Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

On 10/12/2018 at 5:58 AM, Caelestor said:

In many ways, the upper 8 Ave line is similar to the QBL, in that express demand is much greater than local demand. On weekends, both lines have one local service and two express services. In addition, both SAS and Astoria have one service each on weekends, so only 8 services are currently being allocated across the 3 B Division trunk lines on weekends. 

Likewise, the B Division currently has 7 services coming in from the south: Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Fulton (local and express), and Brighton (local only on weekends). An additional branch, Jamaica/Metropolitan, has no service on weekends.

Lastly, there exists a few quirks which complicates things. The most important ones are 

  • Only the 8 Ave express tracks can access Brooklyn
  • Only the 6 Ave local tracks can reach the Williamsburg bridge
  • The only optimal outlet for the 6 Ave local tracks at the northern end is QBL
  • Likewise, the only optimal outlet for the 6 Ave express tracks at the northern end is CPW

Given all this information, I would like to propose an improved operating plan with 3 distinct times of service: late night, weekends, and weekdays. The 53 St / 6 Ave and 60 St / QBL connections are removed from regular service to increase capacity on 8 Ave long-term.

Late night:

  • 6 services: each Manhattan trunk line has two services
    • 6 Ave
      • (D) Concourse / CPW / 6 Ave / 4 Ave / West End
      • (F) QBL / 63 St / 6 Ave / Culver
    • Broadway
      • (Q) SAS / Broadway / Brighton via Bridge
      • (R) Astoria / Broadway / 4 Ave - Bay Ridge
    • 8 Ave
      • (A) 8 Ave / Fulton
      • (E) QBL / 53 St / 8 Ave - terminates at WTC
  • The (N) short turns at Whitehall St via Montague St - long-term it would serve SAS via the Bridge full-time
  • The (M) can be extended to Essex St full-time for a full-time (F) connection if ridership warrants it

Weekends:

  • Northern branches
    • Retain one local service and two express services on CPW and QBL
    • One service to Astoria and two services to SAS - the latter is more likely to be extended in the future
  • Southern branches
    • One service each for Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Jamaica/Metropolitan, and Brighton
    • Local and express service on Fulton
  • 9 services: each Manhattan trunk line has two local services and one express service
    • 6 Ave
      • (D) Concourse / CPW express / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express / West End
      • (F) QBL express / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Culver local
      • (M) QBL local / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Jamaica local
    • Broadway
      • (N) SAS / Broadway express / 4 Ave express / Sea Beach via Bridge
      • (Q) SAS / Broadway local / Brighton local via Bridge
      • (R) Astoria / Broadway local / Bay Ridge local
    • 8 Ave
      • (A) 8 Ave express / Fulton express
      • (C) 8 Ave local: 168 St - WTC
      • (E) QBL express / 53 St / 8 Ave local / Fulton local
  • Interlining (local / express track switches) is acceptable when only 3 services are running

Weekdays:

  • 12 services: each Manhattan trunk line has two local services and two express services
    • 6 Ave:
      • (B) Concourse local / CPW local / 6 Ave express / Brighton express
      • (D) Concourse express / CPW express / 6 Ave express / 4 Ave express / West End
      • (F) QBL express / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Culver local
      • (M) QBL local / 63 St / 6 Ave local / Jamaica local
    • Broadway
      • (N) SAS / Broadway express / 4 Ave express / Sea Beach via Bridge
      • (Q) SAS / Broadway express / Brighton local via Bridge
      • (R) Astoria / Broadway local / Bay Ridge local
        • Additional (W) trains would supplement Astoria - Whitehall St and possibly 4 Ave / Sea Beach during rush hour
    • 8 Ave
      • (A) 8 Ave express / Fulton express
      • (C) 8 Ave local: 168 St - WTC
      • (E) QBL express / 53 St / 8 Ave express / Fulton local
      • (K) QBL local / 53 St / 8 Ave local: terminates at WTC
  • Deinterlining is used to maximize capacity at rush hour except along 8 Ave, which has the most spare capacity out of the trunk lines based on projected ridership and service levels.

