Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Caelestor]

Capacity is determined by frequency, and frequency is determined by a combination of

1. minimum train headways
2. dwell time
3. service gaps, i.e. delays

The first is reduced by new CBTC signaling. De-interlining / removing reverse branching can increase dwell time because of increased transfers but in practice significantly reduces the need for time of recovery by eliminating merge chokepoints in the middle of the line. In practice, the subway has multiple cross-platform transfers at 2-platform stops that reduce the effective time penalty to 0, which greatly improves the effectiveness of completely separating local from express tracks. The IRT lines are a good example of how to segregate the local and express services on a 4-track line.

Given the current system, here's how to de-interline the B Division trunk lines, from easiest to hardest:

• 6 Ave: The local and express services are separated from each other. We'll revisit the line later when talking about QBL.
• Broadway: Send all  express trains up SAS and add additional  local trains.
• Southern Brooklyn lines, i.e. Dekalb Ave: The  runs down Brighton because of the part-time express service. The  stays on Sea Beach and the  runs down West End. This is operationally easy to do, but somebody is going to object.
• 8 Ave / CPW: The  need to run on its own pair of tracks, as well as the .
  • The  will run express with the  south of 59 St, allowing the  to be unimpeded on the local tracks south of 50 St. I recommend that at the upper level of 50 St, the local tracks be permanently closed and the platforms be extended to meet the express tracks in order to restore the 8 Ave service there. By having all trains stop at 50 St, there may also be less crowding at 42 St - PABT and 59 St - Columbus Circle.
  • Given current track configurations, the  will then run express on CPW and  will run local. As the Concourse Line has higher ridership, the  would run into the Bronx and the  rerouted to Inwood. A track connection from the express tracks to the local tracks north of 50 St can be built to put the  on the CPW local tracks instead. In any case, the CPW express tracks should service the busier Concourse and 6 Ave lines.
  • Columbus Circle will become a major transfer point, but the station should be big enough to handle the crowds.
  • WTC  is not reconstructed due to low operational benefits.
• Queens Blvd: Currently, there's no other way but to have half the trains run via 63 St and the other half run via 53 St / 60 St. The Rockefeller Center - 5 Ave connection must also be deactivated from regular service no matter what happens.
  • Express trains run via 63 St: all 6 Ave and Broadway riders benefit at significant cost to the 53 St, 8 Ave, and Lex Ave riders. Maybe politically feasible if a passageway between 59 St / Lex Ave and 63 St is built. As a side effect, there may be enough 6 Ave local service to support an  train through Park Slope, assuming the  doesn't get the extra capacity.
  • Alternatively, the  run express via 53 St and the  run via 60 St / 63 St. This configuration was rejected by the MTA back in 2001 because Lex Ave - 53 St becomes overcrowded and the isn't a full-time service.
  • I think the downsides of de-interlining QBL currently exceed the benefits.

So even without fixing QBL, service on the other 4 trunk lines can be improved so that the , , and  (before the  arrives) can run on their own trackage with minimal construction. This leaves the  mess in Queens, but in the future that can be untangled as well with two simultaneous improvements:

• 60 St Connection: Once more capacity is added to the Astoria Line, all  trains can run to Astoria.
• SAS - 63 St connection built, new  service along the lower SAS.
  •  Express trains run via 63 St,  local trains via 53 St
  • 2 Ave riders benefit at significant cost to the 8 Ave and Lex Ave riders, though a connection between 59 St / Lex Ave and 63 St should be built to ameliorate the situation. 53 St riders still have a connection at 55 St SAS.

Finally, the and  are treated as low-priority reverse branches to keep the   running smoothly.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Caelestor

[Jemorie]

10 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

I would rather have the  to 207,  to 168,  to Bedford, and  to 205 St, but I am not advocating for this. Leave the  alone.

The  is meant to specifically be a short-turn  so that the full  can speed up. Why does it need to go all the way to and from Bedford Park Blvd for anyway? The shops at 207th Street Yard cannot handle more than 480' feet long trains. Either way, the  would be 480' feet long if it is based out of 207th Street Yard in general if it goes to 168 St instead of Bedford Park Blvd. And besides, it's not like the  is maintained at Concourse Yard or any other northernmost yard anyway. So swapping the  and  terminals is pointless and hardly justifiable. As we both know, like how the  and  are both respectively based out of separate yards, the  and  are also both respectively based out of separate yards. Concourse Yard is only meant for the  only; other lines' cars are just stored there, that's it.

7 hours ago, P3F said:

Sometimes I'm glad that most of the people proposing things here don't work for the . It's amazing how many people hate the idea of convenience.

