Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Caelestor]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you here on Dekalb -- that junction is an operational issue that needs to be treated as such. I am not, however, with you on Rogers. All the CBTC in the world won't fix the fact that that is a level junction restrictive of capacity on what are arguably the city's two most important trunks -- to say nothing of the fact that its layout guarantees delay cascades. 

The fix for it recommended by an MTA task force (note this isn't just some group of foamers) was the installation of an express/local switch beyond the Nostrand diverge to allow  to go to Utica/NL, and  to Flatbush. The plan would increase area throughput by 12tph -- a number certainly not to be laughed at given the size of those lines' riderships. If you wanna spend another 700 million for 1 less tph but more routing flexibility, be my guest -- just know that I disagree with your analysis. 

So yes, under this plan Franklin would become a major transfer point. While I agree that has the potential to increase dwells, I think that the riderships of the branches it would serve are simply not large enough for that to become a major operational factor -- certainly not leading to another GCT, as you dramatically predict. Some people do in fact want the West Side....

Generally, the critique I'd make of what you're saying (and of what many people your age say) is that you're failing to see the larger capacital picture. People cannot have flexibility at any cost; that's pandering. There has to be a larger recognition of what these uber-like service patterns are doing to system reliability and capacity -- especially on critical lines like the IRT expresses. So yes, you may be inconveniencing some in South Brooklyn, but you're doing it so the rest of the city (and even them, arguably, as they'd see more frequent and reliable train service) can have a better subway. I think for proposals like these, where the worst you're adding as a cross-platform transfer, that trade-off is a no-brainer. 

The biggest problem with DeKalb Ave is that the 4th Ave express trains don't stop there and so the cross-platform transfers are between the and . If the  and  stopped on the same platforms at either DeKalb or Atlantic Ave, I think that stretch of the BMT would have been interlined a long time ago. In any case, there's no reason to deinterline unless additional capacity along the in Manhattan is needed. Both pairs of tracks are currently running at 20 tph during the peak and deinterlining is really only needed at 24+ tph.

As for Rogers Junction, the weekend service operates much more smoothly than on weekdays, and it's not difficult to see that the  is the bottleneck. When the only disadvantage in Alternative 4 from the MTA report is that it's politically difficult given bus transfers (and that can be fixed by building the Nostrand Ave extension and Utica Ave line), it's time to undergo the reconstruction and get the 12+ tph it would offer.

My stance on deinterlining is to implement it wherever

• Cross-platform transfers exist so that the transfer penalty is effectively zero. The IRT has a plethora of them at 125 St, 96 St, Chambers St, Brooklyn Bridge, and Franklin Ave, so basically the express and local trains should be separated from each other there. 
• Core capacity is needed - so basically the Broadway Line and 53 St / 63 St.

 

20 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Think a lower level could be possible? There may or may not be room to build a ramp down to a lower level, and then there is the question of ducking under the Bay Ridge branch cutting across Nostrand Avenue perpendicularly south of the station.

There is no need for a lower level because Nostrand Ave will eventually become a through station when the southwards expansion is built. 

24 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

What about just rebuilding Rogers to the topology of the IND junctions just below 59 St/Columbus Circle? That way both local and express tracks have easy access to Nostrand and you have maximum operational flexibility? As far as Flatbush, that station needs (at a minimum) tail tracks and should really be 3-4 tracks so that you could turn  and  trains more efficiently.

That is Alternative 6 in the MTA report - also acceptable, but more expensive than deinterlining because new tunnels are needed.

Edited July 29, 2018 by Caelestor

[transitfan111]

15 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

What about just rebuilding Rogers to the topology of the IND junctions just below 59 St/Columbus Circle? That way both local and express tracks have easy access to Nostrand and you have maximum operational flexibility? As far as Flatbush, that station needs (at a minimum) tail tracks and should really be 3-4 tracks so that you could turn  and  trains more efficiently.

I'm all in for that! 

The thing about the Flatbush terminal is that you'll have the next departing  train wait 5 minutes before departing while there are a bunch of other trains waiting to arrive... they can do a better job than that. 

 

[transitfan111]

17 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Think a lower level could be possible? There may or may not be room to build a ramp down to a lower level, and then there is the question of ducking under the Bay Ridge branch cutting across Nostrand Avenue perpendicularly south of the station.

I'd rather build some tail tracks similar to the 96th street Q station. That station is much more efficient than the Flatbush one but still only has two tracks.  

[engineerboy6561]

1 minute ago, transitfan111 said:

I'd rather build some tail tracks similar to the 96th street Q station. That station is much more efficient than the Flatbush one but still only has two tracks.  

The reason the lower level came up is that I don't know whether tail tracks out of the current station would cross the Bay Ridge branch at a good height to avoid collision; a lower level would fix that, and that lower level could easily have 2000'-3000' tail tracks.

