mrsman

51 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Couldn't it shift over somewhere between 42 and 14 St? the train's Third Avenue station still spans from 3 to 2 Av, so it's not really a long passageway. I think Grand St is important for a connection to the Manhattan Bridge, If we were to place a train in Downtown Brooklyn, there's Fulton St and Manhattan Bridge as both possibilities. 

Yes, it can.  If one were to look at a map of Manhattan, you can realize that the East River is about a block east of First Ave for most of Midtown, but then south of 14th, the river is many blocks away (beyond Ave D).  In the old days, to account for service for so many people living east of First Ave, the Second Ave el ran along 2nd Ave north of 23rd and along 1st Ave south of 23rd.  This allowed the line to be closer to Midtown points and serve areas like the Lower East Side.

There is no reason why this can't be done for the SAS:  A 3rd Ave line through midtown to provide connections to all the subway lines between 42nd and 63rd.  Then, it can be routed to 2nd Ave to serve areas south of 23rd, to provide better service to  and grand Ave and the like.  

And if you want to provide connections in Lower Manhattan, perhaps the SAS should take over part of the Nassau Street subway so that it can reach Fulton station (and perhaps Chambers and Canal as well, depending on the routing).  

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

How is that better than just building the switches south of 36 Street? Building out platforms seems like a monumental task and a loss of flexibility to accommodate a service pattern whereas building the switches increases flexibility.

I agree with your position, I was just explaining how a platform extension would be used instead of a switch.

If new switches were built, this could be an interesting pattern.  

 from 6th Ave express tracks, along the 4th Ave express tracks, then switching to the local on new switches after 36 St to Bay Ridge.

 2 Ave - Broadway express, 4th Ave express,  then switching to the local on new switches after 36 St to Sea Beach line to Coney Island.

 71/Continental - QBL local - Broadway local - 4th Ave local - West End line to Bay Parkway.

 Astoria - Broadway local - 4th Ave local - West End line to Coney Island.

Pushing the West End line trains to the local will probably not be very popular for West End riders, but at least we can provide them with a lot of service by running as many locals as possible down the line.  Since not all of the trains can turn back at CI, some of the locals will turn back at Bay Parkway.

[If one were also interested in untying the merges at DeKalb, I'd recommend a  /  swap here, so as to preserve the connection from Bay Ridge to the Concourse Yard.]

10 hours ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

45 and 53 never had a provision for them to become express stops, so the train and the train would have to switch over north of 36 Street.

I think the idea is that a platform extension would be built by blocking the local tracks.  south of the point where West End diverges from the 4th Ave tracks, you put in bumpers so that no trains can continue on the local tracks (ever, even out of service).  [Bumpers would also be put on the local tracks north of the switches at 59th.]  Then, the service on and   will continue along the express tracks, which will be the only tracks in service.  Extending the platforms of 45 and 53 over the local tracks would essentially create an express stop at those stations.

Obviously, by doing so, you basically have to give up on ever using that section of local tracks for service.  It would seem that the platform extension is semi-permanent and would have to be left in place for long periods of time as it would be too time consuming to do this for rush hour service, yet leave in place the local tracks for off-peak runs.  You also have to buy in to the service pattern of sending 4th Ave expresses to Bay Ridge/Sea Beach and 4th Ave locals to West End.  But it's true that if you did so, you would eliminate all merging at 36 street and provide a yard for all the services.  Astoria-Broadway local - 4th Ave local trains will now go to Coney Island via West End.  Bay Ridge trains will now have access to the Concourse Yard.

I have seen similar ideas to build platform extensions at the 50th Street station on the  as part of a deinterlining plan.  Basically, if all the 8th Ave locals go to Queens along the  and all the CPW locals go to 6th Ave, there will be no trains on the local tracks at the 50th street station.  By blocking the local tracks, we can have the express  and  trains have access to the platforms there and create an express stop.  I see more problems with this, because in the middle of Midtown, you never know when you would need to have access to the local tracks for an emergency re-route, like if there is a problem on the 6th Ave tracks.  It would probably be less of a problem to do this in southern Brooklyn.

