Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Won’t quote you @JeremiahC99 but I think 4 tracks of trains should not all terminate at Broadway Junction. You can run to Jamaica, Canarsie, or Euclid Av. Also wasn’t the map in question from 1929 or are you talking about a different map? For the near future I want to get as much use out of the el as possible and only demolish the necessary areas like the Myrtle Junction and the Cypress Hills curve. From Broadway Junction to Crescent St, the el should be replaced by a 3-track subway along Jamaica Ave, allowing (R) or (W) trains to Jamaica Center. We can also connect the Jamaica el to the Jamaica subway, and add a connection for the rest of Fulton Street from the el. I wrote that terribly but I hope you can still understand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a different kind of proposal than what this thread is really meant for, but I'd really like to see the MTA take a serious look at acquiring properties near older stations that are closer to the surface with small cramped fare control areas and converting them into London Underground style station buildings (Maida Vale and Kilburn Park on the Bakerloo and Covent Garden on the Piccadilly are good examples of what I'm talking about) 

Either the MTA could buy empty properties themselves for new station buildings or developers could agree to include them in new buildings next to stations for a height bonus (like the proposed building on top of Union Street on the (R) ). In any event the new entrances would be wider, getting rid of bottlenecks (I'm looking at you in particular Spring and the downtown side of Astor on the (6)) and bring ADA accessibility to more stations.

Edited by Around the Horn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2019 at 11:01 AM, Harlem Crosstown said:

Won’t quote you @JeremiahC99 but I think 4 tracks of trains should not all terminate at Broadway Junction. You can run to Jamaica, Canarsie, or Euclid Av. Also wasn’t the map in question from 1929 or are you talking about a different map? For the near future I want to get as much use out of the el as possible and only demolish the necessary areas like the Myrtle Junction and the Cypress Hills curve. From Broadway Junction to Crescent St, the el should be replaced by a 3-track subway along Jamaica Ave, allowing (R) or (W) trains to Jamaica Center. We can also connect the Jamaica el to the Jamaica subway, and add a connection for the rest of Fulton Street from the el. I wrote that terribly but I hope you can still understand

One of the reasons I was planning a 4 track line to Broadway Junction is that I wanted to feature all day express service to Broadway Junction, which is something that is unavailable on the current Broadway El. The Vanshnookenraggen map I referenced was based of the 1930s plans that featured the line to Utica and Myrtle with no service to Broadway Junction. Beyond Broadway Junction my plans are unclear, though I have considered having an upper level join the Fulton Line at Liberty Avenue.

Near future is where my plans for the Nassau-8th Connection comes in. Due to feedback, this plan is being revised. In my revised plan, I am planning to use up the current 24 train per hour capacity and eliminate (J) service between Essex Street and Broadway Junction. To replace service, all (E) and (K) trains would be rerouted to serve Brooklyn, with the (E) to Metropolitan Avenue, and the (K) to Broadway Junction. Both would operate at 12 trains per hour. Actual service would depend on demand and other factors. In addition, with the new Fulton connections, both the (R) and (W) trains would serve the Fulton Line, with the (R) to Euclid Avenue and the (W) now going to Jamaica Center instead of the (T) route. This was changed from the original plan because of concerns about trains crossing at grade near the Montague Street Tunnel. The benefits of this plan is that with the (W) serving Jamaica, we can demolish the problematic elevated structures and speed service to Lower Manhattan even before phase 4 of the Second Avenue Subway is complete.

The (J) would operate at 12 trains per hour between Essex Street and 95th Street at all times except late nights. At this time, to replace the (J) as well as compensate for the loss of (R) service between Whitehall and 95th Street, and (N) shuttle would operate between Whitehall and 95th Street in a similar fashion to the (A) shuttle between Euclid Avenue and Lefferts Blvd. This would maintain the same service levels the 4th Avenue Line currently sees.

Since most passengers on the Nassau Line only use it as a way to get to other lines (i.e, a "shuttle"), there would be overlay trains operating between Essex Street and Broad Street, also at 12 trains per hour. Actual service for the (J) would also depend on demand.

