Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/22/2018 at 7:34 PM, 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.

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

This isn’t about free speech. Not at all. It’s about the MTA shooting itself in the foot by advertising its competition. You just don’t advertise your own competition’s advantages. Are Lyft and Uber really paying so much advertising money to the MTA that the MTA doesn’t care if they lose a few hundred riders to Lyft or Uber? I would hope not! Yes, this is counter-intuitive. 

5 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I had mentioned splitting the   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:

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

Queens Blvd/8th Avenue Local from Forest Hills-71 Av to World Trade Center.

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

Frequencies: 

Since the  and  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  

Yard: Jamaica 

-----

 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  line. Since most passengers from Brooklyn don't use the  past Cortlandt, the majority of Brooklyn riders would still use the  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)

-----

 Astoria/Broadway/Fulton Street Local from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Whitehall Street or Euclid Avenue

The  takes the role as the sole Broadway Local and sole train to Astoria (with the  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  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.

Wow! Now that is a great proposal. Would be a much more efficient and reliable way of providing local service on each of the current ’s three legs. By replacing the Queens leg of the  with the , you’d be doing away with some of the reverse branching that currently limits service on 53rd St and on the 8th Avenue Local. The  leg is definitely the most ambitious part because it needs that new tunnel to exist. And the R via Nassau allows for additional connections to other lines in Lower Manhattan.

[Lance]

Re @Around the Horn's proposal:

My main concern with this three-way split of present service is that it removes all Broadway service from Brooklyn. With the continued growth of Downtown Brooklyn and the MetroTech area, the last thing I'd advise doing is taking away a direct Midtown - Brooklyn route. All that would do is shift riders to another already overcrowded line with its own share of riders. That's why I've been more partial to reverting back to the '67 plan where the is the primary Broadway local, running from Astoria to Bay Ridge. There's a reason why that was always the prevailing route since inception, regardless of other service changes over the years. Frankly, the yard issue is overstated in my opinion and if I'm wrong, well, the 38th Street conversion is a shovel-ready project. Whether that's combined with the '67 EE or the one from the '30s is based on your personal preferences, but I don't think we should be taking away services that can be good with a little optimization with ones that likely won't, regardless of how well they're run.

[RR503]

19 minutes ago, Lance said:

Re @Around the Horn's proposal:

My main concern with this three-way split of present service is that it removes all Broadway service from Brooklyn. With the continued growth of Downtown Brooklyn and the MetroTech area, the last thing I'd advise doing is taking away a direct Midtown - Brooklyn route. All that would do is shift riders to another already overcrowded line with its own share of riders. That's why I've been more partial to reverting back to the '67 plan where the is the primary Broadway local, running from Astoria to Bay Ridge. There's a reason why that was always the prevailing route since inception, regardless of other service changes over the years. Frankly, the yard issue is overstated in my opinion and if I'm wrong, well, the 38th Street conversion is a shovel-ready project. Whether that's combined with the '67 EE or the one from the '30s is based on your personal preferences, but I don't think we should be taking away services that can be good with a little optimization with ones that likely won't, regardless of how well they're run.

I don’t follow. The brown R gets people from South Brooklyn to Downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan, and the  gets people from Broadway to IND stops in the area. I take it we’re not changing the Manhattan bridge patterns either. Did I miss something? 

[Lance]

The problem isn't so much at the ends of the line, but rather at the intermediate stops. Sure Bay Ridge would see better service as the Nassau would only run to Essex St, but that line would only operate as a feeder to other lines. Anyone taking that at Jay St or Court St would have to transfer at another station to get anywhere north of Delancey St and vice-versa. Either that or backtrack to DeKalb for the and . While it wouldn't be a problem for some riders, as their destinations are in the Lower Manhattan area, I feel it's a bit of a disservice for riders heading to Midtown from Downtown Brooklyn. Riders can use the other nearby services, no doubt, but I feel that just exacerbates an already bad situation in the area.

