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

The (A)(C) and (H) is overkill.

A much simpler solution is

(A) alternating between Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park (peak) or Howard Beach (off peak) 

(C) Lefferts Blvd all times (shuttle to Euclid late nights) 

-------

I've already explained my opinions on Nassau but I do not believe extending the (J)(Z) to Bay Ridge is a good idea since it would make the routes longer and introduce more opportunities to delay the existing service and cause the same problems the (R) already has. A new separate route from the south, ideally an (R) to Essex Street (why is the brown R not an available bullet?) terminating on the middle track is a better idea IMO.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about (A) 207 St and Far Rockaway, (H) 207 St and Rockaway Park overnights Shuttle between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park, (C) 168 St and Lefferts Blvd overnights Shuttle Euclid Av to Lefferts Blvd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Can’t say I follow how replacing one of the worst merges in the system is “not a solution,” but hey, what do I know, right? 

FWIW, deinterlining 59 doesn’t mean you have to deinterline 145. You could easily send the (C) to 205 to replace the (D) so that both northern branches keep express service. 

You mean the merge that's negatively impacted by a larger placement issue? The merge that currently employs service based on need instead of wet dreams?

Shift the (C) back to the Bronx and we run into consistency issues (or, worse, running a whole bunch of overnight trains in areas without something more substantial to remotely justify that service).

The one thing that stops me from saying anything more is the fact that this query pertains to a larger collection of 💩 proposals (seriously, who's looking for Broadway along Fulton Street, especially at 10+ tph?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bwwnyc123 said:

How about (A) 207 St and Far Rockaway, (H) 207 St and Rockaway Park overnights Shuttle between Broad Channel and Rockaway Park, (C) 168 St and Lefferts Blvd overnights Shuttle Euclid Av to Lefferts Blvd.

That's the idea I was thinking, because after all, if you are going to split half of the train between branches during most of the day and on the weekends and advertising it on the map, you might as well split it off into another designation. However, with my plan to have the (R) on Euclid Avenue, if you are proposing to continue to run the Lefferts Shuttle during late nights, might as well have the (R) run from Astoria to Lefferts Blvd via local, similar to the (4) when it runs to New Lots Avenue during the night.

30 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The (A)(C) and (H) is overkill.

A much simpler solution is

(A) alternating between Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park (peak) or Howard Beach (off peak) 

(C) Lefferts Blvd all times (shuttle to Euclid late nights) 

-------

I've already explained my opinions on Nassau but I do not believe extending the (J)(Z) to Bay Ridge is a good idea since it would make the routes longer and introduce more opportunities to delay the existing service and cause the same problems the (R) already has. A new separate route from the south, ideally an (R) to Essex Street (why is the brown R not an available bullet?) terminating on the middle track is a better idea IMO.

While the (A)(C) and (H) appears to be overkill, in reality, under my plans, they will be just three (A) train services. You just have one designation for each service. This improves customer service on the customers end since there would be no one designation for two branches. So for example, if one was asking how they can get to JFK AirTrain, instead of saying "take the (A) going to Far Rockaway or Rockaway Park, not the (A) to Lefferts Blvd", they can say "take the (A) or (H)". After all, at this point, of you are more keen of alternating the (A)'s between two separate branches and terminals, might as well rebrand it another letter. The (H) would be staffed as part of the (A) and together, the (A) and (H) would operate at 15 trains per hour (8 (A) trains to Far Rockaway and 7 (A) trains to Rockaway Park). Either way, the (A)/(H) and (C) would all go at 25 trains per hour, which is more frequent service on the Fulton Express.

As for Nassau, I only put that in considering the capacity of the Williamsburg Bridge and on the Nassau Line, and this is only a short term. An brown (R) route like you suggested to either Chambers Street or Essex Street would be ideal. I just didn't use it because I limited myself to only the available bullets here. In the long term, I am considering connecting the Second Avenue Subway (T) south of Hanover Sq with the IND Fulton Line and having it operate local on the Fulton Line, supplementing the (R). From there, I am proposing that the (T) split off via a new Jamaica Avenue Subway to connect with the BMT Jamaica Line at Cypress Hills to Jamaica Center, with new stops at Arlington Avenue and Highland Place. This would require upgrading the BMT Jamaica Line stations from Cypress Hills to 121st Street to fit longer trains. At this point, the Jamaica Avenue Elevated would be disconnected at Broadway Junction, and the structure on Fulton Street to be torn down. Unfortunately, the (T) would have to run at 10 trains per hour, since the (N) and (Q) would be using the line north of 63rd Street with the (R) using the Astoria Line, but then again, most of the crowd relief will be coming from the Upper East Side, so that section from 125th to 72nd Street should see a frequency of train every 2 minutes. People who would normally walk over two avenues to take the Lexington IRT would be more inclined to use the new line instead.