Long term is where I would use those S. 4th Street plans. The new line would use the Worth Street Line. This may sound one hell of a crazy plan, but I am looking for both the Broadway Junction and Myrtle Lines to have train "triplets" that would take them uptown via the 6th or 8th Avenue Lines or downtown via Nassau Street. There would be both local and express service on both Myrtle Avenue and to Broadway Junction, which is where the 4 tracks come in. For services, I am planning to have Myrtle Avenue be served by the (B), (E), and (brownM). Crosstown Line service to Downtown Brooklyn, in the form of the (GG) (another letter would be used. The (GG) is a placeholder) would also be used. Here, the (B) and (GG) would be local, and the (E) and (brownM) express. For Broadway Junction, it would be simpler, as it would be served the (D), (J) and (K). (D) local, (J) and (K) express. In an attempt to introduce uniform headways, all services would operate at 15 trains per hour, except for the (GG), which would operate at 12 trains due to sharing tracks with the (F) and (G). This is still being worked on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a simpler approach to the Jamaica situation- I'll have the el stay, but (as i previously stated) the section between Bway Junction and Crescent Street would be replaced with a three track el/subway along Jamaica Ave rather than Fulton Street. (P) (T) replace (R)(B)(D) service in Brooklyn by swapping the (D) and (Q) in Brooklyn and moving (B)(D) to Williamsburg so that you can have a (P) <P> pair running on Brighton Line and the (T) to Bay Ridge-101 St. The (B) can run to Myrtle Ave and the (D) will terminate at Broadway Junction at which point the (R)(W), rerouted to Fulton Street, will have a transfer, and the (R) will join the new subway and el to Merrick Blvd.

This isn't exactly adding capacity-those plans are long term and I'll come up with some later.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I have a simpler approach to the Jamaica situation- I'll have the el stay, but (as i previously stated) the section between Bway Junction and Crescent Street would be replaced with a three track el/subway along Jamaica Ave rather than Fulton Street. (P) (T) replace (R)(B)(D) service in Brooklyn by swapping the (D) and (Q) in Brooklyn and moving (B)(D) to Williamsburg so that you can have a (P) <P> pair running on Brighton Line and the (T) to Bay Ridge-101 St. The (B) can run to Myrtle Ave and the (D) will terminate at Broadway Junction at which point the (R)(W), rerouted to Fulton Street, will have a transfer, and the (R) will join the new subway and el to Merrick Blvd.

This isn't exactly adding capacity-those plans are long term and I'll come up with some later.  

All of my plans include the combined Jamaica Avenue Subway/El structure. The difference with my proposal from yours is that I would have the (W) serve the Jamaica El while the (R) would go to Euclid Avenue, as per my old proposal. The el structure between Broadway Junction and Cypress Hills would be torn down.

For keeping the El in the meantime, since phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway is not yet near shovel ready, I am proposing to have the el served by 8th Avenue trains instead of 6th Avenue trains, in this case, the (E) and (K). Both would use the new connection under Spring Street, with a station at Broadway-Lafayette. At around 12 trains per hour a piece, the (E) would go to Metropolitan Avenue and the (K) would go to Broadway Junction.The (J) would operate between Essex Street and 95th Street.

I chose having the 8th Avenue since it would be a while before Phase 3 of the SAS even before coming to reality. If we are to do this now, then having the 8th Avenue trains serve the Jamaica El would bring the same benefits even before Phase 3 is built.

Once we get to Phase 3 (which should be 4 tracks), then we should be in a position to bring the (B)(D) onto the El.

Under all of these options, the Jamaica El would have to have its stations lengthened to 10 cars and the Myrtle Junction rebuilt to handle the additional trains.

Long term is where we see the S. 4th Street subway come online. The plan, which will increase capacity and resiliency in North Brooklyn, is still in the works, but I do envision 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, and Nassau Street service serving this big line. The entire line will be called the North Brooklyn Line, since it encompasses Bed-Stuy, Bushwick, Williamsburg, Ridgewood, and other areas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:8: Mid-Queens Line

Flushing-Main St (7)

Willets Point (7)

111 St (7)

Corona Plaza (7)

98 St/Corona Av

runs via Corona Av

Junction Blvd

91 Pl

Grand Av - Newton (M)(R)

runs via Grand Av

84 St

74 St

runs via 51 Av

69 St

63 St

58 St

runs via 50 Av

48 St

42 St

39 St

runs via Greenpoint Av

Review Av

Humboldt St

Manhattan Av (G)

