Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[officiallyliam]

6 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes! Exactly! 

If I may add one thing, we need a Nassau-Bay Ridge service to cover where the  once was. This could be an extension of the  or, if you’re willing to mess with the switch config around Essex, a new service from the aforementioned station to 95th St. 

Oh, right - I had forgotten to add that in. I’m somewhat hesitant to extend the , though that could work - otherwise, you could repurpose the W designation for an Essex to Bay Ridge train.

[Wallyhorse]

49 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Oh, right - I had forgotten to add that in. I’m somewhat hesitant to extend the , though that could work - otherwise, you could repurpose the W designation for an Essex to Bay Ridge train.

You could also do the split /  plan I have mentioned many times before where both terminate at Chambers (with the exception of a handful of rush hour s that end and begin at Broad Street) Where the runs Jamaica Center to Chambers ("express" tracks) and the  runs 95th-Chambers ("local" tracks).

[RR503]

31 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

You could also do the split /  plan I have mentioned many times before where both terminate at Chambers (with the exception of a handful of rush hour s that end and begin at Broad Street) Where the runs Jamaica Center to Chambers ("express" tracks) and the  runs 95th-Chambers ("local" tracks).

And as we have “mentioned” many times before, doing so cuts off both services from important transfer points (no, 3tph  to Broad doesn’t count). 

Seriously dude. Time to make a new playlist.  

[Union Tpke]

41 minutes ago, RR503 said:

And as we have “mentioned” many times before, doing so cuts off both services from important transfer points (no, 3tph  to Broad doesn’t count). 

Seriously dude. Time to make a new playlist.  

Which merges do you thing absolutely have to be removed, and which do you think can be kept?

[CenSin]

https://www.wired.com/story/autonomous-vehicles-might-drive-cities-to-financial-ruin/

Quote

At the Ann Arbor meeting, Andreas Mai, vice president of market development at Keolis, said that the Bordeaux transit authority charges a flat fee of about $50 per month for unlimited access to all forms of transit (trams, trains, buses, bikes, ferries, park and ride). The hard-boiled US crowd listening to him audibly gasped at that figure. Ridership is way up, the authority has brought many more buses into service, and it is recovering far more of its expenditures than any comparable US entity. Mai said it required a very strong leader to pull together 28 separate transit systems and convince them to hand over their budgets to the local authority. But it happened.

It's all just money. We have it; we just need to allocate it better. That will mean viewing public transit as a crucial element of well-being in America.

 

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

And as we have “mentioned” many times before, doing so cuts off both services from important transfer points (no, 3tph  to Broad doesn’t count).

If done the way it's supposed to, there would be an across-the-platform transfer between the and  at Chambers with the transfer train waiting there. 

The s to Broad Street (which would be 4TPH) would be peak-hour to offset the being maxed at 8 TPH.

(Of Course, if the was taken off 4th Avenue, THEN the and would always be an equal number of trains). 

Other option is to reconnect the northbound track to the Manhattan Bridge which would allow the to become a loop line (stopping only northbound at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers) while keeping the as is.  

[RR503]

48 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Which merges do you thing absolutely have to be removed, and which do you think can be kept?

I think that honestly depends. In a perfect world, I’d kill the ones that are capacitally restrictive to the core in absolute terms, and leave the rest to be resolved operationally. That’d mean removing Canal, 5/53, 11th St Cut and 34/Broadway as per the service plan @officiallyliam laid out above (ignoring the  to Euclid part ofc — that’s a different proposal). 

But, sadly, this isn’t perfect world, so again what we need to do is holistically review all normal-service merges looking for ways to safely and reliably increase train velocity, decrease switch reset time, provide advance warning of requested alignments, and reduce post-merge train spacing. After we’ve implemented the above to the best of our abilities, then we can reassess all merges, finding their new marginal capacity penalties. Again, in a perfect world, after those operational improvements are undertaken, that merge penalty would be zero (from 30tph at least), and we could therefore just nix those that are restricting us on core routes in absolute terms, but that very well may not be the case. So, after that review is complete, we would proceed to eliminate any remaining merges whose capacity impacts are too large to be absorbed while still providing adequate service to affected lines — assuming we can’t make physical infrastructure changes to the same effect, of course. 