Why don't y'all move to Toronto? Their subway is doing excellently without that pesky interlining.

Because like Trainmaster5 said, more frequent service comes first and everything else comes second. That's the logical with most rail buffs.

5 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

After reading some of the proposals I have to question whether or not customer preference is even considered at all.  The Bronx White Plains Road and Dyre service patterns exist because of customer preference.  The and lines swapped terminals because the Dyre line ridership wanted Lexington service overwhelming and not 7th Avenue service. The upper WPR service was strictly East Side service via Lexington or Third Avenue originally. 7th Avenue service started at the old Bronx Park station and later ran out of the Dyre line after the connection was built at East 180th Street. On the Brooklyn end of the line Flatbush Ave and New Lots swapped late night primary terminals for flexibility and customer preference. I'm sure that there are posters out here who actually remember the uproar after the Chrystie connection when the Broadway service was removed from the Brighton line and 6th Avenue service replaced it. It just seems to me that in this quest to streamline service the customer isn't taken into consideration. Two Lexington services on the Woodlawn line and two 7th Avenue services out of Flatbush.  That's really going to be in the rider's wish list? While the theory may make sense to some extent  in some cases I'm betting that NO ONE from Operations and Planning would come out to the communities affected and propose this in a public forum. I recall a proposal where the would replace the as the Bronx express.  Operationally it would speed trains through the East 180th Street area.  The communities who would be most affected told the to  stick the proposal where the sun don't shine.The theoretical may make sense but the customer must be satisfied first and foremost.  Just my opinion. Your opinion is worth as much as mine.  Carry on. 

Thank you. Running more frequent service isn't necessarily the answer to every transit system in the world in general. Every branch needs a direct one-seat ride without the need to transfer. In other words, time, like money, adds up.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Jemorie

[Coney Island Av]

Exactly @Trainmaster5, I mean Brighton Local riders prefer access to Broadway over 6th. That is why we have the  express and  local. If only the  went to Brighton, and  to 4th Av, you will have a lot of uproar from Brighton line residents. And if the  went to WPR and  to Woodlawn, a lot of people will be inconvenienced, especially Dyre which prefers Lexington over 7th. 

And let's say we completely reversed service patterns north of 145, where all 6th Av service goes to 168/207, and 8th to BPB/205. Again, riders will crowd 125 St like a madhouse. I'm sure if you asked residents of Inwood/Wash Hts, that you want to take the  away, I'm sure they would disagree as they have been having  service for many years, and commute to the areas in which the  serve. 

And @Jemorie, I said I am not advocating for swapping the  northern terminus. It's more of a would-you-rather situation, than advocating. 

So yes, as @Trainmaster5 said, we should treat customer preference over operations. Besides, most of these merges from quite a few proposals, aren't even that major. And customers do not care and will never care about reliability/capacity. They only care about the service they are receiving. I've ridden through 59 St a million times before, and I can personally tell you, the merge between the  isn't that major, and doesn't really delay trains. And FYI, Columbus Circle is a major transfer spot. You're gonna have severe platform congestion, with people  transferring and the current ridership levels. It just worsens a disaster IMO. And 53rd Street has to have express service because it is the more popular corridor. If all expresses went to 63rd,  ridership will drop significantly and  ridership will soar though the roof. But the  merge at Queens Plaza, again, isn't really that severe. I do agree that the Hoyt merge is severe, and it can be fixed with the , but the Canal St merge IDK. 

And with the current configuration, for example the  and  sharing tracks, you're getting the same amount of TPH anyways, so why even bother?

The only thing I do agree with is fixing up Broadway, by having the  not merge at all, because the 60 Street tubes are congested, though this would require a new yard on ConEd territory, along with an extension to LGA.  And I do agree with fixing up Dekalb, but this isn't the best solution. You cannot send the  up SAS with the . The  should instead be sent to QBL via 63rd to replace the , which would be rerouted to LGA/Astoria. 

These types of proposals should only be looked at if:

1) would customers prefer it that way

2)if the merges are really severe to justify this

3) whether this would cause massive congestion or a drop in crowding

4) the outrage that will spark if this is proposed

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RR503]

My thoughts on this:

I agree that some proposals here have gone a bit far. That said, I don't think they're wrong in the way that Jermorie, P3F, and TM5 have been trying to paint them. 