Waterside Plaza - 26 St

runs via 34 St

1 Av - Ferry Terminal

3 Av

Park Av

6 Av-Herald Sq (B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W)

7-8 Avs - Penn Station (1)(2)(3)(A)(C)(E)(NJT) LIRR Amtrak

Hudson Yards (7)

runs via 10 Av

42 St

48 St

55-57 Sts

62 St/Riverside Blvd

68 St/Riverside Blvd

72 St (1)(2)(3)

79 St (1)

86 St (1)

96 St (1)(2)(3)

103 St (1)

110 St (1)

116 St (1)

125 St (1)

137 St (1)

145 St (1)

157 St (1)

168 St (1)(A)(C)

181 St (1)

191 St (1)

Dyckman St (1)

207 St (1)

215 St (1)

225 St (1)

231 St (1)

238 St (1)

242 St (1)

 

 

Edited by Jova42R
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

(T) LGA-Midtown Connector

LGA (NX)

runs via 20 Av

Hazen St (NX)

45 St (NX)

Steinway St (NX)

31 St (NX)((N)(W) get extended to 20 Av under this scenario)

21 St (NX)

runs via 21 St (NX)

Ditmars Blvd (NX)

24 Av (NX)

27 Av (NX)

8 St/Astoria Blvd (NX)

runs via Vernon Blvd

31 Dr

36 Av

Roosevelt Island - Main St

Roosevelt Island - Tramway Plaza (F)

Roosevelt Island - Cornell Tech

runs via 57 St

York Av

2 Av

Lex Av-59-57 Sts (4)(5)(6)(N)(R)(W)

5 Av-59-57 Sts (N)(R)(W)

57 St - 7 Av (N)(Q)(R)(W)

Columbus Circle (1)(A)(B)(C)(D)

59 St - 10 Av

runs via 10 Av

54 St

48 St

42 St

Hudson Yards (7)

28 St

23 St

16 St

14 St - 8 Av (A)(C)(E)(L)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(NX) LGA-Uptown Connector

LGA (T)

runs via 20 Av

Hazen St (T)

45 St (T)

Steinway St (T)

31 St (T)((N)(W) get extended to 20 Av under this scenario)

21 St (T)

runs via 21 St

Ditmars Blvd (T)

24 Av (T)

27 Av (T)

8 St/Astoria Blvd (T)

Roosevelt Island - Lighthouse

runs via 86 St

York Av

2 Av (Q)

Lex Av (4)(5)(6)

5 Av - Met Museum

CPW (B)(C)

Upper West Side - Broadway (1)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I’ve seen this before and I disagree with some of the ideas presented on this page. I’ll do an in depth analysis on this whenever I have the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
12 minutes ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

What are your thoughts on deinterlining?

To me, it is a very good idea, but I wouldn’t go all out on it. Deinterlining is good in some places, like Broadway, but maybe not so in other places.

However, some people have criticized the deinterline plan for being too “impractical” and cutting off one seat rides, even if the trains ran more frequently. Honestly, that is a ridiculous complaint, because seriously, exchanging one-seat rides for more frequent and reliable train service is bad? Hello: we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Oops, I mean, we’ve got a bigger dish to dry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

To me, it is a very good idea, but I wouldn’t go all out on it. Deinterlining is good in some places, like Broadway, but maybe not so in other places.

However, some people have criticized the deinterline plan for being too “impractical” and cutting off one seat rides, even if the trains ran more frequently. Honestly, that is a ridiculous complaint, because seriously, exchanging one-seat rides for more frequent and reliable train service is bad? Hello: we’ve got bigger fish to fry. Oops, I mean, we’ve got a bigger dish to dry.

Introducing transfers is fine if you assume that the rider

  • has no other transfers they're making in their journey (e.g. subway to bus)
  • if they do have other transfers, they're equally accessible vs the current option they have today.

Making somebody with a one seat ride transfer is one thing. Making somebody with a 90 minute commute going from bus to subway to subway take a fourth transfer is another thing.

For example, while I used to advocate for it, I'm not too sure about Broadway off QBL, because it adds an additional transfer if you want to get from Lex Express -> Queens Blvd Local. 51 St is only local so that's an unavoidable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

For example, while I used to advocate for it, I'm not too sure about Broadway off QBL, because it adds an additional transfer if you want to get from Lex Express -> Queens Blvd Local. 51 St is only local so that's an unavoidable problem.

In that case, they can just transfer at 63rd-Lex or simply stay on the 6th Avenue or 8th Avenue train to the proximate station. In all honestly, the (6) does appear to be somewhat faster since the express trains do have crowding issues to tend to at Grand Central. In addition, Northbound AM loads aren’t that crazy so forcing passengers onto the (6) is not that bad.