[Union Tpke]

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I think that honestly depends. In a perfect world, I’d kill the ones that are capacitally restrictive to the core in absolute terms, and leave the rest to be resolved operationally. That’d mean removing Canal, 5/53, 11th St Cut and 34/Broadway as per the service plan @officiallyliam laid out above (ignoring the  to Euclid part ofc — that’s a different proposal). 

But, sadly, this isn’t perfect world, so again what we need to do is holistically review all normal-service merges looking for ways to safely and reliably increase train velocity, decrease switch reset time, provide advance warning of requested alignments, and reduce post-merge train spacing. After we’ve implemented the above to the best of our abilities, then we can reassess all merges, finding their new marginal capacity penalties. Again, in a perfect world, after those operational improvements are undertaken, that merge penalty would be zero (from 30tph at least), and we could therefore just nix those that are restricting us on core routes in absolute terms, but that very well may not be the case. So, after that review is complete, we would proceed to eliminate any remaining merges whose capacity impacts are too large to be absorbed while still providing adequate service to affected lines — assuming we can’t make physical infrastructure changes to the same effect, of course. 

How can these goals (decrease switch reset time, provide advance warning of requested alignments, and reduce post-merge train spacing) be accomplished? Also, don't you think that 149th and Nostrand should be removed?

Edited June 26, 2018 by Union Tpke

[RR503]

37 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

How can these goals (decrease switch reset time, provide advance warning of requested alignments, and reduce post-merge train spacing) be accomplished? Also, don't you think that 149th and Nostrand should be removed?

For question one, see below. Not trying to be annoying -- just am low on time here so can't write a detailed answer. The below covers most of it. 

As for 149 and Nostrand, I see my B division lean is showing lol. Yes, Nostrand (albeit after a switch reconfiguration is undertaken) should absolutely be deinterlined. 149 is a more nuanced question. Doing so would require shutting 145 and 148 on the , and would really only benefit Jerome Ave riders -- ones who already have plenty of capacity to swing around in with Concourse never more than a few blocks away. And honestly, despite its being excruciatingly slow, 149 somehow has a much lower capacity impact than one would expect -- the  merge is separated during rushes in the high-volume direction, and the  one is surprisingly capable of running service without *too* many delays -- I think the fact that trains are already supposed to slow for the station plays into that, though I certainly don't know for certain. 

On 6/23/2018 at 1:04 AM, RR503 said:

The former issue really only can be solved with internal data processing improvements. Right now, the B division operates junctions in two ways: WYPIWYG and manual lineup calls. The former works okay for relatively simple junctions, but is prone to operator mispunches and is subject to the lucidness and efficiency of the tower operator in establishing the requested lineup in a reasonable amount of time. The latter is simply a shitshow — we shouldn’t have trains stopping by homeballs asking for routings anymore. This is 2018. 

 A relatively simple solution to all this nonsense would be better leveraging current data streams in itrac (MTA’s train tracking program, fed by block occupancy and the beacons). If the agency could make its computers capable of reliably assigning a service designation to a series of block occupancies — whether that be through TO confirmation via punches or something totally different — then tower operators (or honestly computers) could set lineups in advance, obviating the need for the metaphorical/literal games of telephone. 

The issue of slow interlocking speeds can honestly be resolved by just using the ‘right’ junctions for train service. As we all know, many current service patterns cut against those that the infrastructure was designed for, a fact which places into regular service interlockings and switches that weren’t designed for such use. Those turnouts frequently have low D speeds (10-15 mph rather than 20+) which are limiting of capacity beyond the reality of the merge itself. Thus, even if there is no net change in merges during a service restructuring, the movement of a merge to a higher speed interlocking frequently can have a positive capacity impact. This, for example, is why I’m okay with using 50th for merges over Canal — that interlocking was designed for it. 

Finally, there’s the issue of train spacing. No matter how good you are at train schedule management, one will eventually have to deal with the situation in which two trains arrive at a merge simultaneously. For one to have a functioning merge, it is absolutely imperative that one plans to mitigate those situations, as having a train sit outside a merge for extended periods of time is a quick and easy way to slaughter capacity. 