New York is in a bit of a bind. Our ridiculous construction costs stymie any serious attempts to add system capacity, and therefore we have to handle generally increasing ridership and population with our existing infrastructure. This is where deinterlining is helpful. Trying to give "everyone a one seat ride to wherever they're going" not only kills reliability and capacity with the requisite merges, but also significantly increases platform crowding as people wait for their preferred service to arrive. Limiting the amount of merging, limiting the number of services per track, and sending these relatively uniform services to the same trunks delivers predictability and reliability at little to no cost to the MTA. 

Now, on the other hand, as I said earlier, the system isn't exactly cut out for service uniformity in this way. While the FABC/New Lots swap adds at most a cross-platform transfer for the gain of significant junction capacity at Rogers, deinterlining Dekalb, say, severely limits route flexibility for many SBK riders, as 4th Express/6th express transfers would be effectively ended.

Basically, I think we need to find a balance. TM5 I think inadvertently presented the problem perfectly his post -- the MTA, being a political tool, is too ready to give riders whatever they want even if it does harm system performance. The agency needs to respond to demand -- of course -- but it also needs to remember that it's running a railroad for all New Yorkers, not a ride hail service for a few. It is incontrovertible that greater service pattern variety leads to decreased throughput, and increased vulnerability to cascading delays, so despite the painful walks across those ever so wide platforms some of these may cause, some may need to be done. And again, let me stress that I don't believe in a total war on interlining -- I just think dismissing anti-interlining initiatives as foameric flights of fancy is wrong too.  

Jumping into the specifics for a sec. There has been lots of puchback to 7th to Dyre. I get it. They want Lex. But frankly, seeing this change solely in terms of route flexibility on Dyre is a tad ignorant -- and emblematic of the hyperlocalized thinking that pervades planning in this day and age. The change isn't about just Dyre. It's about increasing and fluidizing subway capacity into and out of the Bronx. Yes, Dyre would suffer, but the Bronx as a whole would see an additional 15 or so trains per hour into it in the form of  service, taking some load off of the system's latest line (the ), and eliminating a notoriously slow merge on its most crowded -- the Lex. We've gotta remember that planning decisions like these have regional contexts, not just local ones. I'll be up front here -- this plan was just a jet lagged musing from Dubai, and I haven't done the necessary research to paint the capacity gains, commute time impacts, etc statistically -- but I still think that whether or not this particular service pattern is implemented, the theory behind it -- that some loss of flexibility needs to be accepted go to capacity's and reliability's sake in this day and age -- is sound. 

In succumbing to my crushing jet lag, and signing off, let me repeat one word: nuance, nucance, nucance.

One size doesn't and never will fit all for the New York subway, and we have to plan with that always in mind. Capacity and reliability are sorely needed, and some level of deinterlining can bring that. But just as we must remember that the subway isn't Uber, we must also remember that it isn't not aerobics class. Where easy, cross platform or down-the-steps transfers exist, deinterlining can -- in some in instances -- be implemented without causing too much unnecessary exercise. But if the transfer is one of those "up, down, turn around" types, then nah. You'll lose any gain in reliability or frequency with all the stair climbing and passageway herding. This balance is frankly arbitrary, and bloody hard to pin down, but I think again that in this age of nosediving reliability and generally increasing ridership, it's once that must be sought. 

Sorry for the long post. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

10 hours ago, P3F said:

Sometimes I'm glad that most of the people proposing things here don't work for the . It's amazing how many people hate the idea of convenience.

Why don't y'all move to Toronto? Their subway is doing excellently without that pesky interlining.

LOL. That's cause they had Bryford.

5 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Capacity is determined by frequency, and frequency is determined by a combination of

1. minimum train headways
2. dwell time
3. service gaps, i.e. delays

The first is reduced by new CBTC signaling. De-interlining / removing reverse branching can increase dwell time because of increased transfers but in practice significantly reduces the need for time of recovery by eliminating merge chokepoints in the middle of the line. In practice, the subway has multiple cross-platform transfers at 2-platform stops that reduce the effective time penalty to 0, which greatly improves the effectiveness of completely separating local from express tracks. The IRT lines are a good example of how to segregate the local and express services on a 4-track line.

