Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Theli11]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

I feel like if were eliminated, Franklin  were double-tracked and made 10-cars long,  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.

 

Assuming there's no on QBL, the only thing you did was add 2 merges to the line, one at Broadway - Lafayette, another at Jay St. The train still has to run the same way as with the express plan, since Jay - Hoyt Sts would still make them on the same track. You also create problems for and trains to merge at Broadway Junction. So now, you've screwed up 6th Av, with a merge, that was previously non-existent.  Also, trains could just be local? I don't ride Brighton, so I wouldn't know their demand for express service, but unless you can create a line that goes to the train, I don't think we should even mess with Brighton. All of this planning to interline QBL, without actually touching QBL. 

[Caelestor]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

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.

The Harlem Line should be extended downtown, connecting with Atlantic Terminal. Then ESA should be connected with the Morris & Essex lines. Lastly, build the SI and Hoboken to Downtown tunnels, and send the Harlem Line towards SI, once the Erie lines are fully electrified. 

In the meantime, SAS Phase 3 should still be built because the demand is clearly there. Build it as an extension of the Manhattan bridge north tracks, not upper SAS however, to remove the reverse branching.

 

 

 

[RR503]

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@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?

I don't think it did...

2 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503

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.

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

1) Maybe the switches connecting City Hall yard with the mainline north of Fulton. The diverging move north of BB is awful. 

2&3) Yes.

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

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.

Deinterlining CPW is an extremely worthy policy objective in and of itself. 59 St is a terrible merge -- so bad, in fact, that the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

[Jova42R]

Here's my plan for a NYC Tram Line:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q3FyRm7SeyfyYxk_L0LqSg0uNnXCYJeq&usp=sharing

Branded as TramLink NYC, this fully electric tram line would run from the Middle Village to Herald Sq. This line would run CAF Urbos 3 (see wikipedia here - TramLink NYC uses Midland Metro-spec Urbos 3s) battery trams, as there would be no catenary on the Queensboro Bridge. The TramLink NYC would run on a combination of street-level tracks and special tram ROWs. All stops on the line would be low-level platforms, and be fully accessible. TramLink NYC would at different frequencies, depending on the time of day:

• Weekday
  • 12AM-3AM
    • NO SERVICE
  • 3AM-5AM
    • 2TPH
  • 5AM-8AM
    • 8TPH
  • 8AM-10AM
    • 12TPH
  • 10AM-4PM
    • 8TPH
  • 4PM-7PM
    • 12TPH
  • 7PM-10PM
    • 8TPH
  • 10PM-12AM
    • NO SERVICE
• Weekend
  • 12AM-6AM
    • NO SERVICE
  • 6AM-10PM
    • 6TPH
  • 10PM-12AM
    • NO SERVICE

Thoughts @Theli11 @Collin @RR503 @Caelestor @Union Tpke @LaGuardia Link N Tra?

[LGA Link N Train]

11 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Here's my plan for a NYC Tram Line:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1q3FyRm7SeyfyYxk_L0LqSg0uNnXCYJeq&usp=sharing

Branded as TramLink NYC, this fully electric tram line would run from the Middle Village to Herald Sq. This line would run CAF Urbos 3 (see wikipedia here - TramLink NYC uses Midland Metro-spec Urbos 3s) battery trams, as there would be no catenary on the Queensboro Bridge. The TramLink NYC would run on a combination of street-level tracks and special tram ROWs. All stops on the line would be low-level platforms, and be fully accessible. TramLink NYC would at different frequencies, depending on the time of day:

• Weekday
  • 12AM-3AM
    • NO SERVICE
  • 3AM-5AM
    • 2TPH
  • 5AM-8AM
    • 8TPH
  • 8AM-10AM
    • 12TPH
  • 10AM-4PM
    • 8TPH
  • 4PM-7PM
    • 12TPH
  • 7PM-10PM
    • 8TPH
  • 10PM-12AM
    • NO SERVICE
• Weekend
  • 12AM-6AM
    • NO SERVICE
  • 6AM-10PM
    • 6TPH
  • 10PM-12AM
    • NO SERVICE

Thoughts @Theli11 @Collin @RR503 @Caelestor @Union Tpke @LaGuardia Link N Tra?

