Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[RailRunRob]

44 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

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

Preach! 🤘

Edited February 2, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Wallyhorse]

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

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. 

No apologies for the post.  This was very informative and a good explanation of the problem the faces in bids for jobs like this.  

The real problem is there is a (fair or not) perception, especially from those old enough to remember that unions abuse power because for years there were unions that took advantage of situations being what they were and there were long strikes in many cases as a result,  This was especially true before Reagan fired PATCO in its entirety in 1981 during an Air Traffic Controllers strike.  Unions have been under attack from right-wing elements for years in no small part because of how some were perceived to abuse power back in the 1970's in particular and in some cases believed to being corrupt (and believed to be under control of unsavory types in some cases).   That has always been a problem, the past abuse of some being used against later generations. 

[Coney Island Av]

Bringing this over from the Culver Express thread:

36 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Anyways. I remember reading one of @vanshnookenraggen's plans on his website and on that proposal, he mentioned having the or running as a rush hour express between Jay street and Church Avenue then peak express from Church Avenue to Kings Highway under a scenario where the and / ran to west end and Brighton with the and replacing service with the being a Shuttle. I felt like this was a good proposal with logical reasoning behind it. 

I feel that this thread should be merged with the proposals thread.

Yes, we should talk about this in the proposals thread but this was his plan:

: BPB to Metropolitan Av

: Norwood-205 St to Broadway Jct

: 168 St to Jamaica Center

: Essex St to Broad St, extended to Jamaica via Fulton Local rush hrs

: Astoria-Ditmars to Euclid 

: Rockaway Park to Brighton Beach (2 Av) or to Coney Island via Culver (6 Av)

: 179 St to Coney Island (6 Av) or to Brighton Beach via West End (2 Av) 

: rerouted to 63 St (part of the /  swap map)

But this is what I think of his proposal:

He thinks that Phase 4 is pointless. Well firstly, Water St is a major office corridor, and there is more prevalent demand to connect it to Fulton than the Bridge. So foregoing Phase 4 is only asking for trouble. The  should go to Fulton, while the  should head over the Bridge.

Now as for rerouting the  to Metropolitan/Bway-Bklyn. This won't be good because everyone in South Brooklyn wants 6 Av, not SAS. The 's ridership will soar through the roof, since it's the only 6 Av service out of Coney Island.  ridership will also be congested. If he was to do it, though I am not advocating for this, it has to EITHER  OR , not both. And a lack of a connection to SAS is a BIG deal as Broadway-Lafayette and 2 Av will become overloaded. The  does fine as-is today. There is no need to have every single train to go to Midtown. 

The  should instead be reserved for South Brooklyn service. And I agree with the  becoming Fulton Exp, but it should go to Lefferts. I also agree with demolishing the segment between Broadway Jct and Cypress Hills.

There is also a lack of stops on the RBB in which the  runs through, defeating the purpose. 

Also, the  route is WAY TOO LONG. That's gonna be one long trip from Rockaway Park to Coney Island/Brighton Beach... 

If he plans to run the  on 6 Av (tho I would prefer 2nd), it should be local on Culver. And the SAS  should run via Bypass to 179 St, local east of 71 Av. 

 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

Despite having to use the segment between Cypress Hills and Broadway Junction. Since I rely on getting off at Norwood Every school day (and the fact that this segment has a high ridership) I agree with you.

[RailRunRob]

49 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Yes, we should talk about this in the proposals thread but this was his plan:

: BPB to Metropolitan Av

: Norwood-205 St to Broadway Jct

: 168 St to Jamaica Center

: Essex St to Broad St, extended to Jamaica via Fulton Local rush hrs

: Astoria-Ditmars to Euclid 

: Rockaway Park to Brighton Beach (2 Av) or to Coney Island via Culver (6 Av)

: 179 St to Coney Island (6 Av) or to Brighton Beach via West End (2 Av) 

: rerouted to 63 St (part of the /  swap map)

 

How are some of these routed?

Ditmars to Euclid how is that possible? 

Norwood to Bway Jct? With a 600ft train?

What context am I missing?

Almost like drawing lines on a map haha..