Given the current system, here's how to de-interline the B Division trunk lines, from easiest to hardest:

• 6 Ave: The local and express services are separated from each other. We'll revisit the line later when talking about QBL.
• Broadway: Send all  express trains up SAS and add additional  local trains.
• Southern Brooklyn lines, i.e. Dekalb Ave: The  runs down Brighton because of the part-time express service. The  stays on Sea Beach and the  runs down West End. This is operationally easy to do, but somebody is going to object.
• 8 Ave / CPW: The  need to run on its own pair of tracks, as well as the .
  • The  will run express with the  south of 59 St, allowing the  to be unimpeded on the local tracks south of 50 St. I recommend that at the upper level of 50 St, the local tracks be permanently closed and the platforms be extended to meet the express tracks in order to restore the 8 Ave service there. By having all trains stop at 50 St, there may also be less crowding at 42 St - PABT and 59 St - Columbus Circle.
  • Given current track configurations, the  will then run express on CPW and  will run local. As the Concourse Line has higher ridership, the  would run into the Bronx and the  rerouted to Inwood. A track connection from the express tracks to the local tracks north of 50 St can be built to put the  on the CPW local tracks instead. In any case, the CPW express tracks should service the busier Concourse and 6 Ave lines.
  • Columbus Circle will become a major transfer point, but the station should be big enough to handle the crowds.
  • WTC  is not reconstructed due to low operational benefits.
• Queens Blvd: Currently, there's no other way but to have half the trains run via 63 St and the other half run via 53 St / 60 St. The Rockefeller Center - 5 Ave connection must also be deactivated from regular service no matter what happens.
  • Express trains run via 63 St: all 6 Ave and Broadway riders benefit at significant cost to the 53 St, 8 Ave, and Lex Ave riders. Maybe politically feasible if a passageway between 59 St / Lex Ave and 63 St is built. As a side effect, there may be enough 6 Ave local service to support an  train through Park Slope, assuming the  doesn't get the extra capacity.
  • Alternatively, the  run express via 53 St and the  run via 60 St / 63 St. This configuration was rejected by the MTA back in 2001 because Lex Ave - 53 St becomes overcrowded and the isn't a full-time service.
  • I think the downsides of de-interlining QBL currently exceed the benefits.

So even without fixing QBL, service on the other 4 trunk lines can be improved so that the , , and  (before the  arrives) can run on their own trackage with minimal construction. This leaves the  mess in Queens, but in the future that can be untangled as well with two simultaneous improvements:

• 60 St Connection: Once more capacity is added to the Astoria Line, all  trains can run to Astoria.
• SAS - 63 St connection built, new  service along the lower SAS.
  •  Express trains run via 63 St,  local trains via 53 St
  • 2 Ave riders benefit at significant cost to the 8 Ave and Lex Ave riders, though a connection between 59 St / Lex Ave and 63 St should be built to ameliorate the situation. 53 St riders still have a connection at 55 St SAS.

Finally, the and  are treated as low-priority reverse branches to keep the   running smoothly.

I actually have to agree with this. I do think that  (as a QBL rider) Queens Blvd should be fixed up. As well as Hoyt. The Southern Division starting with Dekalb (and by that I mean 4 Av and Brighton.) 8 Av could also use some fixing. For 207 yard as someone mentioned earlier, is there a way to expand it so it can handle 600' trains or is that not feasible? Broadway DEFINITELY needs fixing and anyone proposing the up SAS, the signals up there in my opinion should be built to handle 3 services on one track. However, local trains would be VERY unpopular with riders. So as an train rider, leave it alone. And let's make the a full time service or put a late night shuttle or have the via 63 on weekends.

[Coney Island Av]

These are my solutions to this merging, extra capacity stuff.

Instead of eliminating  service on WPR, why don't we instead rebuild the Rogers and 149 St junctions? This will give the Bronx a really balanced service, which will make things more convenient. 

The 149 St junction should be rebuilt in a configuration that allows the  to merge between 149-GC and 3 Av-149 St. 145 St will be expanded to a 10-car station, and the  will both stop there. A connection to the Jerome Av line will be built to allow  trains to supplement the . One benefit of this proposal is that the 's TPH could be increased and can cruise into 138 St instead of a slow crawl. 

Meanwhile, the Rogers Junction should be rebuilt to have flying junctions, in order to avoid the chokepoint caused by  trains merging with both the . 

And FYI, the  aren't based out of the same yard. It's best to keep current configurations on Brighton/4 Av as-is, in order to comply with customer preference.

It should be:

: Wakefield-241 St to Flatbush 

: Bedford Park Blvd to New Lots 

: Woodlawn to New Lots 

: Dyre Av to Flatbush 

As for Dekalb, it should be rebuilt with smooth connections instead of a mess of tracks and switches, This will speed up service, and add more capacity. 

