Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Jova42R]

32 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Build a tunnel between ESA and Atlantic, extend all LIRR platforms to 12-car LIRR lengths, and operate a London Underground/Crossrail type regional metro service, and boom you've got 24TPH of 1050-ft long trains barreling through Queens and Brooklyn. 

If we actually do this, I think that it should 100% be looped in with TriboroRX, Lower Montauk, and Rockaway Beach. However, how would this work in terms of service patterns?

Thoughts?

[engineerboy6561]

2 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

I like your plan, but I can't access the map! Can you try copy-pasting the link?

Here's the map; it's really ambitious and there are a few things I'd change now (namely reverse-branching the trunk with 2 Av and 6 Av services, and sending a couple of the 2 Av services via the Manhattan Bridge to provide 2 Av with access to  the Atlantic-Pacific transfer complex. The 10 Av corridor was mostly about "I have spare tph and am not sure where to put them; this would essentially fill the gap that the  extension would have filled if it hadn't been neutered, and the  to LGA setup would require six tracks from 86 St to 72 St to allow for 60 2 Av tph plus the . I added the  rearrangement to get one service out of DeKalb Av, and the  rearrangement makes room for a  to Church to allow for full time  express service between Church and Bergen.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1zhIa6KPRstAdc6lm_hlyskX0SVHM7NPh"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"114356854643211448619"}&usp=sharing

[Jova42R]

1 minute ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Here's the map; it's really ambitious and there are a few things I'd change now (namely reverse-branching the trunk with 2 Av and 6 Av services, and sending a couple of the 2 Av services via the Manhattan Bridge to provide 2 Av with access to  the Atlantic-Pacific transfer complex. The 10 Av corridor was mostly about "I have spare tph and am not sure where to put them; this would essentially fill the gap that the  extension would have filled if it hadn't been neutered, and the  to LGA setup would require six tracks from 86 St to 72 St to allow for 60 2 Av tph plus the . I added the  rearrangement to get one service out of DeKalb Av, and the  rearrangement makes room for a  to Church to allow for full time  express service between Church and Bergen.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1zhIa6KPRstAdc6lm_hlyskX0SVHM7NPh"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"114356854643211448619"}&usp=sharing

Still can't access it...

I like the gist of the plan, but there are a few things that a map would really clear up. Maybe try copy-pasting the link directly form your browser?

[engineerboy6561]

21 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Still can't access it...

I like the gist of the plan, but there are a few things that a map would really clear up. Maybe try copy-pasting the link directly form your browser?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=1zhIa6KPRstAdc6lm_hlyskX0SVHM7NPh&ll=40.7265655209285%2C-73.87552185000004&z=11

That should work. 

@bobtehpanda We'll likely need to replace the Jamaica el in 30-50 years anyway, we're getting a 2 Av line anyway, and we need a subway up 3rd anyway to keep the Lex from bursting at the seams. The marginal cost and pain in the ass of building those out with four tracks and enough junction work to provide a bunch of useful connections is likely lower than the marginal cost of building all that plus the ESA-Atlantic tunnel. I say you'll still need a whole bunch of subway trackage there because LIRR and MNR stations are somewhat farther apart than express subway stations, and you're not gonna be able to get a full 24tph through those stations because of what that does to commute time from outer suburbs (and the true capacity will be a lot lower because most MNR/LIRR trains are pretty full coming into the city, and the extra passengers from trying to use them would likely pack them pretty badly). 

Adding an ESA-Atlantic tunnel would be an awesome infrastructure project in its own right, and I would love to see it succeed, but I would do that alongside new four-track subway corridors rather than in lieu of them.

Edited May 11, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[bobtehpanda]

53 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

If we actually do this, I think that it should 100% be looped in with TriboroRX, Lower Montauk, and Rockaway Beach. However, how would this work in terms of service patterns?

Thoughts?

I know you like attaching random things to projects, but no.

Any ESA-Atlantic tunnel should strictly be used for radial service (the Triboro is not), and Lower Montauk is a shitty corridor for passenger rail.

[bobtehpanda]

51 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

We'll likely need to replace the Jamaica el in 30-50 years anyway, we're getting a 2 Av line anyway, and we need a subway up 3rd anyway to keep the Lex from bursting at the seams. The marginal cost and pain in the ass of building those out with four tracks and enough junction work to provide a bunch of useful connections is likely lower than the marginal cost of building all that plus the ESA-Atlantic tunnel.

