Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R68OnBroadway]

8 hours ago, P3F said:

Somehow you conveniently forgot that you would get rid of half of Astoria's capacity, which is not something you want to do with the current crowding situation. In addition, you would increase crowding on the D and Q trains, because nobody wants to stay on an N which takes an entire 10 minutes longer to get from DeKalb to Canal. This suggestion is poorly thought out and quite absurd in its current state.

Just because there is no  does not mean there is a lower frequency. The  could get a service boost.

[quadcorder]

9 hours ago, P3F said:

Somehow you conveniently forgot that you would get rid of half of Astoria's capacity, which is not something you want to do with the current crowding situation. In addition, you would increase crowding on the D and Q trains, because nobody wants to stay on an N which takes an entire 10 minutes longer to get from DeKalb to Canal. This suggestion is poorly thought out and quite absurd in its current state.

• now runs express / Sea Beach
• now runs 4 Av Local
• So the total bridge service has not decreased - nor do Sea Beach riders need to transfer to a bridge train, since they are already on one.
• service from Astoria runs with the current frequency of both and service but without the need for two service designations. Turn all the former trains at Whitehall if you like - or extend some down 4 Av Local. This can be dynamically programmed much closer to the demand time than service is currently programmed.

Edited November 20, 2017 by quadcorder

[T to Dyre Avenue]

So, pretty much, the  becomes the pre-1987  with no yard near either end of the line and the  becomes the pre-1987  with yards at or near both ends. Only difference is you’ve got the  running via the 63rd St tunnel. 

Were it not for the merges with the  at 36th St in Queens and Lexington in Manhattan and the merge with the  and  at DeKalb, I would give it some serious consideration. But I’d leave the  local and the  express on 4th Ave, though I’d run the  via the bridge and the  via the tunnel. There are existing switch tracks just north of Pacific and south of DeKalb that likely would permit this, but the switch at Pacific (I believe) has a wheel detector, which would likely need to be removed to permit that switch to be used regularly (it used to be when the  ran express via tunnel from 1994-2004 as well as by the  from 1986-94). Though given the merge between the  and the  at DeKalb and that the  and  would be on the same tracks from Pacific to DeKalb, it would likely be pretty slow-going anyway.

Edited November 20, 2017 by T to Dyre Avenue

[quadcorder]

OK, the yard constraint is real. The goal is obviously just to decrease the amount of switching on BMT Broadway - perhaps running some additional W trains to 4th Ave, decreasing the number of N trains, and increasing Q service is sufficient. That idea has been discussed plenty.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

On 11/1/2017 at 11:11 PM, biGC323232 said:

I dont understand why the mta never built a subway to staten island...but yes good idea....gold mine

I still think a Hudson-Bergen collab would be more cost effective as it would allow PATH connections. The last stop on HBLR is less than seven miles from Pt Richmond.

Edited November 20, 2017 by MassTransitHonchkrow
I brought up this idea before, and adjusted grammar to reflect that.

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

I touched up the default map on a subway map generator (which was made in 2016) and it says it costs $2.79 to operate it all.

 

So maybe we should consider nickeling and not quartering people (although personally I think that would cause ridership to fall)?

Load this File: https://sta.sh/01txq1f937r0

On this Site: http://jpwright.net/subway/

[Coney Island Av]

15 hours ago, quadcorder said:

What do people think of this to relieve merging difficulties on BMT Broadway and encourage transfers via 63rd Street:

• Reroute via 63rd Street tunnel, replacing in Manhattan and Brooklyn
• Reroute via Lower Manhattan and 4 Ave local, discontinuing service

Upsides:

• (goal) Allows increased Second Avenue service without the difficulties of pulling trains off other routes or finding a place besides Whitehall to turn trains
• Allows flexibility in 4 Av Local and Astoria service frequencies by turning trains at Whitehall

Downsides:

• Astoria loses express service (it's not much faster and half their trains are local already)
• Merging into on QBL has the ability to delay the   (if serious, solution: hold trains at Queens Plaza local platform with new switches just before the station)

 

I have suggested this multiple times before and this is how I'd do it. 

 is rerouted to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63 St all times except late nights, when it would terminate at Whitehall St.

 stays the same, with an extension to Broadway-125 St after Phase II is open.

replaces  at Astoria and is extended to LGA. Tail tracks would come with provisions to extend the line further east to Bayside and Flushing. Before you bring up the yard issue, there could be a new yard on Con Ed land, fixing the problem. 

 is extended to LGA with the , and also extended to Bay Pkwy on the  for additional rush hour service on 4 Av. 