Edited February 3, 2018 by RailRunRob

[LGA Link N Train]

46 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

How are some of these routed?

Ditmars to Euclid how is that possible? 

Norwood to Bway Jct? With a 600ft train?

What context am I missing?

Almost like drawing lines on a map haha..

Read this

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/category/maps/futurenycsubway/

[RailRunRob]

18 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Read this

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/category/maps/futurenycsubway/

Gotcha! I see what you're talking about.. Thx for the context. I was wondering 

[LGA Link N Train]

46 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Gotcha! I see what you're talking about.. Thx for the context. I was wondering 

You're welcome 

[RR503]

Alright, here's a really out there one -- all reroutings. Basically musings on an a-div restructure

Physical changes: 145/Lenox, 148 closed. Crossover built from express to local tracks east of Rogers Junction. Junction configuration at Burnside avenue rebuilt to match that of Parkchester, but with all crossovers D 20 or higher. 

 -- stays the same 

 -- stays the same

 -- rerouted to Dyre Avenue; 145 and 148 closed. On the south end, rerouted to FABC. 

 -- rerouted to New Lots, replacing the . Runs via local CHUA-Franklin, normal route from there to 149, express 149-Burnside.

 -- rerouted to CHUA, replacing  on EPW express. Normal route to 138, then via Jerome ave local to Burnside. 

 -- same. 

Thoughts? This would get an extra 15 tph into the Bronx, and eliminate most merging at 149 and Rogers. 

 

[Coney Island Av]

38 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Alright, here's a really out there one -- all reroutings. Basically musings on an a-div restructure

Physical changes: 145/Lenox, 148 closed. Crossover built from express to local tracks east of Rogers Junction. Junction configuration at Burnside avenue rebuilt to match that of Parkchester, but with all crossovers D 20 or higher. 

 -- stays the same 

 -- stays the same

 -- rerouted to Dyre Avenue; 145 and 148 closed. On the south end, rerouted to FABC. 

 -- rerouted to New Lots, replacing the . Runs via local CHUA-Franklin, normal route from there to 149, express 149-Burnside.

 -- rerouted to CHUA, replacing  on EPW express. Normal route to 138, then via Jerome ave local to Burnside. 

 -- same. 

Thoughts? This would get an extra 15 tph into the Bronx, and eliminate most merging at 149 and Rogers. 

 

You’re better off just eliminating/rebuilding the bottleneck at Rogers and 149 because, ahem, 149 St and Franklin Av will become overcrowded, making the crowd condition worse. Both the Bronx and Brooklyn won’t have a one seat ride to either side of Manhattan, unlike the current setup which does.

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Alright, here's a really out there one -- all reroutings. Basically musings on an a-div restructure

Physical changes: 145/Lenox, 148 closed. Crossover built from express to local tracks east of Rogers Junction. Junction configuration at Burnside avenue rebuilt to match that of Parkchester, but with all crossovers D 20 or higher. 

 -- stays the same 

 -- stays the same

 -- rerouted to Dyre Avenue; 145 and 148 closed. On the south end, rerouted to FABC. 

 -- rerouted to New Lots, replacing the . Runs via local CHUA-Franklin, normal route from there to 149, express 149-Burnside.

 -- rerouted to CHUA, replacing  on EPW express. Normal route to 138, then via Jerome ave local to Burnside. 

 -- same. 

Thoughts? This would get an extra 15 tph into the Bronx, and eliminate most merging at 149 and Rogers. 

 

Yep, I was thinking the same thing with locking the (2)(3) to Flatbush and (4)(5) to Utica and New Lots.. In fact that almost has to happen with Rogers and streaming lining everything. The  is the biggest violator blocking both the local and express.

Edited February 8, 2018 by RailRunRob

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

You’re better off just eliminating/rebuilding the bottleneck at Rogers and 149 because, ahem, 149 St and Franklin Av will become overcrowded, making the crowd condition worse. Both the Bronx and Brooklyn won’t have a one seat ride to either side of Manhattan, unlike the current setup which does.