Note that this operating plan falls apart if SAS Phase 3 is ever built, but by then ridership patterns may have changed. I'm half-expecting the northern extension to 3 Ave - 149 St to be built before Phase 3 comes on the table.

I like this. It makes for a very efficient service pattern even with SAS Phase 2 online. Though I agree that the debut of the (T) could completely mess it up.

On 10/12/2018 at 1:05 PM, RR503 said:

Well, remember that the (A) and (C) will have significantly shorter runs (168/BPB to WTC), so I'd imagine that a combo of 207/Concourse/174 put-ins along with overnight storage on the many relay tracks along the corridor would suffice. If not, yes, Euclid runs would be necessary. 

As for why, the idea is to deinterline the 59th/50th area without totally screwing riders up north. Sending (B) to 207 and (D) to 205 allows both branches of CPW to get express service to the core, which, IMO, is a must given those areas' distance. 

It’s true that you’d get express service to the core on both CPW branches. But if the (B) runs is expanded to weekend service as the new 207th St service, does service on the rest of line south of Columbus Circle need the (B)? Would there be a need to run a Brighton express on the weekend?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
10 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s true that you’d get express service to the core on both CPW branches. But if the (B) runs is expanded to weekend service as the new 207th St service, does service on the rest of line south of Columbus Circle need the (B)? Would there be a need to run a Brighton express on the weekend

Hmm, that's a tricky one. I guess that you have 3 options now:

1) Expand weekend service on Brighton and have (B) and (Q) trains run local. 

2) same service pattern as weekdays, this can result in increased ridership along Brighton 

3) Suspend (B) service on weekends and run (A) trains to 207th 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s true that you’d get express service to the core on both CPW branches. But if the (B) runs is expanded to weekend service as the new 207th St service, does service on the rest of line south of Columbus Circle need the (B)? Would there be a need to run a Brighton express on the weekend?

I guess the question is why not? 6th/Brighton could certainly use more service -- the latter is the sort of market that Uber is killing the MTA in, for good reason.

If the agency ever wants to be more than a rush hour shuttle, it has to aggressively pursue off peak riders. In fact, one could actually say that off peak service needs to be better than peak service, as that's when competition is strongest. Enough of this "riders are leaving, let's cut service" bullsh*t. If urbanism is to live to see the next generation, the MTA's goal has to be to win every car trip over onto the rails/buses. 

Getting off peak riders onto trains/buses also has a very strong financial incentive for the MTA. Peak hour service needs are generally determinate of rolling stock/crew costs, meaning that on a marginal basis, off peak service is extremely cheap. If ridership can cover those costs (which it generally should) then we're actually increasing farebox recovery without raising fares -- or making the agency more efficient.

It should be a warning to the MTA, I think, that one of the driving factors behind the failure of privately held public transportation was that people fled for cars during the off peak (when traffic was minimal) while flocking to the trains/buses during the peak (when traffic was everywhere). What this created was a regulatorally enforced vicious cycle wherein more and more equipment was needed for less and less block time, until we had entire fleets being used only 20 hours a week. Et voila, inefficient asset use, and economic failure. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, RR503 said:

I guess the question is why not? 6th/Brighton could certainly use more service -- the latter is the sort of market that Uber is killing the MTA in, for good reason.

If the agency ever wants to be more than a rush hour shuttle, it has to aggressively pursue off peak riders. In fact, one could actually say that off peak service needs to be better than peak service, as that's when competition is strongest. Enough of this "riders are leaving, let's cut service" bullsh*t. If urbanism is to live to see the next generation, the MTA's goal has to be to win every car trip over onto the rails/buses. 

Let's go across the pond for a second...

Quote

Northern Line off-peak

Where the Northern Line gets really impressive is the off-peak service. At the beginning of 2014 this was 15-16tph so roughly a train every four minutes on the Edgware and High Barnet branches. For each of those branches alternate trains would go to Morden via Bank or Kennington via Charing Cross.