Pros: 

No interaction between the exp and locals on Broadway.

Serves LGA, and allows for more service on 4 Av Local. 

Cons: 

Could be delays at 36 St due to merging with the . 

 

[RR503]

9 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I have suggested this multiple times before and this is how I'd do it. 

 is rerouted to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63 St all times except late nights, when it would terminate at Whitehall St.

 stays the same, with an extension to Broadway-125 St after Phase II is open.

replaces  at Astoria and is extended to LGA. Tail tracks would come with provisions to extend the line further east to Bayside and Flushing. Before you bring up the yard issue, there could be a new yard on Con Ed land, fixing the problem. 

 is extended to LGA with the , and also extended to Bay Pkwy on the  for additional rush hour service on 4 Av. 

Pros: 

No interaction between the exp and locals on Broadway.

Serves LGA, and allows for more service on 4 Av Local. 

Cons: 

Could be delays at 36 St due to merging with the . 

 

I like where you're going regarding no merging etc, but I don't think messing with that interlocking area around 36th is a good call.  and  trains really toe the line with their combined 30tph, and adding  trains into the mix there could quickly lead to massive backups. What's more, by sending the Broadway service via 63rd, QB local riders would lose transfers to the  and   (if you're west of Roosevelt), along with access to the 60th st corridor + downtown LIC -- something sure to anger them.

Unrelated, but building that yard on ConEd land could cause issues rippling across the subway system and city -- that's where they stage replacement parts for the grid. Get rid of that, and response times shorten, basic maintenance becomes more expensive, outages become more frequent. 

Finally, I'd send your supplimental 4th ave service down Sea Beach or to 95th st, not down West End. Those 4th ave stops as you head south are quite busy. 

[quadcorder]

I'm not interested in @D to 96 St's proposal because it requires construction and Con Ed is likely not willing to relocate. I'm interested in solving problems in the real world, where the MTA's construction priorities may not align with our fantasies. The best idea I have to solve the yard problem would be either running trains from CI yard via the Sea Beach express and putting in at 59th Street on the local track (for the 4 Av Local - Broadway Local - Astoria service called or at your preference, with the other name for 71st St - 63rd Tunnel - Bway Express - 4 Av Express - Sea Beach service) or if minor construction is allowed then building the express tracks on 4 Av south of 59th as storage tracks.

I agree that losing the QBL via 53rd guaranteed transfer to Lex express is bad, but this would solve all the capacity issues with Second Avenue.

Edited November 20, 2017 by quadcorder

[RR503]

29 minutes ago, quadcorder said:

I'm not interested in @D to 96 St's proposal because it requires construction and Con Ed is likely not willing to relocate. I'm interested in solving problems in the real world, where the MTA's construction priorities may not align with our fantasies. The best idea I have to solve the yard problem would be either running trains from CI yard via the Sea Beach express and putting in at 59th Street on the local track (for the 4 Av Local - Broadway Local - Astoria service called or at your preference, with the other name for 71st St - 63rd Tunnel - Bway Express - 4 Av Express - Sea Beach service) or if minor construction is allowed then building the express tracks on 4 Av south of 59th as storage tracks.

I agree that losing the QBL via 53rd guaranteed transfer to Lex express is bad, but this would solve all the capacity issues with Second Avenue.

Why create a yard problem, then? 

 CI to 96th via Sea Beach.

 as now

 as now 

 Kings Highway (SB) to Astoria via 4 ave local, tunnel. Replaces  to CI nights/weekends. 