On the northern end, it's not so much of an issue as few riders are coming all the way from Astoria and seeking the Downtown Brooklyn area specifically. I just feel that creating three separate routes to "fix" Broadway is a bit overkill, especially when two would work well. After all, out of the 100 years the main Broadway line has been in operation, it's only been the last 30 of them where 4th Avenue wasn't served by the Broadway local from Astoria. Revisiting that service should be looked into first before splitting each of the present 's segments into three separate routes.

[GojiMet86]

We have spent years fighting his proposals, and now we have come to a full understanding of Wallyhorse proposals...

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Lance said:

The problem isn't so much at the ends of the line, but rather at the intermediate stops. Sure Bay Ridge would see better service as the Nassau would only run to Essex St, but that line would only operate as a feeder to other lines. Anyone taking that at Jay St or Court St would have to transfer at another station to get anywhere north of Delancey St and vice-versa. Either that or backtrack to DeKalb for the and . While it wouldn't be a problem for some riders, as their destinations are in the Lower Manhattan area, I feel it's a bit of a disservice for riders heading to Midtown from Downtown Brooklyn. Riders can use the other nearby services, no doubt, but I feel that just exacerbates an already bad situation in the area.

The has exactly two uses in Brooklyn: getting people to the nearest express stop, and getting people to Lower Manhattan. This holds true in Downtown Brooklyn — people use the  for Midtown. I've honestly yet to meet someone who uses the from that area to above 23rd (I live near there) — and even most of the the NYU-bound folks use the  to the or the . It also isn't like the is being sent to Staten Island or something -- it'll still go to Hoyt Schermerhorn and Lafayette (which, by the way, are central to all the development going up in the area). 

Anyway, once again, you need to consider the proposal in the context of everything it does. Fulton is about to go to hell with gentrification in Bed Stuy and development in ENY -- that isn't something we can change or control or mitigate with parallel corridors. Connecting the local tracks to the  allows you to nearly double capacity on the corridor, and allows you to do so without building another line in Manhattan. Sure, the four people who ride the through to Midtown will have to change routes, but I think that in the context of the capacital benefit, the zillions of alternate Manhattan-bound routes from Downtown, and the better transfers offered from Nassau in Manhattan, it makes sense.

@Around the Horn will probably be able to articulate this all better, but this is my two cents. 

3 hours ago, Lance said:

 On the northern end, it's not so much of an issue as few riders are coming all the way from Astoria and seeking the Downtown Brooklyn area specifically. I just feel that creating three separate routes to "fix" Broadway is a bit overkill, especially when two would work well. After all, out of the 100 years the main Broadway line has been in operation, it's only been the last 30 of them where 4th Avenue wasn't served by the Broadway local from Astoria. Revisiting that service should be looked into first before splitting each of the present 's segments into three separate routes.

Sure -- there's no way this is getting done in the next 20 years, even if it was a proposal that was on their radar. But I object to the long-term thinking that 'because the infrastructure exists in some way, it must be used thus.' Shit changes. 

Edited October 26, 2018 by RR503

[Lance]

My apologies. I was under the impression that this idea existed solely within the current constraints of the subway system, not including the proposed idea to connect Whitehall with the Fulton St local tracks. The pitfalls of skimming while doing other things I suppose. I still don't like that the would essentially become a dead-end line, but that's just me.

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

The has exactly two uses in Brooklyn: getting people to the nearest express stop, and getting people to Lower Manhattan. This holds true in Downtown Brooklyn — people use the  for Midtown. I've honestly yet to meet someone who uses the from that area to above 23rd (I live near there) — and even most of the the NYU-bound folks use the  to the or the . It also isn't like the is being sent to Staten Island or something -- it'll still go to Hoyt Schermerhorn and Lafayette (which, by the way, are central to all the development going up in the area). 

Anyway, once again, you need to consider the proposal in the context of everything it does. Fulton is about to go to hell with gentrification in Bed Stuy and development in ENY -- that isn't something we can change or control or mitigate with parallel corridors. Connecting the local tracks to the  allows you to nearly double capacity on the corridor, and allows you to do so without building another line in Manhattan. Sure, the four people who ride the through to Midtown will have to change routes, but I think that in the context of the capacital benefit, the zillions of alternate Manhattan-bound routes from Downtown, and the better transfers offered from Nassau in Manhattan, it makes sense.