[transitfan111]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you here on Dekalb -- that junction is an operational issue that needs to be treated as such. I am not, however, with you on Rogers. All the CBTC in the world won't fix the fact that that is a level junction restrictive of capacity on what are arguably the city's two most important trunks -- to say nothing of the fact that its layout guarantees delay cascades. 

The fix for it recommended by an MTA task force (note this isn't just some group of foamers) was the installation of an express/local switch beyond the Nostrand diverge to allow  to go to Utica/NL, and  to Flatbush. The plan would increase area throughput by 12tph -- a number certainly not to be laughed at given the size of those lines' riderships. If you wanna spend another 700 million for 1 less tph but more routing flexibility, be my guest -- just know that I disagree with your analysis. 

So yes, under this plan Franklin would become a major transfer point. While I agree that has the potential to increase dwells, I think that the riderships of the branches it would serve are simply not large enough for that to become a major operational factor -- certainly not leading to another GCT, as you dramatically predict. Some people do in fact want the West Side....

Generally, the critique I'd make of what you're saying (and of what many people your age say) is that you're failing to see the larger capacital picture. People cannot have flexibility at any cost; that's pandering. There has to be a larger recognition of what these uber-like service patterns are doing to system reliability and capacity -- especially on critical lines like the IRT expresses. So yes, you may be inconveniencing some in South Brooklyn, but you're doing it so the rest of the city (and even them, arguably, as they'd see more frequent and reliable train service) can have a better subway. I think for proposals like these, where the worst you're adding as a cross-platform transfer, that trade-off is a no-brainer. 

There will be so much backlash if you remove the 5 from Nostrand Avenue considering that more people use the 5 than the 2.  Do you really think riders on the line would care about "operational flexibility"?

And plus the 2 and the 3 would basically be the same train if that happens. What's the point in that?

The plan helps no one except for the rich folks that live in Manhattan.

I think they should rebuild the junction or keep it the way it is. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by transitfan111

[Around the Horn]

17 minutes ago, transitfan111 said:

There will be so much backlash if you remove the 5 from Nostrand Avenue considering that more people use the 5 than the 2.  Do you really think riders on the line would care about "operational flexibility"?

And plus the 2 and the 3 would basically be the same train if that happens. What's the point in that?

Uh, I don't know... More frequent service?

[RR503]

30 minutes ago, transitfan111 said:

There will be so much backlash if you remove the 5 from Nostrand Avenue considering that more people use the 5 than the 2.  Do you really think riders on the line would care about "operational flexibility"?

And plus the 2 and the 3 would basically be the same train if that happens. What's the point in that?

The plan helps no one except for the rich folks that live in Manhattan.

I think they should rebuild the junction or keep it the way it is. 

For whatever it’s worth, I didn’t say anything about operational flexibility — but I do think people care about more frequent and reliable train service, yes. Look, I’m not denying this will force some to add a platform’s worth of walking to their commutes, but I’m absolutely willing to make that sacrifice if it means an end to all the delays and capacity loss at Rogers. A 25% throughput increase on the  is not something to be laughed at — those lines are amongst the busiest in the city. If you think it’s better to spend another 700 million dollars to build out the more flexible rebuild option, you’re welcome to advocate for that. I just don’t think that the cost/benefit adds up.  

I also really object to this notion that the only people who would benefit from this are the rich. What about all the folks in Harlem, the Bronx, and even in your neighborhood who are getting more frequent and reliable train service? What about the riders who transfer onto these lines from elsewhere who may, for the first time, actually get a seat? And yes, what about those folks on the UE/WS, who will see more train service at their chronically overcrowded stops — they’re people too, you know. 

Planning is all about balancing funds with need, minority suffering with majority benefit. There are absolutely situations where deinterlining would cause too much inconvenience relative to benefit, and thus should not be pursued. This is not one of those situations. Nearly half of our system’s ridership transits one of the lines served by these routes. Compared to the addition of a cross-platform transfer for some at Franklin, the benefit to those millions seems almost untouchable. 

Edited July 29, 2018 by RR503

[Union Tpke]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you here on Dekalb -- that junction is an operational issue that needs to be treated as such. I am not, however, with you on Rogers. All the CBTC in the world won't fix the fact that that is a level junction restrictive of capacity on what are arguably the city's two most important trunks -- to say nothing of the fact that its layout guarantees delay cascades. 

How would you solve DeKalb then?

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

The biggest problem with DeKalb Ave is that the 4th Ave express trains don't stop there and so the cross-platform transfers are between the and . If the  and  stopped on the same platforms at either DeKalb or Atlantic Ave, I think that stretch of the BMT would have been interlined a long time ago. In any case, there's no reason to deinterline unless additional capacity along the in Manhattan is needed. Both pairs of tracks are currently running at 20 tph during the peak and deinterlining is really only needed at 24+ tph.