There. Only merge is between  and  at 59th. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by RR503

[Coney Island Av]

First off, the yard won't be that big. It will only take up part of the ConEd land. And why isn't it a big priority to you? The MTA proposed this many times before and the only reason it was shot down was because of NIMBYS. Routing it through 19 Av will have a lesser impact on the community. 

Also, as for losing a transfer to the , your  ALSO loses an OOS CONNECTION. My plan will get rid of the 59 St merge. 

But after Phase 3 of SAS opens, there could then be a 2 Av-Queens service via 63 St! This means that riders on my  will eventually be able to transfer at Roosevelt Island for East Side service! 

A solution to no access via 60 St- A transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza! 

Edited November 20, 2017 by D to 96 St

[RR503]

1 hour ago, D to 96 St said:

First off, the yard won't be that big. It will only take up part of the ConEd land. And why isn't it a big priority to you? The MTA proposed this many times before and the only reason it was shot down was because of NIMBYS. Routing it through 19 Av will have a lesser impact on the community. 

Also, as for losing a transfer to the , your  ALSO loses an OOS CONNECTION. My plan will get rid of the 59 St merge. 

But after Phase 3 of SAS opens, there could then be a 2 Av-Queens service via 63 St! This means that riders on my  will eventually be able to transfer at Roosevelt Island for East Side service! 

A solution to no access via 60 St- A transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza! 

I’m all for your routing via the ConEd land, just not a yard there, for the reasons stated above. Why do I care? Because I like electricity to be reliable. 

I don't see your point regarding the  OOS connection. Can you explain what you mean? (Also note that almost no one uses OOS connections).

As for the 59th merge, well, yes, your plan doesn’t have the 59th merge. It has one at 36th street (both, in fact)... 

After phase three of SAS (assuming we get there), your  will have to be moved. The  runs 15tph, and the  would have to run at least 10-12, so there frankly wouldn’t be space for a  train or whatever if your  goes via 63. 

I also don’t see how a QP QBP transfer would help things. My issue was that riders on your  would lose access to downtown LIC and the  train. Unless you’re secretly adding a station on the 63rd st line, this doesn’t help that at all. (I do support the connection in general)

Also: what’s serving Sea Beach nights? You have  to Whitehall...

Finally, FWIW, you seem to have ignored the most real ops argument against this — the 36th (queens) merge, and its effect on  reliability. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, MassTransitHonchkrow said:

I touched up the default map on a subway map generator (which was made in 2016) and it says it costs $2.79 to operate it all.

 

So maybe we should consider nickeling and not quartering people (although personally I think that would cause ridership to fall)?

Load this File: https://sta.sh/01txq1f937r0

On this Site: http://jpwright.net/subway/

It was made by the same guy that made enmodal.co 

[Coney Island Av]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I’m all for your routing via the ConEd land, just not a yard there, for the reasons stated above. Why do I care? Because I like electricity to be reliable. 

I don't see your point regarding the  OOS connection. Can you explain what you mean? (Also note that almost no one uses OOS connections).

As for the 59th merge, well, yes, your plan doesn’t have the 59th merge. It has one at 36th street (both, in fact)... 

After phase three of SAS (assuming we get there), your  will have to be moved. The  runs 15tph, and the  would have to run at least 10-12, so there frankly wouldn’t be space for a  train or whatever if your  goes via 63. 

I also don’t see how a QP QBP transfer would help things. My issue was that riders on your  would lose access to downtown LIC and the  train. Unless you’re secretly adding a station on the 63rd st line, this doesn’t help that at all. (I do support the connection in general)

Also: what’s serving Sea Beach nights? You have  to Whitehall...

Finally, FWIW, you seem to have ignored the most real ops argument against this — the 36th (queens) merge, and its effect on  reliability. 

OOS= Out Of System(this goes for the Lex-63 to Lex-59 transfer)

QBL will have CBTC ready by 2021, so frequencies could be improved, and it would be a tight fit, but not impossible.  