With the Broadway elevated and the Jamaica elevated disconnected, this means that the (J) can run from Broadway Junction to 95th Street, no problems. The new (T) line would provide a much faster service out to Lower Manhattan, faster than the (J) can, attracting the Queens Blvd passengers the (J) failed to attract. 

Share this post


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

The one thing that stops me from saying anything more is the fact that this query pertains to a larger collection of 💩 proposals (seriously, who's looking for Broadway along Fulton Street, especially at 10+ tph?).

The point of the (R) to Euclid is not really for Broadway access but to increase service that is currently limited by the Cranberry segment- sending the (R) to Hoyt after Whitehall is the easiest way since you have provisions and Bay Ridge is fine with losing direct Manhattan local service since they transfer anyways. With the City Hall curve you end up with 24 tph of (R) service which I'd say is good considering future development along the corridor. You'll also be able to have Fulton be less isolated with the transfers downtown. From here you can also get some decent service to all the (A) branches in Queens and encourage development along areas like Aqueduct since it'll now have halfway decent service. Can you do the same with extending the (E) ? Sure, but it'll be much more expensive since you'll need to tunnel through several streets in Manhattan since WTC is too close to Cortlandt for the track to be extended. Note: this would be in combination with the (E)(F)(K)(M) plan and a deinterlined 34th-Broadway. 

As for 59th, I'm with you on that. Trying to deinterline CPW presents issues of higher crowds at 59th and also screws up runtimes- sending 6th via the local doesn't help the (D) since the only other true express segment would be 4th and sending 8th via the local would create runtimes that rival the worst bus routes (Inwood/Washington Heights to the Rockaways via CPW local is painful slog and it's not like you can swap it out for the (E) since the ride to Jamaica would be terrible too). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Lex said:

You mean the merge that's negatively impacted by a larger placement issue? The merge that currently employs service based on need instead of wet dreams?

If you’re suggesting we move the merge at 59 somewhere else, I have a whole bunch of bridges to sell you. If you’re obliquely referencing the 50 St upper level issue, that’s neither the only way to deinterline CPW nor IMO a dealbreaker — sometimes, believe it or not, things have to change. 

I want to challenge your notion of ‘need.’ Dunno how frequently you ride the subway, but any frequent rider would gladly tell you how yes, they want to get to their destination simply, but they also want to do so quickly, consistently, and on a frequent service. These are all super important inputs to ridership that arguments of “but muh one seat ride” fails to capture, and are inputs that generally are delivered on a line or systemwide basis when merges are eliminated, contrasting with the line segment scale benefit of one seat rides. We certainly should strive to improve operations, but the fact of the matter is that without rationalizing service patterns, that can be exceedingly difficult. 

To the specific case of CPW, the merge at 59 powers a lot of variability and delay on all involved lines (but especially the (A) and (D)). You may well end up with some dwell time issues, but I both believe that those issues are much more controllable than merge delays, and that they will have much less of an impact than said merge delays (+5 or +7 on dwell time pales in comparison to the capacity and runtime losses wrought by +60 or +90 merge delays). 

29 minutes ago, Lex said:

Shift the (C) back to the Bronx and we run into consistency issues (or, worse, running a whole bunch of overnight trains in areas without something more substantial to remotely justify that service).

Can’t say I totally follow this line of reasoning. Eliminating all but 2 of the merges on the (C) line will cause...consistency issues? For sure it’ll lengthen the route, but if you believe that service performance is a 1:1 function of route length, I again have some bridges for sale. 

To the overnight issue, I assume you’re referencing the yard runs that were cited in the original (C) to 168 change? If yes, yeah, depending on how car staging shakes out, we may have to run some transfers. At least in my eyes, though, that’s a small price to pay for the preservation of one seat express service to both of CPW’s northern corridors. 

