Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jova42R]

17 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I mean at this point. You’re better off reactivating the RBB ROW for the LIRR. You could run a service between Howard Beach and Penn Station. Then passengers could use the  and  to 59th Street-Columbus Circle.

In the Cross-City Line plan, the Main Line runs from JFK (select trains from Rockaway Park), then via the RBB to the LIRR Main Line, then (because Penn Station is operating over-capacity) to Grand Central (see above). Thoughts on that?

[Jova42R]

 108 St Crosstown / 2 Av Local / North Queens Local

• 110 St
  • station rebuilt as a three-track termination station (s stay on outside tracks, s terminate on middle track)
  • LIMITED RUSH HOUR  TRAINS REVERSE AT 110 ST AND GO/COME VIA THE  LINE TO/FROM SOUTH FERRY
• Amsterdam Av
  • new tunnel under 108 St
• Central Pk W
  • connection to 110 St
• Lenox Av
  • station under Central Park, exit only to 110 St
• 5 Av
  • tunnel shifts to 110 St
• Lexington Av
• 2 Av
  • connection to 106th, no track connection
• 102 St-1 Av
  • via Wards Island Bridge
• Randalls Island
  • via a new viaduct to the Hell Gate Bridge, then to a new viaduct over Ditmars Blvd
• 21 St
• 31 St
• Steinway St
• 45 St
• Hazen St
• 77 St
  • new tunnel under LGA
• LGA Terminal A
• LGA Terminal B
• LGA Terminal C-D
  • via a viaduct in the median of the GC Pkwy
• 114 St
  • via a viaduct in the median of the Whitestone Expy
• Citi Field - Shea Rd
• College Point Blvd
• Linden Pl
• 25 Av
• 20 Av
• 14 Av
  • via a viaduct in the median of the Cross Island Pkwy
• 149 St
• Francis Lewis Blvd
• Utopia Pkwy
• 212 St - Fort Totten

Thoughts @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Union Tpke @RR503?

[RR503]

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

While we are on the subject of issues with NYCT CBTC, how do you think the problem with CBTC and interlockings could be remedied? Is this an issue with other systems? I doubt it considering that 36 TPH can be run on the Victoria Line, which has several trains short-turn.

Honestly I don’t know. It’s unclear whether this issue is a function of the way NYCT zone controllers/interlockings interact with CBTC, whether this is some AWS overlay bug or something else entirely (perhaps related to our conservative design assumptions?). 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

13 hours ago, Jova42R said:

 108 St Crosstown / 2 Av Local / North Queens Local

• 110 St
  • station rebuilt as a three-track termination station (s stay on outside tracks, s terminate on middle track)
  • LIMITED RUSH HOUR  TRAINS REVERSE AT 110 ST AND GO/COME VIA THE  LINE TO/FROM SOUTH FERRY
• Amsterdam Av
  • new tunnel under 108 St
• Central Pk W
  • connection to 110 St
• Lenox Av
  • station under Central Park, exit only to 110 St
• 5 Av
  • tunnel shifts to 110 St
• Lexington Av
• 2 Av
  • connection to 106th, no track connection
• 102 St-1 Av
  • via Wards Island Bridge
• Randalls Island
  • via a new viaduct to the Hell Gate Bridge, then to a new viaduct over Ditmars Blvd
• 21 St
• 31 St
• Steinway St
• 45 St
• Hazen St
• 77 St
  • new tunnel under LGA
• LGA Terminal A
• LGA Terminal B
• LGA Terminal C-D
  • via a viaduct in the median of the GC Pkwy
• 114 St
  • via a viaduct in the median of the Whitestone Expy
• Citi Field - Shea Rd
• College Point Blvd
• Linden Pl
• 25 Av
• 20 Av
• 14 Av
  • via a viaduct in the median of the Cross Island Pkwy
• 149 St
• Francis Lewis Blvd
• Utopia Pkwy
• 212 St - Fort Totten

Thoughts @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Union Tpke @RR503?

None of your proposals address the current deficiencies in the subway system. Most of your ideas are fantasy-based and have no hope of taking shape in anyone's lifetime that is alive today. Please stop posting a set of stations that can be connected with a continuous line on Google Maps.

[Jova42R]

1 hour ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

None of your proposals address the current deficiencies in the subway system. Most of your ideas are fantasy-based and have no hope of taking shape in anyone's lifetime that is alive today. Please stop posting a set of stations that can be connected with a continuous line on Google Maps.

While I will admit that some of my proposals are insane, I definetley think that some of them are not totally crazy. Maybe for the above , If it instead ran from 57-7th on the , then via the , it would be "better" by your standards.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

While I will admit that some of my proposals are insane, I definetley think that some of them are not totally crazy. Maybe for the above , If it instead ran from 57-7th on the , then via the , it would be "better" by your standards.

