Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
drekroid

Optimization Proposal Using Existing Infrastructure

Recommended Posts

Optimization Proposal Using Existing Infrastructure

View File

Final proposal (updated based on feedback from this forum)....

The goals of this proposal:

  • Reduced waiting times (overall)
  • Fewer congestion delays
  • Less complexity for users and operations
  • Less overcrowding
  • Improved user experience and satisfaction with service

Map shows the proposed network using the style that is inspired by the original Montreal Metro map.

PDF contains operation details, including frequencies for the proposed services, and proposed yard assignments for equipment.


 

  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This...

This is terrible.

improves user experience? did you even LOOK at the track maps when you made this? You have the N as express via lower Manhattan and the locals on the bridge. You can't do that. Also Astoria called, they want their express back, and Bay Ridge is on hold, they're upset you're cutting the late night R back to 36th street. We have enough people complaining about the R as it is, don't try to put out the fire with gasoline...

 

Similar problem with terminating the 3 at Utica, The terminating trains would be crossing in front of the 4's trying to get up onto the Livonia El. 

 

You can't lock an X-over to the diverging position in service, you loose at least 25 to 30% of your capacity doing that. 

 

You have cut off western Queens from the sixth avenue line without doubling back somewhere. Can't do that ether. The V and the orange M were created for a reason. you're ram rodding all service down the 8th avenue line for no justifiable reason. 

 

You add unnecessary service variants and yet say it's "less complex"? You require more transfers to get places that would otherwise be straight shots. 

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I appreciate you wanting the system to become more optimized (trust me, most of us here do), many of the changes you put forth either convolute or worsen each line. Some are flat out not possible due to trackage, or would severely limit capacity on multiple routes. Also, gotta love how the (5) just ceases to exist on this map.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's great that you're thinking about optimization, but the plans you have put forward face some serious operational, infrastructural and political challenges. Beyond what people have mentioned above:

- You can't run Bay Ridge trains express on 4th Avenue without rebuilding the 59 St area

- You're gonna have to seriously modify Church Avenue's signal system and switch arrangement to efficiently terminate any significant quantity of full length train service

- There's no way you can serve 145 and 148 with 4tph peak service. That'll cause hell. Either spend the money on making it a shuttle, or don't. 149 deinterlining, for whatever it's worth, would also require pretty significant investment in station infrastructure to ever be palatable. 

- I think I pointed this out earlier, but you don't have enough Concourse service. Not everyone is coming from Midtown; people would prefer to take two frequent services and transfer rather than wait for a 6tph local service. Also, 10tph isn't enough for Inwood. That's what's run today, and any (A) line rider can tell you that, well, it sucks. 

- Unless you're going to spend serious $$$ on rebuilding the stretch of Jerome from Burnside to the yard leads, I really wouldn't mix express service, local service, short turns and yard put ins on flat (ie not grade separated) infrastructure. You'll end up with Parkchester, but it'll be worse because now Lex express is getting wrecked by it. 

- I don't understand your Queens Boulevard service pattern. Why is the 11 St cut the bit of interlining you choose to preserve? It's crappy from a system perspective (its knock on effects limit capacity between Manhattan and Queens, to Astoria, and on the 8th Avenue line), and ruins 60 St tunnel capacity specifically because merging trains at 20mph into a track where service otherwise runs at 40+ is...ugly. I would just deinterline fully -- 6th to 63, 8th to 53, etc etc etc. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s really nice that you put time and effort into this map and your intentions are well for the subway system!!  But here’s my Feedback:

I agree with the notion that you want to improve customer satisfaction. However, some of your proposals accomplish the exact opposite of that. Take the (2) and the Elimination of the (5) for example. As far as I learned on this site, ridership Demographics north of East 180th Street call for Lexington Service. While those south of East 180th call for more 7th Avenue Service. Eliminating the (5) doesn’t help these riders and Makes conditions worse at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. Now you might argue “But the (2) and (4) have increased TPH”. Well, unless you plan to Upgrade 149th Street-Grand Concourse for better Passenger flow, then that contradicts the notion that your proposal uses only existing infrastructure. 

