Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Theli11]

Just now, Collin said:

The  is limited to about 18 tph even with CBTC because it has to share with the  on QB, so running the  express does nothing for it.

So you move the local with the , since the only runs 12 TBH. Or alternatively, you can make the express: 

 

15 hours ago, mrsman said:

If one were to deinterline QBL, between 1) and 2), 1) is preferred.  The customers boarding at any of the local stations from 36 St to Grand Ave do not have to backtrack to Roosevelt at all.  They would have direct access to 8th Ave, a transfer at Lexington/53 to  (and a future SAS service) , and a transfer to 6th Ave services  and  at 7th Avenue.  Other transfers can be provided as well.  I support a Q Plaza - Qboro Plaza transfer to make for an easier transfer to Broadway local trains.   The QBL express will directly service 6th Avenue, have a cross-platform transfer to Broadway exp trains at Lexington/63rd, hopefully have a better transfer to  and Broadway locals.  It is true though that QBL exp trains do not have an easy transfer to 8th Ave until W4, but at least north of 42nd, the stops along 8th Ave aren't too far from the Broadway BMT stops (within an avenue).

It'll work with a Q/Queens Boro transfer. 

[LGA Link N Train]

Just now, Theli11 said:

It'll work with a Q/Queens Boro transfer.

But how feasible is a Queens Plaza/Queensboro Plaza Transfer?

 

[Theli11]

9 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But how feasible is a Queens Plaza/Queensboro Plaza Transfer?

 

Either that or a OOS transfer. Either or works

[Union Tpke]

51 minutes ago, Collin said:

The  is limited to about 18 tph even with CBTC because it has to share with the  on QB, so running the  express does nothing for it.

CBTC won't really increase capacity beyond actually getting the line to run 30 TPH. To get above that you need to deal with dwell times at Roosevelt, eliminate merges through deinterlining, have better terminal dispatching and more precise timetables with five second resolution vs. 30 seconds (If they try to run 31 or 32 TPH, there will be weird 90 second gaps in the schedule, etc.).

Running the  express eliminates merges at 50th and Canal, reducing opportunities for delays, and allows you to run anywhere from 20 to 30 TPH on Queens Boulevard local.

[Union Tpke]

47 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But how feasible is a Queens Plaza/Queensboro Plaza Transfer?

 

Very feasible. They are close to each other and this has been studied a few times. They really need to get on it considering that land in the area is being developed like hot cakes.

 

[Union Tpke]

37 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Either that or a OOS transfer. Either or works

An OOS through Queens Plaza would not be heavily used, other than for tourists who get confused, as it is not a safe area to walk through, though it was much worse a decade ago.

[Union Tpke]

17 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you’d be forcing anyone who wants the 6th Avenue Line to backtrack to the already overcrowded Roosevelt Ave stop. Even if Woodhaven is converted into an express station, which would relieve Roosevelt, those riders transferring at Woodhaven will be replaced by local riders who have to backtrack. Maybe not quite as many as those who currently transfer cross-platform from local to express at Roosevelt, but do we really need to force folks to backtrack? Now, if 36th St was designed to easily be converted into an express station (like Woodhaven), then this wouldn’t be an issue, but it wasn’t designed that way.

Can’t the 6th Avenue trains run local and the 8th Avenue trains express? But even then, if you want the 8th Avenue Line, you’d have to backtrack to Roosevelt to get it. Is that really worth doing? 

As for locals past Forest Hills, it seems like any time a local was extended past Forest Hills, it was met with low ridership and protests from the community. That’s why the  to 179 didn’t last long. And JC can only turn 12 tph, so you can’t even run every  train to JC, let alone running both the  and  there.

There is the transfer at 7th Avenue to the  which would become even more attractive with increased frequencies. there goes your backtracking problem.

Having the 6th Avenue run local would increase demand on 53rd Street even more as it would eliminate all incentives for riders to stay on the Queens Boulevard local (the ).

The only time the locals were extended past Forest Hills were the original EE from December 31, 1936 to December 15, 1940 during off-peak hours, the  from December 11, 1988 to September 30, 1990 at all times and then during rush hours to October 26, 1992, and the late night  from September 30, 1990 to August 30, 1997. There were only complaints with the . Remember that 77% of passengers benefitted from  express/  local to 179th. The change that cut back  service increased travel time along the  by 3.5 minutes.