29 minutes ago, Lex said:

The one thing that stops me from saying anything more is the fact that this query pertains to a larger collection of 💩 proposals (seriously, who's looking for Broadway along Fulton Street, especially at 10+ tph?).

Just throwing it out there: “I have more to say but won’t” isn’t all that constructive of a discussion strategy. 

On the Broadway-Fulton issue, there are plenty of riders who need Lower Manhattan south of Fulton, SoHo, USQ area, Flatiron, etc from Fulton. (R) provides that connectivity, as well as the generally improved transfer access that comes with BMT routings. I would imagine there’d be plenty of demand for such a route, but again, that’s just me. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

On the Broadway-Fulton issue, there are plenty of riders who need Lower Manhattan south of Fulton, SoHo, USQ area, Flatiron, etc from Fulton. (R) provides that connectivity, as well as the generally improved transfer access that comes with BMT routings. I would imagine there’d be plenty of demand for such a route, but again, that’s just me. 

This could attract riders from the (2)(3)(4)(5) along Eastern Parkway going to Lower Manhattan, reducing crowding.

Edited by Union Tpke
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

This could attract riders from the (2)(3)(4)(5) along Eastern Parkway going to Lower Manhattan, reducing crowding.

Also, Pitkin is underused, and this could solve once and for all the issue with the need for a yard for Astoria service.

Edited by Union Tpke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Union Tpke — both of those things are true. More frequent and consistent express service also should help with (L) and (J) riders, potentially freeing up a bit more space on those trains as they head towards Williamsburg. 

There are also, of course, significant developmental pressures in Fort Greene, Bed Stuy and ENY now, and it isn’t like we can do much beyond making (C)s 10 cars. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

@Union Tpke — both of those things are true. More frequent and consistent express service also should help with (L) and (J) riders, potentially freeing up a bit more space on those trains as they head towards Williamsburg. 

There are also, of course, significant developmental pressures in Fort Greene, Bed Stuy and ENY now, and it isn’t like we can do much beyond making (C)s 10 cars. 

Speeding up Fulton Express will do a lot to making it more competitive. Is there any way to improve the transfers at Broadway Junction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Speeding up Fulton Express will do a lot to making it more competitive. Is there any way to improve the transfers at Broadway Junction?

Make a more direct passageway from (L) to (A)(C) — ie something that doesn’t run via the (J) mezz. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RR503 said:

Make a more direct passageway from (L) to (A)(C) — ie something that doesn’t run via the (J) mezz. 

Is there a way to do that given that the L is so high up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extend the (7) out along Nothern Blvd to Little Neck

Extend the (L) up 10 Av to 72 St

Make stops on Roosevelt Island for the (N)(R)(W) and (E)(M)

Extend the (G) up 21 St, then as a crosstown on 125 St

Make a tram that would operate as follows:

Riverside Park - 96 St

Bway - 96 St (1)(2)(3)

CPW - 96 St (B)(C)

5 Av - 96 St

Lex Av - 96 St (6)<6>

2 Av - 96 St (Q)

RUN DOWN YORK AV

90-92 Sts

86 St

79 St

72 St

York Av - 63 St (Build a connection with (F)

York Av - 59 St (Build a connection with (N)(R)(W)

Sutton Pl - 53 St (Build a connection with (E)(M)

46 St/1 Av - United Naions

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Is there a way to do that given that the L is so high up?

They already did it (ish) so I’m gonna go with yes. 

Anyway, if you throw enough money at any given issue...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RR503 said:

They already did it (ish) so I’m gonna go with yes. 

Anyway, if you throw enough money at any given issue...

What impact, if any, do you think a Livonia-Junius free transfer have on (L) and (3) usage?

Share this post


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

What impact, if any, do you think a Livonia-Junius free transfer have on (L) and (3) usage?

Don’t really see this being used for much more than intra-boro rides, so in terms of capacity at peak load point, not much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

What impact, if any, do you think a Livonia-Junius free transfer have on (L) and (3) usage?

There should ABSOLUTLEY be a Livionia-Junius (L) to (3) transfer

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

What impact, if any, do you think a Livonia-Junius free transfer have on (L) and (3) usage?

Aren’t they planning to build one once the (L) work is complete?

Share this post


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

 (seriously, who's looking for Broadway along Fulton Street, especially at 10+ tph?).