In the long term, if they expanded the Second Avenue Subway to 4 tracks below 63rd Street, then there could be a new SAS Line via 63rd Street out to Queens, giving the riders options to avoid the Lexington Avenue transfers all together. Obviously this entails deinterlining the 36th Street interlocking to make room as well.

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Introducing transfers is fine if you assume that the rider

  • has no other transfers they're making in their journey (e.g. subway to bus)
  • if they do have other transfers, they're equally accessible vs the current option they have today.

Making somebody with a one seat ride transfer is one thing. Making somebody with a 90 minute commute going from bus to subway to subway take a fourth transfer is another thing.

I highly doubt that anyone would need more than two subway lines and to complete their trip. Even I don’t need more than two subway lines to complete my subway trip. Besides, when I was making my Nassau-8th proposal from September, I assumed that everyone would not need more than two subway lines to complete their trips, especially given how close the subway lines are in Manhattan, making the impact negligible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Introducing transfers is fine if you assume that the rider

  • has no other transfers they're making in their journey (e.g. subway to bus)
  • if they do have other transfers, they're equally accessible vs the current option they have today.

Making somebody with a one seat ride transfer is one thing. Making somebody with a 90 minute commute going from bus to subway to subway take a fourth transfer is another thing.

For example, while I used to advocate for it, I'm not too sure about Broadway off QBL, because it adds an additional transfer if you want to get from Lex Express -> Queens Blvd Local. 51 St is only local so that's an unavoidable problem.

This mentality sorta _has_ to be broken for any real change to happen. Transfers are shit in NYC because service frequencies and reliability are shit, in part because we try way too hard to guarantee one seat rides. The negative impact of merges on speeds, capacity, reliability etc cannot be overstated. 

As for the Broadway-QBL issue, this is why you build a 63-59 passage and/or deinterline so that QB local goes to Lower Manhattan via 8th to get those Lex riders a good replacement service. Or you don't do those things, and understand that giving everybody everything they want is shitty planning -- 59 St is a serious problem area for Lex. Sometimes you have to cause a small(er) group of riders pain for systemwide benefit; taking a myopic view that focuses just on losers is exactly the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place.

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

In that case, they can just transfer at 63rd-Lex or simply stay on the 6th Avenue or 8th Avenue train to the proximate station. In all honestly, the (6) does appear to be somewhat faster since the express trains do have crowding issues to tend to at Grand Central. In addition, Northbound AM loads aren’t that crazy so forcing passengers onto the (6) is not that bad.

In the long term, if they expanded the Second Avenue Subway to 4 tracks below 63rd Street, then there could be a new SAS Line via 63rd Street out to Queens, giving the riders options to avoid the Lexington Avenue transfers all together. Obviously this entails deinterlining the 36th Street interlocking to make room as well.

Until an actual, in-system transfer passageway is built, 63rd is not, and will never be an option for transferring from QBL to Lex. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

This mentality sorta _has_ to be broken for any real change to happen. Transfers are shit in NYC because service frequencies and reliability are shit, in part because we try way too hard to guarantee one seat rides. The negative impact of merges on speeds, capacity, reliability etc cannot be overstated. 

As for the Broadway-QBL issue, this is why you build a 63-59 passage and/or deinterline so that QB local goes to Lower Manhattan via 8th to get those Lex riders a good replacement service. Or you don't do those things, and understand that giving everybody everything they want is shitty planning -- 59 St is a serious problem area for Lex. Sometimes you have to cause a small(er) group of riders pain for systemwide benefit; taking a myopic view that focuses just on losers is exactly the mentality that got us into this mess in the first place.

Remove the (R) from 59th and then we run into the same issues we had pre 59-express: dwell time at 42nd will become even more insufferable due to all the congestion from cross-platform moves.

You could just say the riders should just stay on the local, but then how would you even enforce that? People have talked about how the express isn't actually faster til they're blue in the face and yet people still swap from local to express all the time. Something about a horse and water.

Are we here to make riders' commutes actually better or are we here to push numbers around on an excel sheet and declare mission accomplished?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Remove the (R) from 59th and then we run into the same issues we had pre 59-express: dwell time at 42nd will become even more insufferable due to all the congestion from cross-platform moves.

I've yet to be shown that that dynamic would be the same what with Lower Manhattan having declined so much relative to Midtown since the 1950s and alternate transfer having been built out. You'll have to evidence this. And again, 63-59...

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

You could just say the riders should just stay on the local, but then how would you even enforce that? People have talked about how the express isn't actually faster til they're blue in the face and yet people still swap from local to express all the time. Something about a horse and water.