With deinterlining, like on @RR503's second deinterlining map, you can have some Queens Boulevard express trains go to Jamaica Center (12 TPH), and have the rest go to 179th Street, with local stops covered by the .

[Union Tpke]

23 hours ago, RR503 said:

WTC  honestly...isn't that bad. It's a stub, but you could (esp. post-CBTC) probably get >>20tph out of it, if we use 8 Av  and SF as our reference points. 

The issue with interlining 36 St is twofold. The first problem is that it eliminates any incentive to stay on the express beyond Roosevelt --  riders can use the  and  riders can use the . The  worked largely by giving ridership beyond Roosevelt a one seat ride across the peak load points into the CBD (thus relieving the ) and picking up nontrivial LIC-6th Ave ridership that used to use the . Very, very few people through rode beyond Roosevelt when the express was an alt for their destination. 

Second problem is, of course, ops. I don't think I need to explain just how garbage 59 St is. Its peak throughput is about 43tph across two tracks. Imagine running it at 50-60tph. It's simply an operational non-starter. 

@RR503 Do you know if NYCT's advertising campaign to encourage people to use the  (I have brochures for this) in about 2002 had any tangible effect?

[Union Tpke]

On 3/30/2020 at 1:13 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I'm still under the notion that Phase 3 of the Second Avenue subway should not be built, Or else we're stuck with this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1YOMBdOm6Y_U4S047evR--fEtzjeiWte6

 

Don't build phase 3. Extend the Harlem Line downtown with stops at Union Square and Fulton Street, and in a later phase extend it to SI.

[Union Tpke]

On 3/29/2020 at 7:32 PM, Jova42R said:

Yes, it'd be a tunnel under the LIE, a viaduct would recieve mass opposition

I fully agree! Maybe also extend it to 26th St (at the end of the tail tracks)?

If you extend it to 26th Street you will need to extend the tail tracks futher. This is what I call the 179th Street dilemma, which thankfully I have not had to explain in many a year.

[Union Tpke]

On 3/30/2020 at 1:30 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That brings me to ask the question:

Aside from costs, why did the never consider the idea of connecting ESA with Atlantic Terminal? 

It would be better to connect Atlantic Terminal with the Erie lines (Pascack Valley, Main/Bergen) with a stop at Fulton Street with cross platform transfers to my aforementioned Harlem-SI line to connect the job markets of Brooklyn and LI with NJ. Having the line loop is a major waste when you can take a dent at car traffic going across the CBD.

[Jova42R]

3 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

If you extend it to 26th Street you will need to extend the tail tracks futher. This is what I call the 179th Street dilemma, which thankfully I have not had to explain in many a year.

Sorry to ask, but what's the 179 St dilemma?

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

It would be better to connect Atlantic Terminal with the Erie lines (Pascack Valley, Main/Bergen) with a stop at Fulton Street with cross platform transfers to my aforementioned Harlem-SI line to connect the job markets of Brooklyn and LI with NJ. Having the line loop is a major waste when you can take a dent at car traffic going across the CBD.

Alright, that makes sense

[Union Tpke]

On 3/27/2020 at 8:06 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If I recall correctly, I remember someone saying that adding a switch just before Astoria Blvd is not feasible, However I don’t recall the reason as to why. Also. I wouldn’t recommend short turning any trains at Queens Plaza given the high passenger volume headed towards Astoria and Ditmars. An idea for solving the Yard issue in the short term (and one I’m not completely fond of) is to rebuild the switches south of 36th Street/4th Avenue. If you do this with a maxed out SAS and Deinterlined DeKalb Junction, you can have  service go to Bay Ridge-95th (switching Local after 36th Street),  Service going to West End from Astoria, and  Service running up with the  to 96th while remaining the same in Brooklyn. 

 

Adding switches over the hump might not be possible but redoing Ditmars like what was proposed in the PCAC's 100 days, 100 nights proposal should be doable. It just needs capital $.

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

Sorry to ask, but what's the 179 St dilemma?

Someone notes how the tail tracks end at 184th Place, and then proposes opening a station at 188th, which requires more tail tracks, and on and on.

[Jova42R]

Just now, Union Tpke said:

Someone notes how the tail tracks end at 184th Place, and then proposes opening a station at 188th, which requires more tail tracks, and on and on.

Ah ok, so make the station at 28th/10th?

[Union Tpke]

On 3/25/2020 at 5:36 PM, bobtehpanda said:

In general, I'm not really interested in your proposals, so stop @'ing me. 