Now the off-peak service is 20tph, seven days a week. This is roughly a 33% percent improvement in trains leading to a train every three minutes instead of every four minutes – a 25% reduction in average waiting time. What makes this even more impressive is this is roughly what a year ago was being run in the peak period.

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/northern-line-timetable-for-the-future/

That's right... They're running trains every 3-6 minutes off peak. Now I'm not advocating for that everywhere here but we can at least shoot for less than 10 minutes... 12 minute frequencies on weekends are ridiculous. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Let's go across the pond for a second...

https://www.londonreconnections.com/2015/northern-line-timetable-for-the-future/

That's right... They're running trains every 3-6 minutes off peak. Now I'm not advocating for that everywhere here but we can at least shoot for less than 10 minutes... 12 minute frequencies on weekends are ridiculous. 

We should have at most 8 min frequencies weekends, 5 or 6 off-peak times for weekdays, and 15 late nights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preach. Hopefully one day folks will realize that service = ridership.

Washington seems to be getting there, though also via the path of managerial denial...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-says-it-doesnt-know-what-to-do-about-its-falling-ridership-an-internal-report-lays-out-exactly-what-to-do/2018/10/03/d8771d2e-c721-11e8-b2b5-79270f9cce17_story.html?utm_term=.f9aa5db7505d

Quote

...

According to the internal “ridership action plan,” the agency needs to: launch all-day peak service, extend Yellow Line service to Greenbelt, run all eight-car trains and overhaul the Metrobus system, among other things.

Those measures could add more than 20,000 daily rail trips, Metro says, and, paired with measures such as bus priority and free rail-to-bus transfers, could net tens of thousands of additional daily trips for the struggling transit agency.

...

“Most American transit agencies have recently faced declining ridership, but Metrorail’s declines are more significant than most peers, with the difference likely accounted for by factors specific to Metro and the Washington region,” according to the document obtained by The Post and confirmed by a person with direct knowledge of its contents but who was not authorized to discuss it publicly. “The fundamental factors — fares, location, speed, frequency, and reliability — matter most and Metro’s recent actions have put downward pressure on ridership.”

...

In July 2017, Metro raised fares, reduced service and curtailed late-night hours to save money, reduce wear-and-tear on its tracks and implement the agency’s first preventive maintenance program following the year-long SafeTrack rebuilding effort.

Train frequency was reduced to every eight minutes from six on most lines, and the agency’s span of service was cut by eight hours a week; Sunday service hours, for example, were changed from 7 a.m. to midnight, to 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. Off-peak ridership suffered the most, with losses “two to three times larger than peak declines,” according to the report.

Metro’s overall declines have been most severe among its most frequent riders; “super riders” (who take more than 40 trips per month) make up 60 percent of the subway’s trip declines, while tourists who ride the least make up about 25 percent of the losses since 2015, the report says. Service increases could offset those losses.

“For every 10 percent increase in the number of trains serving a station, ridership is expected to increase by 0.3 to 0.9 percent,” according to data it cites.

...

But of course:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/metro-board-members-back-away-from-recommendations-to-increase-service/2018/10/11/b339bb66-cd75-11e8-a360-85875bac0b1f_story.html?utm_term=.2782ff341b00

Quote

Some Metro officials are not convinced the agency can win back riders fleeing the system because of sparse off-peak service — or that it should try — in the face of looming financial obligations, budget constraints and the endless backlog of maintenance needs.

In discussions Thursday that raised questions about the agency’s core mission, board members and top officials deliberated over how best to address the agency’s falling ridership and revenue gap; ridership is down 10 percent since May 2016 and 125,000 average daily trips over a decade.

The discussion followed a budget preview from General Manager Paul J. Wiedefeld that outlined Metro’s intention to keep fares and service at their current levels — though he has not ruled out a service increase. Projections show the agency risks exceeding a new 3 percent cap in growth of the subsidy it receives for operations by millions of dollars.