: to Brighton Beach 

: to Coney Island via West End

: to Coney Island via Sea Beach

: to Coney Island via Brighton

: to Bay Ridge-95 St 

: to Bay Pkwy via West End

QBL:

: Express to eastern Jamaica

: Locals to 71 Av and the LIE

: via Bypass, local east of 71 Av

Untangling Broadway would involve this:

: to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63 St

: to Broadway-125 St via SAS

: to Astoria/LGA 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

New York is in a bit of a bind. Our ridiculous construction costs stymie any serious attempts to add system capacity, and therefore we have to handle generally increasing ridership and population with our existing infrastructure. This is where deinterlining is helpful. Trying to give "everyone a one seat ride to wherever they're going" not only kills reliability and capacity with the requisite merges, but also significantly increases platform crowding as people wait for their preferred service to arrive. Limiting the amount of merging, limiting the number of services per track, and sending these relatively uniform services to the same trunks delivers predictability and reliability at little to no cost to the MTA.

I think this part  is the most important. The ridership will grow as development booms and the population goes up with it. There are three possibilities going forward:

1. Construction costs are never reined in. The MTA cannot build additional capacity. Therefore, the MTA must de-interline and or implement CBTC as much as needed to raise capacity.
2. Construction costs are reined in. The MTA builds more capacity to accommodate higher ridership. Rider preferences are still weighed as heavily to the loss of operational efficiency.
3. The subway stays the same or drops. Autonomous cars and buses running on “smart roads” take over on the surface, bringing unprecedented convenience and commuting efficiency. Vehicles go to the doorsteps of exactly where they need to go and when to go. Passengers can avoid the deep stations that are epidemic to new subway construction.

[Jemorie]

My bad Coney Island Av.

[Trainmaster5]

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. 

 

Suppose you resided in the Bronx east of Jerome Avenue and you wanted Lexington express service ?  Suppose you wanted any Lexington service ? Either I have an additional transfer or I find another means of transport altogether  ? Just asking. 

[RailRunRob]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

The subway stays the same or drops. Autonomous cars and buses running on “smart roads” take over on the surface, bringing unprecedented convenience and commuting efficiency. Vehicles go to the doorsteps of exactly where they need to go and when to go. Passengers can avoid the deep stations that are epidemic to new subway construction.

Yep...  I could defiantly see this happening it's already happening with Trucking (Convoying) By the time the Subway get's it all together automation itself may replace some to the need for building new underground mileage.. Just build out an automated busway and connect or convoy a few 60-70 foot buses.  Growth has to happen. The worlds going to move forward technology applied correctly could solve and balance some of these issues. 15-20 years to rollout B division countdown clocks?  $20 beacons, a Bluetooth revision, and some HDMI cables solved that quick.. Find a way around can't allow a few to chokehold a region. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by RailRunRob

[RailRunRob]

53 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Suppose you resided in the Bronx east of Jerome Avenue and you wanted Lexington express service ?  Suppose you wanted any Lexington service ? Either I have an additional transfer or I find another means of transport altogether  ? Just asking. 

I get both points here. This isn't the system of the 20th century it's maxed and still needs to produce more or at the very least retain. So do you stay put and allow the delays to kill the system off slowly? You can't out build the issue at the current pace and backup/funding is years away. Or do you optimize,ration and squeeze a train or two or maybe you cut delays 20%.. I might take a transfer as long as the trains are moving and flow is better. I guess the question is deciding where that line in the sand is exactly? Is that based on OTP stats below a certain point I don't have the answer to that. I don't have the knowledge in the RTO operations. But I do know that stagnancy and just maintaining isn't an option.  Is this the best option may be not but at least it's an option and time is not of abundance. 

Edited February 11, 2018 by RailRunRob

[bobtehpanda]

I am not actually a big fan of restructuring the IRT, because the express lines generally only interfere with each other.

That being said, you could do a much more limited restructure as follows:

to the Astoria Line.

CPW/8th express to Concourse.

to 168 St and 207 respectively via CPW local.

This basically segregates the B-Division into two separate networks where delays don't cascade, and boosts TPH going into Astoria:

Network 1 - IND -

Network 2 - BMT -  

 

The massive restructuring I proposed earlier also only really works with the subway we currently have; once Phase III is built you'd have to bin it in the trash to fit trains from SAS somewhere, since SAS has poor transfers with the rest of the system.

Edited February 11, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[officiallyliam]

7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Instead of eliminating  service on WPR, why don't we instead rebuild the Rogers and 149 St junctions? This will give the Bronx a really balanced service, which will make things more convenient.

So de-interlining, a purely operational solution that will cost next to nothing, is off the table because of its political in-feasibility and the uproar that it would cause.