@Around the Horn will probably be able to articulate this all better, but this is my two cents. 

You articulated it better than I could!

2 hours ago, Lance said:

My apologies. I was under the impression that this idea existed solely within the current constraints of the subway system, not including the proposed idea to connect Whitehall with the Fulton St local tracks. The pitfalls of skimming while doing other things I suppose. I still don't like that the would essentially become a dead-end line, but that's just me.

Yeah the original thought exercise (de-interlining the B-division) did not include any new trackage (and originally had the  and sharing 4th Avenue local). When the idea of connecting Broadway to the Fulton Street line came up earlier in this thread, I made an exception for the  and included it.

[Lance]

Got it. Among other things, I was wondering why there were two dead-ending lines that close to each other, hence my thought of resurrecting the old pre-'87 route. That should've been my first clue I didn't read something right along the way. Oh well, swing and a miss on that one.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

11 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

We have spent years fighting his proposals, and now we have come to a full understanding of Wallyhorse proposals...

This one is kind of an “un-Wallyhorse” proposal. It doesn’t involve reverse branching and isn’t being done specifically to benefit politically connected Upper East Siders with a infrequently-running subway service they may not even want.

10 hours ago, RR503 said:

The has exactly two uses in Brooklyn: getting people to the nearest express stop, and getting people to Lower Manhattan. This holds true in Downtown Brooklyn — people use the  for Midtown. I've honestly yet to meet someone who uses the from that area to above 23rd (I live near there) — and even most of the the NYU-bound folks use the  to the or the . It also isn't like the is being sent to Staten Island or something -- it'll still go to Hoyt Schermerhorn and Lafayette (which, by the way, are central to all the development going up in the area). 

Anyway, once again, you need to consider the proposal in the context of everything it does. Fulton is about to go to hell with gentrification in Bed Stuy and development in ENY -- that isn't something we can change or control or mitigate with parallel corridors. Connecting the local tracks to the  allows you to nearly double capacity on the corridor, and allows you to do so without building another line in Manhattan. Sure, the four people who ride the through to Midtown will have to change routes, but I think that in the context of the capacital benefit, the zillions of alternate Manhattan-bound routes from Downtown, and the better transfers offered from Nassau in Manhattan, it makes sense.

@Around the Horn will probably be able to articulate this all better, but this is my two cents. 

Sure -- there's no way this is getting done in the next 20 years, even if it was a proposal that was on their radar. But I object to the long-term thinking that 'because the infrastructure exists in some way, it must be used thus.' Shit changes. 

True. The  and R parts of @Around the Horn‘s proposal are doable now, along with the more-frequent  as the sole Astoria train. It’s the -to-Euclid portion of the proposal that would be well off into the future. 

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Lance said:

Got it. Among other things, I was wondering why there were two dead-ending lines that close to each other, hence my thought of resurrecting the old pre-'87 route. That should've been my first clue I didn't read something right along the way. Oh well, swing and a miss on that one.

Completely with you on the pre-87 . That's one of the few opportunities we have to reasonably (from a ridership patterns perspective) create a -like service.

But anyway, new proposal: fixing Rogers without any reconstruction

-  routed as at 14-15tph (or higher, if dwells can be unf**ked) 

-  to BG/Utica at 10tph (Bowling Green short turns as needed relative to Utica's turning capacity)

-  routed as today at 17-18tph 

-  routed as today at 10tph 

_________________

One thing that's always bothered be about the  to Utica/NL and  to FB proposals is that it gives Lex trains access to three functional southern termini (BG, Utica, NL) and 7th access to only 1 (FB). This essentially means that 7th express is capped at whatever Flatbush can turn -- not some compelling figure, by any account. Now, because Rogers literally destroys the A division, continuing as per today isn't an option, so I propose this middle road -- one which was actually the way the area was operated before the '60s. 