In fact, this isn’t the only instance where your proposal requires an Infrastructure upgrade. Your Broadway Service around Canal Street also require an Infrastructure Upgrade, called the “Canal Flip”. Such a proposal in my eyes would’ve benefited riders during the 2010-2016 era, But no where else. If you want to simplify Broadway, would’ve been better to do (N)(Q)  Broadway/4th Express and (R)(W) Broadway/4th Local.

Now on to Utica, the reason the (4) terminates there instead of the (3) is because of how the tracks are designed. If you want the (3) to terminate there, that’s ANOTHER Infrastructure Upgrade that will be required. 

(A)(C) Express (E)(M) Local on 8th Avenue requires an Infrastructure Upgrade at 50th to not overcrowded 42nd. 

Also, I don’t get what’s up with the Brooklyn (E)(F) swap. It’d be nice to have, but I’m not sure if Culver Riders are seeking 8th Avenue. Also. Making the (E) the only Express in Queens and the (F) Local to Forest Hills with your Blue (M) and (R) will hurt more Queens Blvd more than it helps. (But I personally wont mind the boost in local service)

the (B) is a Supplemental Route and should only be treated as Such. I’d keep the (D) Designation mainly cause it’s. full time route. 

Thats all of the feedback that I have to provide for now. I’d suggest to review a track map and the previous pages of the Proposals thread to get a better understanding of the system. 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

It’s really nice that you put time and effort into this map and your intentions are well for the subway system!!  But here’s my Feedback:

I agree with the notion that you want to improve customer satisfaction. However, some of your proposals accomplish the exact opposite of that. Take the (2) and the Elimination of the (5) for example. As far as I learned on this site, ridership Demographics north of East 180th Street call for Lexington Service. While those south of East 180th call for more 7th Avenue Service. Eliminating the (5) doesn’t help these riders and Makes conditions worse at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. Now you might argue “But the (2) and (4) have increased TPH”. Well, unless you plan to Upgrade 149th Street-Grand Concourse for better Passenger flow, then that contradicts the notion that your proposal uses only existing infrastructure. 

In fact, this isn’t the only instance where your proposal requires an Infrastructure upgrade. Your Broadway Service around Canal Street also require an Infrastructure Upgrade, called the “Canal Flip”. Such a proposal in my eyes would’ve benefited riders during the 2010-2016 era, But no where else. If you want to simplify Broadway, would’ve been better to do (N)(Q)  Broadway/4th Express and (R)(W) Broadway/4th Local.

Now on to Utica, the reason the (4) terminates there instead of the (3) is because of how the tracks are designed. If you want the (3) to terminate there, that’s ANOTHER Infrastructure Upgrade that will be required. 

(A)(C) Express (E)(M) Local on 8th Avenue requires an Infrastructure Upgrade at 50th to not overcrowded 42nd. 

Also, I don’t get what’s up with the Brooklyn (E)(F) swap. It’d be nice to have, but I’m not sure if Culver Riders are seeking 8th Avenue. Also. Making the (E) the only Express in Queens and the (F) Local to Forest Hills with your Blue (M) and (R) will hurt more Queens Blvd more than it helps. (But I personally wont mind the boost in local service)

the (B) is a Supplemental Route and should only be treated as Such. I’d keep the (D) Designation mainly cause it’s. full time route. 

Thats all of the feedback that I have to provide for now. I’d suggest to review a track map and the previous pages of the Proposals thread to get a better understanding of the system. 

I'd recommend comparing the proposed service levels (and local/express structures in certain other parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx). Hell, the issues that I mentioned numerous times with just the distribution of (2) trains is still there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Optimizing service is what I call a good target, but the shooter shoots himself. The plan directs all the effort in the wrong direction, accomplishing the opposite of hitting the target.

Understanding why a highway is faster than driving local may make you understand how to achieve optimization. (Hint: cars cross in front of each other less.)

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, I want him to try to explain why he thought it was a good idea to stick the M on the QB express.

i already have made it known I’m not a fan of having 480’ trains on that section of track, why is it the express...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.