I think rebuilding Rogers is a multi-phase endeavor.. Streamlining and locking the Lex to Utica and the 7th down Nostrand is step one and the easiest to implement.  I think step two would be to eliminating the hump on the local track to allow easier flow of Lexington Ave trains onto the Local tracks coming into Nostrand unobstructed. Check Diagram below.  Third would be a full rebuild (Hardest) ...I think Frankin could handle the traffic. Quite a few people switch as it is. Was built as a transfer station.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by RailRunRob

[Caelestor]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Alright, here's a really out there one -- all reroutings. Basically musings on an a-div restructure

Physical changes: 145/Lenox, 148 closed. Crossover built from express to local tracks east of Rogers Junction. Junction configuration at Burnside avenue rebuilt to match that of Parkchester, but with all crossovers D 20 or higher.

-- stays the same

-- stays the same

-- rerouted to Dyre Avenue; 145 and 148 closed. On the south end, rerouted to FABC.

-- rerouted to New Lots, replacing the . Runs via local CHUA-Franklin, normal route from there to 149, express 149-Burnside.

-- rerouted to CHUA, replacing on EPW express. Normal route to 138, then via Jerome ave local to Burnside.

-- same.

Thoughts? This would get an extra 15 tph into the Bronx, and eliminate most merging at 149 and Rogers.

 

The most optimal configuration for the IRT that would fully split the two IRT main lines and prevent delays on one line from interfering with the other. The one element missing is the Nostrand Ave extension to Avenue X to build a proper terminal that could accommodate the .

[Lance]

15 hours ago, RR503 said:

Alright, here's a really out there one -- all reroutings. Basically musings on an a-div restructure

Physical changes: 145/Lenox, 148 closed. Crossover built from express to local tracks east of Rogers Junction. Junction configuration at Burnside avenue rebuilt to match that of Parkchester, but with all crossovers D 20 or higher. 

 -- stays the same 

 -- stays the same

 -- rerouted to Dyre Avenue; 145 and 148 closed. On the south end, rerouted to FABC. 

 -- rerouted to New Lots, replacing the . Runs via local CHUA-Franklin, normal route from there to 149, express 149-Burnside.

 -- rerouted to CHUA, replacing  on EPW express. Normal route to 138, then via Jerome ave local to Burnside. 

 -- same. 

Thoughts? This would get an extra 15 tph into the Bronx, and eliminate most merging at 149 and Rogers. 

That dark and foreboding feeling of everyone trying to kill you with a glare, that's everyone along White Plains Rd and Dyre Ave angrily protesting the loss of all Lexington Ave service in favor of giving Jerome Ave double service.

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Lance said:

That dark and foreboding feeling of everyone trying to kill you with a glare, that's everyone along White Plains Rd and Dyre Ave angrily protesting the loss of all Lexington Ave service in favor of giving Jerome Ave double service.

I'll take the death stare -- I'm increasing Manhattan-Bronx capacity by 33%, and eliminating one of the system's least efficient merges . No pain, no gain! We all have to make sacrifices for larger civic goods from time to time.  

@RailRunRob Yes! I was thinking you'd keep the wasp waist, but add a crossover from local to exp beyond the Nostrand split, allowing whichever Lex service takes over New Lots to merge onto the local tracks beyond the Junction. I like your solution better though. 

[R68OnBroadway]

Just an idea: Would it be worthwhile to reinstate express service on Sea Beach? This would be a peak direction service using the northbound express track, and platforms will be built over the SB exp one. It would essentially function like the current version with stops and 8th and Bay Pkwy with maybe also one at New Utrecht. TPH on this line would be 5 TPH, but I would not create this until CBTC is installed and all express stops are ADA compliant.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[RR503]

35 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Just an idea: Would it be worthwhile to reinstate express service on Sea Beach? This would be a peak direction service using the northbound express track, and platforms will be built over the SB exp one. It would essentially function like the current version with stops and 8th and Bay Pkwy with maybe also one at New Utrecht. TPH on this line would be 5 TPH, but I would not create this until CBTC is installed and all express stops are ADA compliant.

 

Nope. Sea Beach makes 10 stops (including Stillwell) before it reaches 59, and goes express. There is simply no need to further reduce the number of stops on the line, as at that point, you’re hurting more people than you’re helping. 