“This is not a business where every customer represents more profit for the organization. It’s the opposite,” said board member Steve McMillin, an appointee of the federal government. “It would be crazy for this authority to simply run more trains in off-peak times chasing additional passengers.”

Metro estimates that two-thirds of its ridership losses over the past two years have come during off-peak periods. Internal and external analyses have determined that service is the best predictor of ridership changes, other than outside factors beyond Metro’s control, such as population and jobs. A recent report from Metro staff recommended several proposals ranging from all-day peak service, to all eight-car trains, to extending Yellow Line service to Greenbelt and overhauling the Metrobus system.

...

 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2018 at 12:16 AM, RR503 said:

I guess the question is why not? 6th/Brighton could certainly use more service -- the latter is the sort of market that Uber is killing the MTA in, for good reason.

If the agency ever wants to be more than a rush hour shuttle, it has to aggressively pursue off peak riders. In fact, one could actually say that off peak service needs to be better than peak service, as that's when competition is strongest. Enough of this "riders are leaving, let's cut service" bullsh*t. If urbanism is to live to see the next generation, the MTA's goal has to be to win every car trip over onto the rails/buses. 

Getting off peak riders onto trains/buses also has a very strong financial incentive for the MTA. Peak hour service needs are generally determinate of rolling stock/crew costs, meaning that on a marginal basis, off peak service is extremely cheap. If ridership can cover those costs (which it generally should) then we're actually increasing farebox recovery without raising fares -- or making the agency more efficient.

It should be a warning to the MTA, I think, that one of the driving factors behind the failure of privately held public transportation was that people fled for cars during the off peak (when traffic was minimal) while flocking to the trains/buses during the peak (when traffic was everywhere). What this created was a regulatorally enforced vicious cycle wherein more and more equipment was needed for less and less block time, until we had entire fleets being used only 20 hours a week. Et voila, inefficient asset use, and economic failure. 

That’s interesting how Brighton happens to be an area where MTA is getting killed by Uber. This really would be an example of how a bureaucracy can get so entrenched that it doesn’t (or refuses to) change with the times. I think it would be a first for the MTA if they ever do come around to implementing weekend Brighton express service. I think if there was regularly scheduled weekend Brighton express service, it probably last operated when Saturday was considered to be a work day. 

Certainly, it is something worth giving serious consideration to. But even on this forum, the idea of running the (B) on weekends again - it’s been a weekdays-only service ever since 2001, when the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks shut down the second time - has gotten a lukewarm reception in the past on more than one occasion. Of course in the past, Uber either didn’t exist or had a much smaller presence on our streets. So maybe it really is time for the bloated, entrenched bureaucracy we call the MTA to start taking Uber, Lyft and other for-hire car services more seriously and make an honest-to-goodness effort to get people back on the trains and buses. That would certainly be a lot better than advertising on the trains how “you should have gotten a Lyft.” (Yes, they actually have ads like this on the subway!)

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s interesting how Brighton happens to be an area where MTA is getting killed by Uber. This really would be an example of how a bureaucracy can get so entrenched that it doesn’t (or refuses to) change with the times. I think it would be a first for the MTA if they ever do come around to implementing weekend Brighton express service. I think if there was regularly scheduled weekend Brighton express service, it probably last operated when Saturday was considered to be a work day. 

Certainly, it is something worth giving serious consideration to. But even on this forum, the idea of running the (B) on weekends again - it’s been a weekdays-only service ever since 2001, when the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks shut down the second time - has gotten a lukewarm reception in the past on more than one occasion. Of course in the past, Uber either didn’t exist or had a much smaller presence on our streets. So maybe it really is time for the bloated, entrenched bureaucracy we call the MTA to start taking Uber, Lyft and other for-hire car services more seriously and make an honest-to-goodness effort to get people back on the trains and buses. That would certainly be a lot better than advertising on the trains how “you should have gotten a Lyft.” (Yes, they actually have ads like this on the subway!)

