RPA's "Save our Subways" plan

[LGA Link N Train]

 

Quote

As NYC Transit Plans To “Fast Forward,” Here’s A Road Map To Help

By Chasity Cooper. Published on June 21, 2018.

On any given day, the New York City subway moves nearly six million commuters. But in the last several years, our system’s infrastructure has deteriorated significantly resulting in massive delays, overcrowded cars and recently, even a decline in ridership.

MTA’s New York City Transit recently released their Fast Forward plan to modernize transit.  RPA’s newest report and companion website “Save Our Subways: A Plan to Transform New York City’s Rapid Transit System”, builds on research from our  Fourth Regional Plan and offers ideas on how to bring the  Fast Forward Plan to life.

“Subways are the beating heart of our region,” said Tom Wright, President Regional Plan Association. “We deserve a 21st Century subway system, and with the ideas outlined in our report and the leadership shown by NYCT President Andy Byford and his team, we finally have a gameplan to get there. Now we need the political courage to get it done.”

RPA’s report goes a step further and suggests ways for the MTA to leverage planned investments in new technology to improve rider experience. And in a nod to the future, we also explored areas of the City that would benefit from new subway service, above and beyond the capacity that the Fast Forward plan would provide. The centerpiece of the report is our  ten priorities priorities for investments to modernizing the subway which largely mirror the MTA’s Fast Forward plan, but suggest additional details.

They are the following:

1.Aggressively address the “high risk” critical infrastructure backlog

2.Implement and maintain preventive maintenance measures

3.Accelerate modernization of subway signals

4.Right-size and improve accessibility of congested stations

5.Untangle and simplify services

6.Standardize and assign fleet to services

7.Add service to meet more humane train loading guidelines

8.Expand deficient terminals

9.Correct extreme track geometry issues and poorly designed junctions

10.Ensure sufficient yard and power capacity

To learn more about the report, visit our interactive website here: http://library.rpa.org/interactive/subways/

For the full report, visit here:http://library.rpa.org/temp/files/RPA-Save-our-Subways-Draft.pdf

................... not bad. Though, soemthing strikes odd about this plan, here's the link.

http://lab.rpa.org/as-nyc-transit-plans-to-fast-forward-heres-a-road-map-to-help/

[N6 Limited]

Interesting report. On the QBL they suggest doubling  and  service by making all 's express and all 's local.  goes back to Nassau St and  goes to Astoria. 

The support that service pattern, they suggest that northbound 's terminate in Brooklyn,  express in Brooklyn, and the  and  swap service patterns south of Prince Street (with some Broadway Track reconfiguration)

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, N6 Limited said:

Interesting report. On the QBL they suggest doubling  and  service by making all 's express and all 's local.  goes back to Nassau St and  goes to Astoria. 

The support that service pattern, they suggest that northbound 's terminate in Brooklyn,  express in Brooklyn, and the  and  swap service patterns south of Prince Street (with some Broadway Track reconfiguration)

I can't stop thinking about that train plan that they have. I don't want to say that it's brilliant since there is a flaw hiding in Plain sight

[Coney Island Av]

Jesus H Christ. This plan has so many flaws that the supposed "increased service" is more of a disservice!

Firstly, making the  local will piss off Hillside residents, and it will only overload the . It will bring QBL to hell. Not only that, Hillside riders would be stuck with a local-only train to Manhattan. Back in 1988, the  ran to 179 St to replace the , and many ditched the  for an express at Parsons, Union Turnpike, and 71 Av. Heck, I would rather deinterline QBL even though I don't advocate for it!

Having the  terminate in Brooklyn will be a disaster. It will hold up n/b  trains at Jay St, and will cause a massive conga line in both directions, especially since  service will be doubled in this plan. And having only the express go to Manhattan is just asking for more trouble. Making the  local on CPW will make Bronx riders' commutes even long-winded and slow. The  is express 24/7 on CPW for a reason, RPA!