Other than the service levels, not bad. I'm going to ask a handful of questions regarding this proposal:

• Are you planning to widen the Lower Montauk Branch for this to work or not? 
• How are other modes of Transport going to get between Queens and Brooklyn if the Pulaski Bridge is going to become a Tram-Only right of way?
• What Maintenance Facility will be in place in order to support this new tram service?
• Since you're turning the Queensboro Upper level into a dedicated Tram Zone (I'm not a fan of this idea) cant you turn the small Highway section East of the Queensboro Bridge into a park as part of the sunnyside redevelopment project?

 

[Jova42R]

7 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Other than the service levels, not bad. I'm going to ask a handful of questions regarding this proposal:

• Are you planning to widen the Lower Montauk Branch for this to work or not? 
• How are other modes of Transport going to get between Queens and Brooklyn if the Pulaski Bridge is going to become a Tram-Only right of way?
• What Maintenance Facility will be in place in order to support this new tram service?
• Since you're turning the Queensboro Upper level into a dedicated Tram Zone (I'm not a fan of this idea) cant you turn the small Highway section East of the Queensboro Bridge into a park as part of the sunnyside redevelopment project?

 

In the order you asked them,

• Yes
• No, just the pedestrian path will be the Tram ROW
• I was thinking one in Bushwick, where there is a lot of open land near the Bushwick Branch
• Yes, I was thinking of making that an urban park, with an entrance on 23 St.

What do you mean about the service levels?

Any other thoughts?

Edited April 1, 2020 by Jova42R

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

What do you mean about the service levels?

The frequencies that you're planning your tram service to run in. Having no overnight service won't sit well with potential riders of this line.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

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 .

Wait, 77% of passengers actually benefited from  express/  local to 179th? Man, talk about New York being the place where the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many.

As for the 7th Ave transfer, yes I guess there is that option if the  is made the full-time QB local and local riders want 6th Avenue service. Though that too, is a sort of backtracking. 7th Avenue also becomes the new transfer point for CPW local riders who need the 8th Avenue Line if CPW is deinterlined and the  are made the CPW local trains, who would need to transfer to the  there. Does 7th Avenue need to be taking on all these extra transferees? 

[Theli11]

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for the 7th Ave transfer, yes I guess there is that option if the  is made the full-time QB local and local riders want 6th Avenue service. Though that too, is a sort of backtracking. 7th Avenue also becomes the new transfer point for CPW local riders who need the 8th Avenue Line if CPW is deinterlined and the  are made the CPW local trains, who would need to transfer to the  there. Does 7th Avenue need to be taking on all these extra transferees? 

Well, they'd have the express trains for 8th Av at 59th St for that, and they'd only need to go there if they were to transfer. 7th Avenue has the capability to, and if it's for better service, why not? It's not like the stations narrow, it has two levels, and if they need 6th Av, their train comes from across the platform. 

[LGA Link N Train]

Since this discussion was mostly about De-Interlining, I just came up with an Expansion Plan that focuses on a De-Interlined System. Its important to note that I will only include the subway system in this map to reduce confusion:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=19Jnq2x1JojRdkSn2efIeKIqvyXmscYn6&usp=sharing

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19ZzqrVDJgX6K9iOrYUsRmE9ZrtUFm5jzA3L9B_2434w/edit?usp=sharing

[Jova42R]

22 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The frequencies that you're planning your tram service to run in. Having no overnight service won't sit well with potential riders of this line.

Ok, new TPH structure:

• Weekdays
  • 12AM-5AM
    • 2TPH
  • 5AM-7:30AM
    • 6TPH
  • 7:30AM-10AM
    • 12TPH
  • 10AM-3PM
    • 8TPH
  • 3PM-7PM
    • 12TPH
  • 7PM-9:30PM
    • 6TPH
  • 9:30PM-12AM
    • 2TPH
• Weekends
  • 12AM-7AM
    • 2TPH
  • 7AM-9PM
    • 8TPH
  • 9PM-12AM
    • 2TPH

Would that better serve the needs of riders on the line?