But shutting down some of the busiest lines in the subway for long periods and tearing up Eastern Parkway and/or 149th St, and likely spending billions of dollars doing so, is the logical solution. Something here isn't adding up for me.

[Coney Island Av]

I'mma make this point one more time because ya'll seem to ignore me. I will take your points, and also @Lance's, @Trainmaster5's @Jemorie's, and my points into account.

The whole point of fixing these interlockings (149 St, Rogers, and more) is to BOTH provide additional service, and faster service, WITHOUT ANTAGONIZING THE PEOPLE LIVING OFF OF (let's say, Dyre), by taking the  train away. Yes, this is a thousand times more expensive, but at least it satisfies everyone without any harm! 

This to me (aka all proposals claiming we should treat customer preference like it's moot) is just like saying we should permanently reroute the  back to Nassau to avoid merging with the , so the 's TPH could be increased to INFINITY. 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[bobtehpanda]

15 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

I'mma make this point one more time because ya'll seem to ignore me. I will take your points, and also @Lance's, @Trainmaster5's @Jemorie's, and my points into account.

The whole point of fixing these interlockings (149 St, Rogers, and more) is to BOTH provide additional service, and faster service, WITHOUT ANTAGONIZING THE PEOPLE LIVING OFF OF (let's say, Dyre), by taking the  train away. Yes, this is a thousand times more expensive, but at least it satisfies everyone without any harm! 

This to me is just like saying we should permanently reroute the  back to Nassau to avoid merging with the , so the 's TPH could be increased to INFINITY. 

Emphasizing your point in bold doesn't make your point a better point. We see your point, we just don't think it's correct, and at the very least it's misguided; you're missing the forest for the trees.

In a perfect world, we'd rebuild all the junctions to be flying junctions. That being said, converting those to flying junctions would easily be months of disruption and a billion dollars a pop. Between the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, modernizing the airports, Gateway, and PABT replacement, where is all this money supposed to come from? Tolls and fares are higher than they've ever been, every level of government is sagging under the weight of interest payments and is not in a mood to spend. Junction replacements will be useful in 2040 by the time we can pay the bills and they're done, but what are we supposed to do till then? Sit on our hands and cry about the lack of service?

I'd also like to bring up the point that grade separation does nothing to fix reliability; even when the subways were doing relatively well, delays on the would knockback onto the  , which would then knockback onto the     , which would then affect the   , basically taking down the entire B-Division except for the  . You will almost never get to 90%+ reliability running the current service patterns with current ridership. It's just not going to happen.

Edited February 12, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[officiallyliam]

44 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

This to me (aka all proposals claiming we should treat customer preference like it's moot) is just like saying we should permanently reroute the  back to Nassau to avoid merging with the , so the 's TPH could be increased to INFINITY. 

This makes no sense in the first place. Secondly, I (and others who propose various degrees of de-interlining) are not doing this with a blatant disregard for customer preference. I (and I think others, feel free to correct me) simply believe that customer preference leans further towards having more frequent and more reliable service across the board than having a plethora of one-seat ride options.

25 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'd also like to bring up the point that grade separation does nothing to fix reliability; even when the subways were doing relatively well, delays on the would knockback onto the  , which would then knockback onto the     , which would then affect the   , basically taking down the entire B-Division except for the  . You will almost never get to 90%+ reliability running the current service patterns with current ridership. It's just not going to happen.

Exactly. There's a reason that the , the , the , the , and shuttle lines are regularly cited as the most frequent and most reliable: they run independently, unaffected by track-sharing with other routes and the resulting knock-on delays. Isn't this a model that we should be following? The way we run most of our service is inefficient and hampers frequency, and a big part of that is all the merging and reverse-branching that's going on.

London is squeezing 23+ tph out of legacy lines; the CBTC- and ATO-equipped Central and Victoria lines run upwards of 33 peak TPH. There's little saying we couldn't do the same on the East Side and the West Side IRT if the and were run as independent lines. Ditto for Concourse, CPW, 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, Brighton, and Fourth Avenue by disentangling their respective junctions. Rebuilding junctions won't deliver this potential massive increase in capacity that we clearly need.

[P3F]

19 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I (and others who propose various degrees of de-interlining) are not doing this with a blatant disregard for customer preference. I (and I think others, feel free to correct me) simply believe that customer preference leans further towards having more frequent and more reliable service across the board than having a plethora of one-seat ride options.

Sending the  to Chambers Street would remove its merge with the  and maybe allow for both lines to be more reliable as a result. Now why don't you go see how many  riders want their train to be rerouted to Lower Manhattan so they can transfer at Delancey instead of having their train run directly to Midtown?