There are some obvious criticisms to be made here: that the whole idea relies too heavily on the functionality of the Utica terminal, that we're overstressing the 142nd and 149th St Junctions, and that we're taking Lex away from Nostrand.

That last issue is, however sad this may be, an unavoidable cost in fixing the area, as ripping up Eastern Parkway to build a flying junction is simply not an option these days. If it is any consolation, there is a pretty ironclad guarantee that the 20-25tph that Utica turns won't have their seats filled out of the gate, so at least some Nostrand folks are sure to get a seated ride.

Regardless, these are the sorts of choices we have to make as planners: do we do what's best for the 90,000 Nostrand riders, or do we do what's best for the system. There are arguments (both in terms of the specifics and in terms of more general political theory) to be made here in either direction -- I simply choose to serve the latter.

I see 142nd and 149th are the proverbial 'wrenches' here. Both were once operated at extraordinarily high (30+tph) throughputs, so it would seem that with some signal modification and operator training, those levels could be achieved today, but I'm still murky on some of the other nuances of past operation -- the safety margins that were standard then, along with the nuances of train length. I say this is important as, beyond wanting  service to do more than 20tph, we need to make sure that enough s make it through 149 to handle crowds on WPR/Dyre. There's a limit to my fascination with 'greatest good,' you know...

Now, Utica. As a two-track, two pocket relay terminal, it should be able to turn 20tph (or 1-2tph less than the Lex is scheduled into Brooklyn today) without any operational changes, but I think such levels are unambitious. Again, to refer back to the good ol' days, throughputs of 30tph were once handled there. The key was, of course, double-ended, unfumigated (100% made up word) relays. I've been told of a bulletin decreeing that said practice be re-implemented at all such terminals, but I'm unsure as to the extent to which this is actually enforced. For reliability's sake (and in recognition of other limits on the Lex) I don't propose we return to those levels, but I think the target for Utica should be less 20tph with conga lines, but instead 25tph with fluidity. 

 

On the benefit side, I'd say the proposal is self-explanatory: deinterlining at Rogers Junction, flexibility in southern termini for the A division expresses, and direct yard access for all lines to boot. 

Interested to hear your thoughts!

[LGA Link N Train]

New proposal involving the Canal Flip. I used the 1998 Subway map as a reference 

Astoria - Coney Island. Local in Manhattan; Express in Brooklyn 

Forest Hills - Brighton Beach; Local in Queens and Brooklyn; Express in Brooklyn

96/125th Street - Bay Ridge;  95th Street; Express in Manhattan south of 63rd Street; Local in Brooklyn

Eliminated

Now operates Full time except late nights between 145th Street (Bedford Pk in Rush Hours) - Coney Island; CPW local, Brighton Local

Norwood 205 - Coney Island; Express in Manhattan and Brooklyn via West End

168 - WTC 100% 8th Avenue Local

Jamaica Ctr - Euclid (Rockaway Park in the Rush Hour); Express in Queens and Manhattan and local in Brooklyn. 

Thoughts?

 

Edited October 27, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

New proposal involving the Canal Flip. I used the 1998 Subway map as a reference

What is the point of a Canal Flip, or a 57th Flip? I don't think either of those are necessary or good. Who does that benefit?

[LGA Link N Train]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

What is the point of a Canal Flip, or a 57th Flip? I don't think either of those are necessary or good. Who does that benefit?

Well, for starters:

1) Broadway would HAVE TO be deinterlined 

2) Those wishing for local trains would have a faster ride between Manhattan and Brooklyn. This can lead to alterations in Ridership patterns. 

3) The Canal Flip can ease congestion on the and since the Express tracks connect to Second Avenue. And those in the upper east side wishing to get downtown can choose between the Broadway Express or the . This means that this altered Broadway Route would absorb some ridership from the . 

4) If you areare waiting for an express train, you no longer have to wait on such a narrow platform. 