Edited April 1, 2020 by Jova42R

[mrsman]

9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Wait, 77% of passengers actually benefited from  express/  local to 179th? Man, talk about New York being the place where the needs of the few or the one outweigh the needs of the many.

As for the 7th Ave transfer, yes I guess there is that option if the  is made the full-time QB local and local riders want 6th Avenue service. Though that too, is a sort of backtracking. 7th Avenue also becomes the new transfer point for CPW local riders who need the 8th Avenue Line if CPW is deinterlined and the  are made the CPW local trains, who would need to transfer to the  there. Does 7th Avenue need to be taking on all these extra transferees? 

There is definite benefit to reinstituting an express service from Forest Hills to 179th.  There are so many bus riders from Eastern Queens that shouldn't have to sit on a train at every stop on this line.  Instead of extending QBL locals to 179th, you can divide QBL express into three services, all three of which are express west of Forest Hills:  1) Express to 179, 2) Local to 179, and 3) Express to Jamaica Center.

As far as 7th Ave station is concerned, if  were CPW locals, there would be no need for transfers of CPW folks to the 8th Ave local.  QBL locals can become 8th Ave expresses and service 50th st at the lower level.

[Union Tpke]

30 minutes ago, mrsman said:

There is definite benefit to reinstituting an express service from Forest Hills to 179th.  There are so many bus riders from Eastern Queens that shouldn't have to sit on a train at every stop on this line.  Instead of extending QBL locals to 179th, you can divide QBL express into three services, all three of which are express west of Forest Hills:  1) Express to 179, 2) Local to 179, and 3) Express to Jamaica Center.

As far as 7th Ave station is concerned, if  were CPW locals, there would be no need for transfers of CPW folks to the 8th Ave local.  QBL locals can become 8th Ave expresses and service 50th st at the lower level.

That would be a mess. You would have merges at Briarwood AND 75th. Not a good idea.

[Union Tpke]

@RR503 On your second deinterlining map you mention  short-turns to Myrtle. You forgot to add your Atlantic Avenue terminal improvements, which would allow them to be extended. You forgot to note the eliminated merge at East 180th Street.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Union Tpke

[mrsman]

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

 

 

Deinterlining CPW is an extremely worthy policy objective in and of itself. 59 St is a terrible merge -- so bad, in fact, that the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

I totally agree with this.  I really don't see a down side to deinterlining CPW, so long as both Washington Heights and Concourse trains each have access to both express and local trains.

A number of years ago, the service pattern was  to Washington Heights and  to Concourse, each side having one express and one local, each side having one 8th Ave train and one 6th Ave train, Washington Heights having their express train run to 8th Ave and Concourse having their express train run to 6th Ave.  If you are coming from way north, you are staying on whatever express train you are on and you will transfer at 59th if you need to.  It's a cross-platform transfer so it's not so hard.  If you board at 145th or 125th, you do have the option of waiting for either  or  and not transferring at 59th.  Similarly, if you board at a local stop south of 125th, you also have the option of waiting for the  or  and not transferring at 59th.  

I propose a deinterlining by keeping the old pattern of the previous paragraph, except that all 8th Ave trains run local on CPW and all 6th Ave trains run express on CPW.  By deinterlining 59th, for passengers that board north of 145th, you won't really change the net number of people transferring at 59th, some people will need to transfer just as they always have, some people will now avoid the transfer, and some people will have a new transfer (likely balanced out by the number of people who no longer need to transfer).  Operationally, I prefer running  as the CPW locals so that there is a direct connection to 50th st station, but the same arguments would also apply if  were the express and  were the locals.

Yes, the passengers boarding at 145th, 125th, and the CPW local stops south of 125th may now be forced to transfer.  To the extent that express customers want 8th Ave or local customers want 6th Ave, those customers will now be forced to transfer at 59th.  But this is a station that was designed to be a major transferring point and it is a cross-platform transfer.  (And yes, we also have all the transfers to and from the  .)  Additionally, it is possible that modern trains could make use of the center platform to alleviate crowding for those whose origin and destination is at 59th and aren't there just to transfer.

