Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

18 hours ago, CenSin said:

Going to put up a question with some realistic possibility of being implemented: Coney Island and the surrounding areas are going to get built-up within the next two decades. It’s also going to be more of a tourist destination than it already is. That’s going to change the calculus of how the MTA budgets its resources to best serve the area. With existing facilities and very minor additions, what is the most efficient way for the MTA to increase service frequency/speed to an attractive level? (Assume travel between Manhattan and Coney Island.)

Some incomplete thoughts:

• The MTA has some existing facilities that are equipped to short-turn trains so that overall frequency of service could be increased to allow for an express option to/from Coney Island:
  • Bay Parkway (), which is underutilized at all times;
  • 9 Avenue (), which is underutilized at all times and may or may not be equipped to turn trains;
  • Kings Highway (), which is underutilized outside of weekday rush hours; and
  • Brighton Beach (), which is underutilized outside of weekdays.
• Some routes are not running even near maximum capacity along their main thoroughfares, but there are some elements that may limit throughput.
  • : Bedford Park Boulevard and 145 Street (both single-track terminals)
  • : Norwood–205 Street (non-trivial turns) and Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (hence the suggestion to short-turn trains)
  • : Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard (shared with on weekdays) and Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (switches too far away)
  • : Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue (switches too far away)
• Some routes run along corridors that do not have any spare capacity:
  • : the along Queens Boulevard precludes additional service. But it may be okay to divert additional trains to run express in light of population shifts.
• Some corridors are prone to be unreliable because of lack of redundancy. Longer segments of track with no redundancy to guard against traffic jams/BIEs increase the probability of an entire route going down for Coney Island:
  • The or would have two significant two-track segment that all trains must go through:
    • between Prospect Park and Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center (major liability);
    • between Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and West 8 Street (minor liability); and
    • additionally for the , the Manhattan Bridge (major liability)
  • The would have one significant two-track segment that all trains must go through:
    • between Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and Avenue X
  • The would have three significant two-track segments that all trains must go though:
    • the Manhattan Bridge (major liability);
    • the short tunnel connection between 9 Avenue and 36 Street (minor liability); and
    • between Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and just south of Bay 50 Street (minor liability)
  • The would have two significant two-track segments that all trains must go through:
    • between Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and just south of 86 Street (minor liability); and
    • the short tunnel connection between 8 Avenue and 59 Street (minor liability)
• Ranking the proposed options by speed:
  1. (express between Kings Highway and 59 Street, and to/from 96 Street) with the as it currently runs
     • Advantages: very fast
     • Disadvantages: takes a small amount of service from local stations due to terminal capacity constraints at Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue combined with the lack of a short-turn facility along the Sea Beach Line to turn the
  2. (the express between Kings Highway and Jay Street–MetroTech) with the truncated to Kings Highway
     • Advantages: fast
     • Disadvantages: takes a large amount of service away from local stations as maximum frequency is constrained by Queens Boulevard; and requires a switch installation to make feasible
  3. (taking the place of the , but as the express) with the short-turning at Brighton Beach
     • Advantages: simple reroute from local to express
     • Disadvantages: (see )
  4. (the extended to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue) with the as it currently runs
     • Advantages: simple extension of the express
     • Disadvantages: reduces much-needed service due to terminal capacity constraints at Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue and the higher frequency of service; and not many places with spare capacity to easily turn local trains in Brooklyn, further limiting how much express service can be offered without neutering local services along the Brighton Line
  5. (the express between Bay Parkway and 9 Avenue) with the truncated to Bay Parkway
     • Advantages: uses spare capacity along West End left over from the ’s discontinuance
     • Disadvantages: slowest and least attractive option of the five (somewhat faster than the contemporary , but not by much)

I feel that the Culver and both Brighton options aren’t feasible because the disadvantages are big enough to outweigh the advantages. In the case of the Brighton options, where would you even be able to turn Brighton Local service, if the express continues past Brighton Beach? Would you risk having local and express merge back in with each other after Ocean Parkway? At least the  and  options do have spare capacity and West End has intermediate express stops to pick up riders mid-route, though both have plenty of merging to deal with, which will put a limit on how much express service can be run. Sea Beach had temporary platforms put up over the abandoned southbound express tracks at 8th Avenue and Bay Parkway during its big rehab a couple years ago, so 8th could potentially be an intermediate stop, assuming that platform is still there and can be made into a permanent platform. 

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

I don't think CI needs express service. There are one or two new devs coming up down there, but the center of ridership growth on Brooklyn routes over the past 15 or so years has been in Sunset Park, Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, etc, and without other routing interventions, the Dekalb/Manhattan/Queens segments of these routes basically mean they're maxed out, save for maybe 1tph here or there.