Those are the benefits I can think of. However,  service patterns would be kind of weird. 

[R68OnBroadway]

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well, for starters:

1) Broadway would HAVE TO be deinterlined 

2) Those wishing for local trains would have a faster ride between Manhattan and Brooklyn. This can lead to alterations in Ridership patterns. 

3) The Canal Flip can ease congestion on the and since the Express tracks connect to Second Avenue. And those in the upper east side wishing to get downtown can choose between the Broadway Express or the . This means that this altered Broadway Route would absorb some ridership from the . 

4) If you areare waiting for an express train, you no longer have to wait on such a narrow platform. 

Those are the benefits I can think of. However,  service patterns would be kind of weird. 

1. We could do this better with the  via SAS,  to FHills, and the   Astoria/LGA-Bay Ridge (provided 36th is converted to a yard or we get a new one in Astoria).

3. Most people look for Midtown.

4. The congestion on that platform could be fixed with a mezzanine under Walker from the tunnel platforms to the Nassau platforms.

Edited October 28, 2018 by R68OnBroadway

[Around the Horn]

4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

4. The congestion on that platform could be fixed with a mezzanine under Walker from the tunnel platforms to the Nassau platforms.

Where do I sign up for this?

Canal Street needs a full TfL-style renovation (like the ones they've done at Bond Street and Tottenham Court Road and are planning at Camden Town) with new entrances and new transfer passages. It's just as dangerous as Camden Town is now...

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Well, for starters:

1) Broadway would HAVE TO be deinterlined 

2) Those wishing for local trains would have a faster ride between Manhattan and Brooklyn. This can lead to alterations in Ridership patterns. 

3) The Canal Flip can ease congestion on the and since the Express tracks connect to Second Avenue. And those in the upper east side wishing to get downtown can choose between the Broadway Express or the . This means that this altered Broadway Route would absorb some ridership from the . 

4) If you areare waiting for an express train, you no longer have to wait on such a narrow platform. 

Those are the benefits I can think of. However,  service patterns would be kind of weird. 

1) You can do that without a Canal Flip

2) Is that a thing that people want? Right now the Broadway Express via Bridge is the fastest way to Midtown over the  from Brooklyn - slowing down the Broadway Express will push some people onto the

3) The Broadway Express is never going to beat the going Downtown; the is a straight line, not a scenic curve through east and west and every which way in between like Broadway. Why bother competing for it?

4) Then widen the platform.

This reads more like foam looking for a problem rather than an actual solution to things.

Edited October 28, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[W4ST]

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

What is the point of a Canal Flip, or a 57th Flip? I don't think either of those are necessary or good. Who does that benefit?

I don't like the Canal Flip, but I am a proponent of the 57th Street flip, and I can describe why.

In general, I believe that a 57th Street Flip would be useful only if SAS is extended southward along 2nd Avenue in Phase 3 without a lower level. (I would also suggest a branch to Queens on that line, but I am specifically discussing the interlining that would occur at 72nd Street) These would be the advantages of a 57th Street Flip in that scenario.

- Balancing of capacity. The Broadway tracks leading to SAS would only be able to handle 15 tph in this case, so we would want to connect those to the tracks that don't need as high TPH. That would be Broadway Local, as Broadway Local is long and winding. On the other hand, Astoria needs a lot of service, as does the Manhattan Bridge, so those two should be connected. If this flip was not done, the Manhattan Bridge would only be able to run 15 tph on the Broadway tracks without interlining in Midtown, which would be in my opinion unacceptable.

- Flexibility. If Broadway Tracks interline with 2nd Avenue Tracks at 72nd Street, they would want some flexibility on the line, as there could be problems associated with the interlining. Broadway Express is not very flexible, as it has no terminals for a long time, while Broadway Local has a terminal at Whitehall Street. Therefore, trains can be distributed better, with Broadway Local south of Whitehall able to take on 7.5 tph, 15 tph, or 22.5 tph when needed.