Also, reviving the old  is just asking for trouble. Ridgewood/Bushwick will throw a fit if you got rid of their one-seat ride to Midtown, and  ridership will drop like a rock. Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs and Essex St will get overloaded with people trying to get to Midtown as a result. I'd also assume they'd revive the rush hour extension to Bay Pkwy too. But the latter will only have  trains running empty on the West End, and a merge would be reintroduced at 36 St. 

Having both the  go to Astoria is pointless, considering the  is still merging at 34 St. 

Now for the . While I do support Culver Express service, it simply cannot work unless another Manhattan-bound service was added. However, there's no capacity to add such, and  thus, people will throw a fit. 

Finally, the absolute most ridiculous part of their plan is having the  go to 95 St and the  go to Coney Island. Why the hell would these two lines need to swap? You've only made  service even longer/more unreliable, and giving it another merge with the . The  would get no yard access, and the  will be way too slow for Brighton riders to use. Not to mention the fact that the  will get overwhelmed. 

Overall, this plan is needlessly redundant and convoluted. If they really wanted to "simplify" services, why don't they take a look at how to fix severe bottlenecks/merges, or deinterlining? Just my opinion though. 

 

 

 

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Having the  terminate in Brooklyn will be a disaster. It will hold up n/b  trains at Jay St, and will cause a massive conga line in both directions, especially since  service will be doubled in this plan. And having only the express go to Manhattan is just asking for more trouble.

I'm pretty sure that they meant to have the  terminate at Court street, therefore there are no merges with the

3 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

considering the  is still merging at 34 St. 

The is a local service in this plan, so they got rid of the merge. 

I'm just gonna quote those 2 parts because I can already tell that you didn't read the whole thing

 

[RR503]

The report tries to do everything but in doing so, ends up so deeply conflicting with itself if achieves nothing. Sadly symbolic of transit planning in this city, IMO.

I’ll write some more detailed comments tomorrow.  

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The report tries to do everything but in doing so, ends up so deeply conflicting with itself if achieves nothing. Sadly symbolic of transit planning in this city, IMO.

I’ll write some more detailed comments tomorrow.  

I think it proposes certain ideas for the sake of optimizing for one goal while making things worse overall.

 

The report also misses some apparent problems while highlighting things that are not problems. For example, it gives these as examples of problem curves in need of correction:

• The curve between 7 Avenue and 47–50 Streets–Rockefeller Center
• The curve between 2 Avenue and Delancey Street–Essex Street
• The curve between 14 Street () and West 4 Street–Washington Square
• The curve under the East River on the Culver line

But it misses these:

• The Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue terminal curve on the Brighton and Culver lines
• The curves on either end of 9 Avenue

With the exception of the curves between Briarwood and Sutphin Boulevard, I think most of the IND-designed segments were designed with speed in mind. They would not be track geometry problems, but signal problems.

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The report tries to do everything but in doing so, ends up so deeply conflicting with itself if achieves nothing. Sadly symbolic of transit planning in this city, IMO.

Said it better than I could...

[B35 via Church]

Aesthetically pleasing & well presented, but fundamentally missing the mark (service-wise).... Just like all these other plans.

[peacemak3r]

4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Finally, the absolute most ridiculous part of their plan is having the  go to 95 St and the  go to Coney Island. Why the hell would these two lines need to swap? You've only made  service even longer/more unreliable, and giving it another merge with the . The  would get no yard access, and the  will be way too slow for Brighton riders to use. Not to mention the fact that the  will get overwhelmed.

In the plan, they wanted to eliminate the  as well.

[LGA Link N Train]

7 minutes ago, peacemak3r said:

In the plan, they wanted to eliminate the  as well.

No they didn't as there was no mentioning of that. However they did note about eliminating the

[LGA Link N Train]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

I think it proposes certain ideas for the sake of optimizing for one goal while making things worse overall.

 

The report also misses some apparent problems while highlighting things that are not problems. For example, it gives these as examples of problem curves in need of correction:

• The curve between 7 Avenue and 47–50 Streets–Rockefeller Center
• The curve between 2 Avenue and Delancey Street–Essex Street
• The curve between 14 Street () and West 4 Street–Washington Square
• The curve under the East River on the Culver line

But it misses these:

• The Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue terminal curve on the Brighton and Culver lines
• The curves on either end of 9 Avenue

With the exception of the curves between Briarwood and Sutphin Boulevard, I think most of the IND-designed segments were designed with speed in mind. They would not be track geometry problems, but signal problems.