For example, on the , while back in the '70s only about 60% of ridership was on the IND portion of Culver, today over 75% is. Obviously in the specific case in the  riders at Church and 7th would benefit from express trains, but generally speaking the center of line ridership is too far north (and is tending further northwards) to sustain express service at the expense of local service from Church north -- let alone from Kings Highway north. The same goes for any . On Sea Beach, even if _every single_ Stillwell rider used this  and this  ran local from Stillwell to Kings Highway, you'd only be serving 22% of Sea Beach ridership. The  fares a bit better -- 28%, and 62nd could be a legit transfer opportunity if scheduled right -- but still, not great. And this is all before we discuss the operational barriers to some of these issues, whether that be the complexities that come with trying to run a short turn op and an express/local crossover without a grade separated junction (hello Parkchester), or scheduling challenges given time savings, or otherwise. None of those barriers are _intractable_ but they make an unattractive ridership proposition seem suboptimal operationally too. Really unless you can increase the size of the capacity pie, you're robbing one area to serve another -- and are making a poor tradeoff at that. My question is why not focus on non-express service improvements in runtime? There is a lot of messy signaling and merging on BMT south; cutting down some of that could save all riders time. 

Now, the above is qualified with the assumption that we can't increase the size of the capacity pie. But say we went ahead with ops fixes, and ended up with the ability to run 30tph down the 4th Ave express tracks. Then what? I'd suggest . West End express has intermediate stops, which allows for transfers and larger catchment, has bad-but-not-terrible short turn facilities at Bay Parkway, and is really quite fast. I don't think you'd necessarily want to split the  evenly, but I can see a world in which it'd work. 

It doesn’t hurt that there’s an online contingent of people who aren’t subway buffs calling for a  express on the West End. I seem to recall seeing a petition for it on change.org and folks posting to the Bay Ridge & Southern Brooklyn Subway/Bus group on Facebook calling for it. But it would have the same four merges the  currently has. So you’d either have to split the current , run a couple ’s during rush, like the  or deinterline DeKalb to free up additional capacity for a West End express. Likewise for an , you’d wouldn’t get much additional service without untangling either DeKalb or 34th (or both).

[Lawrence St]

The issue with the northern part of the is the weird crew change that they do at Bedford Park. IIRC, they change crews at Bedford Park which causes the southbound train to sit there for a few minutes.

Culver is a unique situation. The can work, but only if it's a full rush hour line between Jay St-MetroTech & Church Av, the gets full length trains and the lower level at Bergen St re-opens. The regular gets plagued with delays from the trains that are relaying at Church Av, which is what causes that bottleneck section between Bergen St & Jay St/Hoyt St. If the were to become the during rush hours, it bypasses the congestion at Church Av and speeds up commutes. Customers can then easily transfer between the and at Bergen St using the lower level. 

The is a severe problem because how long it is and how prone to delays Queens Blvd can be. This is a simple fix, during rush hours have the <R> run from Bay Ridge to Chambers St like it did in the past. The frequency for 4th Av remains the same, and the regular can alternate between Whitehall St & Bay Ridge.

[P3F]

7 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

To add on, tearing down the Gowanus Expressway would really unlock the western half of station catchment areas along Fourth Avenue. Add a dedicated busway in the median of Third Avenue, and provide direct access to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, and transit will improve dramatically for these areas.

How do you come up with this utter nonsense? The catchment is area already unlocked; there is a full set of crosswalks at almost every intersection under the expressway. Even if the insane idea of removing the highway were to go through, everyone would have to cross the same amount of lanes at 3rd Avenue (or more, if you want a busway). The only significant gap in the crosswalks is between 60th and 65th Streets, and that's not too much of a problem since the nearest station is at 59th Street anyway.

Speaking of the busway, maybe you haven't looked at the ridership numbers lately, but the B37 isn't really known for its high usage. It doesn't seem like the best candidate for anything even remotely related to a busway. And even if the bus were to go to lower Manhattan, people would still opt for the 4th Avenue line because it would be faster and more reliable in most cases.

 

[Union Tpke]

27 minutes ago, P3F said:

How do you come up with this utter nonsense? The catchment is area already unlocked; there is a full set of crosswalks at almost every intersection under the expressway. Even if the insane idea of removing the highway were to go through, everyone would have to cross the same amount of lanes at 3rd Avenue (or more, if you want a busway). The only significant gap in the crosswalks is between 60th and 65th Streets, and that's not too much of a problem since the nearest station is at 59th Street anyway.

Speaking of the busway, maybe you haven't looked at the ridership numbers lately, but the B37 isn't really known for its high usage. It doesn't seem like the best candidate for anything even remotely related to a busway. And even if the bus were to go to lower Manhattan, people would still opt for the 4th Avenue line because it would be faster and more reliable in most cases.

 

You clearly do not get the point. Third Avenue is very dangerous. It is a speedway.

Do you consider this sage?

https://goo.gl/maps/oW32uG1tbXMSvoLTA

Insane to remove the highway? You know, if you reduce the number of lanes, traffic will decrease? Induced congestion anyone? Also, with climate change we cannot just stop building new asthma-ways, but need to remove existing ones. With the stupid poles for the highway, and the parking lots underneath, there is plenty of space for medians to reduce the crossing distance.

The way you are looking at bus ridership certainly explains why bus ridership is in a free fall in this city. Don't analyze why people aren't using the bus or how the situation can be remedied, but only make investments, once ridership is outside the service guidelines. With the highway removed, you need better transit in the area. Most trips on the Gowanus/BQE are within NYC. If you replace the entire highway with Light-Rail or a dedicated busway, it would do 100x as much as the BQX.