This isn't an "alternative". This doesn't distribute people throughout the central city.

The Lower Montauk is a waste of time. So is the West Side Line; it's mostly surrounded by Riverside Park and at a dramatically different elevation. Half the walkshed is in the Hudson. I have similar feelings about intensifying services on the inner part of the Hudson Line. And the Bay Ridge Branch north of Jackson Heights is too difficult to build train stations on, and in any case that capacity is more useful for the NEC and PSA.

The Empire Corridor would do well for through-running between the LIRR and the Hudson Line. I would have stops from South to North at Dyckman Street, 155th Street, 125th Street and 62nd Street. You just need to electrify it, double track, and connect it to the north tracks at Penn Station.

[LGA Link N Train]

6 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright, that makes sense

@Union Tpke to add on to my quote.  How about the following suggestion:

One Pair of ESA Tracks link up with Atlantic Avenue while the other pair goes to Staten Island. Then your CBD connector could also be integrated.


On second thought, I'm not sure if a downtown CBD Link is feasible, given the amount of Narrow Streets and old infrastructure in Downtown Manhattan

Edited March 31, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[Union Tpke]

Just now, Jova42R said:

Ah ok, so make the station at 28th/10th?

That is way too close to the station at 34th, the tail tracks are there, meaning that you would have to lengthen them, and there will be almost no benefit for your billion dollar investment.

[Union Tpke]

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@Union Tpke to add on to my quote.  How about the following suggestion:

One Pair of ESA Tracks link up with Atlantic Avenue while the other pair goes to Staten Island. Then your CBD connector could also be integrated.

There are only 2 ESA tracks. Also, it is a waste to have it go to SI or Brooklyn. If you need to connect them to something, connect it to the Morris & Essex Lines in New Jersey.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Union Tpke

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

There are only 2 ESA tracks. Also, it is a waste to have it go to SI or Brooklyn. If you need to connect them to something, connect it to the Morris & Essex Lines in New Jersey.

But isn't the plan to split the 2 tracks into 4, which would then split into 8 for 4 different platforms at Grand Central? 

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But isn't the plan to split the 2 tracks into 4, which would then split into 8 for 4 different platforms at Grand Central? 

That is still 2 tracks worth of capacity. Branching like that is a huge waste of capacity.

 

On 3/23/2020 at 5:28 PM, Union Tpke said:

What, would you say, is the other most damaging removal of switches?

@RR503

On 3/20/2020 at 1:27 AM, RR503 said:

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?). 

Do you know if this issue is being looked at? Asking other systems how their CBTC systems work with interlockings should be done, if it isn't already.

On 3/19/2020 at 5:57 PM, RR503 said:

What UT said. The only equivocation I'd make rel. CBTC and capacity is that current NYCT CBTC architecture locks trains out of stations until the train in front is fully clear of the platform. Doesn't make a huge difference on stations where the leader can exit quickly, but at Cordlandt and City Hall (especially City Hall, given entrance speeds there are also slow)  you'll need that ability to achieve full capacity. 

 

Again, do you know if this issue is being looked at?

[Union Tpke]

11 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@Union Tpke to add on to my quote.  How about the following suggestion:

One Pair of ESA Tracks link up with Atlantic Avenue while the other pair goes to Staten Island. Then your CBD connector could also be integrated.


On second thought, I'm not sure if a downtown CBD Link is feasible, given the amount of Narrow Streets and old infrastructure in Downtown Manhattan

Yes it is feasible. Deep bore tunnel with large TBMs so the stations are inside the tunnel.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

Yes it is feasible. Deep bore tunnel with large TBMs so the stations are inside the tunnel.

Under what Street though?

Am I assuming an Atlantic Avenue > Water Street > Fulton Street lineup?

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

CPW riders aren't the only riders in the system, and CPW is far from capacity; Queens riders have a real need for more capacity across the river and this is the only way to get it.

I feel like if were eliminated, Franklin  were double-tracked and made 10-cars long and ran Brighton Local to Stillwell,  ran express on Brighton, and both the Jay St switches were upgraded to higher speed or had a siding installed along with adding a NB switch at B-way/Lafayette, you could make  a 6th Av Express and CPW Local (switching to Fulton Local at Jay St) and solve this QBL capacity issue without de-interlining CPW.

But that’s a lot of money to spend.

Edited March 31, 2020 by Deucey