As with all deinterlining proposals, the trade-off is a new transfer for the ability to run more trains.  Less waiting, less crowding is far more beneficial in my opinion than the hassle of one additional transfer.  At 59th, it is simply a cross-platform transfer and very doable.

[Union Tpke]

@RR503 

5 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I totally agree with this.  I really don't see a down side to deinterlining CPW, so long as both Washington Heights and Concourse trains each have access to both express and local trains.

A number of years ago, the service pattern was  to Washington Heights and  to Concourse, each side having one express and one local, each side having one 8th Ave train and one 6th Ave train, Washington Heights having their express train run to 8th Ave and Concourse having their express train run to 6th Ave.  If you are coming from way north, you are staying on whatever express train you are on and you will transfer at 59th if you need to.  It's a cross-platform transfer so it's not so hard.  If you board at 145th or 125th, you do have the option of waiting for either  or  and not transferring at 59th.  Similarly, if you board at a local stop south of 125th, you also have the option of waiting for the  or  and not transferring at 59th.  

I propose a deinterlining by keeping the old pattern of the previous paragraph, except that all 8th Ave trains run local on CPW and all 6th Ave trains run express on CPW.  By deinterlining 59th, for passengers that board north of 145th, you won't really change the net number of people transferring at 59th, some people will need to transfer just as they always have, some people will now avoid the transfer, and some people will have a new transfer (likely balanced out by the number of people who no longer need to transfer).  Operationally, I prefer running  as the CPW locals so that there is a direct connection to 50th st station, but the same arguments would also apply if  were the express and  were the locals.

Yes, the passengers boarding at 145th, 125th, and the CPW local stops south of 125th may now be forced to transfer.  To the extent that express customers want 8th Ave or local customers want 6th Ave, those customers will now be forced to transfer at 59th.  But this is a station that was designed to be a major transferring point and it is a cross-platform transfer.  (And yes, we also have all the transfers to and from the  .)  Additionally, it is possible that modern trains could make use of the center platform to alleviate crowding for those whose origin and destination is at 59th and aren't there just to transfer.

As with all deinterlining proposals, the trade-off is a new transfer for the ability to run more trains.  Less waiting, less crowding is far more beneficial in my opinion than the hassle of one additional transfer.  At 59th, it is simply a cross-platform transfer and very doable.

The center platform at 59th Street was closed in 1983 to reduce dwell times (the need to open and close doors on both sides). You would need to renovate it and add an elevator, which is a questionable investment.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Union Tpke

[mrsman]

4 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

That would be a mess. You would have merges at Briarwood AND 75th. Not a good idea.

They would be forward merges, not reverse merges.

My proposal is not any different than the current (pre-COVID-19) rush hour pattern of having local to 179, express to Jamaica Center, and <E> express to 179th.  The only difference is to make each of those service patterns roughly equal (10 TPH each), so that there is a regular express to 179 that comes more often than once in a blue moon.

And it will be even better as all those expresses would be exclusive to 6th Ave - 63rd street to deinterline QBL.

And if we still have a  train that is limited to short trains due to problems in Brooklyn, that can serve the lowest demand of the three patterns (likely the express to 179), so that all  Jamaica Center trains on the upper level are full length and all 179th locals are also full length

[engineerboy6561]

18 hours 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? 

The capacity of a line is defined by the spot where you have the fewest tracks; if there are two tracks through the tunnel then they're limited to 24-30tph under the river, which means that the entirety of the new GCT platform complex can't see more than 24-30tph. Tying Staten Island to the regional rail network isn't the best idea because you're not going to get the ridership to justify 24 commuter tph when Penn Station is being squeezed for capacity on all sides (not just LIRR). Your best bet would be to recondense the tail tracks into one or two new track pairs, turn them west on 34 St, and then run them as an additional track pair into NJ (with track connections to NYP at 6th and 11th Avenues), then run them as NEC outer tracks down to Newark Penn Station. By doing that you allow for 48-60tph between NY and NJ and 72-90tph between CT/Long Island and Manhattan (which takes a huge load off NYP on all sides). The last extra thing I'd do there would be to add a couple of track connections between the upper and lower levels of GCT (a single track pair branching off the Park Av mainline at 72 St and dropping down to merge with the GCT input tunnel around 55 St (mostly for redundancy; that would allow MNR trains to use the lower level). Something even better would be the reverse link so that LIRR trains could use the upper level because GCT is so underutilized, but I'm not sure if that's possible.