I can get into more detail about this, but I need some shuteye.

[P3F]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

You clearly do not get the point. Third Avenue is very dangerous. It is a speedway.

Do you consider this sage?

https://goo.gl/maps/oW32uG1tbXMSvoLTA

I have walked on that part of 3rd Avenue many times -- on the sidewalk, and even in the median. Crossing it is about as easy as crossing two city streets. If you don't do anything stupid, such as going in front of a moving car, then yes I believe anyone using or crossing the road is, by relative terms, safe. The only road users who are truly at a slight risk here are cyclists, but I'm not too worried about them since they have protected lanes on 4th and 2nd Avenues that they can use. Bike infrastructure in the area is also being improved as part of the Sunset Park Vision Plan being carried out by the NYCEDC.

There is nearly nothing wrong with the street view you've linked. The three cars and the ambulance are not blocking any crosswalks, and they will either turn or form a lane once their light turns green. Most of 3rd Avenue has leading pedestrian intervals, so any pedestrians waiting to cross will get a head start on the cars. The only real issue I see is the Belgian blocks in the median parts of the crosswalks, which are not ADA-accessible. This will likely be remedied in the DOT project to install ADA-accessible curb cuts at every corner in the city.

Quote

Insane to remove the highway? You know, if you reduce the number of lanes, traffic will decrease? Induced congestion anyone?

Ah yes, because demand for goods and services will suddenly drop to zero, and all the trucks and other assorted commercial vehicles using the interstate will disappear. Yeah no, they'll be stuck on 3rd Avenue, making sure the locals are getting more diesel fumes in their air than ever before. Cars are not bound to truck routes, and thus will choose other routes to take since the fastest one no longer exists. But that's just displacing the traffic elsewhere. 

Quote

Also, with climate change we cannot just stop building new asthma-ways, but need to remove existing ones.

This is laughable. Cars use fuel most efficiently at 55 miles per hour, and efficiency goes down at higher and lower speeds. So if cars are going "25" instead of whatever they go on the expressway, they will use more fuel to travel the same distance, and therefore pollute more. 

Quote

With the stupid poles for the highway, and the parking lots underneath, there is plenty of space for medians to reduce the crossing distance.

The poles don't really impact the crossing that much; it's a non-issue to simply avoid them since they don't block a significant portion of the crosswalk. In terms of reducing crossing distances, you could have some curb extensions on the street-parking sides of the street, but that's really about it.

Quote

The way you are looking at bus ridership certainly explains why bus ridership is in a free fall in this city. Don't analyze why people aren't using the bus or how the situation can be remedied, but only make investments, once ridership is outside the service guidelines. With the highway removed, you need better transit in the area. Most trips on the Gowanus/BQE are within NYC. If you replace the entire highway with Light-Rail or a dedicated busway, it would do 100x as much as the BQX.

Okay, let's analyze why people going to Manhattan aren't using the B37 to Atlantic Av - Barclays Center in droves.

- The 4th Avenue line, which goes to Manhattan, is a single block away.

Now let's analyze why people going to other destinations along the BQE may not be too interested in the B37.

- For most imaginable trips of this type, it's probably faster to just take the subway. Sunset Park isn't some kind of transit desert. There's three subway lines right there.

FYI, for regular people driving on the BQE, their destination isn't usually directly on the expressway. When there's no traffic, it's simply the fastest way from southern Brooklyn to northern Brooklyn and western Queens, with a very large catchment area of sources and destinations.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

The issue with the northern part of the is the weird crew change that they do at Bedford Park. IIRC, they change crews at Bedford Park which causes the southbound train to sit there for a few minutes.

Culver is a unique situation. The can work, but only if it's a full rush hour line between Jay St-MetroTech & Church Av, the gets full length trains and the lower level at Bergen St re-opens. The regular gets plagued with delays from the trains that are relaying at Church Av, which is what causes that bottleneck section between Bergen St & Jay St/Hoyt St. If the were to become the during rush hours, it bypasses the congestion at Church Av and speeds up commutes. Customers can then easily transfer between the and at Bergen St using the lower level. 

The is a severe problem because how long it is and how prone to delays Queens Blvd can be. This is a simple fix, during rush hours have the <R> run from Bay Ridge to Chambers St like it did in the past. The frequency for 4th Av remains the same, and the regular can alternate between Whitehall St & Bay Ridge.

Yes, they should just build a crew quarters for the  at 205th and just do crew changes there. I realize the plan was to extend the Line well beyond 205, but they didn’t and there aren’t any plans to run the  as a Bronx crosstown line from Norwood to Co-op City, so just build the quarters and do the crew changes there. But the bean counters will argue that it’s cheaper to just use the perfectly fine existing quarters at Bedford Park. That’s the problem. Just like they’ll argue it’s cheaper to run the current merged  service with the current  Queens terminal in Forest Hills. 