- Destinations. If this flip was made, SAS riders would have a direct route to Downtown, and Astoria riders would have a direct route to Brooklyn. This is not too important, as most people are going to Midtown, but it would help some people.

[Around the Horn]

I personally don't see a need for either flip, but if I had to choose one I'd go with the 57th Street flip.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

1) You can do that without a Canal Flip

*True, but what I'm saying is that the Canal Flip FORCES you to deinterline Broadway

2) Is that a thing that people want? Right now the Broadway Express via Bridge is the fastest way to Midtown over the  from Brooklyn - slowing down the Broadway Express will push some people onto the

*SOME people, not ALL, but I do see your point about the Broadway Express bring a fast route to Brooklyn from Midtown. 

3) The Broadway Express is never going to beat the going Downtown; the is a straight line, not a scenic curve through east and west and every which way in between like Broadway. Why bother competing for it?

*It can beat the . I was trying to go for the point that tried to go for in 1998-1999.  

Quote

The 1999 Draft Environmental Impact Statement only proposed new subway service from 63rd Street north up Second Avenue to 125th Street via the Broadway Line to Lower Manhattan. All trains would have been routed down the Broadway Line express tracks, which are the only tracks on the Broadway Line which connect to the 63rd Street Line. In order to provide access to Lower Manhattan, and to allow for congestion reduction on the Lexington Avenue Line, the "Canal Street Flip" was proposed. As built, the tracks at Canal Street are set up so that the local tracks continue into the Financial District and then enter Brooklyn through the Montague Street Tunnel, while the express tracks continue to Brooklyn directly, crossing the Manhattan Bridge.[96]:20–21 The "Canal Street Flip" would have flipped the local and express tracks at Canal Street, having local trains run via the Manhattan Bridge, and in turn having the express trains continue south on the Broadway Line through Lower Manhattan and through the Montague Street Tunnel into Brooklyn. To construct the "Flip" 3,450 feet (1,050 m) of track would have been reconstructed, the two side platforms would have been widened, columns would have been relocated, and two new switches would have been installed.[17]:15·26 to 15·27 Once the construction of full-length Second Avenue Subway was approved, this option was discarded.[96]:21

The service plan with the "Canal Street Flip," according to the December 1998 "Manhattan East Side Transit Alternative Study," would have had R trains run via the Second Avenue line, which was only planned to run from 63rd Street to 125th Street. R trains would become the Broadway express under this plan, using the BMT 63rd Street Line to access the Second Avenue line and continuing to 125th Street.[97] The service would have operated 25 trains per hour (tph) between 125th Street and City Hall, 20 tph between City Hall and Whitehall Street, and 10 tph between Whitehall Street and Bay Ridge–95th Street via the Montague Street Tunnel. A reconstruction of a junction near Canal Street, called the "Canal Flip," would have provided a direct connection between the express tracks of the Broadway Line and Lower Manhattan, allowing the route to operate.[97] To allow R trains to short-turn at City Hall, the station's unused lower level would have been reactivated, requiring upgrades for the platforms and tracks, including their lengthening, in addition to the installation of tail tracks. During construction, the station's upper level would have had to been underpinned.[17]:15–27 To replace the R on Queens Boulevard, a Broadway Local T route (distinct from the currently proposed Second Avenue Local T route) would have been created, running between Continental Avenue and Bay Parkway via Broadway local and the Manhattan Bridge. The "Canal Street Flip" would have provided a direct connection between the local tracks and the Manhattan Bridge. The N, which ran local on Broadway, would have been rerouted from the Montague Street Tunnel to the Manhattan Bridge.[97]:76–80

Source - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Second_Avenue_Subway

4) Then widen the platform.

*I support that too, but what concerns me is whether or not it is feasible. How many buildings would have to be underpinned and how long would construction take? Same can be said for the Canal Flip. 

This reads more like foam looking for a problem rather than an actual solution to things.

*I don't advocate the Canal Flip either.However, I chose to experiment with the idea and see how I can look for ways to make it an effective proposal. I see that didn't work out so well. 

Here's a source that I used to initally make this proposal, Replies are in bold.