 Of course, central to this issue is the previously-discussed issue of promptness in dispatching. If lineups are reset quickly, you’ve already won half the battle. Then, however, you have to be able to move the train onto its destination track as fast as possible — I’d much rather have a train stuck after a merge than before one, as being stuck after a merge eliminates your impact on uninvolved services. Thus, you must have a robust and — crucially — well signed system of ST signals in place to ease trains into their new routings. Thankfully, a good number of interlockings already have this feature, but the STs themselves are frequently hidden and/or poorly placed. Elucidating them, placing them in such a way that they can be used to bring an entire train through interlocking limits, and then encouraging T/Os to use them all need to happen for this stuff to be ameliorated — you can’t just approach it from one angle. 

 

48 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

If done the way it's supposed to, there would be an across-the-platform transfer between the and  at Chambers with the transfer train waiting there. 

The s to Broad Street (which would be 4TPH) would be peak-hour to offset the being maxed at 8 TPH.

(Of Course, if the was taken off 4th Avenue, THEN the and would always be an equal number of trains). 

Other option is to reconnect the northbound track to the Manhattan Bridge which would allow the to become a loop line (stopping only northbound at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers) while keeping the as is.  

I guess we're doing this, then. 

First of all, any transit service plan with "If done the way it's supposed to" is one that we simply cannot pursue. We need everything in this system to be as resilient as possible, thus relying on trains' on time performance to make connections integral to their very utility is simply a terrible idea. Of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that the service plan you're laying out is sure to decrease the very OTP you so need. A train relaying from the south at Chambers can only do so on tracks JH1 and JH3 (the stub remnants of the old Manhattan Bridge connection) without blocking through service. While that move works fine in the northbound (to relay) direction, coming out of relay, your relaying  train is crossing in front of both originating and terminating  service...at ten miles per hour. So, maybe not? 

Instead, I'd do something I think you'd like: reopen the other platforms at Canal/Bowery, and convert the middle track at Essex St into a terminal for trains from the south. If you do this while also installing the currently-removed n/b 'express' track with a connection to the n/b local north of Canal, you can not only terminate a good number of trains at Essex, but you can also move these terminating runs out of the way of those running through to the Jamaica line, thus eliminating Whitehall-type delays. If you're really scared of messing with Essex, another thing you could do is reopen the abandoned platforms, and add a switch between J4 and J2 between where J1 peels off and Canal St, allowing J4 (the current n/b track) to function as a terminal for n/b trains. So again, there are options to be had here, Wally. You do not in fact need to play Penn Station under Park Row. 

Lastly, I think even you can see the clear-as-day operational illogicality that is your loop  plan. Do you really wanna reduce  and  service for a bloody loop train to Lower Manhattan? And do you still wanna do that when that loop train can only operate in one direction? Really? 

[Around the Horn]

17 minutes ago, RR503 said:

First of all, any transit service plan with "If done the way it's supposed to" is one that we simply cannot pursue.

This sentence needs to be pinned at the top of this thread...

[Wallyhorse]

29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I guess we're doing this, then. 

First of all, any transit service plan with "If done the way it's supposed to" is one that we simply cannot pursue. We need everything in this system to be as resilient as possible, thus relying on trains' on time performance to make connections integral to their very utility is simply a terrible idea. Of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that the service plan you're laying out is sure to decrease the very OTP you so need. A train relaying from the south at Chambers can only do so on tracks JH1 and JH3 (the stub remnants of the old Manhattan Bridge connection) without blocking through service. While that move works fine in the northbound (to relay) direction, coming out of relay, your relaying  train is crossing in front of both originating and terminating  service...at ten miles per hour. So, maybe not? 

Instead, I'd do something I think you'd like: reopen the other platforms at Canal/Bowery, and convert the middle track at Essex St into a terminal for trains from the south. If you do this while also installing the currently-removed n/b 'express' track with a connection to the n/b local north of Canal, you can not only terminate a good number of trains at Essex, but you can also move these terminating runs out of the way of those running through to the Jamaica line, thus eliminating Whitehall-type delays. If you're really scared of messing with Essex, another thing you could do is reopen the abandoned platforms, and add a switch between J4 and J2 between where J1 peels off and Canal St, allowing J4 (the current n/b track) to function as a terminal for n/b trains. So again, there are options to be had here, Wally. You do not in fact need to play Penn Station under Park Row. 

Lastly, I think even you can see the clear-as-day operational illogicality that is your loop  plan. Do you really wanna reduce  and  service for a bloody loop train to Lower Manhattan? And do you still wanna do that when that loop train can only operate in one direction? Really? 

The loop is NOT my first choice on this.  That would be a last option.

When I originally proposed this idea a while ago, I had it with where the did in fact go to Essex Street and allowed for such.  If you can do it the way you suggested, that would be MUCH better.   

Any such building this way I would do with a provision to later connect the Nassau Line to the SAS, and preferably coming from 2nd/Christie going downtown as well as being able to do such off the Willy B going up 2nd/Christie.

[Union Tpke]

34 minutes ago, RR503 said:

For question one, see below. Not trying to be annoying -- just am low on time here so can't write a detailed answer. The below covers most of it. 

 

Which switches are designed to be 20+ like 50th? Wouldn't redoing some of the switches for higher speeds require the reconstruction of tunnel segments? Thanks.

[RR503]

45 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Which switches are designed to be 20+ like 50th? Wouldn't redoing some of the switches for higher speeds require the reconstruction of tunnel segments? Thanks.

That's a very long list, and one I can't rattle off perfectly. Are there particular ones you're curious about?

As for the second question, it depends. Some crossovers have space in their column gaps for their geometries to be changed, while others were installed tightly. Generally, though, if you want more than a few miles per hour of increase, you will need to knock out a larger switch bay, which does indeed entail some relatively major tunnel work. 

-

 

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

That's a very long list, and one I can't rattle off perfectly. Are there particular ones you're curious about?

As for the second question, it depends. Some crossovers have space in their column gaps for their geometries to be changed, while others were installed tightly. Generally, though, if you want more than a few miles per hour of increase, you will need to knock out a larger switch bay, which does indeed entail some relatively major tunnel work. 

-

 

I am curious about 75th Avenue and Queens Plaza in particular. Are there any switches in particuar that you think should be upgraded?

[RR503]

Just now, Union Tpke said:

I am curious about 75th Avenue and Queens Plaza in particular. Are there any switches in particuar that you think should be upgraded?

75 Avenue is D 20 enforced s/b with one shot DGTs in station and I'm pretty sure some sort of DGT northbound too. That said, once beyond the GTs,  T/Os often speed over the switches, so unlike other timed switches, I'd say it truly is its posted speed.

Queens Plaza is less pretty. The crossovers that the  uses are D 15 n/b and D 20 s/b. They honestly operate okay currently, but if  tph is gonna stay at 12 or whatever post shutdown, some sort of mitigation for that slow spot heading north should be looked at -- you can't have  and  service being held up like that.  

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

That's a very long list, and one I can't rattle off perfectly. Are there particular ones you're curious about?

A general question related to @Union Tpke's since I've been using the  and  a lot recently, how much of a capacity penalty does the curves/interlockings at Chambers, Essex and Marcy have on those services? Obviously its not that big of an issue since Nassau Street is the Manhattan trunk with the least ridership, but I'm just curious.

[Union Tpke]

29 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

A general question related to @Union Tpke's since I've been using the  and  a lot recently, how much of a capacity penalty does the curves/interlockings at Chambers, Essex and Marcy have on those services? Obviously its not that big of an issue since Nassau Street is the Manhattan trunk with the least ridership, but I'm just curious.

From what I have heard, the main issue is the Williamsburg Bridge and the curve at Marcy.

[Coney Island Av]

Since many ideas have been thrown around lately, I'd figure I'd post my take on it. My take is somewhat deinterlining, though not entirely. 

 should stay as-is.

The  should be moved to 8 Av Express service south of 59th, which frees up capacity on the 8 Av local tracks and eliminates merging at Canal St. It'll also be extended to Lefferts via Fulton St Exp. 

The  should be rerouted to 63rd with the . 

 will go up SAS with the . 

 is diverted to Astoria, thus reducing any sort of impact on Broadway. To replace  service on Fulton Local, the  would be rerouted there. Late nights, the  would be truncated to a shuttle between 57 St-7 Av and Astoria.

 are both extended to Bay Ridge-95 St via 4 Av Local all times to replace  service.  will either stay as-is or be extended to 9 Av or Bay Pkwy. 

Instead of diverting the  to QBL, I would create a new rush hour  service running from Forest Hills-71 Av to WTC, almost identical to the  (albeit via QBL local). This would separate the expresses/locals from each other, and allow for supplemental service to the  on QBL to make up for the loss of  service. The  via QBL on the other hand, would require a merge with the  between 42 St-Port Authority and 50 St. Although you could keep the  local to QBL, it'll still merge at Canal. In my plan, however, the  (expresses) and  (locals) are completely segregated from each other, and the only thing required is a crossover switch north of 50 St to allow the  to merge to the express without conflicting with  service.  Now you may say, "you're just moving the problem to 50 St" but this is different because the  won't be holding up the  anymore, nor will it hold up the  in any way. 

I would extend the  as-is to Bay Ridge because it would be more simpler to do than making an entirely different line. I do see points that the  will be one long route, but line length will be irrelevant since you could easily terminate a few  trains at Chambers or Broad if it really proved to be a problem. 

Now for the . The  to me is a service that's always treated poorly solely due to the fact that it doesn't go to Manhattan. It wasn't even cut back due to the latter reason in the first place, it was only cut back either most of time/permanently because the  needed to fit, and also due to cost-cutting back in 2010. If ridership was really the problem, it would've been cut back much sooner. Anyways, I would (as mentioned earlier) at the very least send it to Queens Plaza. Despite the fact it would only be able to turn 12 TPH as @RR503 pointed out, I don't think the  would need to get a significant boost in TPH, given that's it's only being extended one stop, and 12 TPH would be just fine if it really did need an increase. Extending it to Queensboro Plaza and/or 21 St-Queensbridge would require new tunnels. as opposed to sending it to Queens Plaza, where only a simple crossover switch would be necessary. 

Long story short, to sum it up, this is my plan for *somewhat* deinterlining QBL/Broadway. 

- increased to 10 TPH, rerouted to 8 Av Exp and Fulton St Exp to Lefferts

- unchanged, both 15 TPH

- extended to Queens Plaza, 12 TPH

- 6-10 TPH, new rush hour service to Forest Hills

- 12 TPH, extended to Bay Ridge

- rerouted to 63rd, 10-12 TPH

- rerouted to SAS, 10-12 TPH

- diverted to Astoria, 10 TPH

Sorry for the long post. 

 

 

[CenSin]

8 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If done the way it's supposed to, there would be an across-the-platform transfer between the and  at Chambers with the transfer train waiting there. 

The s to Broad Street (which would be 4TPH) would be peak-hour to offset the being maxed at 8 TPH.

(Of Course, if the was taken off 4th Avenue, THEN the and would always be an equal number of trains). 

Other option is to reconnect the northbound track to the Manhattan Bridge which would allow the to become a loop line (stopping only northbound at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers) while keeping the as is.  

You do understand that what happens on paper doesn’t transfer nicely to actual live scenarios. You are supposed to design systems with the minimum of infighting—the system is supposed to make compliance easier not harder.

If you’ve ever clipped coupons, you know this. Why can’t the store just discount the product instead of making customers jump through hoops to get it? It’s because the more moving parts and variables to add to the system, the less effective it will be. Moore’s Law says that anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Odds are, if you are orchestrating a meet-up at a station, those meet-ups will likely not align the way you envision them to.

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

A general question related to @Union Tpke's since I've been using the  and  a lot recently, how much of a capacity penalty does the curves/interlockings at Chambers, Essex and Marcy have on those services? Obviously its not that big of an issue since Nassau Street is the Manhattan trunk with the least ridership, but I'm just curious.

 

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

From what I have heard, the main issue is the Williamsburg Bridge and the curve at Marcy.

This is true. The timers governing movements around Marcy curve (along with the one at Essex) limit  to 24tph. Transit is working on tweaking those timers to be able to run this better, but I doubt that we'll ever see more than 26tph through that area w/o CBTC.

Really a shame given that pre-rebuild, that curve was good for only 6mph, and yet somehow managed 26tph. 