6 hours ago, Deucey said:

I have forever thought the “Lefferts would lose express service” rationale to be a weak one. There’s only 5 stops from Euclid to Rockaway that Lefferts riders could wait at to switch to  from  or vice versa, and it’s not like Rockaway  is SRO towards Manhattan at those stations.
 

And if need be, run it as  peak express and do a timed transfer at Euclid for swaps.

 

To me it would seem better to allow more trains down past Euclid.  Maybe not feasible to allow all C trains to go to Lefferts, but more trains would ease some of the crowding on this section (for the Rockaway trains).

6 hours ago, Collin said:

I wonder if there's any benefit having a rush hour peak direction express on the  by running Rockaway trains nonstop from Aqueduct Racetrack to Euclid Avenue.  Trains would use the express track between Rockaway Boulevard and Grant Avenue (with extra crossovers added after 80th Street) and bypass Grant Avenue on the local tracks.  Trains to/from Lefferts would continue to make all stops.  I guess it would depend on how much time is saved, whether Lefferts trains alone can handle the load at Rockaway Boulevard, 88th Street, 80th Street, and Grant Avenue, and if there's a significant number of people who ride the train from the Rockaways, then transfer to the train to Lefferts who wouldn't be able to do that under this service pattern.  It would be better if Rockaway Boulevard were converted to 3 track express, but I don't think the cost of doing so would be worth it.

I envisioned something like this in my own head as an alternative to AirTrain, before that was constructed.  My vision required a bit of construction, but justifiable if paid for by Port Authority and would be heavily used if it provided a direct connection to JFK.

One idea is simply like yours to allow for the trains to utilize the existing express tracks.  Not perfect, but it would still save some time for those long Rockaway commutes.

The other idea is to connect the express tracks via a short tunnel from Euclid to Conduit Ave, and then that would head along on an elevated 2 track line following Conduit Avenue to the Rockaway line.  Essentially, this line would bypass all of the local stations and Aqueduct and link directly to Howard Beach and from there continue into JFK.  All Rockaway   trains would then become JFK  trains.  At Howard Beach, there would be a provision for a cross-platform transfer to trains to both Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway.  North of Howard Beach, middle tracks would be used to terminate the Rockawy Park trains, and the Far Rockaway trains would continue north to hit Aqueduct and eventually to be extended along the ROW to the QBL.

While this would introduce a transfer for Rockaway commuters at Howard Beach, the shorter routing and the skipping of stops would save so much time that it would be utilized.  I envisioned that having the direct connection to JFK would be the only way to get PA money into the project.

I wouldn't build a new tunnel just to include Governors Island, but if a new tunnel were deemed necessary, than it might as well connect to it, if that would lead to significant residential development like on Roosevelt Island.

That being said, I don't see a new tunnel to Brooklyn as being necessary while there is still capacity in the Montague and Rutgers tunnels.  The train service needs to be streamlined to make better use of the existing infrastructure, and then building land tunnels to the existing tunnels before new water tunnels.

6 hours ago, Collin said:

I like the idea of repurposing Fulton and Broad as Second Avenue stations.  While it doesn't serve as wide of a geographic area, it gives much better connections to the rest of the system.  A renovated Chambers Street station would be perfect for the Transit Museum.  With 4 tracks and Spanish Solution platforms, they could expand the exhibit even more.  Store the rest of the museum fleet in the tunnels between Canal and Essex Street.

For the Jamaica Line redesign, a new underground portion with consolidated stops would greatly speed up service by removing stations and the sharp curves.  Also, it would be much faster to Lower Manhattan, and even midtown via the Fulton express.  I would also design the Norwood Ave station to be a temporary terminal with crossovers so that the new underground portion could operate during weather events that limit service to underground only.