Also keep in mind that even with CBTC, the merging at Dekalb and 34, and terminal constraints at Ditmars effectively limit tph on the  to about 10-12 tph, so a 5 tph express service would mean 5-7tph local service at relatively high ridership stops — ie long wait times, and crowded trains. 

You know, I love that NYC built its system with express tracks, but it’s important to remember that an asset’s existence doesn’t merit its use. 

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'll take the death stare -- I'm increasing Manhattan-Bronx capacity by 33%, and eliminating one of the system's least efficient merges . No pain, no gain! We all have to make sacrifices for larger civic goods from time to time.  

@RailRunRob Yes! I was thinking you'd keep the wasp waist, but add a crossover from local to exp beyond the Nostrand split, allowing whichever Lex service takes over New Lots to merge onto the local tracks beyond the Junction. I like your solution better though. 

I'll take the death stare too. I don't know whether Jerome needs all the extra service, but the cheapest and simplest way to boost capacity on the subway is to de-interline and detangle junctions that inhibit service increases. This goes for DeKalb, 149th, Rogers, the Broadway Express tracks at 34th, and any others. Complex rebuilding projects of these junctions is just an expensive way to get a few more TPH out of an operational method that is inherently inefficient.

At some point, we should give up the "one-seat-ride from everywhere to everywhere" idea that currently governs subway planning in favor of increasing the frequency and reliability for everyone.

[MTA Rail Fan]

For Some Reason, I feel like that if the MTA Returned the  to Forest Hills, then the Brown  has a chance of returning

1. The  Today basically goes in a almost full clockwise circle which makes no sense

2. People could literally WALK or take the bus to Forest Hills from Metropolitan Avenue

3. If people wanted to get to Midtown, then they could take the Brown  To Essex and take the  to Midtown or  if they felt like it (Idk why people have to be so lazy and complain about transferring since it's like school and home. GET YO LAZY ASS UP AND JUST DO IT FOR f**kS SAKE!)

4. If people couldn't take the Bus, then they could take the  to Myrtle Wyckoff Avenue and transfer for the  and then take it to Lorimer Street for the  where they can take a one seat ride to Queens Blvd

[officiallyliam]

6 minutes ago, MTA Rail Fan said:

For Some Reason, I feel like that if the MTA Returned the  to Forest Hills, then the Brown  has a chance of returning

1. The  Today basically goes in a almost full clockwise circle which makes no sense

2. People could literally WALK or take the bus to Forest Hills from Metropolitan Avenue

3. If people wanted to get to Midtown, then they could take the Brown  To Essex and take the  to Midtown or  if they felt like it (Idk why people have to be so lazy and complain about transferring since it's like school and home. GET YO LAZY ASS UP AND JUST DO IT FOR f**kS SAKE!)

4. If people couldn't take the Bus, then they could take the  to Myrtle Wyckoff Avenue and transfer for the  and then take it to Lorimer Street for the  where they can take a one seat ride to Queens Blvd

As someone who lives off the in Ridgewood and occasionally uses the , I could not think of a worse service plan and and even worse justification. To your points:

1. Yes, astute observation. What exactly is the problem?

2. That's not the point. How many people would use the M to get from Middle Village to Forest Hills via Manhattan when you could walk or take a bus? About as many people as use the A all the way from Far Rockaway to Inwood, or the 2 from Flatbush to Wakefield, or the F from Jamaica to Coney Island. The M isn't there to serve the Middle Village to Forest Hills corridor, clearly.

3. Yeah, I'm aware. I did it before the 6th Avenue M existed, back when hardly anyone rode the Nassau M. Why? Because not nearly as many people want to go to Bowery/Canal/Chambers/Fulton/Broad or on to Brooklyn as want to go uptown. I can tell you that the M via 6th Avenue is immensely popular around here as an alternative to the L. And unless you want even more people's "lazy asses" crowding the narrow stairways at Essex-Delancey, I'd keep the uptown M.

4. Look at that on a map. Same as point 2...why would you do that? If you live near the M, the Q58 can get you to QB faster than going via Williamsburg and LIC.