What I find surprising was that they didn't mention any of the curves from the Jamaica Line. Also, some of the curves that they mentioned are not even necessary to fix. Also, what were the issues that they didn't need to adress?

[N6 Limited]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

I think it proposes certain ideas for the sake of optimizing for one goal while making things worse overall.

 

The report also misses some apparent problems while highlighting things that are not problems. For example, it gives these as examples of problem curves in need of correction:

• The curve between 7 Avenue and 47–50 Streets–Rockefeller Center
• The curve between 2 Avenue and Delancey Street–Essex Street
• The curve between 14 Street () and West 4 Street–Washington Square
• The curve under the East River on the Culver line

But it misses these:

• The Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue terminal curve on the Brighton and Culver lines
• The curves on either end of 9 Avenue

With the exception of the curves between Briarwood and Sutphin Boulevard, I think most of the IND-designed segments were designed with speed in mind. They would not be track geometry problems, but signal problems.

The  and  (when it run express on Hillside) move pretty quick between Briarwood and Sutphin Blvd.  Most of the IND curves the trains move at a reasonable speed, even on the BMT  , with CBTC the trains whip around those curves.

Most of the curves where I've noticed slow speeds are on IRT and BMT lines.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

8 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

The  and  (when it run express on Hillside) move pretty quick between Briarwood and Sutphin Blvd.  Most of the IND curves the trains move at a reasonable speed, even on the BMT  , with CBTC the trains whip around those curves.

Most of the curves where I've noticed slow speeds are on IRT and BMT lines.

 

{Cough} {Cough} Crescent Street and 149 Street curves.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

"We're gonna de-interline Cranberry"

"Ooh how"

"By removing the  in Manhattan"

"WHOSE IDEA WAS THIS"

[KK 6 Ave Local]

The report says the / go to Astoria.. already you know something's wrong.

[GojiMet86]

The RPA is always coming up with some dumbass ideas like these subway swaps here and some very obvious ones.

What do I mean by obvious? Things like repairing the MTA signals, fleet modernization, fix infrastructure, etc. That's something the MTA is already trying to do.

It just seems to me that the RPA wants its name out there every couple of years.

[Lance]

I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. Cut the back to Brooklyn, run the local in Queens, flip the and  - man, I'd love to be part of the committee here. Where do I sign up to pitch such moronic ideas and still get paid? Better ideas that make more operational sense have been pitched here on this very forum. Do they realize that people actually use these services? Or do they just think this is just some kind of simulation? The fact that this is a professional proposal thought up by a supposed transit think tank is straight up hilarious. And then to take credit for proposing what the MTA has been proposing for the past year or so. Didn't realize Cynthia Nixon was on the RPA committee.

One thing I didn't see mentioned here is their little blip about completely suspending overnight service. I'm all for complete shutdowns of certain lines for necessary maintenance, but a complete subway shutdown replaced by "high frequency" bus service will never fly. Nobody cares how it's done elsewhere; the NYC subway has run 24/7 since 1904. Good luck trying to replace late night service with buses, especially for inter-borough trips. On that subject, how would that even work? Would there be 10-15 SBS routes created just for overnight service?

Also, I see they cannot go without pitching their rail expansion plans. I guess it's fitting this latest regional rail proposal is called the T-REX because that thing's dead as the dinosaurs. Yeah, let's create a brand new Metro-North line on 3rd Avenue, just steps away from the already existing Park Ave viaduct. That's not a complete waste of money at all.

1 hour ago, GojiMet86 said:

The RPA is always coming up with some dumbass ideas like these subway swaps here and some very obvious ones.

What do I mean by obvious? Things like repairing the MTA signals, fleet modernization, fix infrastructure, etc. That's something the MTA is already trying to do.

It just seems to me that the RPA wants its name out there every couple of years.