The main issue with TPH is that capacity is constrained where it shares tracks with the  , which in turn affects the  and , which  then affect the  . All those services that share track need to have the same TPH to have any hope of running a reliable schedule.

The only large exceptions to that rule are the vs. , and the  vs  , but the busier services are so much busier that less busy services are told to kick rocks, which is why the and  tend to show up at less regular intervals.

Edited July 29, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

How would you solve DeKalb then?

The issue with Dekalb is largely the stopping at home signals for CCTV. To fix that, I’d leverage ISIM-B to get a primary level of train identification, and then install CCTV at Barclays, Canal and Grand to add whatever secondary confirmation is necessary. 

Additionally, I’d review area timers, but their capacity effect is minimal until after you unf**k the home stops. 

[transitfan111]

37 minutes ago, RR503 said:

For whatever it’s worth, I didn’t say anything about operational flexibility — but I do think people care about more frequent and reliable train service, yes. Look, I’m not denying this will force some to add a platform’s worth of walking to their commutes, but I’m absolutely willing to make that sacrifice if it means an end to all the delays and capacity loss at Rogers. A 25% throughput increase on the  is not something to be laughed at — those lines are amongst the busiest in the city. If you think it’s better to spend another 700 million dollars to build out the more flexible rebuild option, you’re welcome to advocate for that. I just don’t think that the cost/benefit adds up.  

I also really object to this notion that the only people who would benefit from this are the rich. What about all the folks in Harlem, the Bronx, and even in your neighborhood who are getting more frequent and reliable train service? What about the riders who transfer onto these lines from elsewhere who may, for the first time, actually get a seat? And yes, what about those folks on the UE/WS, who will see more train service at their chronically overcrowded stops — they’re people too, you know. 

Planning is all about balancing funds with need, minority suffering with majority benefit. There are absolutely situations where deinterlining would cause too much inconvenience relative to benefit, and thus should not be pursued. This is not one of those situations. Nearly half of our system’s ridership transits one of the lines served by these routes. Compared to the addition of a cross-platform transfer for some at Franklin, the benefit to those millions seems almost untouchable. 

I think it's too much of an inconvenience for people to make the transfer, especially in this summer heat. I'm a regular Nostrand Avenue rider and I've never noticed the junction being that much of a bottleneck. At most it is a 2 minute wait. Arriving to the Flatbush terminal is way worse. Even if they de-line rogers, they wouldn't run enough trains to make it worthwhile, the Lexington line is already crowded enough with trains approaching every 2-3 minutes.

Bottom line is, people are selfish. If you remove a train line from them, they are bound to complain. It would never go through.

[transitfan111]

50 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Uh, I don't know... More frequent service?

Train service won't be anymore frequent unless you rebuild Flatbush terminal. Or if dispatch moves trains out quicker.

[R68OnBroadway]

2 minutes ago, transitfan111 said:

Train service won't be anymore frequent unless you rebuild Flatbush terminal. Or if dispatch moves trains out quicker.

Even if Flatbush still limits capacity on the  , the  would see service increases regardless... While Flatbush should be fixed (I would extend the line south to Av U or X with tail tracks), in order for that and Utica to happen we need to increase service. While many will have to transfer, transferring should be much easier and trains would be less crowded due to a massive capacity increase which would also benefit Bronx riders.

[Around the Horn]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

The issue with Dekalb is largely the stopping at home signals for CCTV. To fix that, I’d leverage ISIM-B to get a primary level of train identification, and then install CCTV at Barclays, Canal and Grand to add whatever secondary confirmation is necessary. 

Additionally, I’d review area timers, but their capacity effect is minimal until after you unf**k the home stops. 

I wonder, could they "add" a stop at DeKalb interlocking in the bluetooth countdown network and use that information to set the switches?

Is this a problem that CBTC could solve? Perhaps CBTC through DeKalb should be fast tracked?

 

[Caelestor]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The main issue with TPH is that capacity is constrained where it shares tracks with the  , which in turn affects the  and , which  then affect the  . All those services that share track need to have the same TPH to have any hope of running a reliable schedule.

The only large exceptions to that rule are the vs. , and the  vs  , but the busier services are so much busier that less busy services are told to kick rocks, which is why the and  tend to show up at less regular intervals.

IIRC in the peak direction the  all run 6 minute headways, the  runs 4 minute headways, and the  runs 10 minute headways. The  run uneven headways to accommodate these lines, and in particular the  has uneven headways because of the merge north of 34 St and its two northern terminals. Sending the  up 96 St would probably be the best solution to fixing the DeKalb Ave activity.

3 hours ago, transitfan111 said:

Bottom line is, people are selfish. If you remove a train line from them, they are bound to complain. It would never go through.

