Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Actually, let me ask a different question: why extend the (N) to Coney Island/86? Since it will just run local? Why create an extra merge at 59 when you can either terminate it at Whitehall or 95?

Because Coney Island need a Full Time service all times which is the (N) , (W) is the Weekday only Supplement.  Just like now they both terminate at Ditmars Blvd with no problems.

 

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I fail to Understand is the Sentiment of Astoria needing 2 services on the weekdays .

"If you were to run only one service in Astoria, then would be under served!"

^ I find this claim to be a load a BS because if you were to run Double the amount of One service, would Astoria still be under served?

Also, I'm working on a year old proposal to upgrade the (J) Line. When i'll post it, I have not figured that out yet. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Why make the (E) local on the weekends? It makes more sense to just have the (W) run on weekends instead (not that I would do that). 

Other than that, this plan is fine. While it is a bare minimum in that it only kills the 34th merge and still leaves Astoria underserved, it’s still better than the delays in of today.

Especially since during the spring and fall months, you have people especially on Saturdays using the (E) to Archer to get the Q110 bus to Belmont Park, especially on weekends.  I've done it with the (E) local and it was a real PITA. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

One thing I fail to Understand is the Sentiment of Astoria needing 2 services on the weekdays .

"If you were to run only one service in Astoria, then would be under served!"

^ I find this claim to be a load a BS because if you were to run Double the amount of One service, would Astoria still be under served?

Also, I'm working on a year old proposal to upgrade the (J) Line. When i'll post it, I have not figured that out yet. 

It’s not really a question of services but of frequency... Broadway local is limited to IIRC 24 tph due to the City Hall curve (though the speed increase there might help a little). Astoria is currently served by I believe 7.5 (N) TPH and 7.5 (W) TPH (15 TPH total). The (R) now runs 10 TPH and the (M) runs 10 TPH (so 20 TPH goes to QBL local. If we are going to a 1:1 split, we up QBL by 2 TPH but cut 3 from Astoria. If we go for 20 (a meaningful increase) to Astoria, we give Astoria a good amount of service but screw over QBL. If we end up sending the (R) and (W) to Astoria and and have another QBL local-8th service we give Astoria a good increase and can still keep a good frequency on QBL local (The (K) would run at 11 TPH while the (E) keeps 15 as IIRC WTC can turn only 26 TPH at most).

(The reason for keeping the (W) designation is because it would avoid confusion from designating all the trains at short-turns to Whitehall.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

It’s not really a question of services but of frequency... Broadway local is limited to IIRC 24 tph due to the City Hall curve (though the speed increase there might help a little). Astoria is currently served by I believe 7.5 (N) TPH and 7.5 (W) TPH (15 TPH total). The (R) now runs 10 TPH and the (M) runs 10 TPH (so 20 TPH goes to QBL local. If we are going to a 1:1 split, we up QBL by 2 TPH but cut 3 from Astoria. If we go for 20 (a meaningful increase) to Astoria, we give Astoria a good amount of service but screw over QBL. If we end up sending the (R) and (W) to Astoria and and have another QBL local-8th service we give Astoria a good increase and can still keep a good frequency on QBL local (The (K) would run at 11 TPH while the (E) keeps 15 as IIRC WTC can turn only 26 TPH at most).

 (The reason for keeping the (W) designation is because it would avoid confusion from designating all the trains at short-turns to Whitehall.)

Remember you have Canal to turn trains, too! Then you should be able to do whatever signals/dwells will allow on Broadway local-60th. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Because Coney Island need a Full Time service all times which is the (N) , (W) is the Weekday only Supplement.  Just like now they both terminate at Ditmars Blvd with no problems.

 

True, and that’s why the full time service (the (N)should not be local all the way through Brooklyn and Manhattan.

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

It’s not really a question of services but of frequency... Broadway local is limited to IIRC 24 tph due to the City Hall curve (though the speed increase there might help a little). Astoria is currently served by I believe 7.5 (N) TPH and 7.5 (W) TPH (15 TPH total). The (R) now runs 10 TPH and the (M) runs 10 TPH (so 20 TPH goes to QBL local. If we are going to a 1:1 split, we up QBL by 2 TPH but cut 3 from Astoria. If we go for 20 (a meaningful increase) to Astoria, we give Astoria a good amount of service but screw over QBL. If we end up sending the (R) and (W) to Astoria and and have another QBL local-8th service we give Astoria a good increase and can still keep a good frequency on QBL local (The (K) would run at 11 TPH while the (E) keeps 15 as IIRC WTC can turn only 26 TPH at most).