[LGA Link N Train]

I wanted to make a reply on this earlier but couldn't due to how old and sometimes laggy my phone is (I'm also keeping this seperate from the post above)

On 10/27/2018 at 12:39 AM, RR503 said:

new proposal: fixing Rogers without any reconstruction

-  routed as at 14-15tph (or higher, if dwells can be unf**ked) 

-  to BG/Utica at 10tph (Bowling Green short turns as needed relative to Utica's turning capacity)

-  routed as today at 17-18tph 

-  routed as today at 10tph 

 

On 10/27/2018 at 12:39 AM, RR503 said:

One thing that's always bothered be about the  to Utica/NL and  to FB proposals is that it gives Lex trains access to three functional southern termini (BG, Utica, NL) and 7th access to only 1 (FB). This essentially means that 7th express is capped at whatever Flatbush can turn -- not some compelling figure, by any account. Now, because Rogers literally destroys the A division, continuing as per today isn't an option, so I propose this middle road -- one which was actually the way the area was operated before the '60s. 

There are some obvious criticisms to be made here: that the whole idea relies too heavily on the functionality of the Utica terminal, that we're overstressing the 142nd and 149th St Junctions, and that we're taking Lex away from Nostrand.

Regardless, these are the sorts of choices we have to make as planners: do we do what's best for the 90,000 Nostrand riders, or do we do what's best for the system. There are arguments (both in terms of the specifics and in terms of more general political theory) to be made here in either direction -- I simply choose to serve the latter.

I never thought about the Functional Terminals part. But if 7th Avenue  are capped because of Flatbush, then wouldn't if be sensible to either fix terminal procedures (this including the signals) and add relay tracks south of Flatbush Avenue? Besides, since you're routing the  down to Utica,  wouldn't this mean that Nostrand and Lexington lose a little bit of service in the Process? That wouldn't sit too well with Lexington and Nostrand riders. (The former being a higher priority)

As for the part I placed in bold. If your porposal relies to heavily on Utica, then maybe it'd be a great time to start the Utica extension (which would need funding and political support, in which I'm hoping that Molinaro gets elected for NYC governor). Depending on how things would work, then the Utica Extension would requrie some track reconstruction if chooses not to use the bellmouths provisioned for such an extension. As for 142nd and 149th Junctions, rebuilding those would be the best option. As for how, 135th Street along with it's junction would need to be rebuilt along with the 149th Street Junction. This could result in trains no longer stopping at 149th Street - Grand Concourse which shouldn't be too much of a loss. 

 

On 10/27/2018 at 12:39 AM, RR503 said:

I see 142nd and 149th are the proverbial 'wrenches' here. Both were once operated at extraordinarily high (30+tph) throughputs, so it would seem that with some signal modification and operator training, those levels could be achieved today, but I'm still murky on some of the other nuances of past operation -- the safety margins that were standard then, along with the nuances of train length. I say this is important as, beyond wanting  service to do more than 20tph, we need to make sure that enough s make it through 149 to handle crowds on WPR/Dyre. There's a limit to my fascination with 'greatest good,' you know...

So that's why you propose to Short turn a few trains at Bowling Green. I was a little bit confused at First. I still go along with what I proposed above, since your goal to do deinterling Rogers while providing the most optimal service. However like I said earlier, I think it might have to reach a point where 142nd and 149th Street junctions might have to be rebuilt as a whole if we are going to keep service at the same levels. Also, in the scenario that the  couldn't deliver the service necessary to provide, would you send a few trains to WPR/Dyre to cover the gap?

On 10/27/2018 at 12:39 AM, RR503 said:

Now, Utica. As a two-track, two pocket relay terminal, it should be able to turn 20tph (or 1-2tph less than the Lex is scheduled into Brooklyn today) without any operational changes, but I think such levels are unambitious. Again, to refer back to the good ol' days, throughputs of 30tph were once handled there. The key was, of course, double-ended, unfumigated (100% made up word) relays. I've been told of a bulletin decreeing that said practice be re-implemented at all such terminals, but I'm unsure as to the extent to which this is actually enforced. For reliability's sake (and in recognition of other limits on the Lex) I don't propose we return to those levels, but I think the target for Utica should be less 20tph with conga lines, but instead 25tph with fluidity. 