Edited February 12, 2018 by P3F

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Emphasizing your point in bold doesn't make your point a better point. We see your point, we just don't think it's correct, and at the very least it's misguided; you're missing the forest for the trees.

In a perfect world, we'd rebuild all the junctions to be flying junctions. That being said, converting those to flying junctions would easily be months of disruption and a billion dollars a pop. Between the Second Avenue Subway, East Side Access, modernizing the airports, Gateway, and PABT replacement, where is all this money supposed to come from? Tolls and fares are higher than they've ever been, every level of government is sagging under the weight of interest payments and is not in a mood to spend. Junction replacements will be useful in 2040 by the time we can pay the bills and they're done, but what are we supposed to do till then? Sit on our hands and cry about the lack of service?

I'd also like to bring up the point that grade separation does nothing to fix reliability; even when the subways were doing relatively well, delays on the would knockback onto the  , which would then knockback onto the     , which would then affect the   , basically taking down the entire B-Division except for the  . You will almost never get to 90%+ reliability running the current service patterns with current ridership. It's just not going to happen.

As much as I hate to admit this...but you could never be more right about your #3 point. That's dead true. 

[bobtehpanda]

14 minutes ago, P3F said:

Sending the  to Chambers Street would remove its merge with the  and maybe allow for both lines to be more reliable as a result. Now why don't you go see how many  riders want their train to be rerouted to Lower Manhattan so they can transfer at Delancey instead of having their train run directly to Midtown?

Is anyone talking about de-interlining the ? The don't get all that affected by merging changes, not in the same way that the or the or the or the do. 

But two can play at having illogical arguments: for the sake of "customer convenience", why don't we have half the Sea Beach trains go to 6th Av and half the West End trains go to Broadway? Why don't half the Dyre trains go to 7th Av? Why don't we run trains between every two possible pairs of points that the track system allows? The answer is because it complicates things operationally.

The way some of you guys talk about de-interlining you would think we're making Sophie's choice over here.

Edited February 12, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[P3F]

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

The way some of you guys talk about de-interlining you would think we're making Sophie's choice over here.

Sophie's choice? Nah, man. You're the one under the illusion that the current setup is unbearable and cannot be modified to fit needs as ridership fluctuates. 

[Coney Island Av]

The , , , and  are the best because they don't have to merge at all. But there are many instances, where trains have to merge. 

I get where you are coming from, segregating lines will boost capacity. But with the customer outrage alone, will make this never see the light of day. Only a few merges are severe, and most aren't even major at all. But you have to accept the fact that the current setup is in place because they like it that way. If there is heavy demand for Lexington service, it means they prefer it. This demand is also why extensions such as SAS and East Side Access are built: the people like/want it that way. And extensions that don't get built, such as an extension of the  to Queens, never get built because people don't want it. I'm pretty sure the benefits of your proposals are completely negated by the downsides. The only reason why 6 Av was on the Brighton line with the  was because it was only temporary. I'm sure if this was permanent with the  to Brighton, people will riot. Similarly, 4 Av had only service to Broadway and Nassau St, which were only the  pre-2001. Again, it was temporary and people were promised to get their service back once the tubes reopened. Why were the  swapping northern terminals? It's because the people like it that way. And this is a question for ppl who foam over sending the  back to Nassau/4 Av. Yes, the  gets more TPH and eliminates merging, but will the customers prefer it that way? No. Just because certain lines have a certain pattern does not mean we should do the same for all lines having the same pattern. Merging is there because of ridership, not because it's atrocious and wants to ruin your day. But now let's get to one of your proposals I partially agree with: de-interlining Broadway. I agree because of the sheer congestion that floods the 60 Street Tube, which is something riders probably won't like at all. Therefore, if there is a solution that satisfies ridership, then let's do it. 

I do agree with @bobtehpanda's point of not maintaining current patterns for the next millennia, however that's only for severe instances in the case of merging, like 149 St, Dekalb, Myrtle, and Rogers, but not minor merges like 59 St-Columbus Circle, and 145 St. Let's only make a big deal out of severe issues, not a turd issue that doesn't cause delays. 

 

Edited February 12, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[Union Tpke]

Just now, Coney Island Av said:

The , , , and  are the best because they don't have to merge at all. But there are many instances, where trains have to merge. 

I get where you are coming from, segregating lines will boost capacity. But with the customer outrage alone, will make this never see the light of day. Only a few merges are severe, and most aren't even major at all. But you have to accept the fact that the current setup is in place because they like it that way.