I forget what page it's on but if you go back to September or October of 2018 in this thread, there was a pretty long discussion just about this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, New Flyer Xcelsior said:

Extend the (7) out along Nothern Blvd to Little Neck

Up to Francis Lewis, I agree

Extend the (L) up 10 Av to 72 St

Yes . 

Make stops on Roosevelt Island for the (N)(R)(W) and (E)(M)

I thought of this too when I was younger, but I’m not sure of this is feasible. 

Extend the (G) up 21 St, then as a crosstown on 125 St

This always stuck out as a “meh” to me. Even to 21st Street-Queens Bridge on the (F). Anyways, a 21st St-125th Street Crosstown is a bit overkill if you ask me. 

Make a tram that would operate as follows:

Riverside Park - 96 St

Bway - 96 St (1)(2)(3)

CPW - 96 St (B)(C)

5 Av - 96 St

Lex Av - 96 St (6)<6>

2 Av - 96 St (Q)

RUN DOWN YORK AV

90-92 Sts

86 St

79 St

72 St

York Av - 63 St (Build a connection with (F)

York Av - 59 St (Build a connection with (N)(R)(W)

Sutton Pl - 53 St (Build a connection with (E)(M)

46 St/1 Av - United Nations

Other replies in bold.

You do know that most trams run on Street Level. So building connections is kinda unnecessary given the walking distance between the tram and the subway. 

 

 

In response to CPW Deinterlining. I see 3 Alternatives to this problem

1) We make the (A) and (C) Express and the (B) and (D) Local. The only change that would need to happen to preserve Express service for both Branches is that (C) and (D) Service would swap. At that point, I’d just say to rearrange the Yard Placement’s for the (C) and (D). (Maybe have the (B) and (D) share the same fleet. IDK) or just have yard transfer moves.

2) Same situation but in reverse. (B)(D) Express and (A)(C) Local. In this case, no yard moves would need to occur. But if you plan on having the (A) and (C) be full Local Routes. Then you’d need to swap the roles of the (A)(C) with the (E)(K) in order to not create any new bottlenecks. Problem is that the (E) will become a Super Long Route. 

3) Build 2 Switches (one N/B and one S/B) North of 50th Street Station and expand the 50th Street Platforms. To be Honest, I don’t see how installing these switches south of 50th Street is feasible at all, or maybe that’s just me. This can work for either scenario I listed above or even with our current Service patterns. But in my opinion, this alternative fits better with option 2 that I laid out above. Meaning the following service pattern would be this:

(A) 168th Street - The Rockaway’s. CPW Local; 8th Avenue Express; Fulton Street Express. Weekends and Overnights, trains are extended to 207th. 

(B) 207th Street - Brighton Beach. Full Express from CPW to Brighton. 

(C) Bedford Park Blvd/145th Street-Lefferts Blvd. CPW Local, 8th Avenue Express; Fulton Street Express. Does not run overnights. 

(D) Same as is. 

(R) via Fulton from Astoria tin Euclid. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Why are we keeping 59 St interlined? That's a painful junction -- so important is it to ops that B division service is essentially scheduled backwards from it.

What’s interesting is that when the (MTA) were considering “doomsday” budget cuts back in 1990, the plan they had for CPW - (A) local to/from 168; (D) to/from 205 with no rush hour Concourse express; (orangeQ) to/from 207 - would have de-interlined CPW. However, there ended up being enough blowback over making the (A) local, that they ultimately decided not to go through with said plan.

On 7/31/2019 at 11:07 PM, Around the Horn said:

Yeah keep the 4th Avenue service as the (R) and then the Astoria-Euclid Av service as the (W). Then there's no need to introduce another letter.

I’ll agree here about keeping R for the 4th Avenue service, if there is indeed that much community attachment in Bay Ridge to the letter, like there is in Ridgewood/Middle Village for M and in Inwood/Washington Heights/Harlem for A. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ll agree here about keeping R for the 4th Avenue service, if there is indeed that much community attachment to the letter, like there is in Ridgewood/Middle Village for M and in Inwood/Washington Heights/Harlem for A. 

It's also just easier to sell the change as a rerouted/shortened (R) in Manhattan and a (W) extended to Brooklyn than the alternative.

  • Upvote 1

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.