But it wouldn’t be better if you ran the  via the , just like the part where it’s running on the same tracks as the  isn’t better. Introducing a new service running on the same tracks as an existing service which currently has those tracks all to itself forces the existing service to run on a reduced frequency in order to make room for the new service. We don’t want to reduce service for the purpose of introducing a new service on the same tracks that may not even be as popular as the existing service. 

On 3/17/2020 at 2:00 PM, RR503 said:

Now, for some fun. I finally made maps of my various deinterlining ideas. 

Today's service 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1HHNa2XqlrDKPIKUzpTJcyQbSndtbs1cM

What I'd do without spending any capital $$$

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yZcwJfjcO1tfYuttqW2lUuatAFvIaxuz

What I'd do with capital $$$

https://drive.google.com/open?id=15z4fvc1cfxxtY_ZhUbFex3jxgT0dt3lm

The general principles here are to minimize merges/maximize capacity while trying to preserve a maximum of important connectivity (so we deinterline CPW, but not Essex or Bergen), and on the no-$$$ map to try to jump for deinterlinings that can largely be achieved through low-effort swaps, ie , , . Nothing on here will be all that unfamiliar to those of you who've been reading my ramblings for a while, but I thought it'd be nice to see it all on one map. 

Great maps. But for the second map, I was a bit surprised to see you have the  via Brighton and the  via 4th Avenue Express, as well as the  running local on CPW and the  express.

Edited March 20, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Great maps. But for the second map, I was a bit surprised to see you have the  via Brighton and the  via 4th Avenue Express, as well as the  running local on CPW and the  express.

On the short term map,  express/ local allows you to deinterline 59, 50 and Canal without touching Queens and helps keep the  to a decent length. Once you've done that, you're somewhat forced to do  to Brighton --  to 4th would mean you either end up with 4 weekend services on CPW (the two expresses, and then two locals because you need one for each branch of 4th exp), more local than express service on CPW, or one of West End/Sea Beach without weekend service to Manhattan. On the long term, I figure a) continuity is good, b) the logic rel. the  still holds, c) the  as an overlay Brighton Express/Concourse Local service is legible and really pretty to operate (clear hierarchies of primary/secondary services makes disruption management easier because it's easy to thin out/suspend a train without messing up some branch's service). 

[Jova42R]

North Queens Line:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hwnlRSYt7ti9YX9vNEx79I7adCM_kQziuYbrOwQetw8/edit?usp=sharing

This was also posted in the SAS Disscussion Thread.

Thoughts @RR503 @Around the Horn @Union Tpke?

[LGA Link N Train]

@RR503

I managed to make a De-interlined NYC Subway map (with a time table) that included many of the talking points that you addressed with your masp. However, there were a couple of factors that I chose not to change. 145th Street in my opinion is a Junction that would need to stay interlined unless some SAS connection to the CPW Local Tracks were made. I also did not swap the and south of 36th Street. While I agree with you on the fact that Yard Access would be important for the , swapping it wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. As for the , I included a few infrastructure upgrades along that line for a personal project that I'm working on. I also didn't include your  to 18th Avenue just cause I didn't feel like it. What do you think?:

Map - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H8_ABLoi9Ao9NT608MHifUUR-nbTw4uj&usp=sharing

Timetable - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUmnHPDF-T7_Em5mr93U4qbN7zxqiGpXYM8Xhd01RhE/edit?usp=sharing

[RR503]

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@RR503

I managed to make a De-interlined NYC Subway map (with a time table) that included many of the talking points that you addressed with your masp. However, there were a couple of factors that I chose not to change. 145th Street in my opinion is a Junction that would need to stay interlined unless some SAS connection to the CPW Local Tracks were made. I also did not swap the and south of 36th Street. While I agree with you on the fact that Yard Access would be important for the , swapping it wouldn't be a good idea in my opinion. As for the , I included a few infrastructure upgrades along that line for a personal project that I'm working on. I also didn't include your  to 18th Avenue just cause I didn't feel like it. What do you think?:

Map - https://drive.google.com/open?id=1H8_ABLoi9Ao9NT608MHifUUR-nbTw4uj&usp=sharing

Timetable - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1LUmnHPDF-T7_Em5mr93U4qbN7zxqiGpXYM8Xhd01RhE/edit?usp=sharing

So I guess my question is why you chose not to do things like  to 18 and  to West End? Those things have clear operational (and ridership) upsides, which have been talked through in the past/in this current discussion. There certainly are counterarguments to be made, but "I didn't feel like it" isn't really one of them. 

Also am wondering what your reasoning with the  is. At 16tph, the schedules for  express allow a merge at Bway Jct without too much pain, and there's nonzero demand between Bway Jct and points east. Why short turn locals? 

Edited March 21, 2020 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

So I guess my question is why you chose not to do things like  to 18 and  to West End? Those things have clear operational (and ridership) upsides, which have been talked through in the past/in this current discussion. There certainly are counterarguments to be made, but "I didn't feel like it" isn't really one of them. 

Also am wondering what your reasoning with the  is. At 16tph, the schedules for  express allow a merge at Bway Jct without too much pain, and there's nonzero demand between Bway Jct and points east. Why short turn locals? 

As for why I didn’t add the  to West End on my map, it’s mainly due to the fact (and I remember this from a previous discussion) that West End ridership is in a higher demand for Express Service as opposed to Sea Beach. I’m not sure if that argument alone can suffice not swapping the  and  or if ridership demographics changed since, but that’s my notion. Don’t know why but your  and  swap made me think of the Canal Flip for some reason...
 

As For not adding the  to 18th Extension. Even though I said “I didn’t feel like [adding] it”, I wasn’t trying to make any arguments there, I just simply did not want to add it into my map. I’ll admit that a  extension to 18th would be nice though, but at that point, why not run it to Kings Highway and Expand Culver Express Service? 

The main reason for the short turn was to avoid congesting the Terminal at Jamaica Center. This also put me under the notion that the  between Broadway Junction and Jamaica Center would need a maximum of 12 TPH. I was also trying to go for some type of Terminal Operation similar to Parkchester on the . But since my map includes the upgrade of fixing that terminal (which the interlockings shouldn’t even be that far from the platforms anyways). I guess I could get rid of the Short Turn plan I had with  trains.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

What do you think would be the best service patterns and alignments/expansions for Queens?

[EvilMonologue]

11 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

What do you think would be the best service patterns and alignments/expansions for Queens?

I guess in order, create a transfer between Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza. De-interline QBL so F/M trains go express via 63rd St and E trains go local via 53rd St, send the R/W up to Astoria and the N/Q up to 125th St.

In terms of extensions, I'd like to see the R/W go to Laguardia, the 7 go to College Point, the F extended on Hillside Av to Springfield Blvd, the E (no longer express) extended along Jewel Av after 67th Av to Francis Lewis Blvd, and the G extended to Astoria Blvd on 21st Av after connecting to Queens/Queensboro Plaza and then Queensbridge.

In terms of new lines, the Triboro of course. Getting either a new crosstown line or the Second Av Line to go up Northern Blvd to relieve the 7 would be good. I also think having a Main St light rail that connected Flushing with the Jamaica Station would be really useful for people in deep queens. I think if you do that, and you make LIRR more accessible for people in the city, you don't necessarily need a bypass line.

[Jova42R]

36 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

What do you think would be the best service patterns and alignments/expansions for Queens?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KqU_BnY3NDaOs5QypGaqtPtmZduGHrJbWapC5y-zMgI/edit?usp=sharing for SAS connections. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SL9wr0A2fQfvlNLk79LPr3s0hpRt39M2&usp=sharing - the (MQ) train.

I've got more - PM me and I'll send links

Thoughts?

Edited March 22, 2020 by Jova42R

[EvilMonologue]

17 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KqU_BnY3NDaOs5QypGaqtPtmZduGHrJbWapC5y-zMgI/edit?usp=sharing for SAS connections. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SL9wr0A2fQfvlNLk79LPr3s0hpRt39M2&usp=sharing - the (MQ) train.

I've got more - PM me and I'll send links

Thoughts?

I kinda think it's best to leave the Lower Montauk line as freight or maybe an express regional rail line. Idk about subway, though, especially not sharing tracks with the L

[Jova42R]

2 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

I kinda think it's best to leave the Lower Montauk line as freight or maybe an express regional rail line. Idk about subway, though, especially not sharing tracks with the L

No, this would be a light rail that can also run on subway.

[EvilMonologue]

5 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

No, this would be a light rail that can also run on subway.

I'm saying though that the tracks should probably be used for freight or regional rail, rather than subway or I guess light rail in this case

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, EvilMonologue said:

I'm saying though that the tracks should probably be used for freight or regional rail, rather than subway or I guess light rail in this case

I'd say subway - there's no connection to Manhattan. Why not light rail?

[EvilMonologue]

I guess you could make it a light rail line, but it's not advisable to connect it to Manhattan via the L like you drew

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, EvilMonologue said:

I guess you could make it a light rail line, but it's not advisable to connect it to Manhattan via the L like you drew

So what way to Manhattan? The ?

[EvilMonologue]

Just now, Jova42R said:

So what way to Manhattan? The ?

No, the point is you don't want to connect a new train line to Manhattan via an existing line because it would then reduce the number of trains you can run on that existing line. So if you run Lower Montauk trains on the L or the 7, there will be less trains going to Flushing or Canarsie. So you would want an entirely new tunnel connecting Lower Montauk to Manhattan. The reason it doesn't really make sense to build the Lower Montauk Line with the connection to Manhattan is because there is not enough population density along the line in Queens to warrant the cost of tunneling under the river and then under Manhattan.

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

What do you think would be the best service patterns and alignments/expansions for Queens?

I would suggest expanding the Second Avenue Subway below 63rd Street to 4 tracks, then have the outer two tracks feed into a new 2-track tunnel to Queens, with a stop at 72nd Street/2nd Avenue in Manhattan. In Queens, this new subway would operate under 36th Avenue, Sunnyside Yard, and finally Northern Blvd to Bell Blvd (with a deviation in Willets Point to 34th Avenue). From 57th Street to 162nd Street, the line would be 4 tracks with an express stop at 57th Street, local stops at 74th Street, 82rd Street, 89th Street, an express stop at Junction Blvd, additional local stops at 102bd Street and 108th Street, additional express stops at 126th Street and Main Street, local stops at Parsons Blvd and 149th Street, and an express station at 162nd Street, which will serve as the terminus for local trains. At this point( the line is two tracks again. Express trains would continue East stopping at Utopia Pkwy, Francis Lewis Blvd, 206th Street, and Bell Blvd. This would allow for better service to Northern Queens. 
 

I would also recommend extending the  train East vía Roosevelt Avenue to 162rd Street, then along Crocheron Avenue and 35th Avenue to Bell Blvd. Three tracks to 162nd and two tracks to bell. Alternatives east of 162nd could include switching the alignments to having the  service Northern and the new Northern Blvd-SAS Line serve Crocheron. Either option would allow for improved transfers, better terminal ops for  service, and the new Northern Line would relieve crowding on the .

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

I guess in order, create a transfer between Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza. De-interline QBL so F/M trains go express via 63rd St and E trains go local via 53rd St, send the R/W up to Astoria and the N/Q up to 125th St.

In terms of extensions, I'd like to see the R/W go to Laguardia, the 7 go to College Point, the F extended on Hillside Av to Springfield Blvd, the E (no longer express) extended along Jewel Av after 67th Av to Francis Lewis Blvd, and the G extended to Astoria Blvd on 21st Av after connecting to Queens/Queensboro Plaza and then Queensbridge.

In terms of new lines, the Triboro of course. Getting either a new crosstown line or the Second Av Line to go up Northern Blvd to relieve the 7 would be good. I also think having a Main St light rail that connected Flushing with the Jamaica Station would be really useful for people in deep queens. I think if you do that, and you make LIRR more accessible for people in the city, you don't necessarily need a bypass line.

If the  is to run via QB express, then platforms on the “original” segment of the  (Metro to Essex) will need to be lengthened to accommodate 10-car trains. Running the  to Jamaica Center via QB express in place of the  will be a hard sell to riders unless the  can run 10-car trains. That’s partly why for QB deinterlining, I prefer to run the  and  local and the  and a new 8th Avenue service - called  or  - express.

[EvilMonologue]

29 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If the  is to run via QB express, then platforms on the “original” segment of the  (Metro to Essex) will need to be lengthened to accommodate 10-car trains. Running the  to Jamaica Center via QB express in place of the  will be a hard sell to riders unless the  can run 10-car trains. That’s partly why for QB deinterlining, I prefer to run the  and  local and the  and a new 8th Avenue service - called  or  - express.

I tend to favor returning the Brown M service so as to maximize the capacity you get out of the Rutgers tunnel but I understand that probably would be a hard sell. Still though, even will the Orange M, I'd think the platforms should probably be extended to accommodate 10-car trains anyway, no?

[KK 6 Ave Local]

New service in Brooklyn should mostly be used for under-capacity or lines in need of improvement, like Fulton or Jamaica

First the  should be used for an Atlantic Ave Superexpress service. Another service can be used for the Fulton Local service. This could also be something on Broadway such as  or . Long term both the  would run here for service to Jamaica and Euclid Ave, but for the first part just Euclid. The  would get a third track past Broadway Junction so instead of  service  <J> service could run. Past Broadway Junction would later be replaced with either   or  and west of Broadway Junction  would be accompanied with  or  trains because SAS service would now run on the West End/Brighton Lines.

Service would be as follows:

 To Jamaica Center via Atlantic Branch

 To Euclid Ave via Fulton Local

 To Jamaica Center via Fulton Local and Jamaica Line east of broadway Junction

 To Broadway Junction

 To Broadway Junction

 To Metropolitan Ave

(U)  To Coney Island or Brighton Beach