(The reason for keeping the (W) designation is because it would avoid confusion from designating all the trains at short-turns to Whitehall.)

So even with a limit of 24 tph on the City Hall curve, Astoria (R)  can run more frequently than the current (N) and (W) put together, assuming a minimal amount of merging.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Insane idea,

With the rbb 🙄 for intra Queens service how would a Subway on junction blvd to Lga be feasible

Subway runs down junction to a new rego park 63rd drive transfer station under QB line with springboard into the RBB BRANCH to Rockaway park? 

Edited by BreeddekalbL
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Insane idea,

With the rbb 🙄 for intra Queens service how would a Subway on junction blvd to Lga be feasible

Subway runs down junction to a new rego park 63rd drive transfer station under QB line with springboard into the RBB BRANCH to Rockaway park? 

I think you could make it a Rockaway split type thing where one service off the QBL runs to LGA and another runs to RBB, with a track connection between LGA and RBB easily being available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Random thought I'm sure (F) and (M) swapping 53rd and 63rd has been discussed but if I proposed it would it minimalize switching and merging on Queens Blvd? 

Edited by BreeddekalbL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Random thought I'm sure (F) and (M) swapping 53rd and 63rd has been discussed but if I proposed it would it minimalize switching and merging on Queens Blvd? 

You’d eliminate the merging between the (E) and (M) at Queens Plaza and move the (M)(R) merge to 36 St, yes. It would, though, f**k up the load imbalance between locals and expresses on Queens Boulevard even further, reduce capacity on QB express by sending all trains through Lex-53 (dwell issues), and complicate off peak service patterns...so maybe not the best of ideas.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So back in October, I posted my grand B Division Interlining scheme for weekday service. That post can be found here (https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/48571-department-of-subways-proposalsideas/page/285/?tab=comments#comment-994054) and the subsequent pages may also be of interest...

This time around, I've finally come up with a weekend version of that deinterlining scheme that I feel works (same rules apply as before; no new tracks except for the (W) connection to Fulton Street, and TPH figures are for peak periods)

Quote

NYC Subway B Division (Weekend) Deinterlining Proposal:

(A) Norwood-205 St to Rockaways via Fulton/8 Av Express/Concourse Local  (10 TPH, 5 Mott Av/5 Howard Beach)

(C) Bedford Park Blvd to Lefferts Blvd via Concourse Local/8 Av/Fulton Exp  (5 TPH)

(D) 207 St to Coney Island via CPW local/6 Av Exp/Brighton Local  (15 TPH)

(E) WTC to Jamaica Center via 8 Av/53 St local/QB express (7.5 TPH) 

(F) *same as today 

(G) Long Island City-Court Square to Church Av (7.5 TPH)

(J) Lower Manhattan-Broad St to Jamaica Center via Nassau St/Jamaica Local  (7.5 TPH)

(K)  WTC to Forest Hills-71 Av via 8 Av/53 St/QB local (7.5 TPH)

(L) *same as today 

(M) Metropolitan Av to Forest Hills-71 Av via Myrtle Av/6 Av Local/QB local  (7.5 TPH)

(N)  96 St to Coney Island via Broadway Express/Sea Beach (10 TPH)

(Q) 96 St to Coney Island via Broadway Express/West End  (10 TPH)

(R) Essex St to Bay Ridge-95 St via Nassau Street/4th Av local (7.5 TPH) 

(W) Astoria-Ditmars to Whitehall St or Euclid Av via Broadway local/Montague/Fulton St Local (15 TPH, 7.5 to Whitehall/7.5 to Euclid)

 

As you can see above, my main goal was to ensure that Manhattan trunks have a train every 4 minutes...

Quote

8th Av: express (A)(C) local (E)(K)

6th Av: express (D) local (F)(M) 

Broadway: express (N)(Q) local (W) 

Nassau: local (J)(R) 

CPW: express (A)(C) local (D) 

QBL: express (E)(F) local (M)(K) 

and most outer branches have a train every 8 minutes.

The 12 minute frequencies on the (A)(C) branches in Queens is an exception since a pattern of A-A-C-A-A-C produces a train every 4 minutes in the central core.

Also, running the (D) train every 4 minutes is a conscious decision made rather than also running a (redundant) (B) service on the weekends and its meant to properly absorb those riders.

As always let me know what you think...