I would definitely look now at returning the (B) to not just seven-day-a-week, but a 24/7 line as well, possibly running to 168 instead of 145 in the overnights where it can provide CPW with a second local.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s interesting how Brighton happens to be an area where MTA is getting killed by Uber. This really would be an example of how a bureaucracy can get so entrenched that it doesn’t (or refuses to) change with the times. I think it would be a first for the MTA if they ever do come around to implementing weekend Brighton express service. I think if there was regularly scheduled weekend Brighton express service, it probably last operated when Saturday was considered to be a work day. 

Certainly, it is something worth giving serious consideration to. But even on this forum, the idea of running the (B) on weekends again - it’s been a weekdays-only service ever since 2001, when the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks shut down the second time - has gotten a lukewarm reception in the past on more than one occasion. Of course in the past, Uber either didn’t exist or had a much smaller presence on our streets. So maybe it really is time for the bloated, entrenched bureaucracy we call the MTA to start taking Uber, Lyft and other for-hire car services more seriously and make an honest-to-goodness effort to get people back on the trains and buses. That would certainly be a lot better than advertising on the trains how “you should have gotten a Lyft.” (Yes, they actually have ads like this on the subway!)

I believe it's gotten such poor support here (and I'll freely admit I haven't been a strong supporter of this) because, at least in my opinion, the (Q) runs such abysmal headways on weekends that increased service on that line should be considered before attempting to add weekend Brighton express service. I'm more of the baby steps approach is all. The same can be done on the (C) as well since ten minute intervals on that line on weekends are just as unacceptable these days.

As for Lyft and Uber advertising on the subway as an alternative, instead of the last leg they originally were when such advertising began, they're obviously considering that any ad revenue is better than none. The folks in charge probably don't even consider that these ride sharing companies are doing in city transit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A proposal To extend the (L) line to 41 Stops

Upper West Side 72 Street

Amsterdam Avenue/Broadway :15x15_px_01::15x15_px_02:(3)

57-59 Streets John Jay College/

10 Avenue

49-50 Streets/

10 Avenue

42 Street/

10 Avenue

34 Street- Hudson Yards

10 Avenue (7)

23 Street/

10 Avenue

 MANHATTAN

8 Avenue /(A)(C)(E)
14 Street
  (propose entrance/exit at 9 Avenue)

6 Avenue /(F)(M):15x15_px_01::15x15_px_02:(3)
14 Street    

14 Street/Union Square (N)(Q)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6)
     

3 Avenue /
14 Street

Propose entrance at 2 Av (T)

1 Avenue /
14 Street

(with Entrance at Ave A)

 BROOKLYN

Bedford Avenue /
North 7 Street

Lorimer Street /
Metropolitan Avenue

Graham Avenue /
Metropolitan Avenue

Grand Street /
Bushwick Avenue

Montrose Avenue /
Bushwick Avenue

Morgan Avenue /
Harrison Place

Jefferson Street /
Wyckoff Avenue

DeKalb Avenue /
Wyckoff Avenue

Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues
 

Halsey Street /
Wyckoff Avenue

Wilson Avenue /
Moffat Street
 (Northbound Only)

Bushwick Avenue-
Aberdeen Street

Broadway Junction 
(Fulton Street)   

Atlantic Avenue / 
Snediker Avenue /
Van Sinderen Avenue

Sutter Avenue /
Van Sinderen Avenue

Livonia Avenue / (3)(4)
Van Sinderen Avenue

New Lots Avenue /
Van Sinderen Avenue

East 105 Street /
Turnbull Avenue

Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway /
Glenwood Road

Remsen Avenue/

Flatlands Avenue

Ralph Avenue/

Flatlands Avenue

Utica Avenue/

Flatlands Avenue

(propose to extend Platform to have Avenue J entrance/exit)

Flatbush Avenue/

Flatlands Avenue

Nostrand Avenue/

Kings Highway

Ocean Avenue/

Kings Highway (B)(Q)