They got lucky once with the placement of the George Washington Bridge (original plans were for it to cross the river near 57th Street) and still think they're the best planning group in business. They still haven't gotten the hint most of their ideas are at best regurgitations of plans already proposed and at worst, complete garbage that should never see the light of day.

[GojiMet86]

1. Nostrand and Utica extensions have been brought up many times over the years.

2. SAS Phases 3-4 are already on the table. Thanks for saying the obvious.

3. They have a hard-on for that useless Astoria extension.

4. Looking at the other proposals, it seems they were looking at the Forums and SubChat for inspiration. Haven't we recently discussed Northern Blvd and the Second Ave to Grand Concourse?

[RR503]

38 minutes ago, Lance said:

I don't know what to say that hasn't already been said. Cut the back to Brooklyn, run the local in Queens, flip the and  - man, I'd love to be part of the committee here. Where do I sign up to pitch such moronic ideas and still get paid? Better ideas that make more operational sense have been pitched here on this very forum. Do they realize that people actually use these services? Or do they just think this is just some kind of simulation? The fact that this is a professional proposal thought up by a supposed transit think tank is straight up hilarious. And then to take credit for proposing what the MTA has been proposing for the past year or so. Didn't realize Cynthia Nixon was on the RPA committee.

One thing I didn't see mentioned here is their little blip about completely suspending overnight service. I'm all for complete shutdowns of certain lines for necessary maintenance, but a complete subway shutdown replaced by "high frequency" bus service will never fly. Nobody cares how it's done elsewhere; the NYC subway has run 24/7 since 1904. Good luck trying to replace late night service with buses, especially for inter-borough trips. On that subject, how would that even work? Would there be 10-15 SBS routes created just for overnight service?

Also, I see they cannot go without pitching their rail expansion plans. I guess it's fitting this latest regional rail proposal is called the T-REX because that thing's dead as the dinosaurs. Yeah, let's create a brand new Metro-North line on 3rd Avenue, just steps away from the already existing Park Ave viaduct. That's not a complete waste of money at all.

They got lucky once with the placement of the George Washington Bridge (original plans were for it to cross the river near 57th Street) and still think they're the best planning group in business. They still haven't gotten the hint most of their ideas are at best regurgitations of plans already proposed and at worst, complete garbage that should never see the light of day.

Couldn't agree more. I was actually writing a detailed response to this steaming pile of horsesh*t, but after addressing all the issues I took with the plan, the tirade was 2000 ish words, so I decided to pass on posting... (don’t worry, I’m on vacation)

I think the general gist here is that, like a zillion other regional bodies, the RPA wants to throw capital money at an operational problem. Dwell time, merges, sharp curves, intra-borough service? These are all things that can be (and indeed once were) solved by competent operating people. I don't see why we have to spend 50 billion dollars to do what was once pedestrian. 

[N6 Limited]

Their   plan would be better if WTC was connected to Court St and the took over Fulton St Local.  But it's crowded downtown so I'm nut sure what kind of route the connection would take. 

As for the  going local and the  express. In theory it would de-interline the routes and provide frequent service and no Forest Hills backups.  The other thing is there would be no local service between Queens Plaza and 36th Street. How would that work? Unless select  trains were extended to 179th street. 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

45 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

4. Looking at the other proposals, it seems they were looking at the Forums and SubChat for inspiration. Haven't we recently discussed Northern Blvd and the Second Ave to Grand Concourse?

They've had this plan since I think 2014.

[Lance]

37 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

1. Nostrand and Utica extensions have been brought up many times over the years.

2. SAS Phases 3-4 are already on the table. Thanks for saying the obvious.

3. They have a hard-on for that useless Astoria extension.

4. Looking at the other proposals, it seems they were looking at the Forums and SubChat for inspiration. Haven't we recently discussed Northern Blvd and the Second Ave to Grand Concourse?

In their defense, they acknowledged the existing plans for 2nd Avenue were not their own and want to expand on them. It doesn't make up for their other ideas though, like that proposal to link 2nd Avenue to the Concourse. I noticed it was pitched here recently. At least we know why that would be a terrible idea.

