delays from Brooklyn don't affect Queens service.

Continental Avenue to Whitehall St

Ditmars Boulevard to Bay Ridge 

[P3F]

How about shortening the train so delays from Brooklyn don't affect Queens service.

Continental Avenue to Whitehall St

Ditmars Boulevard to Bay Ridge

Even better, shorten the so delays from Queens don't affect Brooklyn service.

[CenSin]

Even better, shorten the so delays from Queens don't affect Brooklyn service.

This sounds about right. How many delays in service originate from Brooklyn anyway? It has a whole pair of tracks to itself from Bay Ridge–95 Street to Canal Street, and the turnaround track is the Bay Ridge–95 Street station itself and not some extended relay track. There's not much exposure to other trains and not that many stations in Brooklyn anyway—16 in total.

 

All of the track sharing happens up in Queens and midtown Manhattan—13 stations with the , 5 with the and , and 6 with just the . Every time a train has to switch in or out (even if it's not the train itself) it introduces a delay which potentially slows down the trains behind it. Say an is waiting for an to leave Queens Plaza going Manhattan-bound, the will not be able to pull into the station until the has left and then the . The same process occurs at Prince Street, but substituting the with the and the with the .

Edited March 15, 2015 by CenSin

[RollOver]

Oops, I forgot to mention that the 42nd Street Shuttle has the same off-peak headways like the and , including on weekends. It's also a well used shuttle and an isolated line, connecting between Times Square and Grand Central in Midtown Manhattan, the city's busiest central district. The Franklin Avenue Shuttle, however, doesn't need to be any more than 10 minutes, as its ridership isn't as high, since it operates through a residental area where you always see school kids, parents and some workers too.

 

Anyway, the is the only line in the system where the remaining R32s truly belong. Firstly, while an 8-car train of 75 footers is the same length as a 10-car train of 60 footers, an 8-car train of 75 footers only have 64 doors on one side, leading to longer boarding and dwelling times. A 10-car train of 60 footers have 16 additional doors, so that means 64 + 16 = 80 doors on one side, leading to lesser boarding and dwelling times. Virtually every full-time line has 60 footers. And before anyone else says otherwise, no. Who cares about the R32s being the oldest cars in the system, as well as the being the system's longest line? So? The R46s are the system's second oldest cars (not counting the remaining R42s), yet, provide full-time service on the and , so I honestly don't wanna hear such excuses. The former is also one of the system's well used lines anyway, so it should, indeed, have 60 footers as well. Put half of its R46s on the local so that way, it's no longer a 480 feet unit train and the local customers would not have to keep running for the train at neither end anymore. The local doesn't need 60 foot cars because it's a part-time line and one of the system's most lightest used lines. The is basically short turning trains doing local stops anyway.

 

Secondly, keeping the system's oldest cars on the system's longest line would mean no more swapping back and fourth. The does not need 60 footers, because it's another part-time and lightly used. The doesn't need the R32s either, because of the swapping back and fourth, which leads you to wonder what's the point of putting them outside on the Jamaica Line for if they're just gonna keep heading back home to 207th Street's shop for their regular maintaince and inspection, not to mention that East New York can only focus on the R143s, R160s and the R42s. Even 207th Street's shop can't even maintain the 160s, other than just "watching" them while they run on the . Why else do you think the R32/R160A summer swap increases and decreases left and right all the time? And the isn't well used either, despite it being a full-time line. Look at its loads during the off-peak for the answer. That's part of the reason why the R32s do not need to be on any of these three lines that I've mentioned.

 

Thirdly, as I suggest in my previous post, have the run every 10 minutes (west of Rockaway Blvd) and 20 minutes (east of Rockaway Blvd). At the same time, schedule the R32s to originate/terminate in the Rockaways and schedule the R46s to originate/terminate at Lefferts. This way, the R32s' air-condition units can breathe out in the long outdoor run in Queens for a bit. As long as it's scheduled properly, it shouldn't be much of a problem, as the would be running much less frequently during the off-peak compared to almost all the other lines in the system for the reasons already mention both in my previous post and this current post. It also runs express in Manhattan and Brooklyn, meaning the doors on the R32s would be opening less frequently, which would also allow their air-conditioning units to function alot more properly as well. It should be like this everyday (including the summer). At night, however, it's mixed of R32s and R46s, as all trains make local stops throughout Manhattan and Brooklyn and originate/terminate at Far Rockaway only.

 

Lastly, I'll go into further detail about the car assignment proposal in my next future post in this thread or so.