And yes, the current  is long. But it suffers from delays around the clock. Adding a Nassau <R> during rush hours only won’t help during the rest of the day or weekends. And the regular  trains will still suffer Queens Blvd delays, just like they did last night due to that switch malfunction at Roosevelt Avenue and the signal malfunction at Lexington Ave earlier this evening. 

As for the , you’d never be able to get away with running all ’s express between Church and Bergen. Look at all we went through just to get the two morning and evening ’s we have now. 
 

 

[mrsman]

48 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes, they should just build a crew quarters for the  at 205th and just do crew changes there. I realize the plan was to extend the Line well beyond 205, but they didn’t and there aren’t any plans to run the  as a Bronx crosstown line from Norwood to Co-op City, so just build the quarters and do the crew changes there. But the bean counters will argue that it’s cheaper to just use the perfectly fine existing quarters at Bedford Park. That’s the problem. Just like they’ll argue it’s cheaper to run the current merged  service with the current  Queens terminal in Forest Hills. 

And yes, the current  is long. But it suffers from delays around the clock. Adding a Nassau <R> during rush hours only won’t help during the rest of the day or weekends. And the regular  trains will still suffer Queens Blvd delays, just like they did last night due to that switch malfunction at Roosevelt Avenue and the signal malfunction at Lexington Ave earlier this evening. 

As for the , you’d never be able to get away with running all ’s express between Church and Bergen. Look at all we went through just to get the two morning and evening ’s we have now. 
 

 

Of all the choices presented, I prefer a West End super-express.  While there is some merging and re-merging, if the West End express connects to the Broadway express, you can have an express train that services the following stops:  Bay Pkwy, 62nd (Sea Beach connection), 9 Av, 36 St, Barclay's, Canal, 14, 34, 42.  7 stops from mid-brooklyn to Times Square.

And I don't believe in repeating Parkchester, so the super express should terminate at Bay Pkwy, with the option of connecting to CI trains to go further south. 

I can see a full fledged line divide into three services.  IF at least 24TPH is provided, Broadway express-4th Ave express can divide to serve Sea Beach, West End, and West End express.

There is precedent for this, the Cranberry tunnel line also divides into three services: Fulton local, Fulton express to Lefferts, Fulton express to Far Rockaway.

[Lex]

3 hours ago, mrsman said:

There is precedent for this, the Cranberry tunnel line also divides into three services: Fulton local, Fulton express to Lefferts, Fulton express to Far Rockaway.

The only reason for that is because there is literally no direct connection between 8th Avenue Local and Fulton Street Local.

[Eric B]

On 1/6/2020 at 7:40 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Also the Flushing Line would still be A Division, as the Steinway Tubes and the 42nd Street (at least up to Grand Central) and LIC subways on both sides of the tubes were built pre-Dual Contracts as well. 

OK I wasn't thinking about that; I basically was thinking the IRT "mainline".

Besides, if they were willing to build that much, then I would phase in a conversion of the Flushing line. First, extend the  and capture the  line in Manhattan to Grand Central. Cut it off there, and completely rebuild the tunnel from scratch (remove the tubes and install new ones if necessary). So the  would run Grand Central to Canarsie, the Flushing then converted and the  temporarily covering it, and a shuttle from QBP to Vernon-Jackson, )or this might have to be the local from Flushing rush hours). Then, when it's all finished, it would be a pink  (sort of a cross between the gray L and magenta &) from Flushing to Canarsie. (the rush hour "diamond" service would run to Myrtle-Bway like the extra service now).

Quote

Yes, you’ve got a nice through east-west side line, like we did from 1904 to 1918, when the current IRT “H” was implemented. But why have the “Lower Lexington” Line duplicate the existing service one level up? Maybe just have the “Dual Contracts” subway continue straight down Lexington Ave/Irving Place to Union Square, where it could then run briefly under the existing line for connections at 14th and Astor Place. From there, the new line could then run down Bowery to Park Row, then continue down Park Row past Pace University to intercept the existing  subway at William Street. 

But then once in Brooklyn, where would the new subway go to “capture” the outer, “Dual Contracts” IRT stations past Atlantic?

The duplicate line (forgot to mention) would be good for the additional capacity needed on the line (in addition to the new line being the larger B Div. construction).

The new line, coming from Clark St. would just run right in through Atlantic, and pick up the outer lines. 

Quote

And what about the remainder of the “Dual Contracts” IRT, i.e., the 7th Avenue Line below Times Square plus Park Place? I don’t really see the point in just cutting it off at Times Square. That would make it a glorified shuttle with rather low ridership. It should continue north of there perhaps jogging over to Columbus/Morningside or Amsterdam. And if we’ve already got the new “Lower Lex” trunk line going through the Clark Street Tunnel, then we can’t have the existing service via Park Place/Beekman going through there too. Because that would be a truly bad case of reverse-branching, where each of these new services would be forced to run less frequently than the current services do. And that wouldn’t be worth doing. 

I guess I never fully worked that part of it out. But that part of the line is veering toward the Cranberry St. tube, so maybe that's how that portion could be be captured by the B Div. Ii would still bring Brooklyn (and ferry) riders to the main part of Midtown. It could perhaps be the "K" to Lefferts, then.

