Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The only thing the  has going for it over the  is service to Atlantic Terminal, which isn't a big deal anyway as Atlantic is served by numerous other lines. I'm not sure what weekends are like on Sixth Avenue or Brighton, but added  service will probably be more of a help, since the majority of Brighton riders are coming from local stops, and the  is being added to Sixth Avenue weekends starting next year.

You forgot about Herald Square, which is still a major shopping district.  The does run through there and likely would get a lot of ridership to and from there.  Also Rockerfeller Plaza, another big tourist area.  

[officiallyliam]

3 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

You forgot about Herald Square, which is still a major shopping district.  The does run through there and likely would get a lot of ridership to and from there.  Also Rockerfeller Plaza, another big tourist area.  

Both are within walking distance of the busier  line. 

[Jemorie]

8 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

You forgot about Herald Square, which is still a major shopping district.  The does run through there and likely would get a lot of ridership to and from there.  Also Rockerfeller Plaza, another big tourist area.  

Some of my friends told me that running the  local on Central Park West on weekends is cheaper because it’s only one extra train line and costs nothing additional to operate. The only issue is that running times on the  would slightly increase. I can sorta see where they’re coming from; however, I don’t think the weekend  needs to do that just to help the “overcrowded” .

As long as neither the  gets its headways lowered nor the  making all stops north of 59th Street, I’m good.

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Some of my friends told me that running the  local on Central Park West on weekends is cheaper because it’s only one extra train line and costs nothing additional to operate. The only issue is that running times on the  would slightly increase. I can sorta see where they’re coming from; however, I don’t think the weekend  needs to do that just to help the “overcrowded” .

As long as neither the  gets its headways lowered nor the  making all stops north of 59th Street, I’m good.

As we've pointed out, the crowding on the  line extends beyond Central Park West to other Eighth Avenue and Fulton stops, which the  would do little to help. 

Why slow down the ride for people coming from the Concourse line, which already makes a lot of stops to get out of the Bronx, when the better solution its simply to add a couple more trains per hour to the  line?

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

As we've pointed out, the crowding on the  line extends beyond Central Park West to other Eighth Avenue and Fulton stops, which the  would do little to help. 

Why slow down the ride for people coming from the Concourse line, which already makes a lot of stops to get out of the Bronx, when the better solution its simply to add a couple more trains per hour to the  line?

I know. That’s why I pretty much gave up this  train via Central Park West Local debate with my friends. I now simply ignore them whenever they bring that up.

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The only reason why the  is going to Midtown on weekends is for the  shutdown. Otherwise, track and signal workers would be putting up flags to the point they wouldn’t even be able to add more trains other than the 6 tph that the  and  each currently run up to on weekends. For the weekend  to Midtown to be a permanent thing, it’s still going to take some time, as long as the  steps up their game.

8

You can run 22 tph through work zones if you accept some delays. They do it every weekend on the Lex. 

And honestly, I'd be good with those extra two trips per hour. The little things count, and as little as that sounds, it still is a 33% increase in service.

Really, anything to stop having to count gumspots at 86th street. Anything. 

 

 

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

You can run 22 tph through work zones if you accept some delays. They do it every weekend on the Lex. 

And honestly, I'd be good with those extra two trips per hour. The little things count, and as little as that sounds, it still is a 33% increase in service.

Really, anything to stop having to count gumspots at 86th street. Anything. 

Looks like you (along with P3F and those who agreed with him) and I both are finally in full agreement at last.

Edited March 23, 2018 by Jemorie

[R68OnBroadway]

How much does DeKalb take away in terms of capacity? I was thinking about drawing up a deinterling plan for Broadway and South Brooklyn.

[officiallyliam]

7 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

How much does DeKalb take away in terms of capacity? I was thinking about drawing up a deinterling plan for Broadway and South Brooklyn.

