Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jemorie]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I go through the station every day on my way to work. I see it with my own two eyes. I’ve crammed my way up that narrow staircase many times, so I experience first-hand what happens there. If you don’t believe me, then that’s fine. I’m not asking you to. But I’m not a statistician and I’m not doing any kind of study for the MTA or any local politician, so no, I won’t be showing you any statistics to prove it. I don’t have to. And you don’t have to believe me either. I’m 100 percent aware that most people transfer for Midtown, but don’t disregard those who don’t. 

For the record, east of where the  diverges from the  is not Williamsburg. It’s Bushwick, bordering on Bed-Stuy. Further east are East New York and Cypress Hills. Even then, wouldn’t it be easier to transfer to the  on the same platform between Myrtle Ave and Essex St for Midtown? 

During the AM Rush, a handle of people on the and from Brooklyn get off at Canal St for Chinatown, leaving some room for some Midtown-bound riders coming off the / to fit onto them; the on the other hand is not only much less frequent than the and but is also already crowded with its own riders going towards its stations between Broadway-Lafayette St and Lex Av-59 St.

But yes, as Around the Horn said, a lot has changed now. More and more people are also going towards Brooklyn on the and lines coming from the / as well, even if it's during off-hours. But still, the Brooklyn-bound Broadway Express trains departing from Canal St have much less people during the off-hours and reverse peak from my experience. It just tells me right there that people are distributing themselves between taking one of the two Broadway Express trains to Brooklyn if they're going to any station along 4th Avenue or Sea Beach or Brighton. It depends, really.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Jemorie

[RR503]

58 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Oh please. I'm not some kindergarten teacher where I have to sweep everything under the rug and say "Oh okay, sure I will, whatever you want, my bad". Ain't no thread being degraded here. Maybe it's you who needs to open your eyes. Hence the word "proposal". Deal with it.

I wasn't objecting to your proposal -- I was objecting to the bickering that resulted (I was mostly aiming that towards the other poster, not you). But let's move on -- I don't want to be a hypocrite. 

59 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

EDIT: Oops. I misread your second sentence. Yes I agree. They really should install one whenever they're ready to. It would ease congestion at Ditmars Blvd during rush hours when trains run more frequently. It's why some trains reroute to or from SAS. That likely won't last long when the comes online and all 's are going to have to head up to and from Astoria. So they need to install a switch south of Astoria Blvd; otherwise Ditmars Blvd would be way too congested.

My thoughts exactly. Even now, Ditmars gets bunched fast, so maybe schedule, say, a few  trains per rush to run to Astoria Boulevard to give Ditmars some recovery time.

13 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

But yes, as Around the Horn said, a lot has changed now. More and more people are also going towards Brooklyn on the and lines coming from the / as well, even if it's during off-hours. But still, the Brooklyn-bound Broadway Express trains departing from Canal St have much less people during the off-hours and reverse peak from my experience.

I was there using that transfer last night. At 11:30 PM, those stairs were choked with people. I don't know if they were actually transferring, or just finding a way to somewhere else in the station, but damn. 'Twas a lot. Regardless, Brooklyn is the fastest growing borough in the city in terms of employment, and with new industrial/commercial development coming on line in Downtown Brooklyn/Industry City/Brooklyn Army Terminal, I think eventually there'll be a need for more trains via Montague. I'd say extend the  though -- goes to midtown, and doesn't require more merging. 

[Jemorie]

8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I was there using that transfer last night. At 11:30 PM, those stairs were choked with people. I don't know if they were actually transferring, or just finding a way to somewhere else in the station, but damn. 'Twas a lot. Regardless, Brooklyn is the fastest growing borough in the city in terms of employment, and with new industrial/commercial development coming on line in Downtown Brooklyn/Industry City/Brooklyn Army Terminal, I think eventually there'll be a need for more trains via Montague. I'd say extend the  though -- goes to midtown, and doesn't require more merging. 

Now I get it!

That's why T to Dyre Avenue was saying all along that there are a huge amount of people switching from a Broad St-bound / to a Brooklyn-bound or . They also could be changing over for a Brooklyn-bound or Whitehall Street-bound as well.

The / skip-stop service may have to last a bit longer too if possible. Maybe I got too carried away when I stated to put all the R179s on the and instead of having some on the eastern division lines as well. Perhaps they can keep the 50 R42s and some R32s in the east so that the eastern division fleet has enough trains for more overall service.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Jemorie

[Caelestor]

39 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

During the AM Rush, a handle of people on the and from Brooklyn get off at Canal St for Chinatown, leaving some room for some Midtown-bound riders coming off the / to fit onto them; the on the other hand is not only much less frequent than the and but is also already crowded with its own riders going towards its stations between Broadway-Lafayette St and Lex Av-59 St.