If there is heavy demand for Lexington service, it means they prefer it. This demand is also why extensions such as SAS and East Side Access are built: the people like/want it that way. And extensions that don't get built, such as an extension of the  to Queens, never get built because people don't want it. I'm pretty sure the benefits of your proposals are completely negated by the downsides. The only reason why 6 Av was on the Brighton line with the  was because it was only temporary. I'm sure if this was permanent with the  to Brighton, people will riot. Similarly, 4 Av had only service to Broadway and Nassau St, which were only the  pre-2001. Again, it was temporary and people were promised to get their service back once the tubes reopened. Why were the  swapping northern terminals? It's because the people like it that way. And this is a question for ppl who foam over sending the  back to Nassau/4 Av. Yes, the  gets more TPH and eliminates merging, but will the customers prefer it that way? No. Just because certain lines have a certain pattern does not mean we should do the same for all lines having the same pattern. Merging is there because of ridership, not because it's atrocious and wants to ruin your day. But now let's get to one of your proposals I partially agree with: de-interlining Broadway. I agree because of the sheer congestion that floods the 60 Street Tube, which is something riders probably won't like at all. Therefore, if there is a solution that satisfies ridership, then let's do it. 

I do agree with @bobtehpanda's point of not maintaining current patterns for the next millennia, however that's only for severe instances in the case of merging, like 149 St, Dekalb, Myrtle, and Rogers, but not minor merges like 59 St-Columbus Circle, and 145 St. 

Try all you want, I will never agree with this at all! 

Do you think that riders know about this relatively simple way to reduce delays, increase service, and improve reliability? I am sure they would be willing to support this if they get to work on time.

[P3F]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

Do you think that riders know about this relatively simple way to reduce delays, increase service, and improve reliability? I am sure they would be willing to support this if they get to work on time.

It wouldn't even increase service in all cases... Terminal capacity is limited, y'know.

[Jemorie]

6 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

The , , , and  are the best because they don't have to merge at all. But there are many instances, where trains have to merge. 

I get where you are coming from, segregating lines will boost capacity. But with the customer outrage alone, will make this never see the light of day. Only a few merges are severe, and most aren't even major at all. But you have to accept the fact that the current setup is in place because they like it that way. If there is heavy demand for Lexington service, it means they prefer it. This demand is also why extensions such as SAS and East Side Access are built: the people like/want it that way. And extensions that don't get built, such as an extension of the  to Queens, never get built because people don't want it. I'm pretty sure the benefits of your proposals are completely negated by the downsides. The only reason why 6 Av was on the Brighton line with the  was because it was only temporary. I'm sure if this was permanent with the  to Brighton, people will riot. Similarly, 4 Av had only service to Broadway and Nassau St, which were only the  pre-2001. Again, it was temporary and people were promised to get their service back once the tubes reopened. Why were the  swapping northern terminals? It's because the people like it that way. And this is a question for ppl who foam over sending the  back to Nassau/4 Av. Yes, the  gets more TPH and eliminates merging, but will the customers prefer it that way? No. Just because certain lines have a certain pattern does not mean we should do the same for all lines having the same pattern. Merging is there because of ridership, not because it's atrocious and wants to ruin your day. But now let's get to one of your proposals I partially agree with: de-interlining Broadway. I agree because of the sheer congestion that floods the 60 Street Tube, which is something riders probably won't like at all. Therefore, if there is a solution that satisfies ridership, then let's do it. 

I do agree with @bobtehpanda's point of not maintaining current patterns for the next millennia, however that's only for severe instances in the case of merging, like 149 St, Dekalb, Myrtle, and Rogers, but not minor merges like 59 St-Columbus Circle, and 145 St. Let's only make a big deal out of severe issues, not a turd issue that doesn't cause delays. 

 

While I agree with your general point, I just like to point out that 145 St is really a bad terminal for the (B), so they should extend it to and from Bedford Park Blvd at all hours except nights and weekend when the line doesn't run. The  can stay express in the Bronx southbound till noon then express northbound till the  finishes its operation.

[P3F]

Just a random point...

Deinterlining certain places would cause more SOL situations and reduce alternatives.

I'm at Church Av on a  and the train stops. IND has gone to hell at 4th Street or somewhere. No problem... Take the .

I'm at Church Av on a deinterlined  and the train stops. Water main break at Grand Street. Guess what? That  across the platform is going absolutely nowhere. Maybe I'd take a hike to the  or B41. Or I'd think about how, way back in 2018, bobtehpanda from Seattle was arguing that this is a better service pattern.

Edited February 12, 2018 by P3F