Here's how it would help things: it would give riders at Queens Plaza improved access to 60 St. 

You're a bit confused with the  to Whitehall...technically it assumes the role of the  if its on QB and the  assumes the role of the . In other words, the  is terminating at Whitehall late nights from CONEY ISLAND! 

As for the 36 St merge- I did notice it could potentially be a major bottleneck because the  and  have to converge on the same spot. Regardless, this is the only way to do it without constructing expensive connections. 

 

 

[RR503]

13 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

OOS= Out Of System(this goes for the Lex-63 to Lex-59 transfer)

QBL will have CBTC ready by 2021, so frequencies could be improved, and it would be a tight fit, but not impossible.  

Here's how it would help things: it would give riders at Queens Plaza improved access to 60 St. 

You're a bit confused with the  to Whitehall...technically it assumes the role of the  if its on QB and the  assumes the role of the . In other words, the  is terminating at Whitehall late nights from CONEY ISLAND! 

As for the 36 St merge- I did notice it could potentially be a major bottleneck because the  and  have to converge on the same spot. Regardless, this is the only way to do it without constructing expensive connections. 

 

 

No, I got what OOS meant, I'm wondering why you're worried about the  losing one. In system transfers are objectively better than out of system ones -- something that  via 60 provides. 

According to MTA docs, QBL CBTC will increase capacity by about 3 trains per hour. So no. No scope. 

Again, you're missing my point about Queens Plaza. The issue isn't 60th st access -- originating customers can just walk to Queensboro, and customers can change at Roosevelt or Forest Hills. The issue is that by moving the  to 63, you're restricting the ways riders east of there on Queens Boulevard can get to the station. If you live between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza, and want to get the , or want to go to work in downtown LIC, you can now only take the  . That's a bad thing, given that the  is already the slight favorite of the two. 

No, it isn't the only way to do it. I've got a radical, cutting edge method, one that gives riders more access to important transfer points and business corridors without expense:

Leave the  train alone. 

Edited November 21, 2017 by RR503

[R42N]

6 hours ago, quadcorder said:

OK, the yard constraint is real. The goal is obviously just to decrease the amount of switching on BMT Broadway - perhaps running some additional W trains to 4th Ave, decreasing the number of N trains, and increasing Q service is sufficient. That idea has been discussed plenty.

Yeah but like has been said, that can’t happen. 

Astoria and Sea Beach needs the same number of trains (though Sea Beach could use a boost), and DeKalb can’t handle any more bridge traffic. 

And, where are the cars for your extra service? 

If you keep the same level of  service to maintain Sea Beach, keep Astoria headways as it is, the extra 4th Avenue service is un-feasible until the 211’s arrive. 

[R68OnBroadway]

Just a question: Do you think it would be feasible to move the Broadway mergers to 57th? Trains going slow would not matter as unlike 34th-42nd, where the line is straight, by 57th it curves, so switching there has less of an impact speed-wise.

Edited November 21, 2017 by R68OnBroadway

[Coney Island Av]

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

No, I got what OOS meant, I'm wondering why you're worried about the  losing one. In system transfers are objectively better than out of system ones -- something that  via 60 provides. 

According to MTA docs, QBL CBTC will increase capacity by about 3 trains per hour. So no. No scope. 

Again, you're missing my point about Queens Plaza. The issue isn't 60th st access -- originating customers can just walk to Queensboro, and customers can change at Roosevelt or Forest Hills. The issue is that by moving the  to 63, you're restricting the ways riders east of there on Queens Boulevard can get to the station. If you live between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza, and want to get the , or want to go to work in downtown LIC, you can now only take the  . That's a bad thing, given that the  is already the slight favorite of the two. 

No, it isn't the only way to do it. I've got a radical, cutting edge method, one that gives riders more access to important transfer points and business corridors without expense:

Leave the  train alone. 

Wait. I thought CBTC could be 40TPH. But if what you're saying is true, this will be the frequencies on 63rd:

 15 TPH

 10 TPH

 8 TPH

If CBTC is 40 TPH, the s TPH will be increased to 12 TPH. 