[Around the Horn]

14 hours ago, mrsman said:

Of all the choices presented, I prefer a West End super-express.  While there is some merging and re-merging, if the West End express connects to the Broadway express, you can have an express train that services the following stops:  Bay Pkwy, 62nd (Sea Beach connection), 9 Av, 36 St, Barclay's, Canal, 14, 34, 42.  7 stops from mid-brooklyn to Times Square.

And I don't believe in repeating Parkchester, so the super express should terminate at Bay Pkwy, with the option of connecting to CI trains to go further south. 

I can see a full fledged line divide into three services.  IF at least 24TPH is provided, Broadway express-4th Ave express can divide to serve Sea Beach, West End, and West End express.

There is precedent for this, the Cranberry tunnel line also divides into three services: Fulton local, Fulton express to Lefferts, Fulton express to Far Rockaway.

30 TPH:

15 TPH via Sea Beach

7.5 TPH via West End

7.5 TPH via West End Express

There, done.

[mrsman]

6 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

30 TPH:

15 TPH via Sea Beach

7.5 TPH via West End

7.5 TPH via West End Express

There, done.

Or even 10 TPH each on the three services.  The  is a really valuable service and I think some Sea Beach customers would be willing to transfer to it, since it will eventually save them time.

There are a lot of local stations on the south Brooklyn lines.  There needs to be an express.

Brighton line already has an express, but due to the two tracks north of prospect park, it is of limited value.  In my mind, it is preferable to have an express that stays express until your reach the CBD.  The fact that there are so many stops between Manhattan and Prospect Park on the  means that I would prefer  as the primary express train for southern Brooklyn, even though it can only be run in one direction since it is three tracks.

[P3F]

4 minutes ago, mrsman said:

Brighton line already has an express, but due to the two tracks north of prospect park, it is of limited value. 

I wouldn't say that. Atlantic Avenue (for the 2/3/4/5) and DeKalb (for the R) are both very useful transfer points, since not everyone on Brighton is going to 6th Avenue or Broadway. The only other stop is 7th Avenue, which has good ridership, so there isn't really a problem with all the trains stopping there.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 1/15/2020 at 9:32 AM, Eric B said:

OK I wasn't thinking about that; I basically was thinking the IRT "mainline".

Besides, if they were willing to build that much, then I would phase in a conversion of the Flushing line. First, extend the  and capture the  line in Manhattan to Grand Central. Cut it off there, and completely rebuild the tunnel from scratch (remove the tubes and install new ones if necessary). So the  would run Grand Central to Canarsie, the Flushing then converted and the  temporarily covering it, and a shuttle from QBP to Vernon-Jackson, )or this might have to be the local from Flushing rush hours). Then, when it's all finished, it would be a pink  (sort of a cross between the gray L and magenta &) from Flushing to Canarsie. (the rush hour "diamond" service would run to Myrtle-Bway like the extra service now).

The duplicate line (forgot to mention) would be good for the additional capacity needed on the line (in addition to the new line being the larger B Div. construction).

The new line, coming from Clark St. would just run right in through Atlantic, and pick up the outer lines. 

I guess I never fully worked that part of it out. But that part of the line is veering toward the Cranberry St. tube, so maybe that's how that portion could be be captured by the B Div. Ii would still bring Brooklyn (and ferry) riders to the main part of Midtown. It could perhaps be the "K" to Lefferts, then.

True about the new line providing more capacity on the East Side. But it can also do that one avenue block away from the existing line.

But connecting the lower 7th Avenue line to Cranberry would risk creating a similar reverse branching with the existing 8th Ave services that already run there. 

On 1/15/2020 at 9:48 PM, mrsman said:

Or even 10 TPH each on the three services.  The  is a really valuable service and I think some Sea Beach customers would be willing to transfer to it, since it will eventually save them time.

There are a lot of local stations on the south Brooklyn lines.  There needs to be an express.

Brighton line already has an express, but due to the two tracks north of prospect park, it is of limited value.  In my mind, it is preferable to have an express that stays express until your reach the CBD.  The fact that there are so many stops between Manhattan and Prospect Park on the  means that I would prefer  as the primary express train for southern Brooklyn, even though it can only be run in one direction since it is three tracks.

Yes, Brighton already has express service. But it’s not really that many stops between Prospect Park and Manhattan. And it is a valuable service, especially to southern Brighton riders, even if it narrows down to two tracks at Prospect. But Brighton’s express is more of Manhattan-oriented one. A Coney Island-oriented express would be better suited to the West End line, like you said. I think so because it has the spare capacity and has a more direct path from Coney Island to Manhattan. 

[mrsman]

On 1/16/2020 at 11:05 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

True about the new line providing more capacity on the East Side. But it can also do that one avenue block away from the existing line.

But connecting the lower 7th Avenue line to Cranberry would risk creating a similar reverse branching with the existing 8th Ave services that already run there. 

Yes, Brighton already has express service. But it’s not really that many stops between Prospect Park and Manhattan. And it is a valuable service, especially to southern Brighton riders, even if it narrows down to two tracks at Prospect. But Brighton’s express is more of Manhattan-oriented one. A Coney Island-oriented express would be better suited to the West End line, like you said. I think so because it has the spare capacity and has a more direct path from Coney Island to Manhattan. 