The  being the Fulton local service wouldn't be a problem either.  It would be the same number of stops from Hoyt Schermerhorn as the  to the next station where they have a transfer which is Cortlandt Street/Chambers Street.  Stay on the 2 more stops to Canal Street, and you get a transfer to the  which the  don't have.

If connecting Grand Street to the Nassau line for a future phase of SAS, how far south on the Nassau line does the connection need to be?  I.e. this idea seems to suggest running SAS from Broad to Fulton then Grand and Houston and then further up 2 Ave.  Could the train be routed to also include Chambers, by building the connection between SAS and Nassau line between Chambers and Grand Street.  (It doesn't seem possible to connect Canal on the  with Grand on the SAS as Canal is not far enough south of Grand.)  I do like the idea of repurposing existing lines to avoid new tunneling in Lower Manhattan.  While it would be nice to have a subway to serve Water Street, the walk to the Nassau line from Water Street is very doable.

I am also in favor of connecting  to Fulton local, especially if all the new digging is under ground and not under water.  Would it be possible for to separate from  without building a new tunnel under the East River?  It seems that it would be a lot cheaper if the new tunnel was only under solid ground and not the river.  It would also allow for more trains along the Broadway local.

11 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I somehow forgot to take that into account when I came up with the idea, but I’ll have to look into that. What I do see happening is that riders on the  train looking to continue further downtown on the  and  would transfer instead at a new station at Broadway and Broome Street (the new station would have a passageway to the existing Prince Street  and  station) and  and  riders can use Fulton for  and  service downtown so the transfer would be somewhat unnecessary. 

Anyways, at that point, what I could see happening is that the fare areas over by the passageway would be reconfigured to redirect riders to either the  passageway to the express train platform or to the oculus directly. Now I haven’t been back over since the whole stay-at-home order forced me to work from home, but if I do have time when this ends, I’ll take a look to see what the layout is like over there.

Outside of Queens, where  and  are both along QBL, there are very few direct transfers between 8th Ave and Broadway trains.

The other locations are:

42nd street:  to  but it requires the block long tunnel between Port Authority and Times Square

WTC:  to   

and Jay St:   to  

I think that providing a new connection between 8th Ave and Broadway trains, especially if it is in Manhattan north of Canal would be helpful.  There really is no easy way to get between 8th Avenue (local or express) and the Broadway express without taking an intermediate train between the two.*  This also may make it more palatable to separate the 6th Ave and Broadway trains at DeKalb as there would be a new way to connect Broadway express to 8th Avenue.

* There still may not be as there is the transfer from  to  at Canal is not cross-platform.

Quote

 

Thanks for your comments, my ideas tend to be really conservative and look to make actual construction in as few places as possible.  So I don't think along the terms of major extensions, but they certainly can be planned.   

So my short term plans provide for only the construction of the connection from thte 8th Ave express to the Manhattan Bridge, the new cross-transferring station, and yes removing the 6th Ave express from the Manhattan Bridge.  Then, trying to figure out where everything else is supposed to fit in a way that provides as few merges as possible to keep things really streamlined.  The short term plans don't even consider SAS, but makes room for it.  Without SAS and without 6th Ave connection to Manhattan Bridge, there is no purpose for Grand Street.

The Delancey-Bay Ridge line would indeed run through Montague.  This is why I terminate half of the Broadway locals at Whitehall.  My idea is that the Delancey-Bay Ridge line will be there to continue to provide Lower Manhattan access with a transfer for all travelers on the Broadway Brooklyn line.  The line will directly connect to 6th Ave express and Midtown, but the transfer at Delancey to the Delancey-Bay Ridge line will also be available there.  At the same time, having Montague tunnel trains service both the Broadway local and this new line will allow Southern Brooklyn a cross-transfer (at DeKalb or Atlantic) to both sides of Lower Manhattan, west of Broadway along the  lines and east of Broadway along the new  .  Of course, if there is no demand for that , then we can have a Delancey-Broad St shuttle and run all of teh Broadway locals to Bay Ridge.  But I provided the first option, with the idea in mind that the Delancey-Broad line will eventually become part of SAS and that should continue into Brooklyn.