Here are some "recent" service changes that riders complained about but ultimately went through:

•  via 63 St,  cut back to Court Sq, new  (later ) service: More trains into Manhattan, reduced overcrowding and delays at Lexington Ave - 53 St.
• rerouted to 6 Ave, no more service to Downtown + Brooklyn: New Midtown service for northern Brooklyn, relief for the  

Whenever the MTA proposes a service change, a report is written explaining the pros and cons, and ultimately they go through because the benefits (typically more trains = more capacity = more ridership = fewer delays) outweigh the negatives. If the MTA opts for crossovers instead of flyover tracks at Rogers Junction, deinterlining will be implemented and riders will get used to the new service patterns. The proposed  transfers at Nevins St and Franklin Ave are way less drastic than the changes and would be identical to the transfers at 96 St, 125 St, Chambers St, and Brooklyn Bridge, which people are already used to.

The bottom line is that people want faster and less crowded trains, and this service change is expected to provide a lot of benefits at minimal downside.

 

[JeremiahC99]

On 7/22/2018 at 4:51 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Was thinking about a few short-term projects (could be completed in 5-10 years) that have not been brought up by the MTA but have merit. Any thoughts?

1. A one-stop extension of the  to Co-Op City. The center platform at PBP could be removed and the station renovated to allow for a third track. The new line would run just east of the 95 and the new stop at Co-Op city would be located at Baychester/Bartow, consist of 2 tracks and an island platform, and would be called Co-Op City South. The station would also have a transfer to the  train.

2. A  train extension to Co-Op City via 205th St, Burke Av, Gun Hill Rd, and Bartow Av. Stops would be located at White Plains Road  , Laconia Av-Boston Rd, Gun Hill Rd , Co-Op City South ( transfer), and Co-Op City North (located at the Dreiser Av loop/Co-Op City Blvd). The line could be further extended to Eastchester-Dyre Av via Steenwick/Dyre Av.

3. Completion of Triboro RX from 8th Avenue (  ) to Jackson Heights. Stops at New Utrecht, 17th-18th Av, McDonald Av (passageway to 18th Av or Avenue I  ), Coney Island Av-E 14th Street (passageway to Avenue H  ) , Nostrand-Flatbush Av (  transfer), Utica Av-Kings Highway, Remsen Av, New Lots Av  , Livonia Av (passageway between  and  would be built), Broadway Junction (transfer to all the lines there and LIRR), Wilson Av, Cypress Av, Myrtle Av, Metropolitan Av, Eliot Av, Grand Av, Queens Blvd, and Jackson Heights. At both ends of the line sidings would be built where possible to allow for trains to turn around out of the way of freight trains, which would be scheduled to run either at night or during lulls in the schedule. As for a yard, you could maybe seize some land in Brownsville or Canarsie near those train yards to expand them for RX service, or you could just use modified M9s and base them out of LIRR depots.

4. An extension of the Nostrand Av line to Avenue X with stops at Avenue J, Kings Highway, Avenue R, Avenue U, and Avenue X. Avenue X would have tail tracks extending to Avenue Z. This would also involve deinterling Rogers (  stays same,  replaces  on Nostrand,  to New Lots via local past Franklin, and  via express to Utica Av.) As for the issue of yard access, with  gone from New Lots, the  will be moved there and the  will be moved to Concourse. To give a more direct route to Concourse, the  's tracks will be extended past 148th to 152nd/St Nicholas Pl to connect to the , allowing for an easy connection as well as a new IRT-BMT/IND link.

1. I would rather keep the center tracks and remove the platform connections to the Island platforms at the east end. The side platforms could be demolished and for crew quarters, I would extend the platform by 2 cars for crew quarters and the platform connection to the station house can be rebuilt.
2.  extension to Co-op city would be a great idea. Will it be underground though?
3. Triboro Rx has been discussed for many years. Let's hope that it becomes a reality.
4. I like the plan for the Nostrand Avenue extension. I would move the Avenue J stop to Avenue L for easier connections to the B9. Also I would extend it to Emmons Avenue to serve the businesses over there. I'm not sure how tail tracks would go,but it would probably run east under Emmons Avenue (station would be set back from Emmons Avenue to accommodate the curve). Also, I think that to de-interline the Rogers Junction, the entire junction must be rebuilt to eliminate level junctions. That would be done before extending the Nostrand Line. The IRT routes would also stay the same (except for extended  and  services).

On 7/23/2018 at 4:09 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

A few more ideas/projects that could be completed quickly:

1. A  stop at 41st St-10th Av.

2. A  train extension to 18th Avenue (this could be done in a month as you only need new signage and some 20-25 mph switches installed).

3. An extension of the  train to 72nd St/Amsterdam Av via 10th Av. Stops at 23rd, 34th, 41st (  transfer), 50th, 57th, 64th-65th, and 72nd St. To reduce costs, all stations on the line minus 72nd would be built as two-level stations with one platform and track on each level like 63rd-Lex's old design before SAS opened. Since this puts most of the station in the TBM cavern, costs would be reduced. Tail tracks would be built as far as 76th/77th and Amsterdam to allow for quick turnarounds, and a new substation would be built between 48th/49th on 10th Av to allow for 30 tph or more on the .

4.  to LGA (  would run to 96th/125th while the  would run on QBL. Since the  operates weekdays only, the  would become a 19/7 local to Forest Hills). The line would run along 31st until 20th, where it would curve onto 19th Av. At 45th St, the line would descend underground using the hill with the parking lot to run under all of the terminals at LGA. A new yard would be built on ConEd land north of 20th Av for the  . Stops for this extension would be at Steinway St, the Marine Air Terminal, Terminal B, and Terminal C/D.

5. Two possible ways to serve Red Hook:

A: A "jug-handle route" serving Red Hook. This would be a line that would branch off of Montague and run on Henry Street to Union St, where it will then curve west to Richards St. At Coffey Park the line will then curve onto Lorraine St. After crossing the Gowanus, the line would then rejoin the 4th Av local via a cross-platform transfer at Prospect Av. This segment would be served by the  , which would run via it at all times. Weekdays the  would run from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge, and weekends and late nights the line would run as a shuttle between Whitehall and Bay Ridge while the  runs LGA-Bay Ridge at all times. New stops on the jug-handle would be Atlantic Av, Union St, Seabring-Richards Sts, Columbia St, and Smith St.

B. A revival of the  , which would split from the  after Rector and stop at Governors Island before running along Wolcott/Lorraine St. Stops at Van Brunt and Clinton. After Clinton, the line will run to 4th Av-9th St for connections to other lines.

1. The  stop at 10th Avenue was dropped from plans due to a lack of funding. Hopefully the next capital plan has pans to build the new stations, but otherwise, nice plan. Will it also have an island platform or two side platforms?
2. Why can't you extend the  to Kings Hwy when the  line station renovations are done. It can increase the connectivity to bus routes 10-fold. Could attract a great Brooklyn-Queens travel market.
3. I think that you'll still need two TBMS for the  train extension, since the TBM cares out a cave wide enough for only 1 track. Also, cut and cover will still be needed for the stations to accommodate the flat walls in the stations. If you want to reduce costs, don't hire too many employees for TBMs, and use design-build for the construction contracts. Also, include incentives to finish the work early and penalties for late completion.
4. I'd doubt that the residents of Astoria would handle an extension of an elevated line above their streets. Even if they did, I'd rather keep the  and  lines on Astoria and replace the timers and switches on the Broadway and Astoria lines for faster service (origin-destination surveys suggests that riders want the  to stop at 49th Street anyway). Also, if they were to extend the Astoria Line, extend it somewhere beyond LGA and perhaps to Fresh Meadows, to improve subway coverage,

[transitfan111]

24 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

Here are some "recent" service changes that riders complained about but ultimately went through:

•  via 63 St,  cut back to Court Sq, new  (later ) service: More trains into Manhattan, reduced overcrowding and delays at Lexington Ave - 53 St.
• rerouted to 6 Ave, no more service to Downtown + Brooklyn: New Midtown service for northern Brooklyn, relief for the  

Whenever the MTA proposes a service change, a report is written explaining the pros and cons, and ultimately they go through because the benefits (typically more trains = more capacity = more ridership = fewer delays) outweigh the negatives. If the MTA opts for crossovers instead of flyover tracks at Rogers Junction, deinterlining will be implemented and riders will get used to the new service patterns. The proposed  transfers at Nevins St and Franklin Ave are way less drastic than the changes and would be identical to the transfers at 96 St, 125 St, Chambers St, and Brooklyn Bridge, which people are already used to.

The bottom line is that people want faster and less crowded trains, and this service change is expected to provide a lot of benefits at minimal downside.

 

The thing is, around 70% of riders on Nostrand Avenue use the Lexington line. Getting rid of a major transit line would kill them. It is like saying get rid of the F and keep the M on Sixth Ave. You see my point? Plus, service on Nostrand would still suck because of the Flatbush terminal. 

In the end, yeah it would benefit everyone else, but it will suck terribly for Nostrand Ave riders. 

Rebuilding is the only option in my opinion. 

[JeremiahC99]

Also, on the subject of the Rogers Junction reconstruction, I like the plan to reconstruct the junction. However, I'm not fond of continuing of having the nortbound  wait for the  line to pass, then crawl behind them onto the local tracks into Franklin Avenue, then wait for the  to cross. I'd rather have tracks 2A and 3A split from both the express tracks and local tracks, then operate below the existing tracks to President Street. This would allow northbound  trains to wait only for the  line to cross, then directly onto the express tracks. I'm not sure how feasible that plan is compared the the ones from January 2009 to fix the junction.

 

Also, I think that for the tail tracks past Flatbush Avenue, there should be 4 tracks past the station, each holding 2 ten car sets (similar to the tail tracks at 34th Street-Hudson Yards). The middle ones will act as a provision for the southward extension (although the plan will require the southern exit to be demolished and replaced, and there would be a pedestrian cross-under at the station to connect track 2 platform to track 3 platform. The diamond crossover switch north of the terminal would be removed. Then the terminal operations would be as follows:

1. From Newkirk Avenue, trains would proceed at 30 mph into Flatbush Avenue station, and discharge passengers.
2. After the train crews ensure that all passengers are off the train, the empty train would then proceed into the layover area at 15-20 mph, and enter one of the 4 layup tracks (there are switches spanning all 4 tracks: a diamond crossover after the two tracks split into 4 tracks, then two diamond crossovers between both sets of outer and inner tracks, the after that another diamond crossover between the middle tracks, and from there, the outer tracks end at bumper blocks), where they will layover for the trip.
3. When its time to make the trip going the other way, the train will reverse out of the layover area, and into the northbound platform at Flatbush Avenue at 20 mph, where it would pick up passengers and start its trip.

For crew changing, I'd imagine that they would do something similar to what they do at Parkchester, 179th Street and other stations where trains have to relay on tail tracks rather than in the station.

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

1. I would rather keep the center tracks and remove the platform connections to the Island platforms at the east end. The side platforms could be demolished and for crew quarters, I would extend the platform by 2 cars for crew quarters and the platform connection to the station house can be rebuilt.

                Fine by me/

            extension to Co-op city would be a great idea. Will it be underground though?

             Yes. I would look to build line using cut and cover or mining to save money and also because the line will reach areas with high water tables.

             Triboro Rx has been discussed for many years. Let's hope that it becomes a reality.

               I agree.

I like the plan for the Nostrand Avenue extension. I would move the Avenue J stop to Avenue L for easier connections to the B9. Also I would extend it to Emmons Avenue to serve the businesses over there. I'm not sure how tail tracks would go,but it would probably run east under Emmons Avenue (station would be set back from Emmons Avenue to accommodate the curve). Also, I think that to de-interline the Rogers Junction, the entire junction must be rebuilt to eliminate level junctions. That would be done before extending the Nostrand Line. The IRT routes would also stay the same (except for extended  and  services)

            I suppose you could move the stop, but rebuilding the junction is something I think we should not due considering the costs and disruptions it would cause. De-interlining the line anyways would allow for less of an impact on other lines when a problem strikes.

1. The  stop at 10th Avenue was dropped from plans due to a lack of funding. Hopefully the next capital plan has pans to build the new stations, but otherwise, nice plan. Will it also have an island platform or two side platforms?
2.  Any platform type will do as long as a crossover is allowed.
3. Why can't you extend the  to Kings Hwy when the  line station renovations are done. It can increase the connectivity to bus routes 10-fold. Could attract a great Brooklyn-Queens travel market.
4. That could be possible, but you already have  trains turning at Kings Highway so that could cause more problems. You could maybe have the  terminate on any track but that would require you to fumigate a lot more, which would delay other  s and reduce throughput.
5. I think that you'll still need two TBMS for the  train extension, since the TBM cares out a cave wide enough for only 1 track. Also, cut and cover will still be needed for the stations to accommodate the flat walls in the stations. If you want to reduce costs, don't hire too many employees for TBMs, and use design-build for the construction contracts. Also, include incentives to finish the work early and penalties for late completion.
6. Trying to get fewer workers would be difficult given the relationships between politicians now in power and union management, which is why to help lower costs I would have bi-level but narrower stations that fit within the TBM.
7. I'd doubt that the residents of Astoria would handle an extension of an elevated line above their streets. Even if they did, I'd rather keep the  and  lines on Astoria and replace the timers and switches on the Broadway and Astoria lines for faster service (origin-destination surveys suggests that riders want the  to stop at 49th Street anyway). Also, if they were to extend the Astoria Line, extend it somewhere beyond LGA and perhaps to Fresh Meadows, to improve subway coverage,
8. The plan I would have would require extending the line through residential areas for only two blocks, and the elevated structure would be considerably less noisy and obtrusive than the Els we have now, much like AirTrain JFK.

Responses in red.

[RailRunRob]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I wonder, could they "add" a stop at DeKalb interlocking in the bluetooth countdown network and use that information to set the switches?

Is this a problem that CBTC could solve? Perhaps CBTC through DeKalb should be fast tracked?

 

To much latency with the current Bluetooth setup to be fully accurate.  ISMB uses TCP/IP/SFTP over WAN  plus im not sure if the Bluetooth system is a true CPM system like iTrac ect. Maybe it integrates with a UTS on the backend?

[Trainmaster5]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm with you here on Dekalb -- that junction is an operational issue that needs to be treated as such. I am not, however, with you on Rogers. All the CBTC in the world won't fix the fact that that is a level junction restrictive of capacity on what are arguably the city's two most important trunks -- to say nothing of the fact that its layout guarantees delay cascades. 