I agree.  

I want to clarify that I don't beleive we should get rid of the Brighton express, it's just that given that there is a large 2 track section, it is of limited value to those who would have their chocie of line, like riders starting from CI.

Many years ago, Transit had the best service to CI, known as the NX.  Unfortunately, it was too good.  Since it didn't stop at all between 59th and CI, it didn't pick up enough passengers on regular days, so it got cancelled.  Ideally, the NX should have stopped at New Utrecht (for West End transfers) and Kings Hwy, with island platforms.  Two extra stops would still mean a full fledged express service.  And since it had 4 tracks, you could run a full time express service in both directions all the way to the Manhattan Bridge.  A service like that would have been very popular.

Given that, I think west end is the best option to provide express to CI.  The trip would be faster than Brighton.

[Trainmaster5]

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

I agree.  

I want to clarify that I don't beleive we should get rid of the Brighton express, it's just that given that there is a large 2 track section, it is of limited value to those who would have their chocie of line, like riders starting from CI.

Many years ago, Transit had the best service to CI, known as the NX.  Unfortunately, it was too good.  Since it didn't stop at all between 59th and CI, it didn't pick up enough passengers on regular days, so it got cancelled.  Ideally, the NX should have stopped at New Utrecht (for West End transfers) and Kings Hwy, with island platforms.  Two extra stops would still mean a full fledged express service.  And since it had 4 tracks, you could run a full time express service in both directions all the way to the Manhattan Bridge.  A service like that would have been very popular.

Given that, I think west end is the best option to provide express to CI.  The trip would be faster than Brighton.

I actually rode the from end to end maybe 25 times when it ran.  Always s/b during the PM rush.  Always had the RFW to myself.  Perhaps you're right about the additional stops but it was promoted as a quick way to Coney Island and to Brighton Beach. From 57-7th it was faster than the (QB) that was introduced at the same time as the between Brighton Beach and 57-7th because the (QB) was a local,  a sop to the Brighton riders who used to ride the original Express before the 6th Avenue connections on the Manhattan Bridge. The original  was faster,  IMO, because it was a more direct route to the Bridge from Brighton even with its stops to DeKalb.  The covered more miles as a rush hour special service. I remember discussing this with my schoolcar classmates and instructors.  That's where I was first exposed to the argument about running more trains vs running more service to the destinations the ridership desired.  Seemed like the agency never took an O&D survey of the passengers but were content with patting themselves on the back because the new connections were made. (Rj) and services that ended up carrying air after they left the Nassau Street loop,  especially after the rush hours. I was a provisional RR Porter for a while back then and heard the complaints firsthand and read about them. As a young man with a free pass and no real responsibilities it seemed like heaven to me but when the adults,  and later on my instructors,  pointed out the shortcomings I started to look at some things in a different light.  Just my observation.  Carry on. 

[LGA Link N Train]

Given the recent discussions on the R211 and R262 threads. I’m going to speculate how service can be run more efficiently with the new upgrades that were scheduled to get.

With QBL CBTC and RBB.

While deinterlining Queens Blvd would be ideal, it’d come with its own challenges. Not to mention that while building an in-system transfer at Lexington 59/63 is also ideal, it likely be a very difficult thing to do. So service should run as follows:

 run 15 TPH as usual along QB express unless 1 or 2 trains can be added with the addition of CBTC. If that’s the case, then the  would be the ideal line given that Culver Express service has potential. 

 would continue to run 8 TPH, but instead of supplementing the , it would run along side a new  service, which would run at about 10 TPH. The  gets booted to 63rd while the  uses 53rd.  service would be reduced to 6 TPH (or 10 minute headway’s) as it would serve as a supplemental Local line for the Rush Hour.
 

With 10  trains and 6  trains going to Forest Hills during the rush, this leaves the remaining 8  trains to be routed down RBB. These trains will terminate at Rockaway Park with the sole intention of connecting passengers with different parts of the Borough. Personally, I can’t see the RBB being built under the LIRR option.

These changes would be more effective if trains were rescheduled in a way where merge delays are greatly reduced and where Terminal Ops at Forest Hills we’re fixed.

 service would run 18 TPH between Astoria and Bay Ridge as it would now become the sole Broadway Local route. The route designations can be swapped between the  and  if Bay Ridge gets salty about it. 

 service each run about 12 TPH. (24 combined along Broadway Express and SAS) 

With 8th Avenue CBTC 

With a new  service introduced, it would run alongside the  in Manhattan. Ideally, CPW and Canal would be deinterlined. However, this plan will not cover CPW.  service will merge with the  between 42nd and 50th Street stations. While this service pattern is not ideal, it would have a lesser chance of impacting service under 8th Avenue CBTC.

Service (while being lengthened by R211’s) will terminate at WTC as opposed to Euclid, but will run at 12 or so TPH given the CBTC upgrades along 8th Avenue. This eliminates the merge delay at Canal. 

 service will 20 or so TPH to maintain a better balance on the number of trains Branching off between Lefferts and the Rockaways. This may affect the number of trains run on the  and . If needed, these 2 services can be switched along CPW, though I wouldn’t recommend this.