The marginal cost is twice as much. Even if you magically handwave costs away with "cut-and-coverTM" you still basically need to double your excavated volume for stations and the right of way. There is a reason why the last set of express tracks, the 6 Av ones, took a few decades to actually come online, and why overruns on their construction torpedoed the Second System.

51 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I say you'll still need a whole bunch of subway trackage there because LIRR and MNR stations are somewhat farther apart than express subway stations, and you're not gonna be able to get a full 24tph through those stations because of what that does to commute time from outer suburbs (and the true capacity will be a lot lower because most MNR/LIRR trains are pretty full coming into the city, and the extra passengers from trying to use them would likely pack them pretty badly). 

This is a historical artifact that could be fixed with infilling; indeed, every proposal for LIRR RBB reactivation has involved infilling Rego Park station, we're infilling Sunnyside, and we were supposed to start infilling Elmhurst. Once you do that, the only major gaps compared to an express line are basically a missing stop at Utica, and a Woodhaven stop on Atlantic.

LIRR capacity will double overnight when ESA opens and we do not have the tracks to fully utilize that capacity on Long Island anyways. Also, implied with this project would be the procurement of a new rolling stock with more standing room and 2+2 seating for regional metro services.

To put in context how much more efficient commuter rail's layout could be:

• LIRR 12-car M7 (1050 ft): 1272 passengers
• Thameslink 12-car Class 700 (795 ft): 1754 passengers; extrapolated to the LIRR size, 2316 passengers, an 82% increase in capacity

This regional metro would take over today's Far Rock, Long Beach, West Hempstead, Port Washington routes. With restoration of RBB (restoring LIRR Main Line to Rego Park as six tracks) and a fifth, possibly sixth track to Floral Park, you could also add the Hempstead branch. Ultimately, all LIRR Branches would have capacity improvements vs today.

Edited May 11, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

It does not serve the University Av Corridor, which is where my proposed tram goes.

University Ave is right smack in the middle of  and MNRR. Only the segment of University/Grant Hwy between Macombs and 170th St isn’t walking distance to a  Station, so why would we spend billions on a tram to keep people from walking 5 minutes?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The marginal cost is twice as much. Even if you magically handwave costs away with "cut-and-coverTM" you still basically need to double your excavated volume for stations and the right of way. There is a reason why the last set of express tracks, the 6 Av ones, took a few decades to actually come online, and why overruns on their construction torpedoed the Second System.

This is a historical artifact that could be fixed with infilling; indeed, every proposal for LIRR RBB reactivation has involved infilling Rego Park station, we're infilling Sunnyside, and we were supposed to start infilling Elmhurst. Once you do that, the only major gaps compared to an express line are basically a missing stop at Utica, and a Woodhaven stop on Atlantic.

LIRR capacity will double overnight when ESA opens and we do not have the tracks to fully utilize that capacity on Long Island anyways. Also, implied with this project would be the procurement of a new rolling stock with more standing room and 2+2 seating for regional metro services.

To put in context how much more efficient commuter rail's layout could be:

• LIRR 12-car M7 (1050 ft): 1272 passengers
• Thameslink 12-car Class 700 (795 ft): 1754 passengers; extrapolated to the LIRR size, 2316 passengers, an 82% increase in capacity

This regional metro would take over today's Far Rock, Long Beach, West Hempstead, Port Washington routes. With restoration of RBB (restoring LIRR Main Line to Rego Park as six tracks) and a fifth, possibly sixth track to Floral Park, you could also add the Hempstead branch. Ultimately, all LIRR Branches would have capacity improvements vs today.

Honestly, I’d like to see this built before SAS Phases 3 and 4. I also agree with @Collin that Phases 3 and 4 need to go back to the drawing board. The current MTA plans are flawed because they will either force the line south of 63rd St to operate far below capacity. We should extend the LIRR ESA tunnels further south, not just so that we don’t risk slamming the , but also so that we can take the time design a better Second Avenue Subway, instead doing one on the cheap (then finding out it wasn’t really so cheap after all) or trying to please some politicians by drawing a pretty line on a map. 