The most common such plan sends the to Brighton, with the as the local, and the and rush-hour to Fourth Avenue. This way the could take West End, the and would be unchanged, and the can help the . I calculated some time ago that this could get you about twice as many trains through DeKalb during the morning rush, and along with de-interlining the Broadway line, would allow the and the to run as fully-separated lines.

[R68OnBroadway]

Just now, officiallyliam said:

The most common such plan sends the to Brighton, with the as the local, and the and rush-hour to Fourth Avenue. This way the could take West End, the and would be unchanged, and the can help the . I calculated some time ago that this could get you about twice as many trains through DeKalb during the morning rush, and along with de-interlining the Broadway line, would allow the and the to run as fully-separated lines.

Sounds like a good plan, the only obstacle would be riders complaining of a loss of a one-seat ride, as Brighton wanted a one-seat Broadway ride and the asian communities in SW Brooklyn wanted a one-seat ride to Grand Street and Chinatown. Regardless of complaints, it would be better to have this option than go through the mess of accommodating weekend  service that can't get more than 8 tph. 

One question about this plan: I'm assuming the  stop at DeKalb while the  skip it, right?

[officiallyliam]

2 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Sounds like a good plan, the only obstacle would be riders complaining of a loss of a one-seat ride, as Brighton wanted a one-seat Broadway ride and the asian communities in SW Brooklyn wanted a one-seat ride to Grand Street and Chinatown. Regardless of complaints, it would be better to have this option than go through the mess of accommodating weekend  service that can't get more than 8 tph. 

One question about this plan: I'm assuming the  stop at DeKalb while the  skip it, right?

Canal actually provides better access to more of Chinatown than Grand Street does; I'm not sure about Brighton. Remember, though, that a cross-platform transfer between 6th Avenue and Broadway is preserved between the and at DeKalb Avenue. And yes, the will run through DeKalb on the Fourth Avenue express tracks.

[P3F]

3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Canal actually provides better access to more of Chinatown than Grand Street does; I'm not sure about Brighton. Remember, though, that a cross-platform transfer between 6th Avenue and Broadway is preserved between the and at DeKalb Avenue. And yes, the will run through DeKalb on the Fourth Avenue express tracks.

The  is 10 minutes slower between DeKalb and Canal than going via the bridge, and that's assuming it actually shows up within a reasonable amount of time. In many cases, that transfer would add 20 minutes or more to people's commutes.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Canal actually provides better access to more of Chinatown than Grand Street does; I'm not sure about Brighton. Remember, though, that a cross-platform transfer between 6th Avenue and Broadway is preserved between the and at DeKalb Avenue. And yes, the will run through DeKalb on the Fourth Avenue express tracks.

Entirely debatable - Chinatown's center of gravity has shifted east. The western portions are gentrifying and becoming more of SoHo with each passing day, but the areas around Confucious Plaza and the bridge and Chrystie St have been less quick to change.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/27/2018 at 9:35 PM, officiallyliam said:

The most common such plan sends the to Brighton, with the as the local, and the and rush-hour to Fourth Avenue. This way the could take West End, the and would be unchanged, and the can help the . I calculated some time ago that this could get you about twice as many trains through DeKalb during the morning rush, and along with de-interlining the Broadway line, would allow the and the to run as fully-separated lines.

 

On 3/27/2018 at 9:46 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Sounds like a good plan, the only obstacle would be riders complaining of a loss of a one-seat ride, as Brighton wanted a one-seat Broadway ride and the asian communities in SW Brooklyn wanted a one-seat ride to Grand Street and Chinatown. Regardless of complaints, it would be better to have this option than go through the mess of accommodating weekend  service that can't get more than 8 tph. 

One question about this plan: I'm assuming the  stop at DeKalb while the  skip it, right?