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My B Division Interlining Scheme is this

(A) *Same as Today

(B) Brighton Beach to Co-Op City

(C) 168th St to Cambria Heights-234th St

(D) Coney Island to Co-Op City

(E) WTC to Queens Village - Springfield Blvd

(F) Coney Island to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy

(G) Court Sq to Fort Hamilton - 92nd St

(J) Broad St to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd

(K) WTC to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th St

(L) Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy to Upper West Side-72nd St

(M) Maspeth - Queens Blvd to Floral Park - 263rd st

(N) *Same as Today or Coney Island to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy

(Q) Coney Island to Co-Op City

(R) Bay Ridge-95th St to Floral Park - 263rd st

(T) Broadway-125th St to Cambria Heights-234th St

(V) Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck-Schurz Ave

(W) *Same as Today or Astoria-Ditmars to Chelsea-Travis Ave (Staten Island) or College Point-14th Ave to Chelsea-Travis Ave (Staten Island)

(Z) Chambers St to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

(bunch of crap)

Your obsession with long and pointless extensions is on par with that of Wallyhorse’s and the bridge stubs...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

So are yours

Yours ain't better, eliminating the (W) completely, Why Don't (R) replaces the (N) on Astoria while the (N) extends to Forest Hills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Yours ain't better, eliminating the (W) completely, Why Don't (R) replaces the (N) on Astoria while the (N) extends to Forest Hills.

Any service that isn’t from 6th local via 63rd is a terrible idea as the (F) doesn’t need another merge. (Don’t even say 60th as you would have just swapped the designations and killed the (N)’s reliability. Eliminating the (W) could just be recouped by extra (R) s to Astoria. The (W) isn’t really an independent line anyways and I would probably only keep the designation to not confuse people about the short turn (R) s to Whitehall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Any service that isn’t from 6th local via 63rd is a terrible idea as the (F) doesn’t need another merge. (Don’t even say 60th as you would have just swapped the designations and killed the (N)’s reliability. Eliminating the (W) could just be recouped by extra (R) s to Astoria. The (W) isn’t really an independent line anyways and I would probably only keep the designation to not confuse people about the short turn (R) s to Whitehall.

Go to Stations like 28th Street, 23rd Street, Spring Street, 8th Street-NYU and From City Hall to Whitehall Street. (W) running along with the (R), Best Idea is that (R) to Replace the (N) on Astoria line, (N) to Replace (R) on QBL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Go to Stations like 28th Street, 23rd Street, Spring Street, 8th Street-NYU and From City Hall to Whitehall Street. (W) running along with the (R), Best Idea is that (R) to Replace the (N) on Astoria line, (N) to Replace (R) on QBL.

The former I agree with. The latter not so much. Extending the (N) to QBL won’t really help in terms of reliability. First off, you’d be creating a new bottleneck by 63rd Street and making the bottleneck at 36th Street worse. Best sort term idea in terms of making service more reliable is this: 

(N) to 96th Street with the (Q) 

(R) to Astoria, short turns at Whitehall can be listed as (W)’s 

Add a new (K) Service from WTC to Forest Hills. Which will allow for the following:

(C) Truncated to WTC. 

(E) made into the 8th Avenue Express; replaces the (C) past Canal to Euclid. 

(F) Stays as is. 

(M) Rerouted via 63rd Street. 

An alternative would be to make the (E) and (K) the QB Locals and he (F) and (M) the QB Expresses, which would help in Maximizing capacity. 

The only downside to this proposal is the 36th Street bottleneck and a new bottleneck which would be added at 50th Street.  It these issues won’t be too big and still allow for more flexibility compared to the current system. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The former I agree with. The latter not so much. Extending the (N) to QBL won’t really help in terms of reliability. First off, you’d be creating a new bottleneck by 63rd Street and making the bottleneck at 36th Street worse. Best sort term idea in terms of making service more reliable is this: 

(N) to 96th Street with the (Q) 

(R) to Astoria, short turns at Whitehall can be listed as (W)’s 

Add a new (K) Service from WTC to Forest Hills. Which will allow for the following:

(C) Truncated to WTC. 

(E) made into the 8th Avenue Express; replaces the (C) past Canal to Euclid. 

(F) Stays as is. 

(M) Rerouted via 63rd Street. 

An alternative would be to make the (E) and (K) the QB Locals and he (F) and (M) the QB Expresses, which would help in Maximizing capacity. 

The only downside to this proposal is the 36th Street bottleneck and a new bottleneck which would be added at 50th Street.  It these issues won’t be too big and still allow for more flexibility compared to the current system. 