They still have transfer points to the  at 14 St and Canal, and also the  at Times Sq-42 St.

Here is how riders between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza can access downtown LIC besides taking the :

65 St: Use nearby 69 St   

Steinway St: Use nearby Broadway  

36 St: Use nearby 39 Av  

As for 46 St and Northern Blvd: Take the  because those stops are less busy and won't really overcrowd the train. 

Also, the stations WEST of Roosevelt have lower ridership than the ones EAST of Roosevelt. Riders between Roosevelt and 71 Av can simply transfer to the .

 

[R42N]

1 hour ago, D to 96 St said:

Wait. I thought CBTC could be 40TPH. But if what you're saying is true, this will be the frequencies on 63rd:

 15 TPH

 10 TPH

 8 TPH

If CBTC is 40 TPH, the s TPH will be increased to 12 TPH. 

They still have transfer points to the  at 14 St and Canal, and also the  at Times Sq-42 St.

Here is how riders between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza can access downtown LIC besides taking the :

65 St: Use nearby 69 St   

Steinway St: Use nearby Broadway  

36 St: Use nearby 39 Av  

As for 46 St and Northern Blvd: Take the  because those stops are less busy and won't really overcrowd the train. 

Also, the stations WEST of Roosevelt have lower ridership than the ones EAST of Roosevelt. Riders between Roosevelt and 71 Av can simply transfer to the .

 

I have objections to this proposal.

To sum them up in one sentence, sometimes familiarity works best, and this looks anything but familiar, or practical. 

[Union Tpke]

That mix of frequencies will not work.

[LGA Link N Train]

I'm working on a proposal to reconfigure train junctions and headways to increase the number of TPH, even though we need the 211's for this but still. Say for example, I were able to increase the TPH on 8 Avenue.

Note: CBTC is not involved in this, I want to think of something better than CBTC

[Coney Island Av]

I guess I should clarify: 

According to http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2016/02/futurenycsubway-2016/ the LOCAL MAX for CBTC will be 33 TPH, while the EXPRESS will be 40 TPH on QB. This WILL ALLOW more TPH and expansion of service. 

I will also explain how the sections of my fantasy map-http://app.enmodal.co/?id=bee7a31886ae8a71 where three services all run on the same track work. For those who haven't seen the map yet- go check it out, you'll be a bit confused if you don't.

I'm also thinking of swapping the  AND  in my map since in 63rd they could all fit without severe congestion. However, that does leave 53rd with no local option. 

63 St Tunnel :  15 TPH,  10 TPH,  8 TPH. (33 TPH) 

Central Park West :  10 TPH,  10 TPH,  8 TPH (28 TPH)

Queens Blvd Local :  10 TPH,  10 TPH,  10 TPH (30 TPH) This also works because terminal capacity at 71 Av is freed up with the  going to Rockaways. 

Montague :  8 TPH,  10 TPH,  12 TPH (30 TPH) 

 

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

I guess I should clarify: 

According to http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2016/02/futurenycsubway-2016/ the LOCAL MAX for CBTC will be 33 TPH, while the EXPRESS will be 40 TPH on QB. This WILL ALLOW more TPH and expansion of service. 

I will also explain how the sections of my fantasy map-http://app.enmodal.co/?id=bee7a31886ae8a71 where three services all run on the same track work. For those who haven't seen the map yet- go check it out, you'll be a bit confused if you don't.

I'm also thinking of swapping the  AND  in my map since in 63rd they could all fit without severe congestion. However, that does leave 53rd with no local option. 

63 St Tunnel :  15 TPH,  10 TPH,  8 TPH. (33 TPH) 

Central Park West :  10 TPH,  10 TPH,  8 TPH (28 TPH)

Queens Blvd Local :  10 TPH,  10 TPH,  10 TPH (30 TPH) This also works because terminal capacity at 71 Av is freed up with the  going to Rockaways. 