Lexington CBTC and Rogers Junction

With CBTC Scheduled to hit the Lexington Line in addition to the R262’s, it’s time to mention Rogers Junction. As recommended in MANY studies in the past, the best way to deal with Rogers Junction is to Deinterline it by building 2 new switches. I don’t get why the  wont take the opportunity to deinterline this Junction if Lexington CBTC would indirectly  help boost reliability in this junction. If anything, this is a great chance to improve Flatbush terminal as well. The following can be done:

The Switches can be added at Rogers. The  and  continue straight down to Utica/New Lots. While unnecessary at this point, the  train will run 20 TPH to New Lots and the  will do 10-12 TPH express runs to Utica. This is due to the capacity constraints at 142nd/149th Street Junction. 

 and  service will terminate at Flatbush Terminal. From what a friend of mine told me last year, they use one Track at Flatbush to send out  trains and the other track to send out  trains. (Correct me if I’m wrong on this part.) This type of pattern would end and  and  trains will be sent out from either track in order to speed up Fumigation.

 service will run at about 20 TPH while  service will only run at 10. Under this proposal,  and  trains will share equipment as opposed to the  and  (though there could be a put-in set exchanged between the  and  every now and then).  trains will now move to Livonia, but still layup trains at East 180th/Unionport Yards. The  will move to East 180th, but still layup trains at Lenox. 
 

Bronx service will see the following:

20 TPH along Jerome.
 and  service share 30-32 TPH.  trains will continue their express runs with 10 TPH running along Dyre Avenue.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I don’t get why the  wont take the opportunity to deinterline this Junction if Lexington CBTC would indirectly  help boost reliability in this junction.

I do. It's basically why the  stopped running east of 71st Avenue only a few years after it started.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 and  service will terminate at Flatbush Terminal. From what a friend of mine told me last year, they use one Track at Flatbush to send out  trains and the other track to send out  trains. (Correct me if I’m wrong on this part.) This type of pattern would end and  and  trains will be sent out from either track in order to speed up Fumigation.

You would've been better off seeing the station for yourself before saying that, considering where the crew rooms (yes, rooms) are located. (The layout also makes running the existing 18 trains quite the adventure.)

Technically, they can have trains depart from either track, but it's easier for people to know which train is which based on the track.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The Switches can be added at Rogers. The  and  continue straight down to Utica/New Lots. While unnecessary at this point, the  train will run 20 TPH to New Lots and the  will do 10-12 TPH express runs to Utica. This is due to the capacity constraints at 142nd/149th Street Junction.

Why run two Bronx routes in a manner where they hardly support each other, and why do it with Lexington Avenue?

For that matter, why inundate those stations with more trains than they need, and why not focus on providing more support for Bronx ridership?

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 and  service will terminate at Flatbush Terminal. From what a friend of mine told me last year, they use one Track at Flatbush to send out  trains and the other track to send out  trains. (Correct me if I’m wrong on this part.) This type of pattern would end and  and  trains will be sent out from either track in order to speed up Fumigation.

 service will run at about 20 TPH while  service will only run at 10. Under this proposal,  and  trains will share equipment as opposed to the  and  (though there could be a put-in set exchanged between the  and  every now and then).  trains will now move to Livonia, but still layup trains at East 180th/Unionport Yards. The  will move to East 180th, but still layup trains at Lenox. 

In Brooklyn, service up the West Side is largely an afterthought for riders, yet the Bronx is rather starved. We don't have any half-decent places to short-turn  trains so they can serve Manhattan-Bronx ridership more effectively, and merely running more of them only addresses the issue of merely serving the Manhattan-Bronx ridership.

Have you actually seen how a Lenox-180th/Unionport/239th move would look? It's not pretty, and without some sort of change to the track layout, it'll remain horrifying. We can also forget about a good chunk of existing  service and probably those two stations in Harlem. (Before anyone tries to claim yet again that the MTA wouldn't dare to do anything of the sort, just look at what happened with the Queens draft, especially with the Main Street buses and the Q53.)

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

20 TPH along Jerome.

You'd be able to achieve that now by having better  and  timing at 149th Street and not having trains to/from Brooklyn use the middle track.

[Jova42R]

Using existing tracks, my modifications to the system:

: runs express from 95th to Atlantic, rush only

: runs express from 59th to Coney Island, rush only, stopping on the local track at Kings Hwy. Also runs express in Astoria.

 is split:  is 95th to Canal St.  is Jay St to 71 Av.  only runs during non-rush. during rush hour, use

 is extended to Atlantic Av

new connection is built between 57-7 and 59th

2  trains run one in morning, one in evening, running via Fulton Express and 8 Av Local, then stopping at 72 St, and then going CPW Express to 145th.

 expanded, with some trains running Culver Express all the way to Avenue X.

 expanded

some s run Lex Express

 implemented - runs express 149 to Burnside

 runs express in Brooklyn,  runs local.