As far as implementing SAS, my idea is to use as much of the existing Nassau line as possible and avoid new digging in Lower Manhattan.  If the Nassau line from Broad St to Bowery is taken over by SAS, is there still a demand for a Bowery-Delancey shuttle?  Maybe given the 4 track nature of the line, it may be possible to still run a line from Delancey to Chambers, which would probably be somewhat valuable for the Broadway Brooklyn line passengers.

Yes, a lot of people don't like the idea of sending Broadway to QBL, but given how much traffic the line has, the trains have to go somewhere.  A Northern Blvd line seems popular here and that may be a good place for those trains to go, but if no extenstion is built, then what?  If SAS is closed off because all of the capacity of upper SAS is used by lower SAS, then we have a situation where either: 1) Broadway expresses go to 63rd, 6th Ave locals terminate at 57/6 and we reduce the number of 6th Ave locals; 2) Broadway expresses terminate at 57/7, 6th Ave locals go to 63rd and we reduce the number of Broadway expresses; or 3) we replicate the pre-SAS pattern of terminating  at 57/7 and having  merge with  with both lines going to Astoria, but necessarily limiting the number of Broadway locals. 

In the end, though, you are probably correct that if we add a 7th Manhattan trunk line (SAS below 63rd) to the exsting 6 trunk lines (8th/6th/Broadway dual lines), we may need a 7th portal (79th-Northern) to the north in addition to the existing 6 portals to the north and east (CPW local, CPW express, 2 Ave, 53rd , 60th, 63rd) -- in order to deinterline and run the infrasturcture at full capacity.  Given the structure of the stations in Lower Manhattan, we can get away with 6 portals to the south( Williamsburg Bridge, Manhattn Bridge N , Manhattan Bridge S*, Rutgers, Cranberry, Montague) , even with 7 trunk lines, since we merge SAS with Broadway local, and having some of those trains terminate at Broad or Whitehall, with the rest joining in the Montague tunnel.  A lot of money can be saved by avoiding a new tunnel to Brooklyn, which I really don't see as being necessary if we can get better usage of the existing bridges and tunnels.  Part of that is to provide better connections to those bridges and tunnels which is what I attempt to do with the 8th Ave connection to the Manhattan Bridge and the subsequent realignments.

*Or under my plan Manhattan Bridge inner and Manhattan Bridge outer

Some of the more recent posts led me to think of a new idea:

1) Realign the Manhattan Bridge tracks so that the 2 Manhattan bound tracks are on the north side of the bridge and the 2 Brooklyn bound tracks are on the south side

2) Redirect the 4 tracks to a new Canal station under Walker Street.  Cross platform transfers in each direction.  The inner tracks will connect to the Broadway express, and the outer tracks will continue west and connect to the 8th Ave express.  The station will still provide transfers to   and the new service along Centre St/Nassau St (see #6)

3) Realign the 8th Ave service.  8th Ave express: QBL express - 53rd Street - 8th Ave express - 4th Ave express - West End/Sea Beach.  8th Ave local:  Washington Heights/Bronx - CPW local - 8th Ave local-Fulton Street Brooklyn-Euclid/Lefferts/Far Rockaway

4) Realign the Broadway service.  Express: 2 Ave-Broadway express-Brighton exp and local.  Local: Astoria-Broadway local-4 Ave local.  Half of the locals will terminate at Whitehall and half will terminate at Bay Ridge. 

5) Realign the 6th Ave service.  Express:  Inwood/Bronx-CPW express-6th Ave express-Williamsburg Bridge-Myrtle or Jamaica.  Local: QBL local- 63rd street-6th Ave local-Culver line

6)  With the remaining capacity along the 4th Ave local, a train line from Delancey/Essex to Bay Ridge via Nassau Street.  Grand street station on the 6th Ave line will close, but service to the area will be accomplished with a stop at Bowery on this line.