[RollOver]

All of the track sharing happens up in Queens and midtown Manhattan—13 stations with the , 5 with the and , and 6 with just the . Every time a train has to switch in or out (even if it's not the train itself) it introduces a delay which potentially slows down the trains behind it. Say an is waiting for an to leave Queens Plaza going Manhattan-bound, the will not be able to pull into the station until the has left and then the . The same process occurs at Prince Street, but substituting the with the and the with the .

 

That's exactly why I suggested the previous 60th Street Tube/Lexington Avenue-59th Street proposal a few weeks ago in this thread. I understood why you criticized me for that, though. Yes, the would have cross at both Lex-59th and Canal, but at least this would have meant having the skip both 5th Avenue and 49th Street. The only issue is the scheduling with the in Brooklyn on 4th Avenue (as you was saying). As I said before, just re-schedule every line properly. This is a proposal thread anyway, so it's fine to imagine how any bottlenecks in the system (including DeKalb) should be like (or should look like) instead of the current one in reality here. That also includes the signals as well, because in reality, the signals keep the trains so far apart unless it's CBTC and ATO.

Edited March 15, 2015 by RollOver

[Lance]

How about shortening the train so delays from Brooklyn don't affect Queens service.

Continental Avenue to Whitehall St

Ditmars Boulevard to Bay Ridge 

Cut the N back to 57 St and reduce the hours of service on the Q and you've basically recreated the early '70s Broadway service.

 

Whatever you send to Bay Ridge will be delayed by interlining services in Manhattan and Queens. There's a reason why the Brooklyn R did so well during the split-service operation last year and CenSin hit the nail on the head. With its own set of tracks and no other interlining services, nothing delayed the Brooklyn portion, whereas the northern half was plagued with delays from merging trains or track/switch problems. The reality of the situation is there really isn't much you can do to fix the R without taking it off Queens Blvd and that's a nonstarter because it'll flood the E, F and M with more riders than those lines can handle.

[Javier]

R62 and R62A and R142A/R142 midlife-upgrades proposal.

 

 

R62/R62A:

Install LED Strip Maps

Install LED Signs

Fix Door issue at a slanted platform

 

R142/R142A:

Strip Maps replaced with FINDS for the / lines.

Possibly install cabs in B-Cars

Fix LED Glitch Issue

[Union Tpke]

Cut the N back to 57 St and reduce the hours of service on the Q and you've basically recreated the early '70s Broadway service.

 

Whatever you send to Bay Ridge will be delayed by interlining services in Manhattan and Queens. There's a reason why the Brooklyn R did so well during the split-service operation last year and CenSin hit the nail on the head. With its own set of tracks and no other interlining services, nothing delayed the Brooklyn portion, whereas the northern half was plagued with delays from merging trains or track/switch problems. The reality of the situation is there really isn't much you can do to fix the R without taking it off Queens Blvd and that's a nonstarter because it'll flood the E, F and M with more riders than those lines can handle.

Would there be any benefit even minimal to my proposal?

[bobtehpanda]

Would there be any benefit even minimal to my proposal?

 

You'd boost service on the central segment, but that's bound to happen anyways once the gets taken out of Astoria for good.

[Javier]

Um, I thought the was gonna go to Astoria and 96 Street during rush hours. Sort of like the

[CenSin]

That's exactly why I suggested the previous 60th Street Tube/Lexington Avenue-59th Street proposal a few weeks ago in this thread. I understood why you criticized me for that, though. Yes, the would have cross at both Lex-59th and Canal, but at least this would have meant having the skip both 5th Avenue and 49th Street. The only issue is the scheduling with the in Brooklyn on 4th Avenue (as you was saying). As I said before, just re-schedule every line properly. This is a proposal thread anyway, so it's fine to imagine how any bottlenecks in the system (including DeKalb) should be like (or should look like) instead of the current one in reality here. That also includes the signals as well, because in reality, the signals keep the trains so far apart unless it's CBTC and ATO.

Again, it was’t a criticism of your idea. What I do criticize is an overly optimistic view of how the MTA handles scheduling. The schedule is ideal and trains have terrible on-time performance even with the MTA’s overly generous definition of "on-time."

 

I’ll judge your idea if you ever post the track maps. The wording of your proposal leaves a gap for the imagination to fill in.

 

 

Um, I thought the was gonna go to Astoria and 96 Street during rush hours. Sort of like the

The Upper East Side needs all the extra service it can get—service that can’t be added to the Lexington Avenue line due to capacity constraints. The MTA is also keen on reducing confusion by minimizing the possible places a route could terminate. You’re not going to see split service.