The fix for it recommended by an MTA task force (note this isn't just some group of foamers) was the installation of an express/local switch beyond the Nostrand diverge to allow  to go to Utica/NL, and  to Flatbush. The plan would increase area throughput by 12tph -- a number certainly not to be laughed at given the size of those lines' riderships. If you wanna spend another 700 million for 1 less tph but more routing flexibility, be my guest -- just know that I disagree with your analysis. 

So yes, under this plan Franklin would become a major transfer point. While I agree that has the potential to increase dwells, I think that the riderships of the branches it would serve are simply not large enough for that to become a major operational factor -- certainly not leading to another GCT, as you dramatically predict. Some people do in fact want the West Side....

Generally, the critique I'd make of what you're saying (and of what many people your age say) is that you're failing to see the larger capacital picture. People cannot have flexibility at any cost; that's pandering. There has to be a larger recognition of what these uber-like service patterns are doing to system reliability and capacity -- especially on critical lines like the IRT expresses. So yes, you may be inconveniencing some in South Brooklyn, but you're doing it so the rest of the city (and even them, arguably, as they'd see more frequent and reliable train service) can have a better subway. I think for proposals like these, where the worst you're adding as a cross-platform transfer, that trade-off is a no-brainer. 

I see your point and you’re entitled to your opinion. I take issue with the assumption that an  task force is some all knowing entity that has the correct answers 100% of the time. It’s been 50 years since the plan for action was proposed by the governor and the agency. I see 148th St-Lenox Terminal and Hudson Yards on the plus side of the ledger. Since all rolling stock must be replaced eventually I sure can’t give them credit for that. Ditto for the replacement of the IRT signal system. All day express service on the Brooklyn IRT and the IND Fulton Street line was a no-brainer , task force or not. Task forces are useful things to open up different ways to accomplish a goal. With this agency they’re also a way to float a trial balloon. As I’ve mentioned earlier on this site many of my mentors have been hired as consultants after retiring. In house and private concerns. Remember that  train CBTC project, that “test”, where the existing signal system was removed, not even saved for redundancy sake ? Did a task force come up with the  ,  , skip stop idea when the RTO people told them that there were better alternatives? What I’m trying to get across is that task force ideas, consultant ideas, in house ideas, or forum ideas are just that. Ideas, wish lists, what have you. Fact is all proposals are subject to the reality in NYC and NY state. Money and politics. By implication I see that you think that me and those I’ve been taught by are dinosaurs who are tied to the past. You couldn’t be more mistaken. We’re from a generation that had more service coverage across more of the city than anything in the  subway pipeline today. We’ve discussed some of the same ideas for the last 30 years among ourselves that forum members are bringing up now. We’re more geared towards routing and infrastructure rather than car equipment. Old timers from  Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Harlem representing all ethnic backgrounds. I’ve received texts and emails about some post that “ Kenny Rogers” came up with. When I asked “ who” they told me “ the Gambler “. It seems that our Wallyhorse has been so nicknamed because of his posts about Aqueduct and Belmont Park. Some of what’s being proposed today to the board by the task forces and consultants only brings us part way to what we lost in my folks lifetimes. It may appear that I’m knocking you but we were young and idealistic too once. Just remember that money and politics trump any ideas being proposed in NYC. I’m personally discouraged because everything we were taught over fifty years ago in junior high and high school is just coming to fruition now. Manufacturing jobs gone, computers replacing humans in certain fields, people working from home. To my way of thinking some of these proposals will be obsolete before they’re even implemented. I look no further than SAS and ESA and the time it’s taken so far and I say the Utica subway, SE Queens line and the reconstruction of Rogers Junction are pipe dreams. Reality, money and politics. This is a boom or bust metro area. Carry on.

[RR503]