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

I would extend the  as-is to Bay Ridge because it would be more simpler to do than making an entirely different line. I do see points that the  will be one long route, but line length will be irrelevant since you could easily terminate a few  trains at Chambers or Broad if it really proved to be a problem.

The issue with this is that the  are limited by the curve discussed above and by the 12tph  to 12tph -- an increase of 2tph on 4th Local, which has been hurting since 2010. Moreover, that 12tph would be effectively 8ish once we've accounted for the bunching/gapping a route of such length would create. Thus given the ease of converting a Nassau stop to a terminal as per the above, I really don't see how this is any simpler or better than creating a new line. 

7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

 will either stay as-is or be extended to 9 Av or Bay Pkwy. 

You can't have your cake and eat it too. The whole point of sending the  to Euclid is creating more capacity while eliminating interlining. This simply adds back the interlining, and actually forces transit to make use of the flat junction that would serve the new Fulton tunnel at Whitehall. Simply not a good idea. If you want more 4th Ave service, pull it from Nassau as per the above. 

7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Instead of diverting the  to QBL, I would create a new rush hour  service running from Forest Hills-71 Av to WTC, almost identical to the  (albeit via QBL local). This would separate the expresses/locals from each other, and allow for supplemental service to the  on QBL to make up for the loss of  service. The  via QBL on the other hand, would require a merge with the  between 42 St-Port Authority and 50 St. Although you could keep the  local to QBL, it'll still merge at Canal. In my plan, however, the  (expresses) and  (locals) are completely segregated from each other, and the only thing required is a crossover switch north of 50 St to allow the  to merge to the express without conflicting with  service.  Now you may say, "you're just moving the problem to 50 St" but this is different because the  won't be holding up the  anymore, nor will it hold up the  in any way

Operationally, there's nothing wrong with this. Infrastructurally there is, however. Immediately south of 50th St, the local and express tracks in each direction separate to accommodate D1 and D2's ascent to their junction with 8th Ave proper. While I'm sure there's some way to lay a crossover there, it strikes me as being something that'd be expensive and structurally complicated. 

Edit: for visual reference, see from 28:45 here:

https://youtu.be/H_E9k4SV7lo

7 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Now for the . The  to me is a service that's always treated poorly solely due to the fact that it doesn't go to Manhattan. It wasn't even cut back due to the latter reason in the first place, it was only cut back either most of time/permanently because the  needed to fit, and also due to cost-cutting back in 2010. If ridership was really the problem, it would've been cut back much sooner. Anyways, I would (as mentioned earlier) at the very least send it to Queens Plaza. Despite the fact it would only be able to turn 12 TPH as @RR503 pointed out, I don't think the  would need to get a significant boost in TPH, given that's it's only being extended one stop, and 12 TPH would be just fine if it really did need an increase. Extending it to Queensboro Plaza and/or 21 St-Queensbridge would require new tunnels. as opposed to sending it to Queens Plaza, where only a simple crossover switch would be necessary.

The only reason it wasn't cut back sooner was that there was nothing to replace it...

I still don't like this Queens Plaza plan. Under your service plan, you're not adding any connections except for I assume that infinite transfer you propose to QBP. What does this do for  riders? If you're gonna tell me there's a silent majority on that line waiting to pile onto eastbound Queens Boulevard trains, I've got a bridge to sell you. For Manhattan riders, as I've said a few times now, this is nothing more than backtracking. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by RR503

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

The  should be left alone. Extending it further north is an empty cause...

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, CenSin said:

You do understand that what happens on paper doesn’t transfer nicely to actual live scenarios. You are supposed to design systems with the minimum of infighting—the system is supposed to make compliance easier not harder.

If you’ve ever clipped coupons, you know this. Why can’t the store just discount the product instead of making customers jump through hoops to get it? It’s because the more moving parts and variables to add to the system, the less effective it will be. Moore’s Law says that anything that can go wrong will go wrong.

Odds are, if you are orchestrating a meet-up at a station, those meet-ups will likely not align the way you envision them to.

If you saw my later response to @RR503's proposal on that, that one is much more in line with I originally was looking at for such a split:

 

 

21 hours ago, RR503 said:

For question one, see below. Not trying to be annoying -- just am low on time here so can't write a detailed answer. The below covers most of it. 