21 hours ago, Collin said:

For Second Avenue specifically, Phases 3 and 4 need to go back to the drawing board.  It's not worth the cost of building the line if there will be no track connections to other parts of the system.  If it's super deep below existing stations, then the transfers will be very inconvenient.  Hopefully there's a silver lining in Phases 1 and 2 taking so long in that Phases 3 and 4 may get looked at again.

I think Phase 3 should be initially built as a 2 track line, with the inner tracks only.  If added, the express tracks would be the outer tracks.  55th Street would need to be a 4 track station with terminal capabilities.  There should be 2 services on the south portion of the line.  One would run from 125th Street, and the other would either start at 55th Street, or run on the QBL local tracks and 63rd Street Tunnel.  The bigger question is what happens with them on the other end.  One option is to connect with the Williamsburg Bridge so that one of the services can replace the in Brooklyn.  Then the  could be reinstated and run to Church Avenue, allowing for full time  express service.  The other service I think should terminate at Grand Street with layup tracks to the south until Phase 4 is built.  Once Phase 4 is built, it could either end at Hanover Square, run either through Montague and connect with the 4th Ave local, or a new tunnel connecting to IND Court Street (Transit Museum would need to be relocated).  Vanshnookenraggen has proposed having the 2nd Ave services replace the  over the Manhattan Bridge and having them go over the Williamsburg Bridge instead.  I don't think that's the best idea because it makes transfers to 2nd Ave from the Myrtle/Jamaica Lines impossible.

 

Yes, I agree Phases 3 and 4 should go back to the drawing board, especially because I don’t think the MTA really wanted to build them. Politicians wanted a full length SAS. I don’t disagree with the need for a full length SAS. I just don’t like the MTA’s “  north of 63rd/  only south of 63rd” plan. It looks like a half-assed effort. They can do better than this and they should try to. If the idea is just relieve the  on the East Side, then it won’t be a smashing success, because East Side Access. SAS will siphon riders off the Lex. But ESA will put more riders on the Lex. What LIRR and Metro-North riders are going to walk two avenues over to catch the  on 3-4 minute headways, when the  and  are right there at Grand Central and run more frequently? So then maybe work on extending ESA south to relieve the lower Lex, while redesigning lower SAS to permit more frequent service. I’ll agree that if we start with two tracks and do provisions to upgrade to four, the two local tracks should be on the inside like Chicago’s North Side ‘L’, which has the local Red Line on the inside tracks and the express Purple Line on the outside tracks between Howard St and Belmont Avenue. Or London’s Jubilee (local) and Metropolitan (express) lines between Wembley Park and Finchley Road.

Now, you mentioned having two services on the south end of SAS. Yes, we should. But the second shouldn’t just dead-end at 57th. Either the second service should continue north with the  (though that would require ending  service on 2nd Ave) or it should go into Queens. I favor Queens, not just because I live there, but because it would be putting back a connection that was lost when the 2nd Ave El came down (and was promised as part of the MTA’s past expansion proposals). But, depending on what route it takes, a Queens-SAS service could also potentially relieve the existing lines (QB and Flushing). However, via the 63rd St tunnel isn’t my preference for entry into Queens from the SAS (though it is in close proximity to the Queensboro Bridge, which was how 2nd Ave El trains entered Queens). It should have its own tunnel, so that it’s not limited to track capacity in the 63rd St tunnel or the Queens Blvd line. A Queens-SAS service would have to merge with the  and it would have to replace one of the QB local services (probably the ). This on top of the  merge at Queens Plaza. 

Edited May 12, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue
Chicago and London examples of express/local service

[Around the Horn]

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

LIRR capacity will double overnight when ESA opens and we do not have the tracks to fully utilize that capacity on Long Island anyways. Also, implied with this project would be the procurement of a new rolling stock with more standing room and 2+2 seating for regional metro services.

To put in context how much more efficient commuter rail's layout could be:

• LIRR 12-car M7 (1050 ft): 1272 passengers
• Thameslink 12-car Class 700 (795 ft): 1754 passengers; extrapolated to the LIRR size, 2316 passengers, an 82% increase in capacity

This regional metro would take over today's Far Rock, Long Beach, West Hempstead, Port Washington routes. With restoration of RBB (restoring LIRR Main Line to Rego Park as six tracks) and a fifth, possibly sixth track to Floral Park, you could also add the Hempstead branch. Ultimately, all LIRR Branches would have capacity improvements vs today.