Ocean Parkway/

Kings Highway

McDonald Avenue/

Kings Highway (F)

W 8 Street/

Kings Highway (N)

Stillwell Avenue/

Kings Highway

Bensonhurst-Bay Parkway

86 Street (D)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/20/2018 at 11:21 AM, Lance said:

I believe it's gotten such poor support here (and I'll freely admit I haven't been a strong supporter of this) because, at least in my opinion, the (Q) runs such abysmal headways on weekends that increased service on that line should be considered before attempting to add weekend Brighton express service. I'm more of the baby steps approach is all. The same can be done on the (C) as well since ten minute intervals on that line on weekends are just as unacceptable these days.

As for Lyft and Uber advertising on the subway as an alternative, instead of the last leg they originally were when such advertising began, they're obviously considering that any ad revenue is better than none. The folks in charge probably don't even consider that these ride sharing companies are doing in city transit.

I think the subway needs a complete rework in order to de-interline the system.

Based on my observations, I think this is the best case:

(A) 207th St - Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park.

(C) 168th St - Lefferts Blvd (some rush hour service ends at Euclid or Far Rockaway)

(N)(Q) Coney Island - 96th St via Broadway Express

(W) Astoria - Whitehall St or Gravesend

 

This one might not make riders happy, but lets see:

(M) becomes QBL Express via 63rd St

(E) becomes a full local

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

A proposal To extend the (L) line to 41 Stops

Upper West Side 72 Street-Amsterdam Avenue/Broadway :15x15_px_01::15x15_px_02:(3)

57-59 Streets John Jay College/10 Avenue

49-50 Streets/10 Avenue

42 Street/10 Avenue

34 Street- Hudson Yards/10 Avenue (7)

23 Street/10 Avenue

 MANHATTAN

8 Avenue /(A)(C)(E)
14 Street
  (propose entrance/exit at 9 Avenue)

6 Avenue /(F)(M):15x15_px_01::15x15_px_02:(3)
14 Street    

14 Street/Union Square (N)(Q)(R)(W)(4)(5)(6)
     

3 Avenue /
14 Street

Propose entrance at 2 Av (T)

1 Avenue /
14 Street

(with Entrance at Ave A)

 BROOKLYN

Bedford Avenue /
North 7 Street

Lorimer Street /
Metropolitan Avenue

Graham Avenue /
Metropolitan Avenue

Grand Street /
Bushwick Avenue

Montrose Avenue /
Bushwick Avenue

Morgan Avenue /
Harrison Place

Jefferson Street /
Wyckoff Avenue

DeKalb Avenue /
Wyckoff Avenue

Myrtle-Wyckoff Avenues
 

Halsey Street /
Wyckoff Avenue

Wilson Avenue /
Moffat Street
 (Northbound Only)

Bushwick Avenue-
Aberdeen Street

Broadway Junction 
(Fulton Street)   

Atlantic Avenue / 
Snediker Avenue /
Van Sinderen Avenue

Sutter Avenue /
Van Sinderen Avenue

Livonia Avenue / (3)(4)
Van Sinderen Avenue

New Lots Avenue /Van Sinderen Avenue

East 105 Street /Turnbull Avenue

Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway /Glenwood Road

Remsen Avenue/Flatlands Avenue

Ralph Avenue/Flatlands Avenue

Utica Avenue/Flatlands Avenue
(propose to extend Platform to have Avenue J entrance/exit)

Flatbush Avenue/Flatlands Avenue

Nostrand Avenue/Kings Highway

Ocean Avenue/Kings Highway (B)(Q)

Ocean Parkway/Kings Highway

McDonald Avenue/Kings Highway (F)

W 8 Street/Kings Highway (N)

Stillwell Avenue/Kings Highway

Bensonhurst-Bay Parkway

86 Street (D)

I like this, however, as I've noted before on the Manhattan extension, I would do the stops this way (north of 14th/8th, all on 10th/Amsterdam Avenue unless otherwise noted):