[RollOver]

Um, I thought the was gonna go to Astoria and 96 Street during rush hours. Sort of like the

 

Furthermore, the was quite clear when they said the will be taken off from Astoria for good. I also suggest that you should pay more attention to all of the things I said in this thread. Ozone Park residents prefer skipping stops and abysmal express service headways (15-20 minutes) rather than more frequent service and making all stops (10 minutes). And the demand for transit in the Rockaways is extremely low. Why else do you think the is currently set up the way it is (even in my proposal as well)?

[Brooklyn]

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.kMt-J-aY8MeQ Here's my proposal for an SAS to the Bronx. In this case, the would not run overnight, the and will now run express in Brooklyn during the day and evening, and all trains that used to run to Lefferts Boulevard will now run to Howard Beach (the replaces the to that station days and evenings). Also, the portion along Pelham Parkway would be built as a concrete viaduct and the express tracks would be built below the local tracks between 116th Street and 14th Street. And lastly, the Transit Museum would have to be relocated to the abandoned platforms at Bowery or Canal Street on the line.

Looks good: makes the major transfers, serves as relief and a lifeline for people in the Bronx and fills in a major service gap in Manhattan. It also gives an 'assist' to the A and C in Brooklyn. This line would also be relatively fast too.

 

If this hasn't already been said, I would put a stop on 23rd Street and either 86 or 96th Street. If it's going to connect to Fulton st, might as well have that Court Street stop and possibly a transfer to Borough Hall 2,3,4,5,R trains).

 

23rd would be the priority---there's too much around there and it is poorly served by the subway.

 

Other than that, rock solid.

[Brooklyn]

I just zoomed in on the Bronx portion--I noticed you put in along the Metro North tracks and Morris Avenue--why not along Third avenue so there's a transfer with the and at 149th st?

 

I feel that 3rd Av/Boston Road  could really use a potential station rather than Park and 162nd...

[bobtehpanda]

I just zoomed in on the Bronx portion--I noticed you put in along the Metro North tracks and Morris Avenue--why not along Third avenue so there's a transfer with the and at 149th st?

 

I feel that 3rd Av/Boston Road  could really use a potential station rather than Park and 162nd...

 

Cost. Expanding MNR row is orders of magnitude easier (if not cheaper) than tunneling under Third Av.

[Javier]

This just now occurred to me, why cant strip maps be placed on the R68's?

[MysteriousBtrain]

This just now occurred to me, why cant strip maps be placed on the R68's?

Because they were shared with other lines that use the same yard. (Ex. / in the 2000's, / / and rarely the now)

[MTA Dude]

This just now occurred to me, why cant strip maps be placed on the R68's?

 

Why should it?

[P3F]

To give an actual response, it's because the B/D/G all use those cars and it would be a pain to restrict certain cars to certain lines. (And a 2/5-esque strip map fiasco wouldn't be good either.)

[Brooklyn]

Cost. Expanding MNR row is orders of magnitude easier (if not cheaper) than tunneling under Third Av.

 

Oh, he mentioned that before?

 

Sorry I missed that.

[bobtehpanda]

Oh, he mentioned that before?

 

Sorry I missed that.

 

No, but that's pretty much the only reason to use existing ROW; it's similar to how most 7 Line extension proposals use the Port Washington Branch ROW even though Northern Blvd is both wider and probably a busier corridor as well.

[Gong Gahou]

To give an actual response, it's because the B/D/G all use those cars and it would be a pain to restrict certain cars to certain lines. (And a 2/5-esque strip map fiasco wouldn't be good either.)

Actually, strip maps shouldn't be a problem with the train. With the exception of loaned cars from another barn, the cars you see on the will only run on the because the line only uses equipment coming from Concourse. Concourse equipment won't run on the or as both lines are based from Coney Island.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Gong Gahou

[Wallyhorse]

I just zoomed in on the Bronx portion--I noticed you put in along the Metro North tracks and Morris Avenue--why not along Third avenue so there's a transfer with the and at 149th st?

 

I feel that 3rd Av/Boston Road  could really use a potential station rather than Park and 162nd...

Which is exactly what I would do, either as subway or as a rebuild of the Bronx portion of the 3rd Avenue El with provisions if later on for a rebuild of the Manhattan 3rd Avenue El (even if that is extremely unlikely to ever happen), possibly with a new third level of Gun Hill Road that would be a new Bronx 3rd Avenue El station (and if the Manhattan 3rd Avenue El ever did get rebuilt, such tracks shared with a Bronx SAS)

[MTA Dude]

*Facepalm*

 

You won't give up, will you?