Edited April 1, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Collin]

If  service was removed from Queens Boulevard through a de-interlining plan, or rerouted via 63rd Street, then through a reconfiguring of the switches, the  could terminate at Queens Plaza instead of Court Square, using the outer tracks vacated by the .

[engineerboy6561]

1 minute ago, Collin said:

If  service was removed from Queens Boulevard through a de-interlining plan, or rerouted via 63rd Street, then through a reconfiguring of the switches, the  could terminate at Queens Plaza instead of Court Square, using the outer tracks vacated by the .

You wouldn't want to turn at Queens Plaza because the reversing move would foul the  and the  both; Forest Hills would work better.

[Collin]

Actually it wouldn't be a problem.  The Forest Hills bound  already stops on the inner track with the .  The switches would need to be reconfigured on the Manhattan-bound side so that the  also came on the inner track, and that would free up the outer tracks to turn  trains.  This is assuming that service through both 53rd and 63rd is already maxed out so the  could not go to Forest Hills.

[engineerboy6561]

4 minutes ago, Collin said:

Actually it wouldn't be a problem.  The Forest Hills bound  already stops on the inner track with the .  The switches would need to be reconfigured on the Manhattan-bound side so that the  also came on the inner track, and that would free up the outer tracks to turn  trains.  This is assuming that service through both 53rd and 63rd is already maxed out so the  could not go to Forest Hills.

That only works if you add lower-level tail tracks to QP heading east; otherwise, crossing over from NB local to SB local platforms will require crossing the express tracks (which will foul the  and cut your peak capacity down as a result).

Edited April 1, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Jova42R]

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That only works if you add lower-level tail tracks to QP heading east; otherwise, crossing over from NB local to SB local platforms will require crossing the express tracks (which will foul the  and cut your peak capacity down as a result).

True. A better extension of Crosstown would be to do this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kmwEgv9QW0uaFDWFwsGkZqlCPaRWEoIQ&usp=sharing

This would require the following service patterns:

 WTC- 8 AV LCL - 53 ST - QBL EXP - ARCHER

 MIDDLE VILLAGE - JAMAICA LCL - 6 AV LCL - 63 ST - QBL LCL - FOREST HILLS

 CONEY ISLAND - SEA BEACH LCL - 4 AV EXP - BWAY EXP - 2 AV - 96 ST

 BAY RIDGE - 4 AV LCL - BWAY LCL - ASTORIA

 CHURCH - CULVER LCL - CROSSTOWN LCL - 53 ST - WEST SIDE - 72 ST

 11 ST - COURT SQ - QUEENS PLAZA

 

So, QBL is  EXPRESS and  LOCAL. ON WEEKENDS THE  RUNS TO FOREST HILLS.

 

Thoughts? @Collin @engineerboy6561 @Deucey @mrsman @Union Tpke

 

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, Collin said:

If  service was removed from Queens Boulevard through a de-interlining plan, or rerouted via 63rd Street, then through a reconfiguring of the switches, the  could terminate at Queens Plaza instead of Court Square, using the outer tracks vacated by the .

This would be a Manhattan-bound service cut for the QBL. QBL is full. If deinterlining happens another service should replace the to go to Manhattan.

I don't know why you hate giving more Manhattan-bound seats to Queens riders.

[bobtehpanda]

20 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

True. A better extension of Crosstown would be to do this:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1kmwEgv9QW0uaFDWFwsGkZqlCPaRWEoIQ&usp=sharing

Why build a super expensive shuttle when you can just build a transfer station to Court Square at 11th and 44th?