23rd Street (exits at 21st and 23rd Street)
31st-33rd Street (aligns with Moynahan/Penn Station on both ends as far as a straight walk)
41st Street (Transfer to a new (7) station added there, exits at 41st, 42nd and 43rd)
49th-50th Street
58th Street-Roosevelt Hospital (exits at 58th and 60th Street, aligns with the Time Warner Center entrances walking east)
66th Street-Lincoln Center (exits at 65th and 66th Streets)
72nd Street-Broadway (Transfer to (1) / (2) / (3), this station would have exits at 72nd and 75th Streets on Amsterdam Avenue with provisions to extend the line further).
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/19/2018 at 8:07 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s interesting how Brighton happens to be an area where MTA is getting killed by Uber. This really would be an example of how a bureaucracy can get so entrenched that it doesn’t (or refuses to) change with the times. I think it would be a first for the MTA if they ever do come around to implementing weekend Brighton express service. I think if there was regularly scheduled weekend Brighton express service, it probably last operated when Saturday was considered to be a work day. 

Certainly, it is something worth giving serious consideration to. But even on this forum, the idea of running the (B) on weekends again - it’s been a weekdays-only service ever since 2001, when the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks shut down the second time - has gotten a lukewarm reception in the past on more than one occasion. Of course in the past, Uber either didn’t exist or had a much smaller presence on our streets. So maybe it really is time for the bloated, entrenched bureaucracy we call the MTA to start taking Uber, Lyft and other for-hire car services more seriously and make an honest-to-goodness effort to get people back on the trains and buses. That would certainly be a lot better than advertising on the trains how “you should have gotten a Lyft.” (Yes, they actually have ads like this on the subway!)

to be honest if the pick-up things had reasonable prices, our subway would have reasonable ridership, not the bucketloads of people that basically define the east side for example.

and it's free speech, allowed and endorsed. but LOL with that counterinuitivity (that isn't even a word)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

to be honest if the pick-up things had reasonable prices, our subway would have reasonable ridership, not the bucketloads of people that basically define the east side for example.

We don't want the subway to have reasonable ridership. We want it to be bursting at all times of day. If it isn't, it should be because no one wants to travel, not because everyone is in a FHV. Because if everyone is, density and urbanism are dead -- cars simply cannot mesh with New York's physical structure. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

We don't want the subway to have reasonable ridership. We want it to be bursting at all times of day. If it isn't, it should be because no one wants to travel, not because everyone is in a FHV. Because if everyone is, density and urbanism are dead -- cars simply cannot mesh with New York's physical structure. 

That's true. But I mean if everyone rides the subway then issues arise which still might as well be solved within the subway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had mentioned splitting the (R)  earlier in my B division deinterlining proposal, but I figured I'd go into a little more detail here in a separate post. 

(Interestingly enough, when I shared that list with some other rail fans on FB, it was this proposal that was the most controversial)

First I'll start with a map and then I'll explain it:

44820496084_d8a181b25c_b.jpg

As you can see, it has been split into a 4th Avenue section and a QBL section, with the (W) becoming the sole local on Broadway (with beefed up frequencies of course)

75px-NYCS-bull-trans-K.svg.pngQueens Blvd/8th Avenue Local from Forest Hills-71 Av to World Trade Center.

This is essentially an (R) via 8th Avenue to World Trade Center, filling the current role of the (R) on Queens Blvd, (M) on 53rd Street (with the (M) moved to 63rd) and the (C) on 8th Avenue (with the (C) becoming express). The (K) is a local (E) variant the same way the (W) is currently a local (N) variant and if conditions warrant it, trains could change from E to K or vice versa at WTC if necessary.

Frequencies: 

Since the (E) and (K) would run in tandem along 8th Avenue/53rd Street, the frequencies on both would be similar:

Rush hours: 12-15 TPH (every 3-5 minutes) 

Middays/Evenings/Weekends: 7.5 TPH (roughly every 8 minutes)

Late nights use (E) 

Yard: Jamaica 

-----

43739782060_ffc231ede6_o.png 4th Avenue/Nassau St Local from Bay Ridge-95 St to Delancey-Essex Streets.