Gosh, could it be that...the express is faster but that incentives just don't line up? I would love to hear you explain just how a rider from Woodhaven to 5/53 would make that trip under a Queens deinterlining plan without, ya know, staying on the local. There's a big difference between people hyperbolically evidencing their estimation of the impact of timers with suggestions that local > express and people saying that the current route structure in Queens heavily incentivizes transfers at Roosevelt. 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Are we here to make riders' commutes actually better or are we here to push numbers around on an excel sheet and declare mission accomplished?

Ah, the good ol' anti-professional planning argument. We love it.

I can't speak for you, but I care about things like whether or not the subway network in Queens will have capacity to absorb further growth, whether or not we can even _schedule_ even headways, whether or not an incident on Broadway can bring the entire B division down, and whether or not dwell issues at Roosevelt make FH-Roosevelt runtimes on the E and F look like this (lines are 25, 50, 75 percentile):

XHbplSR.png

...so do pardon me for suggesting some data-driven approaches to easing the subway congestion and capacity issues in Queens. Because what we have sure as hell is not working. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I've yet to be shown that that dynamic would be the same what with Lower Manhattan having declined so much relative to Midtown since the 1950s and alternate transfer having been built out. You'll have to evidence this. And again, 63-59...

Gosh, could it be that...the express is faster but that incentives just don't line up? I would love to hear you explain just how a rider from Woodhaven to 5/53 would make that trip under a Queens deinterlining plan without, ya know, staying on the local. There's a big difference between people hyperbolically evidencing their estimation of the impact of timers with suggestions that local > express and people saying that the current route structure in Queens heavily incentivizes transfers at Roosevelt. 

What alternate transfers have been built out for QBL local -> Lex express? It's 53rd-Lex or 59-Lex. To go downtown any other way would require more seats or a diversion to the West Side. 63-59 would be a distance of three blocks or about 800 feet, definitely on the longer side of any of the transfers in the system. (59-Lex's northern end is at 60th St.)

I was making my point about the Lex express vs Lex local.

As far as demand for Downtown goes, I wouldn't be quite so sure about discounting transfers downtown immediately. The decline of the Financial District when it comes to jobs is real, but there is also growth in entertainment and residential south of Midtown as well, not to mention 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Ah, the good ol' anti-professional planning argument. We love it.

I can't speak for you, but I care about things like whether or not the subway network in Queens will have capacity to absorb further growth, whether or not we can even _schedule_ even headways, whether or not an incident on Broadway can bring the entire B division down, and whether or not dwell issues at Roosevelt make FH-Roosevelt runtimes on the E and F look like this (lines are 25, 50, 75 percentile):

XHbplSR.png

...so do pardon me for suggesting some data-driven approaches to easing the subway congestion and capacity issues in Queens. Because what we have sure as hell is not working. 

Ooh, appeals to authority. Amazing.

You can care about multiple things. I care about reliability, but I also care about a commute where I don't have to constantly walk and transfer and possibly miss a connecting train and wait an additional ten minutes for a train. 

We have data on train reliability but we don't have good data on how people move throughout the system. We only track Metrocard entries and we have annual counts of how people enter the core. The MTA is not running a crazy data-driven shop like TfL, because it simply doesn't connect nearly as much data in the first place. Right now we don't have good tools to measure impact to current riders, so at best calling anything an "improvement" for riders is premature at best, particularly some of the misguided proposals like locals scraping the walls to 179th.

Not all deinterlining is bad, but I don't think you necessarily need to kill the (R) on QBL. Separating Broadway express and Broadway local alone would do wonders. Terminating the (R) at Whitehall and routing 4th Av local trains up Nassau would also take the (R) out of DeKalb and solve issues. There is a whole lot of grey between today's crazy interlined setup and all locals to 8th and all expresses to 6th, or even just evicting the (R) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

What alternate transfers have been built out for QBL local -> Lex express? It's 53rd-Lex or 59-Lex. To go downtown any other way would require more seats or a diversion to the West Side. 63-59 would be a distance of three blocks or about 800 feet, definitely on the longer side of any of the transfers in the system. (59-Lex's northern end is at 60th St.)