But yes, as Around the Horn said, a lot has changed now. More and more people are also going towards Brooklyn on the and lines coming from the / as well, even if it's during off-hours. But still, the Brooklyn-bound Broadway Express trains departing from Canal St have much less people during the off-hours and reverse peak from my experience.

It's rather unfortunate that the Myrtle elevated was replaced by a Crosstown Line that doesn't connect to the , which would be a more direct route than transferring at Canal St.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

On a wholly different note, has adding switches to the exp tracks south of Astoria Boulevard ever been looked at to fluidize Ditmars a bit? Then you could turn trains on the middle track there.

This is actually a novel idea that could significantly benefit the Astoria Line. It appears that Whitehall St can turn 6  tph, and a Astoria Blvd turnback would probably turn the same number of trains. Even with an expected reduction in  tph, all 10  tph can then run Astoria - Coney Island, with no more SAS short-turns. In practice the combined  trains would run more on time and capacity would increase overall.

There are two issues though:

1. Building the switches, which would probably shut down the Astoria Line for an indefinite number of weekends.
2. The  cannot handle SAS alone. Even when the  eventually opens, the  will likely remain the more popular route because it serves the Broadway corridor.

It's still worth considering the Astoria Blvd short-turn, since right now Ditmars Blvd is comparable to Bay Ridge, which itself can only reliably turn 10 tph.

19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I was there using that transfer last night. At 11:30 PM, those stairs were choked with people. I don't know if they were actually transferring, or just finding a way to somewhere else in the station, but damn. 'Twas a lot. Regardless, Brooklyn is the fastest growing borough in the city in terms of employment, and with new industrial/commercial development coming on line in Downtown Brooklyn/Industry City/Brooklyn Army Terminal, I think eventually there'll be a need for more trains via Montague. I'd say extend the though -- goes to midtown, and doesn't require more merging.

Agree that the  should be extended into Brooklyn, as several peak hour  trains already run to and from the Coney Island yard.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Caelestor
More thoughts on SAS / Astoria

[LGA Link N Train]

Here's an idea. Build a yard past Astoria-Ditmars Blvd with provisions to LaGuardia Airport and send trains up there. (This would be under a post SAS timeline) trains will remain the same with trains being the new local in its place. This new local service would run via second Avenue with the . The and frequencies will be adjusted to accommodate this new service. The and under this plan will have a platform between 51st and 53rd Streets as part of the complex that connects the and . The remains unchanged and I'm not sure where to put the under this scenario. Unless it could be a reactivated or something like that. But sag if it were eliminated (again) then anyone wishing to access QB from Broadway and Vice versa then take the to transfer to the

What do you guys think?

[LGA Link N Train]

Accidentally posted more than once. Delete 

Edited January 28, 2018 by LGA Link N train
Accidentally posted more than once without knowing . My Internet sucks and I'm in the middle of nowhere

[LGA Link N Train]

Here's an idea. Build a yard past Astoria-Ditmars Blvd with provisions to LaGuardia Airport and send trains up there. (This would be under a post SAS timeline) trains will remain the same with trains being the new local in its place. This new local service would run via second Avenue with the . The and frequencies will be adjusted to accommodate this new service. The and under this plan will have a platform between 51st and 53rd Streets as part of the complex that connects the and . The remains unchanged and I'm not sure where to put the under this scenario. Unless it could be a reactivated or something like that. But sag if it were eliminated (again) then anyone wishing to access QB from Broadway and Vice versa then take the to transfer to the

What do you guys think?

Edited January 28, 2018 by LGA Link N train
Delete this, sorry. I'm in the middle of nowhere and Internet sucks

[Coney Island Av]

17 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Here's an idea. Build a yard past Astoria-Ditmars Blvd with provisions to LaGuardia Airport and send trains up there. (This would be under a post SAS timeline) trains will remain the same with trains being the new local in its place. This new local service would run via second Avenue with the . The and frequencies will be adjusted to accommodate this new service. The and under this plan will have a platform between 51st and 53rd Streets as part of the complex that connects the and . The remains unchanged and I'm not sure where to put the under this scenario. Unless it could be a reactivated or something like that. But sag if it were eliminated (again) then anyone wishing to access QB from Broadway and Vice versa then take the to transfer to the

What do you guys think?