This is essentially the Brooklyn shuttle to Court St when Montague was closed with an extension past Court Street, up Nassau to the middle track at Essex St, providing additional service to the Financial District and the Lower East Side along the (J) line. Since most passengers from Brooklyn don't use the (R) past Cortlandt, the majority of Brooklyn riders would still use the (R) the same way it is today, however passengers who would use Whitehall, Rector and Cortlandt would have to walk from Broad and Fulton instead.

Frequencies: 

Rush hours: 12 TPH (every 5 minutes)

Middays/Evenings/Weekends: 6 to 7.5 TPH (roughly every 8 to 10 minutes)

Late nights: 4 TPH (every 15 minutes)

Yard: East New York (with some Coney Island put ins during rush hour)

-----

75px-NYCS-bull-trans-W.svg.png Astoria/Broadway/Fulton Street Local from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Whitehall Street or Euclid Avenue

The (W) takes the role as the sole Broadway Local and sole train to Astoria (with the (N) going to 96th Street). As a result it sees frequencies being roughly doubled. Every other train continues to Euclid Avenue in Brooklyn via a new tunnel under State Street (the (C) becomes Fulton Street Express to Lefferts Blvd) 

Frequencies: 

Rush hours: 24 TPH (every 2-3 minutes) 12 TPH (every 5 minutes) to Euclid

Middays/Evenings/Weekends: 15TPH (every 4 minutes) 7.5 TPH (every 8 minutes) to Euclid

Late nights: 4 TPH (every 15 minutes) full route 

Yard: It would continue to use Coney Island with access to Pitkin as well 

-----

I would be very interested to see what you guys think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it! Me being me, I'd rather see QB/8th services run to Brooklyn so they can take advantage of greater terminal capacities there, but that's honestly a matter of personal preference, given that we don't know where exactly people along CPW Local/8th Local want to go. Yes, such an arrangement would create a long route, but the only merges on the entire thing would be at 36th St/Queens Plaza, and at Rockaway Boulevard. 

I'm curious to hear what the people on FB said -- 'riders want interlining'? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I love it! Me being me, I'd rather see QB/8th services run to Brooklyn so they can take advantage of greater terminal capacities there, but that's honestly a matter of personal preference, given that we don't know where exactly people along CPW Local/8th Local want to go. Yes, such an arrangement would create a long route, but the only merges on the entire thing would be at 36th St/Queens Plaza, and at Rockaway Boulevard. 

I'm curious to hear what the people on FB said -- 'riders want interlining'? 

It was mostly along the lines of "the R doesn't need to be split", "no one from 4th Avenue wants Nassau and that's why the brown R failed" and "W to Euclid? why?" Otherwise everyone seemed to approve of the K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

It was mostly along the lines of "the R doesn't need to be split", "no one from 4th Avenue wants Nassau and that's why the brown R failed" and "W to Euclid? why?" Otherwise everyone seemed to approve of the K.

Very interesting. I would have expected the need for more throughput on Fulton/the apathy of 4th Local riders on Manhattan destination to be obvious, and the Queens deinterlining to be more controversial...but I guess not! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Now that you mention it, yes some people did complain about removing Broadway service from QBL...

Yeah -- that's the counterargument I get the most (and, honestly, the one I think is most valid...). Because Broadway is really just used for Lex express, I'd say just build a transfer from 63 to 59, or do a lower level at 51. Beyond that, there's honestly no reason for it to be there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Yeah -- that's the counterargument I get the most (and, honestly, the one I think is most valid...). Because Broadway is really just used for Lex express, I'd say just build a transfer from 63 to 59, or do a lower level at 51. Beyond that, there's honestly no reason for it to be there. 

I'd say build a passageway from 63rd to the IRT mezzanine- this would allow a Lex express transfer and also could allow for 6th Av trains via the express and 8th via local (on QBL).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.