6 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I see your point and you’re entitled to your opinion. I take issue with the assumption that an  task force is some all knowing entity that has the correct answers 100% of the time. It’s been 50 years since the plan for action was proposed by the governor and the agency. I see 148th St-Lenox Terminal and Hudson Yards on the plus side of the ledger. Since all rolling stock must be replaced eventually I sure can’t give them credit for that. Ditto for the replacement of the IRT signal system. All day express service on the Brooklyn IRT and the IND Fulton Street line was a no-brainer , task force or not. Task forces are useful things to open up different ways to accomplish a goal. With this agency they’re also a way to float a trial balloon. As I’ve mentioned earlier on this site many of my mentors have been hired as consultants after retiring. In house and private concerns. Remember that  train CBTC project, that “test”, where the existing signal system was removed, not even saved for redundancy sake ? Did a task force come up with the  ,  , skip stop idea when the RTO people told them that there were better alternatives? What I’m trying to get across is that task force ideas, consultant ideas, in house ideas, or forum ideas are just that. Ideas, wish lists, what have you. Fact is all proposals are subject to the reality in NYC and NY state. Money and politics. By implication I see that you think that me and those I’ve been taught by are dinosaurs who are tied to the past. You couldn’t be more mistaken. We’re from a generation that had more service coverage across more of the city than anything in the  subway pipeline today. We’ve discussed some of the same ideas for the last 30 years among ourselves that forum members are bringing up now. We’re more geared towards routing and infrastructure rather than car equipment. Old timers from  Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Harlem representing all ethnic backgrounds. I’ve received texts and emails about some post that “ Kenny Rogers” came up with. When I asked “ who” they told me “ the Gambler “. It seems that our Wallyhorse has been so nicknamed because of his posts about Aqueduct and Belmont Park. Some of what’s being proposed today to the board by the task forces and consultants only brings us part way to what we lost in my folks lifetimes. It may appear that I’m knocking you but we were young and idealistic too once. Just remember that money and politics trump any ideas being proposed in NYC. I’m personally discouraged because everything we were taught over fifty years ago in junior high and high school is just coming to fruition now. Manufacturing jobs gone, computers replacing humans in certain fields, people working from home. To my way of thinking some of these proposals will be obsolete before they’re even implemented. I look no further than SAS and ESA and the time it’s taken so far and I say the Utica subway, SE Queens line and the reconstruction of Rogers Junction are pipe dreams. Reality, money and politics. This is a boom or bust metro area. Carry on.

I don't think task forces are all-knowing. I just wanted to make sure that others (I'm sure you saw already) knew this idea had basis in something more than NYCTF fantasy. Everything you say regarding their general fallibility is incontrovertibly true. 

If I may digress for a second, what was the RTO alternative to  skip stop? Express 145-96?

To my main point: I don't think you all are dinosaurs; I'm sorry if it came across that way. I have immense respect for you and others of your pedigree, not only because you put up with us riders for 30+ years, but also because you take the time to reflect on your experiences and share your thoughts with us. That cannot be denigrated. What I was trying (and clearly failed at doing) to say was that I have noticed in discussions with you and other (ex-)RTO folks that I always end up with a big picture analysis and my conversational partner with an elucidation of the more local effects. Neither viewpoint is in any way invalid. I happen to subscribe to the notion that transit must always serve greater goods, but I'm not so arrogant to say that there is not a flip side to that -- I just reserve the right to promulgate my opinion. 

And yes, the system has regressed massively, and I think you are absolutely right in ascribing much of that failure to serve to misplaced priorities among those in power -- whether that be the governors and mayors who allowed the destruction of the Els without replacement or the lawyers and task forces who eviscerated our system's very capability to function. 

Finally, towards expansion's viability: I think few here really see any of these things being done anytime soon. Some of the smaller, less costly stuff, maybe (I actually think selling a $300 mil reconstruction of Rogers would be pretty easy), but I certainly don't see my  to Euclid or SAS to QB Bypass via 79th St happening within the next few decades. But what is life if we cannot dream of a better tomorrow. 

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I wonder, could they "add" a stop at DeKalb interlocking in the bluetooth countdown network and use that information to set the switches?

Is this a problem that CBTC could solve? Perhaps CBTC through DeKalb should be fast tracked?

You could, but B division ATS equivalent is coming this December, so I really don't see the point. CBTC would definitely solve this -- provided it is given enough space in both directions to space trains well/identify them.  

[RailRunRob]

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

You could, but B division ATS equivalent is coming this December

Are they rolling out that soon?

[Lance]

14 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Here are some "recent" service changes that riders complained about but ultimately went through:

•  via 63 St,  cut back to Court Sq, new  (later ) service: More trains into Manhattan, reduced overcrowding and delays at Lexington Ave - 53 St.
• rerouted to 6 Ave, no more service to Downtown + Brooklyn: New Midtown service for northern Brooklyn, relief for the  

Whenever the MTA proposes a service change, a report is written explaining the pros and cons, and ultimately they go through because the benefits (typically more trains = more capacity = more ridership = fewer delays) outweigh the negatives. If the MTA opts for crossovers instead of flyover tracks at Rogers Junction, deinterlining will be implemented and riders will get used to the new service patterns. The proposed  transfers at Nevins St and Franklin Ave are way less drastic than the changes and would be identical to the transfers at 96 St, 125 St, Chambers St, and Brooklyn Bridge, which people are already used to.

The bottom line is that people want faster and less crowded trains, and this service change is expected to provide a lot of benefits at minimal downside.

 

A slight correction to your second example: the south Brooklyn extension of the Nassau St  was always going to be eliminated as part of the 2009/2010 service cuts. The idea to combine both the Nassau St  and the old lines into one route came about because the alternative was to run two dead-ending lines that terminated relatively close to each other.