An alternative can be to have the  stop at DeKalb and run via Brighton while the  skip DeKalb and run via 4th Ave express. If there is indeed a significant preference for Broadway from Brighton and Grand St/Chinatown from SW Brooklyn, this alternative plan would cover both preferences. Because you’re swapping the  and  in this case, you’d also need to swap their service hours as well because the  is a weekdays-only service. But that really shouldn’t be a problem because if the  stays on the Broadway express tracks to 2nd Ave, then it can get away with running only on weekdays. The  would still be available late nights/weekends and assume the  runs 24/7 in Queens and Manhattan in this scenario. Meanwhile, the  as the new Sea Beach train can now run on weekends and provide additional service to the CPW local stops. As for the , it can be extended to Brooklyn like @officiallyliam suggested and replace the  in Brooklyn during late night hours.

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

An alternative can be to have the  stop at DeKalb and run via Brighton while the  skip DeKalb and run via 4th Ave express. If there is indeed a significant preference for Broadway from Brighton and Grand St/Chinatown from SW Brooklyn, this alternative plan would cover both preferences. Because you’re swapping the  and  in this case, you’d also need to swap their service hours as well because the  is a weekdays-only service. But that really shouldn’t be a problem because if the  stays on the Broadway express tracks to 2nd Ave, then it can get away with running only on weekdays. The  would still be available late nights/weekends and assume the  runs 24/7 in Queens and Manhattan in this scenario. Meanwhile, the  as the new Sea Beach train can now run on weekends and provide additional service to the CPW local stops. As for the , it can be extended to Brooklyn like @officiallyliam suggested and replace the  in Brooklyn during late night hours.

I don't think that the existing track layout at DeKalb junction will allow this without at-grade conflicts. I could be wrong.

[Caelestor]

On 3/27/2018 at 10:49 PM, bobtehpanda said:

Entirely debatable - Chinatown's center of gravity has shifted east. The western portions are gentrifying and becoming more of SoHo with each passing day, but the areas around Confucious Plaza and the bridge and Chrystie St have been less quick to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels as if the main street of Chinatown has shifted from Mott St to Bowery. Also, Chinatown has been slowly subsuming Little Italy ever since Grand St was opened. 

Canal St is obviously better for people heading to south SoHo, of course.

 

4 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I don't think that the existing track layout at DeKalb junction will allow this without at-grade conflicts. I could be wrong.

The NYCTA destroyed Myrtle Ave back in the 60s to allow for flying junctions north of Dekalb, so the express tracks can access either the north or south side of the bridge.

From an operational standpoint, all the Broadway Line trains should be running down 4 Ave so that Broadway operational problems don't interfere with 6 Ave. The Brooklyn pairings would be:

• Broadway local = 4 Ave local
• Broadway Express = 4 Ave express
• 6 Ave Express = Brighton (since there's only 2 tracks between Dekalb and Prospect Park)

and the uptown pairings would be:

• Broadway express = 2 Ave
• Broadway local = Astoria + QBL
• 6 Ave Express = CPW Express / Concourse

One-seat rides are nice, but in practice most riders should be getting on the next train and making a cross-platform transfer, because who knows when the train after that will come given all the recent signal problems.

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

An alternative can be to have the  stop at DeKalb and run via Brighton while the  skip DeKalb and run via 4th Ave express. If there is indeed a significant preference for Broadway from Brighton and Grand St/Chinatown from SW Brooklyn, this alternative plan would cover both preferences. Because you’re swapping the  and  in this case, you’d also need to swap their service hours as well because the  is a weekdays-only service. But that really shouldn’t be a problem because if the  stays on the Broadway express tracks to 2nd Ave, then it can get away with running only on weekdays. The  would still be available late nights/weekends and assume the  runs 24/7 in Queens and Manhattan in this scenario. Meanwhile, the  as the new Sea Beach train can now run on weekends and provide additional service to the CPW local stops. As for the , it can be extended to Brooklyn like @officiallyliam suggested and replace the  in Brooklyn during late night hours.

The problem with this is that there is no way for Brighton riders to easily get to 6th Av. At least with Brighton, 4th Av riders can switch from the at DeKalb.

 

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it feels as if the main street of Chinatown has shifted from Mott St to Bowery. Also, Chinatown has been slowly subsuming Little Italy ever since Grand St was opened. 