Long term, with the extension of SAS, a few changes to the above will be made:

a) SAS service along 2 Ave will run to 2 Ave/Houston and then connect to the Nassau line from Bowery to Broad Street.  Half of SAS will terminate at Broad, and the other half will continue to Bay Ridge.  There will no longer be an in-service connection between Bowery and Delancey/Essex.

b) To make room for the expanded SAS, the Broadway express will go along 63rd street to QBL local instead of upper 2nd Ave.  The 6th Ave local will run with reduced service and will not run north of 57St/6Ave

The main idea is that by running the Manhattan Bridge to both 8th Ave and Broadway, and putting in a cross-platform station in Manhattan, we can much more easily remove the DeKalb bottleneck.  Cross-platform Transfers at the new Canal will allow for express service to either Union Square (and Lex services) or W4th (and 6th Ave services).  In turn, this will also allow for more leeway to de-interline the rest of the B division as well.  Canal will also be a connecting point to the future SAS and continue to service  and  .

Thoughts?

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Thinking about this, I think this would have to be paired with going on the Jamaica Line to work. Otherwise it removes the fairly easy Midtown connection on the Jamaica Line, resulting in several problems

• prior to deletion in favor of the , Delancey Essex was already identified as a problematic transfer hotspot. The solved this problem.
• If you want to get to Midtown all of your options are either an extremely indirect via Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan or two-transfer ride. We know most riders prefer Midtown.
• Because the one-seat-ride is no longer an option, the Jamaica Line has no advantages over the Canarsie Line, so this would probably make overcrowding worse.

You are right that extending  to Downtown Brooklyn, Navy Yard, and Myrtle Ave would not divert any Midtown-bound traffic to the new  as it is now a long route that goes out of the way.  But by doing this, we do free up a lot of capacity on the Williamsburg Bridge Route.  Maybe enough capacity to have a new route, let's call it the orange (K)*.  This train will be an express route from Broadway Junction, stopping at Myrtle/Broadway, and Marcy and then following the old M route to the 6th Ave local and QBL express.  To the extent that it only stops at the longer express platforms along the Broadway Brooklyn el, the train can be full length without platform extensions.  Also, given its express nature, it may be able to pull off a lot of people from other trains, being the most direct Midtown route for anyone coming along the  at Broadway Junction and the new   train at Myrtle/Broadway.

* Or perhaps this can be name  as the old is superflous with the new .

6 hours ago, Collin said:

@R68OnBroadway People on this forum are quite knowledgeable about the operational side of NYC transit, but the human element definitely needs to be considered too.  Think of yourself commuting between various stations.  Yard access needs to be considered too.  For example, sending the  down to Flatbush with the  might seem like a good option, but that cuts off yard access for the .

As a basic standard, de-interlining should be done when any of the following is true:

• Merges can be easily eliminated without creating new ones.
• A route that never shares track can be created.
• Extra transfers created are cross-platform.

De-interlining shouldn't be done when:

• Elimination of one merge point creates another.
• Long complicated transfers replace what could be a one seat ride.
• Express service is discontinued at popular destinations.
• Yard access for a particular service is cut off.

If more efficient operations are desired when de-interlining within existing infrastructure would be problematic, then junctions should be considered for reconfiguring.  

These are all important points to keep in mind.  I think that those of us who advocate for more deinterlining are looking to the passenger experience, at least for the majority of passengers, while also contemplating the operational issues involved.

Choosing between  and  service does have real consequences as the two lines run far apart from each other in most of Manhattan and careful considerations need to be made when making those choices, even if one choice seems to fit operations better.