Not for Lex express, for other Lower Manhattan routes, for example the Fulton-area xfers. Those absolutely aren't the most direct routes, but they're a) one seat rides, and b) generally don't experience the crowding/congestion that Lex does -- both of which shoot run and transfer times upwards. Optimally we'd have a functioning Lex express, but even with CBTC, that route will remain slow in some areas; certain idiosyncrasies in CBTC control logic may actually increase dwell delays in areas like Grand Central. 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

As far as demand for Downtown goes, I wouldn't be quite so sure about discounting transfers downtown immediately. The decline of the Financial District when it comes to jobs is real, but there is also growth in entertainment and residential south of Midtown as well, not to mention 

This is a fair point, but that market really isn't Lex express's sweet spot. For destinations north of Union Square, you're better off taking the (6) from 59/51, and south of there, you're bracketed with Queens-linked one seat alternatives except for at Astor Place. Given how messy the GC-Union Square section of Lex can be, I would highly doubt that you save any time relative to the other route alternatives by doing (R) - (4)(5) - (6)

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

You can care about multiple things. I care about reliability, but I also care about a commute where I don't have to constantly walk and transfer and possibly miss a connecting train and wait an additional ten minutes for a train. 

We have data on train reliability but we don't have good data on how people move throughout the system. We only track Metrocard entries and we have annual counts of how people enter the core. The MTA is not running a crazy data-driven shop like TfL, because it simply doesn't connect nearly as much data in the first place. Right now we don't have good tools to measure impact to current riders, so at best calling anything an "improvement" for riders is premature at best, particularly some of the misguided proposals like locals scraping the walls to 179th.

Not all deinterlining is bad, but I don't think you necessarily need to kill the (R) on QBL. Separating Broadway express and Broadway local alone would do wonders. Terminating the (R) at Whitehall and routing 4th Av local trains up Nassau would also take the (R) out of DeKalb and solve issues. There is a whole lot of grey between today's crazy interlined setup and all locals to 8th and all expresses to 6th, or even just evicting the (R) .

As @Around the Horn pointed out, more service variants = longer waits, and more interlining = less capacity. The impacts wrought in those areas by interlining are really non-trivial, and will likely get worse under CBTC. There's always going to be a tradeoff here, and there's 100% a balance to be struck, you're right, but again, in capacitally/operationally stressed areas, deinterlining is a necessary part of the solution. 

Metrocard O/D data sure isn't perfect, but applications thereof have rarely been off by more than a few tenths of a percentage point esp when overlaid with granular data sets like Census LEHD or CTPP. Would it be better if we had 'real' OD data? Sure, but it isn't like we're flying blind either. And we absolutely do have more than annual cordon counts: traffic checkers are always out and about, we have 6-minute resolution AFC data. All of this is to say we absolutely can speak authoritatively on whether things are improvements or not, maybe with a lesser degree of accuracy here, but nonetheless a good, first-order level of accuracy (which, btw, cuts both ways -- your claims of the virtue of something are just as weak as my claims of its failings if you denigrate data). 

I disagree on the (R). For one, you can't turn at Whitehall unless you're cool with the Broadway local below (at least) Canal only getting 6-8tph; Whitehall ranks *high* on the list of shit terminals in this system. For another, as I covered here, it's exceedingly difficult to deinterline Broadway without also deinterlining Astoria, at least before the corridor gets CBTC. These arguments are all secondary to the fact that the (R) reduces Manhattan-Queens capacity by its throughput + some value related to its impact on the services with which it merges. If you can get a functional terminal in Astoria (which is looking likely), (R) trains are going to be taking up valuable slots in both 60th and 63 Sts -- 63 St because whatever runs via 60 from QB is something that isn't running via 63. Given the massive growth in LIC/Astoria/Queens generally, making sure our trans-river capacity is maximized is something of the utmost importance, and the (R) stands pretty directly in the path of that happening. 

Now, of course, there are short(er) term capacity opportunities that can be leveraged to increase service levels -- terminal operations at Forest Hills being the most important one, capable of contributing up to 10tph to throughput -- but I for one am skeptical that we'd be able to realize those benefits with the complex Queens Plaza-area merge arrangement in place. That's, again, a significant capacity loss, and is again one that won't necessarily improve with CBTC. The impact of increased (R) service on 60th St tunnel ops would also be somewhat significant. Because the (R) enters the tunnel at 20 where normal trains are going...much faster, the merge impact is even greater than it would be normally thanks to control line length issues. So again, IDK how possible that'd be without deinterlining. The question then becomes one of just _how_ many people are using the Lex 59 connection, how large they're benefit is from said connection, and whether that outweighs the losses to the rest of the system because of it. 

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.