Well that's a good idea, there are some things i prefer

(C) extended to Cambria Heights-234th St

(K) from WTC to to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th St via new Queensway line

(E) extended to Queens Village - Springfield Blvd,

(F) extended to Floral Park - Little Neck PkwyFloral Park - Little Neck Pkwy

(M) extended to Floral Park - 263rd st

(R) to Run Super-Express from Queensplaza to Rego Park via a New Super-Express Tunnel underneath LIRR

It will be a very good Idea for (E) and (K) Train to run QBL Local while the (F) and (M) express.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Go to Stations like 28th Street, 23rd Street, Spring Street, 8th Street-NYU and From City Hall to Whitehall Street. (W) running along with the (R), Best Idea is that (R) to Replace the (N) on Astoria line, (N) to Replace (R) on QBL.

The only people who the (W) really benefit are the Astoria-Lower Manhattan crowd, and eliminating the (W) while sending the (N) to 96th whole the (R) goes to Astoria means  that you still keep direct access for those people while still providing good service for the Midtown crowd (you would also be able to boost service given the elimination of the 34th merge provided you make some switch changes at Ditmars.)

Also, I’ve seen a lot more people propose a Queens-8th exp-Brooklyn service. Would doing this be beneficial? You would eliminate the Canal merge (from what I know the Hoyt one isn’t as big as a problem), but is the 42nd merge any better? I think the best thing that would come out of it means that the (E) gets a good terminal (Euclid) while the lower-use services ( (C)(K) ) would be fine with a 20 TPH terminal given that they are also supplemented by other lines.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

 Also, I’ve seen a lot more people propose a Queens-8th exp-Brooklyn service. Would doing this be beneficial? You would eliminate the Canal merge (from what I know the Hoyt one isn’t as big as a problem), but is the 42nd merge any better? I think the best thing that would come out of it means that the (E) gets a good terminal (Euclid) while the lower-use services ( (C)(K) ) would be fine with a 20 TPH terminal given that they are also supplemented by other lines.

I share this sentiment. If you're deinterlining elsewhere, 8th/CPW (where you're at worst adding a cross platform transfer) don't seem all that bad especially given how painful the merge at Canal/a potential 59th St-like pattern at 42 is or would be. Capacity really does get shot at merges, and if you're planning on running a service reliable enough to take Queens Boulevard to Brooklyn, you want to be damn near certain you're minimizing points of variability -- so not playing slot games at 42 seems in order. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would happen if (C) run between 168 St and World Trade Center, and (E) run between Jamaica Center and Euclid Av local in Brooklyn, and (A) service stay the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

What would happen if (C) run between 168 St and World Trade Center, and (E) run between Jamaica Center and Euclid Av local in Brooklyn, and (A) service stay the same?

Nothing good. First remember that the (E) runs double the number of trains per hour during peaks that the (C) does, meaning that, at best, you'd have to carefully put together an unbalanced (ie run more trains from Queens in the AM/to it in the PM than you do for Brooklyn) frequency pattern to fit (E) and (A) into Cranberry, or at worst would have to short turn some (E) trains from Queens so that Cranberry could work. The (E) would also become even less reliable, what with merges introduced at Hoyt and Canal, and a longer route to boot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

What would happen if (C) run between 168 St and World Trade Center, and (E) run between Jamaica Center and Euclid Av local in Brooklyn, and (A) service stay the same?

This was discussed in the 2015 review of the (A) and (C) lines (http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/AC_LineReview.pdf). It mentioned that having the (E) go into Brooklyn would introduce a high frequency merge at 42nd Street, and cause PM rush hour congestion in the northbound congestion at Hoyt-Schmerhorn due to the (E) needing to be more frequent than the (C). Furthermore, there would need to be more train cars available so that the (E) service to Brooklyn can continue to operate at 15 trains per hour to adequately serve riders along the Queens Blvd Line (which is already overcrowded).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Nothing good. First remember that the (E) runs double the number of trains per hour during peaks that the (C) does, meaning that, at best, you'd have to carefully put together an unbalanced (ie run more trains from Queens in the AM/to it in the PM than you do for Brooklyn) frequency pattern to fit (E) and (A) into Cranberry, or at worst would have to short turn some (E) trains from Queens so that Cranberry could work. The (E) would also become even less reliable, what with merges introduced at Hoyt and Canal, and a longer route to boot. 

Also, even with the low number of local stations between Canal Street and 59th Street, if the crowds on the existing (E) trains are any indication, a reckless shift to the express tracks would create even more dangerous situations, which is only exacerbated by the psychological aspect of express/local services (where the latter is at a greater risk of being considerably emptier than the former even with virtually nonexistent savings, all because the former is considered faster).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
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.