Excuse me, triple post? 

But a few flaws with this:

1. Converting 51 St to an express stop isn't necessary. It already has connections to the  at Lex-59, plus the  at Grand Central.

2. Where would the  go? And if this is post-SAS, the bypass would've defo began contruction, and send the  via the bypass instead.

3. Having the  be unchanged defeats the purpose of sending the  to Astoria, as Queens-bound trains would have to merge at 34 St. Send it via 63 St to replace  service on QBL. 

4. The  can be kept, and you could have the  serve QB,  2 Av, and  Astoria without interaction between the two. 

5. Don't reduce  service. Both are super packed during the AM rush, and it will only make QB riders' commutes seem like hell. 

And before you say, 63rd will become congested with the  all sharing it, you could swap the  to ease congestion. 

 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[LGA Link N Train]

51 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Excuse me, triple post? 

But a few flaws with this:

1. Converting 51 St to an express stop isn't necessary. It already has connections to the  at Lex-59, plus the  at Grand Central.

2. Where would the  go? And if this is post-SAS, the bypass would've defo began contruction, and send the  via the bypass instead.

3. Having the  be unchanged defeats the purpose of sending the  to Astoria, as Queens-bound trains would have to merge at 34 St. Send it via 63 St to replace  service on QBL. 

4. The  can be kept, and you could have the  serve QB,  2 Av, and  Astoria without interaction between the two.

5. Don't reduce  service. Both are super packed during the AM rush, and it will only make QB riders' commutes seem like hell. 

And before you say, 63rd will become congested with the  all sharing it, you could swap the  to ease congestion. 

 

well blame my Internet connection cause I'm in the middle of nowhere (literally)

Under pre SAS circumstances it is. Don't forget, the and are the most congested lines in the city so converting 51 is necessary to ease some congestion off 42 

The remains unchanged. (Unless you want to swap it with the ) The construction of the Bypass would depend if the really wants to build it under a post SAS timeline. 

say if the LaGuardia extension were built, people are going to want an express service and there's going to be that one person who will complain, that's why I have the and

I never said that I would reduce  and service. Thats crazy (saying this as a QB rider myself) I said that it would be adjusted, not reduced. And yes I know how morning commutes on the and are. I witness it almost every day.

Well, since you bring up the 63 street tunnel, I think that in theory it handles 30 TPH. To have your and all run together, you'd need to increase capacity by 15-20 TPH. That leaves you with a total of 45-50 TPH that 63 needs to handle. And that's not what I'm proposing here

 

[Union Tpke]

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh get a room. You’re doing exactly what you’re criticizing each other for doing — degrading threads with holier-than-thou, nonsensical bickering. 

 

On a wholly different note, has adding switches to the exp tracks south of Astoria Boulevard ever been looked at to fluidize Ditmars a bit? Then you could turn trains on the middle track there. 

I have heard that that was looked at and deemed unfeasible. It would be great though.

[CenSin]

50 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I have heard that that was looked at and deemed unfeasible. It would be great though.

What are the obstacles? It’s on an elevated structure which means there are no walls to punch through or columns to remove. This kind of thing was done on the Flushing Line when the switches were added around 74 Street–Broadway.

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

I have heard that that was looked at and deemed unfeasible. It would be great though.

Are you sure? The only possible thing I could think of is the hogback profile of the line between 30th and Astoria Boulevard, but it isn't like switches on grades aren't a thing... 

Another thought though. There seem to be some maintenance/crew facilities just south of Ditmars, between the platform and the crossovers. How bad would it be to demolish (some or all of) them and put a high speed (D 20 or 25) scissors in their place? What purpose do they serve? Could you think of anywhere they could be moved? 

Or, barring that, could you have the middle start further south at a |Y| merge, and make where it currently starts a high speed X? Again, would increase throughput a good bit. 

[CenSin]

                               /——————————————————\
——————————————————————————————/ ┌────────────────┐ \—————————————————— to Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard ⟶
                    \           └────────────────┘
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— to Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard ⟶
          /                     ┌────────────────┐
——————————————————————————————\ └────────────────┘ /—————————————————— to Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard ⟶
                               \——————————————————/
                                Astoria Boulevard

trains can terminate at Astoria Boulevard. trains can continue to Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard. No fumigation is necessary in this configuration.

Edited January 29, 2018 by CenSin

[RR503]

^^^ what I was thinking. 