This post should be framed. Arguably the best post in this thread.

[LGA Link N Train]

If connecting SAS Phase 3 to Queens is the goal, then I think this is the best idea to connect SAS to Northern Blvd in Phases:

- Study the feasibility of adding outer tracks at 36th Street. These outer tracks will lead to a Northern Blvd Subway and will end @ Main Street. Prior to the Introduction of SAS Phase 3, the should Serve as the Sole Northern Blvd Line. This (however) will force all Broadway service coming from 60th Street to run to Astoria, all 63rd Street Service to be Local and all 53rd Street Service to be Express. (Alternative 1: 30  EXP via 53rd, 20 , 10  LCL via 63rd) (Alternative 2: 15, 15 EXP via 53rd, 10 , 10 , 5  LCL via 63rd) 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1ONxFSkG5yiv_9hEwzy2rHnQ-m0h2bCbP"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"100937021591459487801"}&usp=sharing

- Phase 3 should be built (with Chrystie Rearrangements). The 11th Street cut should be divorced from Broadway and connected to Phase 3 of SAS via new crosstown tunnels. From there, Chrystie is Re-Arranged, Select Jamaica Stops are consolidated, and done. 

 rerouted to Jamaica/Myrtle. 

from Main Street to West End/Brighton via Second Avenue. 55th Street will be relocated to 53rd and will have 4 tracks instead of 2 in order to preserve a connection to 72nd. 

 Service is re branded into the  and will serve Essex-Bay Ridge. 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1nJwP1J8uYQtGmyoVUHFq0Rp-yl4c7Cyp"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"100937021591459487801"}&usp=sharing

I think the goal here is to have SAS North ( the and ) to relieve Lexington North of 59th Street Station. Then SAS South can relieve pressure off Lexington by simplifying Queens Blvd and providing Williamsburg with extra midtown service. 

[EvilMonologue]

Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the MNRR tracks at Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal? I get the point isn't that people will be riding the routes end to end, but I'd think more people would continue that journey past Grand Central taking MNRR than those who would do so taking LIRR. Also, LIRR riders would already be able to connect to Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn at Jamaica, something that MNRR would not be able to do until already in Midtown. 

Totally on board with rethinking commuter rail in NYC, though. It can be the super-express that some people have talked about on here or at least used to.

[Caelestor]

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the MNRR tracks at Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal? I get the point isn't that people will be riding the routes end to end, but I'd think more people would continue that journey past Grand Central taking MNRR than those who would do so taking LIRR. Also, LIRR riders would already be able to connect to Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn at Jamaica, something that MNRR would not be able to do until already in Midtown. 

Totally on board with rethinking commuter rail in NYC, though. It can be the super-express that some people have talked about on here or at least used to.

The ESA to Atlantic proposal is politically convenient because it preserves LIRR's "territory", but I have to agree that connecting MNR with LIRR will have bigger benefits for regionral rail riders. The line that really needs to be built is GCT to Atlantic; reconstructing and electrifying the West Side Line would also create a second line would be the Hudson Line to Jamaica via Penn. (Once MNR is extended downtown, it could even connect to SIR via a long underwater tunnel, but I rank that very low in priority given Staten Island's aversion to upzoning).

On the NJT side, through-routing the NEC line with the LIRR Port Washington Line and the MNR New Haven Line via Hells Gate should be done ASAP while the Gateway Tunnel to GCT via Penn is built. The Morris & Essex Lines should be connected to ESA via Union Square and Hoboken. Lastly if the Erie lines ever get electrified, they can be throughrouted with the Atlantic Ave LIRR via Downtown Manhattan, but that would require the aforementioned long NY harbor tunnel to be built so that the Harlem Line can be rerouted towards SI.

[bobtehpanda]

11 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the MNRR tracks at Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal? I get the point isn't that people will be riding the routes end to end, but I'd think more people would continue that journey past Grand Central taking MNRR than those who would do so taking LIRR. Also, LIRR riders would already be able to connect to Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn at Jamaica, something that MNRR would not be able to do until already in Midtown. 

Totally on board with rethinking commuter rail in NYC, though. It can be the super-express that some people have talked about on here or at least used to.