Terminal practices should be completely revamped in order to turn trains quickly. As you said, Utica should be able to turn about 20TPH. With terminal procedures redone and signals upgraded, I believe that we can achive higher. And if that's not enough, then add the Utica Line into the mix.

 

On 10/27/2018 at 12:39 AM, RR503 said:

On the benefit side, I'd say the proposal is self-explanatory: deinterlining at Rogers Junction, flexibility in southern termini for the A division expresses, and direct yard access for all lines to boot. 

 - East 180th; Uniport and 239th Street yards

 - Harlem and Livonia Yards

Jerome Yard

Well, you did delinterline Rogers Junction, but not completely. It's a great proposal though.  

[R68OnBroadway]

While we are talking about junctions on the IRT, does anybody know what would be done to rebuild some junctions like 142nd and 149th, and if these were ever studied? 142nd seems easy to me given you only need to build a new track diverging from the old one and that you have seven blocks before the next station, but 149th seems more difficult- maybe have new track curve from Walton/149th to Gerard/146th and then have it merge with the Lex mainline near approx. 141st?

[RR503]

142 and 149 both dealt with 30+ tph in the past. They have the potential to be delay vectors at those frequencies, but it'd be disingenuous to say that they can't deal with modern needs. I think the key would be studying how aggressive operation can be in those areas, and adjusting accordingly. 

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 As for the part I placed in bold. If your porposal relies to heavily on Utica, then maybe it'd be a great time to start the Utica extension (which would need funding and political support, in which I'm hoping that Molinaro gets elected for NYC governor). Depending on how things would work, then the Utica Extension would requrie some track reconstruction if chooses not to use the bellmouths provisioned for such an extension. As for 142nd and 149th Junctions, rebuilding those would be the best option. As for how, 135th Street along with it's junction would need to be rebuilt along with the 149th Street Junction. This could result in trains no longer stopping at 149th Street - Grand Concourse which shouldn't be too much of a loss. 

A Utica extension should be studied, yes, but framing it in the context of Utica's terminal inabilities is taking a Howitzer to a foodfight. Again, that terminal (and other comparable ones across the system) were once operated at 30+tph. I'd be looking to restore that before we head for more drastic means. 

Generally -- and this is not meant as a jab at those here -- we need to escape this 'see problem, throw money' mentality. The vast majority of systemic issues today are managerial ones, not ones that arose from technological/infrastructural inability (though there are, of course, many of those too). I think there are absolutely merits to solutions like CBTC and junction reconstructions and service capacity targeted deinterlining, but I think those efforts need to be contextualized in a system that is operated as best it can with what it has. NYC isn't that, which is why I urge caution in these areas. 

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

So that's why you propose to Short turn a few trains at Bowling Green. I was a little bit confused at First. I still go along with what I proposed above, since your goal to do deinterling Rogers while providing the most optimal service. However like I said earlier, I think it might have to reach a point where 142nd and 149th Street junctions might have to be rebuilt as a whole if we are going to keep service at the same levels. Also, in the scenario that the  couldn't deliver the service necessary to provide, would you send a few trains to WPR/Dyre to cover the gap?

Keep in mind that there'd be 18 or so tph of  heading up that way. WPR shouldn't be too much of an issue -- it's the balance of  service across Dyre and Nereid that could become an issue. 

[R68OnBroadway]

Anybody know how far the platforms at Flatbush go? I'm trying to see to if there would be enough room for tail tracks.

[transitfan111]

50 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Anybody know how far the platforms at Flatbush go? I'm trying to see to if there would be enough room for tail tracks.

The platforms? If you remove the end platforms you could fit another train car that’s it. There’s only about a block of space to build tail tracks before hitting the railroad. 

Source: I use that station everyday.