Montague :  8 TPH,  10 TPH,  12 TPH (30 TPH) 

 

Okay, so you can't run a mix of frequencies that unevenly. If you do, there's no way to get them to slot all evenly. For example, if you run trains at 15TPH, that's trains every four minutes. trains will run every six minutes. The minimum separation achieved ever on a CBTC system is 90s. 

So let's say that the trains run every four minutes. They leave at 00:00, 04:00, 08:00, every hour on the hour. If you run the every six minutes, let's say starting at 02:00, you have a conflicting slot at 08:00. If you start at 01:30, the minimum separation time, you have a conflicting slot at 07:30 (too close to the 08:00 slot).

So clearly you can't run them on these frequencies unevenly. But if you run them unevenly, there will inevitably be bunching, because the trains after longer gaps will be more crowded. The resulting bunching will screw up the reliability on that shared trunk, which will cascade onto the other lines. It's why we generally don't run more than three services on a single track, and why the place that does (the 60th St tunnel) often sees cascading delays on the routes that serve it.

I'm also going to call BS on that 33TPH claim, since a simple CTRL+F shows nothing on that vanshnookenraggen page (and either way, he's a blogger, not some actual authoritative source.) 40 TPH is indeed achieveable elsewhere, but that's with optimal terminals, optimal terminating practices, and services without any sort of reverse branching.

Edited November 24, 2017 by bobtehpanda

[bobtehpanda]

Recently redid my old proposal plans.

• Full SAS with link to Fulton. All trains terminate at Euclid; to Lefferts; to Howard Beach/Rock Park.
• goes to Morningside Heights. goes to Co-op City by way of Fordham Plaza.
• Turquoise is a new service. Local service from 179 St to Forest Hills, then using the Bypass and a new train line to Utica.

Less important stuff that must come after all of that:

• to Avenue U.
• to Howard Beach.
• to 188 St via either Jewel, 73, or some combination of those.
• to Farmers Blvd.
• to Springfield.
• to QCC.
• link to Woodlawn, to also help relieve the  on GC. (Unsure if needed post-Q extension.

Stuff that could happen in any order:

• (X). Parts north of Jackson Heights are optional.

Problems that are solved:

• Capacity relief in East Side
• Capacity relief in Queens
• Capacity relief in Willamsburg
• Capacity relief on Brooklyn IRT
• Fast link across 125 St
• Fast link(s) between Brooklyn and Queens
• Fast link across Bronx
• Maximum coverage; no parts of Brooklyn or Queens should be more than a 20 minute bus ride from a subway station

 

 

[Coney Island Av]

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Recently redid my old proposal plans.

• Full SAS with link to Fulton. All trains terminate at Euclid; to Lefferts; to Howard Beach/Rock Park.
• goes to Morningside Heights. goes to Co-op City by way of Fordham Plaza.
• Turquoise is a new service. Local service from 179 St to Forest Hills, then using the Bypass and a new train line to Utica.

Less important stuff that must come after all of that:

• to Avenue U.
• to Howard Beach.
• to 188 St via either Jewel, 73, or some combination of those.
• to Farmers Blvd.
• to Springfield.
• to QCC.
• link to Woodlawn, to also help relieve the  on GC. (Unsure if needed post-Q extension.

Stuff that could happen in any order:

• (X). Parts north of Jackson Heights are optional.

Problems that are solved:

• Capacity relief in East Side
• Capacity relief in Queens
• Capacity relief in Willamsburg
• Capacity relief on Brooklyn IRT
• Fast link across 125 St
• Fast link(s) between Brooklyn and Queens
• Fast link across Bronx
• Maximum coverage; no parts of Brooklyn or Queens should be more than a 20 minute bus ride from a subway station

 

 

Not bad. Very good, in fact. 

Except the  should go to Springfield, the  could run Jerome Av Exp, the (X) cold go to SI, and  to Voorhies. 

Also the  should be extended to Hollis, a SAS branch could go to Throgs Neck, and why not extend to Concourse Line to White Plains Rd?