As for the on Queens Blvd, when will railfans learn? That service was unpopular since day 1. The first major improvement to the QBL post-opening was the 60th Street Connection. Why? Because more people want Manhattan than Crosstown. After that? The 63rd Street Connection later did the same thing - because even more people want to go to Manhattan.

Let's face it. The will be staying orange - it's a hugely successful and popular service, one of Transit's best recent service decisions. The Nassau M was carrying air back and forth to Brooklyn every day. The isn't coming back to 6th Avenue. And the certainly won't be returning to QBL.

Not to mention, you propose this a year before a major and necessary shutdown of the ? Come on.

[MTA Rail Fan]

3 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

As someone who lives off the in Ridgewood and occasionally uses the , I could not think of a worse service plan and and even worse justification. To your points:

1. Yes, astute observation. What exactly is the problem?

2. That's not the point. How many people would use the M to get from Middle Village to Forest Hills via Manhattan when you could walk or take a bus? About as many people as use the A all the way from Far Rockaway to Inwood, or the 2 from Flatbush to Wakefield, or the F from Jamaica to Coney Island. The M isn't there to serve the Middle Village to Forest Hills corridor, clearly.

3. Yeah, I'm aware. I did it before the 6th Avenue M existed, back when hardly anyone rode the Nassau M. Why? Because not nearly as many people want to go to Bowery/Canal/Chambers/Fulton/Broad or on to Brooklyn as want to go uptown. I can tell you that the M via 6th Avenue is immensely popular around here as an alternative to the L. And unless you want even more people's "lazy asses" crowding the narrow stairways at Essex-Delancey, I'd keep the uptown M.

4. Look at that on a map. Same as point 2...why would you do that? If you live near the M, the Q58 can get you to QB faster than going via Williamsburg and LIC.

As for the on Queens Blvd, when will railfans learn? That service was unpopular since day 1. The first major improvement to the QBL post-opening was the 60th Street Connection. Why? Because more people want Manhattan than Crosstown. After that? The 63rd Street Connection later did the same thing - because even more people want to go to Manhattan.

Let's face it. The will be staying orange - it's a hugely successful and popular service, one of Transit's best recent service decisions. The Nassau M was carrying air back and forth to Brooklyn every day. The isn't coming back to 6th Avenue. And the certainly won't be returning to QBL.

Not to mention, you propose this a year before a major and necessary shutdown of the ? Come on.

Well played.. well played sir...

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2018 at 7:51 PM, RR503 said:

Alright, here's a really out there one -- all reroutings. Basically musings on an a-div restructure

Physical changes: 145/Lenox, 148 closed. Crossover built from express to local tracks east of Rogers Junction. Junction configuration at Burnside avenue rebuilt to match that of Parkchester, but with all crossovers D 20 or higher. 

 -- stays the same 

 -- stays the same

 -- rerouted to Dyre Avenue; 145 and 148 closed. On the south end, rerouted to FABC. 

 -- rerouted to New Lots, replacing the . Runs via local CHUA-Franklin, normal route from there to 149, express 149-Burnside.

 -- rerouted to CHUA, replacing  on EPW express. Normal route to 138, then via Jerome ave local to Burnside. 

 -- same. 

Thoughts? This would get an extra 15 tph into the Bronx, and eliminate most merging at 149 and Rogers. 

 

This routing would have both the and running along Jerome Avenue, which I don't think is necessary, as a doesn't currently exist to justify that need. In addition to that, you're going to strain Woodlawn with having the trains terminate there as well. The and use the same equipment; now you're adding R62s from the in the mix if you send those trains to FABC.

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

26 minutes ago, MTA Rail Fan said:

For Some Reason, I feel like that if the MTA Returned the  to Forest Hills, then the Brown  has a chance of returning

1. The  Today basically goes in a almost full clockwise circle which makes no sense

2. People could literally WALK or take the bus to Forest Hills from Metropolitan Avenue

3. If people wanted to get to Midtown, then they could take the Brown  To Essex and take the  to Midtown or  if they felt like it (Idk why people have to be so lazy and complain about transferring since it's like school and home. GET YO LAZY ASS UP AND JUST DO IT FOR f**kS SAKE!)