2 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

Their   plan would be better if WTC was connected to Court St and the took over Fulton St Local.  But it's crowded downtown so I'm nut sure what kind of route the connection would take. 

The 8th Avenue tracks at the World Trade Center are literally right behind the Broadway tracks at Cortlandt St. Unless one of those stations was completely rebuilt, there wouldn't be any way for the WTC branch to go around Broadway to a new tunnel.

8 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

As for the  going local and the  express. In theory it would de-interline the routes and provide frequent service and no Forest Hills backups.  The other thing is there would be no local service between Queens Plaza and 36th Street. How would that work? Unless select  trains were extended to 179th street. 

It would remove the merging delays but, at already 45 stops with the present Queens Blvd express route, the RPA would be a completely useless route for anything besides a shuttle to the . I may not be the strongest supporter of de-interlining services, but I'll admit some of the ideas thrown around on this forum, including the most recent ones in the Proposals thread, are much more viable for riders than this. It's almost like the RPA realized by taking both the and  off Queens Blvd, they removed all local service from the line and had to come up with a way to provide that service. Sadly though, this was all they could come up with.

[LGA Link N Train]

51 minutes ago, GojiMet86 said:

1. Nostrand and Utica extensions have been brought up many times over the years.

2. SAS Phases 3-4 are already on the table. Thanks for saying the obvious.

3. They have a hard-on for that useless Astoria extension.

4. Looking at the other proposals, it seems they were looking at the Forums and SubChat for inspiration. Haven't we recently discussed Northern Blvd and the Second Ave to Grand Concourse?

Earlier, I just posted this report. but now, It's finally time to say what I think "strikes odd" about their plan. 

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lNIjwV4AFM8tKAVqJFIa8-FnzCmc5EgZ - Image courtesy of Vanshnookenraggen 

Let's Start with the big elephants in the room, and BOY THERE ARE PLENTY!!!!
 

1.   and swap in Brooklyn. The section I circled in the picture above is a clear indication that WE DON'T NEED TO SWAP THE AND TO BEGIN WITH!!

That "Canal Flip" on the other hand, is actually Quite interesting. 

2. trains terminating at Court Street. While it may seem ideal on paper and could work operationally, many riders along the Fulton Line would throw a fit if they're trying to get to Manhattan. So that just puts me at neutral even though negative effects are outweigh the positives.

3. Doubling of and service. I'm in full support in adding additional service to these lines, however, even though running all (F)'s local may seem good on an operational scale, Hillside riders won't sit comfortable with that and the (despite having added service as well) would be burdened. They also mentioned that they want the  to run exclusively on the express tracks at Culver, well my thought on that is that it would be useful to do so BUT the Bergen street lower level needs to be renovated in order for it to work. Local trains going to Concourse would make the route unattractive as well and To Be Honest, I don't think that there's ANY GOOD WAY to deinterline CPW without f**king up a quarter or half of the services that use it.

4. Their SAS-Grand Concourse connection. The first time I saw that, I was like "sigh.......... really!?". When I saw their Astoria extension. I went "WTF, why are you extending them away from LGA?" Another issue that I have is that their Northern Blvd Extension and Jewel Avenue Extension contradict with their goal to "simplify services". 

However, they did aim for some of the right goals and pointed out some very deficent terminals. wait, coming to think of it. They said that Main Street on the was a deficent terminal. WHY TF DIDN'T THEY EXTEND THAT INSTEAD!?!?!?! SAME WITH THE  AT JAMAICA CENTER.

I appreciate their efforts for at least TRYING, but they failed miserably. 

 

[peacemak3r]

22 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

No they didn't as there was no mentioning of that. However they did note about eliminating the

They did mention it however it wasn't a direct proposal of eliminating the  , they however still suggested it.

Page 60, bottom section:

"Many of these lines suffer from infrequent service today,
with headways greater than two minutes in the peak.
CBTC along with service simplification will help solve the
demands placed on the Brighton and West End Lines. This
could be done by eliminating the B to create more capacity
on the 6th Ave line for the D in Manhattan and enable
more reliable single service on the Brighton line as well as
increase service on the West End line"