But I don't see the same issue for Southern Brooklyn.  For the majority of passengers, the two lines run within one avenue of each other from 23rd to 59th.  For all of these passengers, for a (possible) small walking penalty, we are providing a far more frequent and consistent riding pattern.  If I work near Times Square and live along the Brighton line, I will walk an extra avenue to board the  or  at 42nd/6Ave, but when I get there, every train on the express platform will get me towards home (as opposed to every other train under the current operating pattern where i would take the  and ignore the  ).  If the first train is busy, then next one will be less.  More trains can run as we removed a merge point.  All of this accomplished for a small extra walk.

Yes, the passengers going to Civic Center, Chinatown, Greenwich Village, Soho, and the 14th St area also need to be considered, but there are significantly less of them.  For many of them, their new station on the 6th Avenue line will still be within a reasonable walk of their old station on the Broadway line, but it is a further walk than the distance of one avenue.  For those that don't want to walk as far, they do have the option of getting even closer with the ability to transfer.  My earlier post outlined the possibilities.  Add to that potential new transfers that the MTA could undertake like Prince-Broadway/Laffayette and Grand-Bowery and we basically addressed every Manhattan destination that is reachable by either the 6th Ave or Broadway lines.

And of course, the Atlantic Ave transfer is still there.  A long number of years ago Atlantic and Pacific were separate stations and there was no free transfer between Brighton and 4th Ave passengers here.  Was it a mistake for MTA to open this transfer as it is so hard that nobody ever takes it?  That simply is not true.

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

West End Riders won't have to transfer twice due to: 

Grand St being close in proximity to Canal St,

Broadway Lafayette is close to Prince St, 

West 4th St is a little bit far from NYU, but would have the to West 4 St via the line. 

From 14 St up, you have Broadway relatively close to 6th Avenue. 

If we add that Prince St Transfer, it'd help contribute to the alternative on 4th Av. 

That's right.  This is important to keep in mind.  The double transfer is not the only way to make this trip, it is only a possible option.

How close is close enough?  In my mind, it is the distance of one midtown avenue.  While other distances are also doable, I could see a little consternation for some of these destinations.

If you are on a 6th Ave express train coming off the Manhattan Bridge, you will have stops at Grand St, Broadway-Laffayette, W4, and a cross platform transfer via   to W 14th.  [I won't discuss the stations north of there, as the Broadway and 6th Ave lines are generally close.]  You have the ability to transfer to  to Lower East Side,  to Brooklyn, and  at W 4th. 

If you are on the Broadway express train, you will have stops at Canal and Union Square.  You have the ability to transfer (not cross-platform until you are north of Union Square) to  for service Downtown or to Broadway local stops,  Downtown or Brooklyn,  , and  to the Upper East Side.  Both 6th Ave and Broadway services provide direct transfers to  .

Now given that the Broadway trains run close in practically all of Manhattan to either the 6th Ave line (23rd and north) or the Lexington line (23rd and south), the fact that the 6th Avenue trains have a direct connection to  means that if I'm on a 6th Ave train, I can get to any destination of the Broadway line with one additional transfer or a very short walk.

The converse is not true.  If I am on a Broadway train and want to go to a 6th Ave destination, I may have more transferring or more walking.  But for the most part, we are talking only about a few stops that aren't in the heaviest zones of travel.  If I want to go to Grand Street, I could walk from Canal or transfer to  and get off at Bowery.  If I want to go to Broadway-Laffayette, a transfer via  or  will get me to that area easily.  If I want to go to 6th/14th, I could walk from Union Square or take the . 

The only trick is really W4th.  A longer walk if I want the neighborhood.  A little harder travel if I want the 8th Ave line.  You could certainly reach it via the  as mentioned above.  Or a transfer at Atlantic.  Or the double transfer in Brooklyn.*  There are options and I do concede that they may be hard or time consuming, but the number of people needing this one station (or even really needing the 8th Ave line) is such a small percentage of the total travel from Southern Brooklyn that is it worthwhile to restrict the number of trains that can pass through DeKalb in order to ensure that both Brighton and 4th Ave each have access to both 6th Ave and Broadway.  I don't believe it to be so.