4. If people couldn't take the Bus, then they could take the  to Myrtle Wyckoff Avenue and transfer for the  and then take it to Lorimer Street for the  where they can take a one seat ride to Queens Blvd

The MTA permanently rerouted the to Forest Hills–71st Avenue because they learned that sending trains to Bay Parkway along the West End Line in Brooklyn from the Nassau Street Line in Manhattan was yielding minimal ridership and revenue. Many passengers prioritize a route that would get them as close to Midtown Manhattan without having to make a transfer(s) over one that would require a transfer, e.g., the discontinued Brown . Additionally, the fact that the has a seemingly circular route is in no way, shape, or form an indicator of it's efficiency.

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

16 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

This routing would have both the and running along Jerome Avenue, which I don't think is necessary, as a doesn't currently exist to justify that need. In addition to that, you're going to strain Woodlawn with having the trains terminate there as well. The and use the same equipment; now you're adding R62s from the in the mix if you send those trains to FABC.

To elaborate further on this point, its going to be a hassle for crews to have to change the rollsigns on those R62s if they need to be used on a trip unexpectedly at the last minute. Furthermore, you're now going to have the redundancy of two lines in the Northeastern section of The Bronx running adjacent to one another, both serving 7th Avenue. This is why current trains travel to and from Eastchester–Dyre Avenue—to provide an alternative to West Side 7th Avenue express service; East Side Lexington Avenue express service.

 

 

[RR503]

1 hour ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

This routing would have both the and running along Jerome Avenue, which I don't think is necessary, as a doesn't currently exist to justify that need. In addition to that, you're going to strain Woodlawn with having the trains terminate there as well. The and use the same equipment; now you're adding R62s from the in the mix if you send those trains to FABC.

You’re not reading my post, I see...

The point of sending the  up Jerome isn’t just to allow the  to go express to Burnside; it’s to get more tph into the Bronx. Moving the  off of WPR gives space for the  to be rerouted from 148 to Dyre, increasing Manhattan-Bx service by about 13 trains per hour while eliminating the excruciatingly slow merge at 149. 

Back to Jerome. Seeing that you’d have 14ish  trains per hour on the local track serving all those stations between Burnside and 149, it only makes sense to let  go express between those points — especially with the junction modifications at Burnside, which would give it the same layout as Parkchester...

...which brings me to my next point. The  would not go to Woodlawn. It would turn at Burnside, much like  locals today at Parkchester. So your point re Woodlawn is moot. 

Since I’ve begun writing this, you’ve posted another post about car assignments/line redundancy. You say:

23 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

To elaborate further on this point, its going to be a hassle for crews to have to change the rollsigns on those R62s if they need to be used on a trip unexpectedly at the last minute. Furthermore, you're now going to have the redundancy of two lines in the Northeastern section of The Bronx running adjacent to one another, both serving 7th Avenue. This is why current trains travel to and from Eastchester–Dyre Avenue—to provide an alternative to West Side 7th Avenue express service; East Side Lexington Avenue express service.

Here are my thoughts: 

Having the  and  interline for much of their routes in no way means they must share fleets. While you’re correct that s become s and s s frequently at FABC, it is only by merit of scheduling that they have to. It takes a stroke of a pen for the MTA to ordain that an inbound  heads back out as one, and that s do the same. Remember also that many of the  metamorphoses are a result of the Rogers Junction congestion issues — something that wouldn’t be an issue under much service plan. 

As for the “what if a  has to become a  qualm,” if there ever is a situation where there is such a disruption in  service that you have to run s as s, well, I’d imagine that you’d have bigger fish to fry than changing rollsigns.

 

Now, as to your “you have 2 seventh avenue services in the NE Bx.“ Well, I hate to say this, but bite me. Providing holistic single line options  to commuters isn’t the purpose of this proposal. It is meant to untangle 149 and Rogers — two of the largest capacity constraints on the IRT — while adding service to the Bronx overall. You can disagree with the theory behind that — that capacity and reliability are more important than variety — but telling me what I’m doing isn’t helpful.

Also, for whatever it’s worth, Dyre and WPR are plenty far enough apart to cater to different constituencies — if they weren’t the MTA would have killed one of them long ago. I would never call the two redundant.