 

10 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The ESA to Atlantic proposal is politically convenient because it preserves LIRR's "territory", but I have to agree that connecting MNR with LIRR will have bigger benefits for regionral rail riders. The line that really needs to be built is GCT to Atlantic; reconstructing and electrifying the West Side Line would also create a second line would be the Hudson Line to Jamaica via Penn. (Once MNR is extended downtown, it could even connect to SIR via a long underwater tunnel, but I rank that very low in priority given Staten Island's aversion to upzoning).

On the NJT side, through-routing the NEC line with the LIRR Port Washington Line and the MNR New Haven Line via Hells Gate should be done ASAP while the Gateway Tunnel to GCT via Penn is built. The Morris & Essex Lines should be connected to ESA via Union Square and Hoboken. Lastly if the Erie lines ever get electrified, they can be throughrouted with the Atlantic Ave LIRR via Downtown Manhattan, but that would require the aforementioned long NY harbor tunnel to be built so that the Harlem Line can be rerouted towards SI.

I think that a Part B of this (whichever one gets executed first is honestly whatever) is a second pair of tracks going parallel to the ESA - Atlantic tracks, but linking GCT to Hoboken and Staten Island.

I personally like MNR-NJT better simply because those agencies have already proven to be able to work together and there is already equipment that operates on both networks.

I've only suggested ESA to Atlantic since it allows for upgrading of northern LIRR lines as well, and because ESA has the benefit of being 150 feet under the ground, so it's a lot easier to weave that onto 3rd or something where there's room for a north-south rail tunnel.

[engineerboy6561]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

I think that a Part B of this (whichever one gets executed first is honestly whatever) is a second pair of tracks going parallel to the ESA - Atlantic tracks, but linking GCT to Hoboken and Staten Island.

I personally like MNR-NJT better simply because those agencies have already proven to be able to work together and there is already equipment that operates on both networks.

I've only suggested ESA to Atlantic since it allows for upgrading of northern LIRR lines as well, and because ESA has the benefit of being 150 feet under the ground, so it's a lot easier to weave that onto 3rd or something where there's room for a north-south rail tunnel.

That would be absolutely amazing to have; if you ran GCT-HOB via a new rail tunnel you could comfortably through run Morris and Essex/Gladstone/Montclair-Boonton trains up to CT using a mix of ALP45DP/46s, MLVIIIs and M8s (through running NEC and NJCL service would be limited to MLVIIs and ALP45DP/46s because of the transformer issue with the M8s. That would also get the NEC a backup route through NY if things went all to hell; dealing with the old Hudson River tubes would be much less of an issue because you could take them offline and route NEC service through GCT if needed (it would be a really ugly crunch if ESA had to deal with peak NYP volume from NJ, but you could do things like single track the tunnels during non-peak and weekend times without impacting service too heavily by just sending everything through GCT.

Edited May 12, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

I've only suggested ESA to Atlantic since it allows for upgrading of northern LIRR lines as well, and because ESA has the benefit of being 150 feet under the ground, so it's a lot easier to weave that onto 3rd or something where there's room for a north-south rail tunnel.

Might it be less disruptive to just build the tunnel parallel to and under the Lexington Avenue Line from Grand Central going south? The ventilation and emergency exits could be taken care of by building shafts down from existing emergency exit facilities and stations. This would remove the need to acquire property for the building of ventilation structures above ground.

[Jsunflyguy]

On 5/11/2020 at 1:44 PM, bobtehpanda said:

 

• LIRR 12-car M7 (1050 ft): 1272 passengers
• Thameslink 12-car Class 700 (795 ft): 1754 passengers; extrapolated to the LIRR size, 2316 passengers, an 82% increase in capacity

 

Why are you comparing the seated load of an M7 to the seated AND standing load of a Class 700? 

Also with roughly half the seats per car I'm sure New Yorkers will not be entertained by this 'efficiency'. They already complain about 'dangerously crowded' trains when people are standing in general. So doubling that is surely a political non-starter.

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Why are you comparing the seated load of an M7 to the seated AND standing load of a Class 700? 

Also with roughly half the seats per car I'm sure New Yorkers will not be entertained by this 'efficiency'. They already complain about 'dangerously crowded' trains when people are standing in general. So doubling that is surely a political non-starter.