As for 149 and Nostrand, I see my B division lean is showing lol. Yes, Nostrand (albeit after a switch reconfiguration is undertaken) should absolutely be deinterlined. 149 is a more nuanced question. Doing so would require shutting 145 and 148 on the , and would really only benefit Jerome Ave riders -- ones who already have plenty of capacity to swing around in with Concourse never more than a few blocks away. And honestly, despite its being excruciatingly slow, 149 somehow has a much lower capacity impact than one would expect -- the  merge is separated during rushes in the high-volume direction, and the  one is surprisingly capable of running service without *too* many delays -- I think the fact that trains are already supposed to slow for the station plays into that, though I certainly don't know for certain. 

 

I guess we're doing this, then. 

First of all, any transit service plan with "If done the way it's supposed to" is one that we simply cannot pursue. We need everything in this system to be as resilient as possible, thus relying on trains' on time performance to make connections integral to their very utility is simply a terrible idea. Of course, this is to say nothing of the fact that the service plan you're laying out is sure to decrease the very OTP you so need. A train relaying from the south at Chambers can only do so on tracks JH1 and JH3 (the stub remnants of the old Manhattan Bridge connection) without blocking through service. While that move works fine in the northbound (to relay) direction, coming out of relay, your relaying  train is crossing in front of both originating and terminating  service...at ten miles per hour. So, maybe not? 

Instead, I'd do something I think you'd like: reopen the other platforms at Canal/Bowery, and convert the middle track at Essex St into a terminal for trains from the south. If you do this while also installing the currently-removed n/b 'express' track with a connection to the n/b local north of Canal, you can not only terminate a good number of trains at Essex, but you can also move these terminating runs out of the way of those running through to the Jamaica line, thus eliminating Whitehall-type delays. If you're really scared of messing with Essex, another thing you could do is reopen the abandoned platforms, and add a switch between J4 and J2 between where J1 peels off and Canal St, allowing J4 (the current n/b track) to function as a terminal for n/b trains. So again, there are options to be had here, Wally. You do not in fact need to play Penn Station under Park Row. 

Lastly, I think even you can see the clear-as-day operational illogicality that is your loop  plan. Do you really wanna reduce  and  service for a bloody loop train to Lower Manhattan? And do you still wanna do that when that loop train can only operate in one direction? Really? 

 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The loop is NOT my first choice on this.  That would be a last option.

When I originally proposed this idea a while ago, I had it with where the did in fact go to Essex Street and allowed for such.  If you can do it the way you suggested, that would be MUCH better.   

Any such building this way I would do with a provision to later connect the Nassau Line to the SAS, and preferably coming from 2nd/Christie going downtown as well as being able to do such off the Willy B going up 2nd/Christie.

 

[TheNewYorkElevated]

It has been years since I've done a proposal on this thread. 

A  train service to Coney Island. Every summer, select  trains would go to Coney Island making all stops with the . The purpose is that it serves residents throughout the Crosstown line for a one seat ride to the beaches and amusements when the Island is at it's peak, and alleviate overcrowding on the . 

Another suggestion is to draw out plans of where the 2nd Avenue Subway should go in Brooklyn should the  ever consider extending the line in the future. I imagine a 4-track 5th Avenue Subway with a connection to the  train around 36th Street and ending at Bay Ridge where the  is. Maybe even an elevated line on the Staten Island Expressway with a tunnel under the Verrazano-Narrows and heading underground afterwards ending at the Mall. 

 

[TheNewYorkElevated]

It has been years since I've done a proposal on this thread. 

A  train service to Coney Island. Every summer, select  trains would go to Coney Island making all stops with the . The purpose is that it serves residents throughout the Crosstown line for a one seat ride to the beaches and amusements when the Island is at it's peak, and alleviate overcrowding on the . 

Another suggestion is to draw out plans of where the 2nd Avenue Subway should go in Brooklyn should the  ever consider extending the line in the future. I imagine a 4-track 5th Avenue Subway with a connection to the  train around 36th Street and ending at Bay Ridge where the  is. Maybe even an elevated line on the Staten Island Expressway with a tunnel under the Verrazano-Narrows and heading underground afterwards ending at the Mall.