If switches before Astoria Boulevard don't work though...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

                                 /                    \        /        |  ------------------------------|

-------------------------------                    X            |  DITMARS                      |

                                        \             /       \         | -------------------------------|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| 

The X would be good for at least 20. You'd have to shut the line for a week or 2 to install it though... 

Edited January 29, 2018 by RR503

[BreeddekalbL]

Since mr byford utilized the shortturn process in toronto to get trains or streetcars and buses back  on schedule can he use it here in nyc?

[RR503]

Almost certainly. The MTA already does short turns during service disruptions, so Byford will probably expand/systematize it, and (hopefully) add gap trains too. 

[kosciusko]

Here's a proposal. Abolish unions. Their labor monopolies cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

[BreeddekalbL]

21 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Here's a proposal. Abolish unions. Their labor monopolies cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

😂👎

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Here's a proposal. Abolish unions. Their labor monopolies cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

Why not go all the way and bring back slavery and save even more? SMH

[Jsunflyguy]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Why not go all the way and bring back slavery and save even more? SMH

I think he has an angle.

[kosciusko]

7 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Why not go all the way and bring back slavery and save even more? SMH

this but unironically.

[RailRunRob]

15 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Here's a proposal. Abolish unions. Their labor monopolies cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

Have you ever worked a job where you were represented by a Union? Or know the history of work labor relationships? Just asking.

[RR503]

There is no intrinsic issue with unions. Indeed, every worker should have the right to organize and bargain with their employer for better treatment. The issue with unions in this context is, well, their context. 

To start, NYC since the age of the Triangle fire has been a solid union town. As a result, there always has been -- and always will be -- a very strong tie between unions and politicians. Not only do unions donate money to campaigns, but they also can profoundly influence how their members vote -- that's a mob mentality for all you sociologists. This power is in no way a bad thing -- if corporations can have a say in elections, their counterparts in labor should too. But in a city like New York, where so so many union jobs are government jobs, there arises a conflict of interest. People aren't voting for who they want to defend them from their boss. They are voting for their boss, and thus have a vested interest in the candidate's policy on civic employment, engendering a 'make work, get votes' culture. 

The second main issue with unions -- now moving more specifically towards the MTA -- is the way contracts are negotiated. Operating contracts -- ones with the TWU for T/Os, C/Rs, etc -- are negotiated directly by the MTA. Yes, there is frequently interference by politicians, but that is a function of my first point more so than it is of this one. Where the MTA runs into issues is where it contracts out construction. Because contractors are expected to supply labor in their contracts, the MTA has little to no bargaining power over labor rates in these contracts, allowing unions to ask for kinda whatever they want -- demands that the contractor will accept, as they can just pass the cost onto the agency. This, of course, is compounded by the dearth of qualified contractors for MTA-type jobs, as by reducing bid competition, the MTA reduces the incentive for contractors to negotiate down their labor rates. 

Finally, there's a larger context in which we have to see the MTA's union woes. Nationwide, unions have been under attack by right wing elements in government for decades. This, added to the fact that the nature of work in the US has changed dramatically in the past thirty or so years (deindustrialization, the rise of technology, outsourcing, etc.), means that unions are feeling suffocated. Their membership has been on the decline, and facing a relatively fixed cost base paired with a decline in dues payments, they are looking for a way to better themselves financially. So, when they are presented with a construction contract on which they know there will be little bargaining, they are all the more likely to add superfluous jobs, as doing so will increase their dues base. Thus, the rest of the country's policy decisions are hurting New York.

None of these issues are easy to fix. Indeed, the first one is all but impossible, given that you'd basically have do decouple voting preferences from self interest.

Solving the second would entail either the separation of bidding on construction labor from the construction contract in general (which would require a massive shake-up of the way construction is done in New York, though this is how it worked 'back in the day'), increased bid competition, or the creation of an internal MTA construction company.

For the third, a full repeal of Taft-Hartly would be necessary. RTW laws exist under a provision of it, and given that we can't reverse economic change (despite what our current president seems to think), that is the only way to even out the burden of economic democracy across all states. 

Sorry for the long post. 

[Bill from Maspeth]

16 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Here's a proposal. Abolish unions. Their labor monopolies cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

NY is a union town.  Do you realize people in non union jobs get similar benefits after unions get them so their employees can stay?

TWU was created because working in the subway was poorly compensated.  The subway and bus system will always be unionized although the Taylor Law gives managements a very big advantage over the union.

[bobtehpanda]

22 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Here's a proposal. Abolish unions. Their labor monopolies cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

 

Where do you think you got emergency exits, the weekend, holidays, child labor laws, the 40-hour workweek, and overtime from?