The middle seats on trains are never used. Eliminating the seat cushion on the aisle seat didn't do anything. In addition, dwell times are ridiculously high because it takes forever to get add. Add people's unwillingness to be on public transit in years to come due to COVID.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Why are you comparing the seated load of an M7 to the seated AND standing load of a Class 700? 

Also with roughly half the seats per car I'm sure New Yorkers will not be entertained by this 'efficiency'. They already complain about 'dangerously crowded' trains when people are standing in general. So doubling that is surely a political non-starter.

Nobody rides the train anymore, it's too crowded.

The LIRR has long passed the point where they could reasonably accommodate everyone in seats during the rush hour, and the reason standing sucks is because there is no reason to stand on a LIRR train, which does legitimately make it very crowded. The solution to that is to make more standing room.

[bobtehpanda]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

Might it be less disruptive to just build the tunnel parallel to and under the Lexington Avenue Line from Grand Central going south? The ventilation and emergency exits could be taken care of by building shafts down from existing emergency exit facilities and stations. This would remove the need to acquire property for the building of ventilation structures above ground.

Consider that the last time we built underneath active railway structures and maintained it in service (Sixth Avenue), the resulting cost overruns torpedoed the Second System from ever happening.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Why are you comparing the seated load of an M7 to the seated AND standing load of a Class 700? 

Also with roughly half the seats per car I'm sure New Yorkers will not be entertained by this 'efficiency'. They already complain about 'dangerously crowded' trains when people are standing in general. So doubling that is surely a political non-starter.

I also want to point out that I am not saying we should run these types of trains out to Greenport and Montauk.

Port Washington, Hempstead, West Hempstead, Far Rock, and Long Beach are close enough in, and the train fast enough, that standing would not be the worst deal in the world, and realistically people would only have to stand on an AM peak train closer into the city.

[Jsunflyguy]

36 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

The middle seats on trains are never used. Eliminating the seat cushion on the aisle seat didn't do anything. In addition, dwell times are ridiculously high because it takes forever to get add. Add people's unwillingness to be on public transit in years to come due to COVID.

Following your logic if people don't want the middle seat out of reluctance to sit near anyone and latent fears from COVID, then wouldn't a 2-2 configuration just encourage a 1-1 sitting arrangement since there would be no physical buffer, in addition to seats seeming narrower on the UK trains, but maybe that's the fat American talking. 

[Jsunflyguy]

12 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Nobody rides the train anymore, it's too crowded.

The LIRR has long passed the point where they could reasonably accommodate everyone in seats during the rush hour, and the reason standing sucks is because there is no reason to stand on a LIRR train, which does legitimately make it very crowded. The solution to that is to make more standing room.

Yeah but we're not *JUST* talking about rush hour, if we're talking about a wholistic Transit solution then the fact that half the seats will disappear is relevant to the offpeak ridership as well, or are we improving off peak service in the hopes no one will ride the train. Also I bring up the people factor because---as they are wont to tell me when any inconvenience occurs---the customer is paying $300 a month for a peak ticket, with the expectation of sitting. If you tell them half the seats are going to disappear, a significant number of this people will go into the 'screw this im driving' category, or change their commute to lines that do have seats if they can. 

As far as being too crowded, yes the LIRR doesn't seat everyone during rush hour even though nominally all but 1 train does have enough seats for everyone. Some of that is load distribution and someone of that is the fact that counts are averaging out the peak days of peak trains, that being said if we have fewer seats we're forcing people to stand closer together which is going to suck a lot harder, especially since the Class 700 just has less physical volume for a similar amount of people, why would the public perceive that as better?

[Jova42R]

7 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

I think that a Part B of this (whichever one gets executed first is honestly whatever) is a second pair of tracks going parallel to the ESA - Atlantic tracks, but linking GCT to Hoboken and Staten Island.

I personally like MNR-NJT better simply because those agencies have already proven to be able to work together and there is already equipment that operates on both networks.

I've only suggested ESA to Atlantic since it allows for upgrading of northern LIRR lines as well, and because ESA has the benefit of being 150 feet under the ground, so it's a lot easier to weave that onto 3rd or something where there's room for a north-south rail tunnel.