WEEKDAYS:

 express,  local

WEEKENDS:

local express

some / run via 63rd

some / run via 53rd

BAY RIDGE BRANCH: TriboroRX implemented (using the new train names)

• 4 Av
• 62-New Utrecht
• 17 Av
• McDonald Av
• E 7 St-Ocean Pkwy
• E 16 St
• Nostrand-Flatbush-Brooklyn College
• Albany Av
• Utica Av
• Ralph Av
• E 94 St
• Livonia Av
• Atlantic Av LIRR
• Broadway Junction
• Wilson Av
• Cypress Av
• Myrtle Av
• Metropolitan Av
• Juniper Blvd
• Eliot Av
• Grand Av
• Queens Blvd
• Roosevelt Av
• Northern Blvd
  • LGA Branch splits
• Stienway St
• 31 St

 

Any other thoughts for existing-track extensions?

Edited January 30, 2020 by Jova42R

[Maxwell179]

9 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Using existing tracks, my modifications to the system:

: runs express from 95th to Atlantic, rush only

: runs express from 59th to Coney Island, rush only, stopping on the local track at Kings Hwy. Also runs express in Astoria.

 is split:  is 95th to Canal St.  is Jay St to 71 Av.  only runs during non-rush. during rush hour, use

 is extended to Atlantic Av

new connection is built between 57-7 and 59th

2  trains run one in morning, one in evening, running via Fulton Express and 8 Av Local, then stopping at 72 St, and then going CPW Express to 145th.

 expanded, with some trains running Culver Express all the way to Avenue X.

 expanded

some s run Lex Express

 implemented - runs express 149 to Burnside

 runs express in Brooklyn,  runs local.

WEEKDAYS:

 express,  local

WEEKENDS:

local express

some / run via 63rd

some / run via 53rd

BAY RIDGE BRANCH: TriboroRX implemented (using the new train names)

• 4 Av
• 62-New Utrecht
• 17 Av
• McDonald Av
• E 7 St-Ocean Pkwy
• E 16 St
• Nostrand-Flatbush-Brooklyn College
• Albany Av
• Utica Av
• Ralph Av
• E 94 St
• Livonia Av
• Atlantic Av LIRR
• Broadway Junction
• Wilson Av
• Cypress Av
• Myrtle Av
• Metropolitan Av
• Juniper Blvd
• Eliot Av
• Grand Av
• Queens Blvd
• Roosevelt Av
• Northern Blvd
  • LGA Branch splits
• Stienway St
• 31 St

 

Any other thoughts for existing-track extensions?

why do you have practically every local train running express

[Jova42R]

Just now, Maxwell179 said:

why do you have practically every local train running express

: long and unreliable

: so that its faster

: so that Brooklyn-UWS commuters can have a faster commute

: long and somewhat unreliable

: to be a bit faster

: so that Bronx-Manhattan  travel is faster

[Maxwell179]

11 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

: long and unreliable

: so that its faster

: so that Brooklyn-UWS commuters can have a faster commute

: long and somewhat unreliable

: to be a bit faster

: so that Bronx-Manhattan  travel is faster

 : that’s why the N & D along 4th Ave exist 

 : okay that’s reasonable

 : literally what the  is for

 : only because of 34th St merge and 11st cut

 : there’s literally 2 expresses that run with it 

 : what are you gaining from making the 4 local and both the  &  express 

 : what is extending to just Atlantic doing 

Edited January 30, 2020 by Maxwell179

[4CNRailfan]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Even with CBTC (which is not the magic bullet that many of its proponents make it out to be), the QB local tracks will choke with  and  service there. And with only six ’s per hour, why even have the  there?

@Jova42R Almost off all those express trains you’re proposing will end up not being much faster than their local versions, because they will lose time merging back in with their locals plus merging with other lines. And turning  trains at Jay St and  trains at Atlantic would be ill-advised. Also, your  cannot turn at Canal/Broadway because the switches face the wrong way to turn back northbound trains entering Canal. And Canal St  only has two active tracks, so turning there is also ill-advised.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Even with CBTC (which is not the magic bullet that many of its proponents make it out to be), the QB local tracks will choke with  and  service there. And with only six ’s per hour, why even have the  there? 

Reason for having 6 ’s is because I didn’t propose building a Lexington 59/63rd Transfer. And most riders (whom don’t even care about how Transit Service works) would be pissed if the  was removed entirely. So this is more of a “compromise” for Queens riders and the . Also, I’m assuming that with partial Deinterlining, CBTC, and rescheduling every service, a merge between the  and  shouldn’t be as bad. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Reason for having 6 ’s is because I didn’t propose building a Lexington 59/63rd Transfer. And most riders (whom don’t even care about how Transit Service works) would be pissed if the  was removed entirely. So this is more of a “compromise” for Queens riders and the . Also, I’m assuming that with partial Deinterlining, CBTC, and rescheduling every service, a merge between the  and  shouldn’t be as bad. 

If that’s the case, then you might as well not have the . Just leave the , but terminate it at Whitehall and have the  run Astoria to Bay Ridge and be based at an upgraded 38th Street Yard.

Edited January 30, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue