Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[CenSin]

Not that this whole debate really matters, but the to is historically accurate. In the 1968 color scheme the font size was small enough to fit two letters in the bullet. There are a few traces of this still left in the system from 1979-1985ish when the colors were standardized but the size stayed small enough. I'm trying to think of some stations that still have those old signs--96th on the had it for a while, as did (does?) Avenue N on the . As for inconsistent colors, there were some color changes between the 1980s and 1990s in terms of trunk lines (A/C/H/E had a PMS darkening to match the new MTA logo in 1994, I believe). And I'm too colorblind to see that vs. dissimilarity.  

 

Here's a photo of my R17 box that shows the  / sizing over the years:

 

 

I haven’t any familiarity with the antiquated bullets, but the modern ones are highly inconsistent. The font size and weight relative to the bullet outline is different depending on what sign it’s on. If I can find some opportune moments, I’ll go get some pictures, but it should be obvious that the font size and weight are not defined for modern bullets. Heck, even the typeface is inconsistent (such as for the and which have different styles depending on where you look). For consistency in-line with text (the primary use), the font size should be identical.

[Priincenene]

I've thought about some service changes and here they are.

 

Extend service to West End

 

Send the to 71st Late Nights / Weekends

 

Extend the from Euclid to Lefferts Blvd

 

Make the run to Far Rock and Rockaway Park (Which is already in the works)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[P3F]

I've thought about some service changes and here they are.

 

Extend service to West End

 

Send the to 71st Late Nights / Weekends

 

Extend the from Euclid to Lefferts Blvd

 

Make the run to Far Rock and Rockaway Park (Which is already in the works)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

The would have to be extended as well so as not to mess up the timings between the two lines.

[Armandito]

I've thought about some service changes and here they are.

 

Extend service to West End

 

Send the to 71st Late Nights / Weekends

 

Extend the from Euclid to Lefferts Blvd

 

Make the run to Far Rock and Rockaway Park (Which is already in the works)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Sending the back to Forest Hills is out of the question. Even before it was officially cut back to Court Square in 2010 when the was still running, it hardly ever ran on Queens Boulevard due to GOs and infinite service changes that occurred most nights and literally every weekend. Also bear in mind that the rise in the popularity of Manhattan service along that corridor rendered the virtually unnecessary north of Court Square. Edited November 17, 2016 by Q44SBS

[Armandito]

I've thought about some service changes and here they are.

 

Extend service to West End

 

Send the to 71st Late Nights / Weekends

 

Extend the from Euclid to Lefferts Blvd

 

Make the run to Far Rock and Rockaway Park (Which is already in the works)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

I would extend the to Lefferts if and only if it switches to the express tracks on Fulton Street with a extension to Euclid Avenue making all former stops in Brooklyn, if that ever happens. And instead of operating a shuttle between Lefferts and Euclid, I would rather extend the to that station overnight. By the way, the full-time reroute to Rockaway Park is the only part of your plan I agree with. Edited November 17, 2016 by Q44SBS

[Armandito]

The would have to be extended as well so as not to mess up the timings between the two lines.

Why not eliminate the altogether? I always hated that train when I used to live near the Elderts Lane station. It would skip stops with the along the way, and if the train I'm in doesn't stop at my destination, I have no other choice but to either transfer at Sutphin Boulevard, Woodhaven Boulevard, or Crescent Street or wait a long time for a Q56 bus just to get there.

[Priincenene]

I would extend the to Lefferts if and only if it switches to the express tracks on Fulton Street with a extension to Euclid Avenue making all former stops in Brooklyn, if that ever happens. And instead of operating a shuttle between Lefferts and Euclid, I would rather extend the to that station overnight. By the way, the full-time reroute to Rockaway Park is the only part of your plan I agree with.

Why mess with the ? Why not extend the to Euclid? Also, the MTA was thinking about sending the to the West End line at one point. Remember, this was a thought.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited November 18, 2016 by Priincenene

[Armandito]

Why mess with the ? Why not extend the to Euclid? Also, the MTA was thinking about sending the to the West End line at one point. Remember, this was a thought.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

There's just not enough capacity at the Cranberry Tubes to allow for trains to be extended into Brooklyn.

[BDNQ2345]

There's just not enough capacity at the Cranberry Tubes to allow for trains to be extended into Brooklyn.

How come is not enough capacity in the Cranberry Tube, it only have two line.

[Wallyhorse]

Why mess with the ? Why not extend the to Euclid? Also, the MTA was thinking about sending the to the West End line at one point. Remember, this was a thought.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Any to Euclid is MANY YEARS off.  

 

My idea there was to have the run through a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel that would have the first stop at what currently is the Transit Museum at Court Street, then come in on the presently-unused track and platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  This would allow the and to both run express along Fulton Street in Brooklyn (eliminating the merge east/railroad south of Hoyt-Schermerhorn) and give riders along Fulton Street service to the east side. 

 

 

 

I've thought about some service changes and here they are.

 

Extend service to West End

 

Send the to 71st Late Nights / Weekends

 

Extend the from Euclid to Lefferts Blvd

 

Make the run to Far Rock and Rockaway Park (Which is already in the works)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

My plan for the would allow the and to fully do what you suggested.

 

As has been noted, one reason the was cut back permanently was constant G.O.'s and also in some cases the need for equipment to handle G.O.'s in other places due to a car shortage.  Right now, weekend CBTC work along QB is why the can't run to QB and also why it would be difficult for the to be extended there on weekends (also why in part for the shutdown I would split the into and with the running at all times between Metropolitan and 96th Street-2nd Avenue).  

[bobtehpanda]

Why mess with the ? Why not extend the to Euclid? Also, the MTA was thinking about sending the to the West End line at one point. Remember, this was a thought.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

It's not really "messing with the "; the is more useful going to Brooklyn than it is just ending at Hanover Square, and Fulton is severely underutilized since four tracks funnel into two.

 

A Fulton local would probably relieve the Brooklyn IRT, since currently in that general area only the Brooklyn IRT has East Side access.

Edited November 18, 2016 by bobtehpanda

[LTA1992]

It's not really "messing with the "; the is more useful going to Brooklyn than it is just ending at Hanover Square, and Fulton is severely underutilized since four tracks funnel into two.

 

A Fulton local would probably relieve the Brooklyn IRT, since currently in that general area only the Brooklyn IRT has East Side access.

My thoughts exactly.

[Armandito]

It's not really "messing with the "; the is more useful going to Brooklyn than it is just ending at Hanover Square, and Fulton is severely underutilized since four tracks funnel into two.

 

A Fulton local would probably relieve the Brooklyn IRT, since currently in that general area only the Brooklyn IRT has East Side access.

If the ever gets extended to Brooklyn, should a from Queens along Second Avenue be extended there too? I would rather keep the terminating at Hanover Square.

[Around the Horn]

If the ever gets extended to Brooklyn, should a from Queens along Second Avenue be extended there too? I would rather keep the terminating at Hanover Square.

 

I'd have the go along Culver in Brooklyn, so the can become the Culver Express, and so that Culver gets East Side service as well as Midtown service (and it would reduce the load on the coming from both Queens via the and Brooklyn via the ). I am also of the opinion that the current 15 trains per hour along Culver isn't enough. By running the express and local, you can effectively double the number of trains per hour running to Manhattan (15 currently; 15 and 15 under this proposal)

[Caelestor]

If the ever gets extended to Brooklyn, should a from Queens along Second Avenue be extended there too? I would rather keep the terminating at Hanover Square.

 

If the East River tunnel is built, all services will be extended, since Hanover Sq is only going to be a 2-track station unlike Whitehall St.

 

I'd have the go along Culver in Brooklyn, so the can become the Culver Express, and so that Culver gets East Side service as well as Midtown service (and it would reduce the load on the coming from both Queens via the and Brooklyn via the ). I am also of the opinion that the current 15 trains per hour along Culver isn't enough. By running the express and local, you can effectively double the number of trains per hour running to Manhattan (15 currently; 15 and 15 under this proposal)

 

This proposal would effectively reduce the capacity of SAS Phase 4 and a future East River tunnel by half. Might as well just run the under Nassau St if that happens.

[Around the Horn]

This proposal would effectively reduce the capacity of SAS Phase 4 and a future East River tunnel by half. Might as well just run the under Nassau St if that happens.

 

I take it you haven't read the FEIS. Running the under Nassau Street would reduce the capacity of the much more than a second service splitting off from Phase 3.

[Armandito]

If the East River tunnel is built, all services will be extended, since Hanover Sq is only going to be a 2-track station unlike Whitehall St.

I don't think the here needs service to Brooklyn. I would have a layup track built just south of the platform at Hanover Square for terminating trains instead. That way, in case any service through the tunnel needs to be suspended, trains can short-turn there. By the way, there's no space at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets for trains to terminate, since the layout of the outer platorms the route would use would prevent them from being used as a terminal. Edited November 18, 2016 by Q44SBS

[bobtehpanda]

I'd have the go along Culver in Brooklyn, so the can become the Culver Express, and so that Culver gets East Side service as well as Midtown service (and it would reduce the load on the coming from both Queens via the and Brooklyn via the ). I am also of the opinion that the current 15 trains per hour along Culver isn't enough. By running the express and local, you can effectively double the number of trains per hour running to Manhattan (15 currently; 15 and 15 under this proposal)

 

There is no feasible way to connect the SAS with Rutgers, the same way there is no feasible way to connect the SAS with Nassau, and it's also not feasible to connect the western end of the Fulton Local with the Culver Line.

[Caelestor]

I take it you haven't read the FEIS. Running the under Nassau Street would reduce the capacity of the much more than a second service splitting off from Phase 3.

 

Ignore what I said about Nassau St then. What I was trying to get at is that there is no good reason to connect the Culver Line and SAS, especially since Houston St - 2 Ave will be the transfer point. It's much easier just to run the entire line downtown.

 

I don't think the here needs service to Brooklyn. I would have a layup track built just south of the platform at Hanover Square for terminating trains instead. That way, in case any service through the tunnel needs to be suspended, trains can short-turn there. By the way, there's no space at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets for trains to terminate, since the layout of the outer platorms the route would use would prevent them from being used as a terminal.

 

I thought we were sending the to Euclid Ave? I guess the could just terminate in Lower Manhattan, but that leaves a lot of unused capacity in the new East River tunnel.

[Armandito]

Ignore what I said about Nassau St then. What I was trying to get at is that there is no good reason to connect the Culver Line and SAS, especially since Houston St - 2 Ave will be the transfer point. It's much easier just to run the entire line downtown.

 

 

I thought we were sending the to Euclid Ave? I guess the could just terminate in Lower Manhattan, but that leaves a lot of unused capacity in the new East River tunnel.

If that's the case, then the Fulton Street local tracks would have two services running at once at all times. I doubt if the line needs more frequent late night service, but at least trains can run 24/7 express service in Brooklyn.

 

If Fulton really needs more frequent local service overnight, this is what I would do:

 

express in Brooklyn at all times, servicing the Rockaways only. replaces daytime to Lefferts (also express in Brooklyn), while replaces to Lefferts during late nights. ( makes all former stops in Brooklyn to Euclid Avenue at all times.)

 

serves Far Rockaway at all times; additional trains serve Rockaway Park at all times except late nights. During late nights, extended replaces to Rockaway Park. Both trains will replace Rockaway Park service altogether. ( also runs local in Brooklyn to Euclid Avenue at all times.)

Edited November 19, 2016 by Q44SBS

[Porter]

I don't think the here needs service to Brooklyn.

 

I agree. The should mirror the and terminate in Lower Manhattan, leaving the open for an extension into Brooklyn as an analogy to the .

[CenSin]

I agree. The should mirror the and terminate in Lower Manhattan, leaving the open for an extension into Brooklyn as an analogy to the .

The does that too. In fact, so does the , , , and . They all end up somewhere in lower Manhattan crossing only one river, making them shorter routes than the ones that run to southern Brooklyn.

 

Southern Brooklyn is plagued with routes that run through choke points (, , , , , , , ) and/or are long lines (, , , ). The is one of the more reliable of the bunch due to it not being a 3-borough route. Ideally, local routes should be short and only run in 2 boroughs.

                    █━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█
█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█──────────────█──────────────█─────────█────█─────────█─────────────────█─────────────────█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█
                                                  █━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█
⟵ Outer borough extremity                              ⭰     CBD      ⭲                                        Outer borough extremity ⟶

The diagram should be self-explanatory.

[Armandito]

The does that too. In fact, so does the , , , and . They all end up somewhere in lower Manhattan crossing only one river, making them shorter routes than the ones that run to southern Brooklyn.

 

Southern Brooklyn is plagued with routes that run through choke points (, , , , , , , ) and/or are long lines (, , , ). The is one of the more reliable of the bunch due to it not being a 3-borough route. Ideally, local routes should be short and only run in 2 boroughs.

 

█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━██━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█──────────────█──────────────█─────────█────█─────────█─────────────────█─────────────────█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█                                                  █━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█⟵ Outer borough extremity                              ⭰     CBD      ⭲                                        Outer borough extremity ⟶

The diagram should be self-explanatory.

The could also be another one of the more reliable trains in Brooklyn since it serves neither Queens nor the Bronx (except late nights when it extends to Lefferts Boulevard). So in that case, it would definitely be better if the stayed at Hanover Square as opposed to running it all the way to Euclid Avenue making all stops. That way, both the and could be equally reliable since neither train would serve a third borough (except when trains extend to Lefferts Boulevard during late nights). Furthermore, only the portion between 55th Street and Hanover Square would be served by both trains. Edited November 19, 2016 by Q44SBS

[bobtehpanda]

The does that too. In fact, so does the , , , and . They all end up somewhere in lower Manhattan crossing only one river, making them shorter routes than the ones that run to southern Brooklyn.

 

Southern Brooklyn is plagued with routes that run through choke points ( , , , , , , , ) and/or are long lines ( , , , ). The is one of the more reliable of the bunch due to it not being a 3-borough route. Ideally, local routes should be short and only run in 2 boroughs.

                    █━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█
█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█──────────────█──────────────█─────────█────█─────────█─────────────────█─────────────────█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█
                                                  █━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█━━━━━█
⟵ Outer borough extremity                              ⭰     CBD      ⭲                                        Outer borough extremity ⟶

The diagram should be self-explanatory.

 

The is actually affected by the chokepoint of the Cranberry tunnel. If you move all Fulton trains to the express and have only SAS to the local, then having all SAS trains use Fulton won't be such a big deal. (Whether or not there is terminating capacity is an entirely different question.)

 

The relationship with distance and reliability is at best just a correlation. You only really want to minimize shared sections with other trains.

[Caelestor]

The is actually affected by the chokepoint of the Cranberry tunnel. If you move all Fulton trains to the express and have only SAS to the local, then having all SAS trains use Fulton won't be such a big deal. (Whether or not there is terminating capacity is an entirely different question.)

 

The relationship with distance and reliability is at best just a correlation. You only really want to minimize shared sections with other trains.

 

I agree that increased interlining generally decreases overall capacity and reliability, because trains that don't merge onto tracks when they're supposed to can generate cascading delays. Highway traffic is always bad during rush hour mainly because there's too much merging going on.

 

Distance is less of a factor than the number of stops, as well as the popularity of those stops. Delays often come when riders hold the doors and cause trains to stop for too long at the stations. From my experience, express trains making fewer stops are generally more reliable than local trains, except for the ones on the overcrowded lines which are always going to be delayed.