You would be correct in that Bowery does split Chinatown in two, but I would not call Bowery the main street.

The way I saw it growing up, there were two or three distinct clusters:

West of Bowery (so, Mott St/Elizabeth Center)

South of Manhattan Bridge, east of Bowery (Division/E Broadway)

North of Manhattan Bridge (Chrystie/Allen Sts, stretches to about Seward Park)

All three have started gentrifying, but west of Bowery is the furthest down the gentrification path.

[CenSin]

38 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem with this is that there is no way for Brighton riders to easily get to 6th Av. At least with Brighton, 4th Av riders can switch from the at DeKalb.

I don’t know if anyone would even consider that an option if they weren’t on the already. The isn’t the only train in town along 4 Avenue. There are going to be trains from West End and Sea Beach which run express, skipping DeKalb Avenue. Having to make two transfers is pretty unpalatable.

[RR503]

The issue I'll always take with Dekalb interlining is that theoretically, it shouldn't add capacity. Deinterlining is great when it does --  to 96 being a great example -- but otherwise, we're just acquiescing to a shitty operating environment.

If you go to the JoeKorner, and read the docs related to Chrystie, you'll see they got bloody close to 30tph/track back when that was finished. So it isn't like those service levels are inherently impossible in such a junction, it is just that we are shit on toast at running our railroad. If we shortened control lines to match the timer speeds through the area, or sent info from other towers on the order of trains coming towards Dekalb, or changed switch geometries, or eliminated some timers, we'd be able to operate the junction at significantly higher throughput than today. I say do that, and if your service levels still aren't satisfactory, then go for the deinterlining. 

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The issue I'll always take with Dekalb interlining is that theoretically, it shouldn't add capacity. Deinterlining is great when it does --  to 96 being a great example -- but otherwise, we're just acquiescing to a shitty operating environment.

If you go to the JoeKorner, and read the docs related to Chrystie, you'll see they got bloody close to 30tph/track back when that was finished. So it isn't like those service levels are inherently impossible in such a junction, it is just that we are shit on toast at running our railroad. If we shortened control lines to match the timer speeds through the area, or sent info from other towers on the order of trains coming towards Dekalb, or changed switch geometries, or eliminated some timers, we'd be able to operate the junction at significantly higher throughput than today. I say do that, and if your service levels still aren't satisfactory, then go for the deinterlining. 

A lot of it is just shitty railroad management. The switch blades don’t take that long to get into position. It’s the signaling that holds everything up. From the humans who give the signal to the lockstep processes that give the train the go-ahead, they all incur significant delays.

[LGA Link N Train]

Who remembers that RPA proposal where the would connect with the Concourse line? Does that have any Benefits???

[Lance]

You're going to have to link that one as I cannot recall that unfortunately.

[Coney Island Av]

9 minutes ago, Lance said:

You're going to have to link that one as I cannot recall that unfortunately.

I think it came from this thread:

EDIT: I can't recall either as the one put out by RPA only goes to 149 St-Grand Concourse.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[Lance]

Doesn't look like the article has that unless it's somewhere in the thread itself. According to it, the RPA was calling for the same extensions to 2nd Avenue that we've proposed for years, which is two branches to 125th Street & Broadway and the Bronx via 3rd Avenue. The one put out by the RPA only calls for the latter extension to run to 149 St-Grand Concourse though.

[officiallyliam]

1 minute ago, Lance said:

Doesn't look like the article has that unless it's somewhere in the thread itself. According to it, the RPA was calling for the same extensions to 2nd Avenue that we've proposed for years, which is two branches to 125th Street & Broadway and the Bronx via 3rd Avenue. The one put out by the RPA only calls for the latter extension to run to 149 St-Grand Concourse though.

The RPA's Fourth Plan actually has something slightly different: they want one branch () across 125th and the other running north into the Bronx (), connecting to the Concourse line just north of 161st.