 

6 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

That would be absolutely amazing to have; if you ran GCT-HOB via a new rail tunnel you could comfortably through run Morris and Essex/Gladstone/Montclair-Boonton trains up to CT using a mix of ALP45DP/46s, MLVIIIs and M8s (through running NEC and NJCL service would be limited to MLVIIs and ALP45DP/46s because of the transformer issue with the M8s. That would also get the NEC a backup route through NY if things went all to hell; dealing with the old Hudson River tubes would be much less of an issue because you could take them offline and route NEC service through GCT if needed (it would be a really ugly crunch if ESA had to deal with peak NYP volume from NJ, but you could do things like single track the tunnels during non-peak and weekend times without impacting service too heavily by just sending everything through GCT.

I'm working on a Map for this, so it will be much easier to explain then, but my BASIC plan is:

• Atlantic to GCT with a branch to Penn: 4 tracks (possibly 6)
  • branch at Broome St with a tunnel to Newport NJ, connection to HBLR.
• Penn to GCT connector: 3 tracks
  • connects to a new lower level of GCT that runs from 3 Av to Madison, has 10 tracks.
    • track connections to Sunnyside Yard
    • track connections to ESA and MNR
  • Used for some NJT and some Amtrak trains as a termination location. This frees up space in Penn for more service
• West Side Line
  • LOCAL service from Riverdale to 14th
  • re-activated High Line
    • 4 tracks, some LIRR trains will run down the center tracks and terminate at 14th St.
  • provisions for a tunnel to NJ from 14 St
• HBLR gets rebuilt with 4 tracks
  • tunnel from 34 St, via MOTBY and St George, to Bay Ridge
    • track connections to HBLR
  • connector to the Broome St Tunnel from Harborside
  • provisions to connect with a proposed Staten Island LRT System (see my post here)
• Regional Metro takeover of the following lines:
  • Port Washington
  • Far Rockaway
  • West Hempstead
  • Long Beach
• Rolling Stock would be either a TMU (tri-modal multiple unit) with the following power sources
  • Third Rail
  • Catenary
  • Diesel
    • would this be needed, or could we electrify everything?

Any thoughts? @engineerboy6561 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Deucey @R32-DTrain @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @S78 via Hylan @BM5 via Woodhaven

 

[engineerboy6561]

2 hours ago, Jsunflyguy said:

Yeah but we're not *JUST* talking about rush hour, if we're talking about a wholistic Transit solution then the fact that half the seats will disappear is relevant to the offpeak ridership as well, or are we improving off peak service in the hopes no one will ride the train. Also I bring up the people factor because---as they are wont to tell me when any inconvenience occurs---the customer is paying $300 a month for a peak ticket, with the expectation of sitting. If you tell them half the seats are going to disappear, a significant number of this people will go into the 'screw this im driving' category, or change their commute to lines that do have seats if they can. 

As far as being too crowded, yes the LIRR doesn't seat everyone during rush hour even though nominally all but 1 train does have enough seats for everyone. Some of that is load distribution and someone of that is the fact that counts are averaging out the peak days of peak trains, that being said if we have fewer seats we're forcing people to stand closer together which is going to suck a lot harder, especially since the Class 700 just has less physical volume for a similar amount of people, why would the public perceive that as better?

What this sounds like is using close-stopping commuter rail trains to fill a niche similar to express subways (which if you're doing that means that you'd be essentially folding the Rockaways, everything on LIRR west of Hempstead (and presumably everything on MNR south of Croton-Harmon/North White Plains/Stamford and everything on NJT east of Summit/Montclair State, south of Suffern/Pascack Valley, or north of South Amboy/MetroPark into RER-type commuter service running something like bigger Class 700s, while outlying trains coming from Trenton/PJ/Greenport/Huntington/New Haven would still be more traditional commuter rail.

Edited May 13, 2020 by engineerboy6561

[Deucey]

3 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

 

I'm working on a Map for this...

Any thoughts? @engineerboy6561 @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Deucey @R32-DTrain @WillF40PH @Mnrr6131 @S78 via Hylan @BM5 via Woodhaven

 

Are you always this active drawing maps, or is it just because Rona has you stuck at home?

(No diss - I used to stare at and redraw AAA maps when I was a kid in the 80s, and draw fictional maps on graph paper in the 90s.)