* While a double transfer does seem inconvenient, keep in mind that with deinterlining every line can run more frequently without conflict.  I could transfer from Q/N to R to B/D just with cross platforms and each line would run frequently.  I have far less waiting at every step of my journey, even though I may have more journeys.  And if you don't like the double transfer, the single transfer at Atlantic is always available.  

13 hours ago, Deucey said:

I really feel like if Grand Street was rebuilt as a 4-track station, or if it and Canal St were replaced with a 4-track station near Canal and The Bowery, this whole problem would be solved by running service to Brooklyn on the southbound bridge tracks and service uptown on the northbound bridge tracks -  would alternate merges in Manhattan and continue on their way to 4th Av Exp/Local on the inside track;  the same to Brighton on the outside track, and no need to line up near Myrtle and wait for clearance since the merge and separation was done beforehand.

It would be very nice to run something along these lines.  Imagine if the tracks could be aligned this way.  Imagine if a station somewhere near the bridge (either in Manhattan or Brooklyn) were there to allow for a cross-platform transfer between 6th Ave and Broadway.   It removes every argument against deinterlining DeKalb.

Notwithstanding this, I still feel that de-interlinining DeKalb is valuable and would still prefer all Brighton trains to 6th Ave and all West End/Sea Beach to Broadway express without this adjustment.  But it would be nice to have.

14 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Phases 3 and 4 in they're current forms is not going to do much to help riders. So on that front its better to build a regional rail tunnel from GCT to Atlantic Terminal, even then, I question the feasibility of building such a tunnel. To make a Transit System that'll work for ALL New Yorkers NOW would require a lot of Capital Investment. Since I have time to kill, I'm going to try to knock as many possible upgrades out of the way, so buckle up:

• We already Started Small with the SPEED Unit. I don't know if the  continued with it (before COVID-19 hit) 
• Fixing our current operation practices which other members of the forum have talked about. 
• Re-Signal Williamsburg and Broadway (Between Canal and DeKalb) so that more TPH could be run. 
• Do some minor De-Interlining. / swap, / swap, / swap. 
• Make every station ADA-Accessible. It ridiculous how the didn't upgrade their stations for ADA-Needs. And if they continue to procrastinate about it, then the community districts need to step in and fund for ADA-Upgrades themselves. 
• Continue with CBTC-Upgrades so that the number of TPH can be increased where ever possible. 

For Rogers and 142nd/149th Street Junction, a Capital "Package Deal" should've been implemented:

• Add Tail Tracks at Flatbush Terminal. This'll require building a New Mezzanine and whatnot
• Rebuild Rogers Avenue Junction itself so that Service goes down Nostrand and Service goes down Utica/New Lots. Doing this makes building Utica Avenue a Hell of a lot easier. 
• CBTC on Lexington, 7th Avenue and Eastern Parkway (past Nevis or Atlantic-Barclays depending on where Lex/7th CBTC is supposed to end)
• Expand 135th Street Station into 3 Track, 2 Island Platform to allow for the implementation of a Harlem Shuttle
• Rebuild the Manhattan Bound tunnel between 149th Street and 135th-Lenox.
• Expand 149th Street-Grand Concourse to support a passenger transfer load Twice or 3x its current size. This'll allow for Service to replace the along Dyre Avenue. Trains would be routed to Burnside and Trains shall become the Peak-Express WPR Service. 
• Build New Interlockings at Burnside Avenue to allow Trains to Terminate. 

This document should provide more context: https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-12/MTA NYCT Subway Speed and Capacity Review_Final Report.pdf

As for the BMT Eastern Division, there's a handful of Upgrades that can be done to allow for a full B Division Integration:

• Platform Extensions on Select BMT Eastern Division Platforms. This would include [Hewes Street, Loimer Street] Flushing Avenue, All Train Stations between Myrtle Avenue and Fresh Pond Road. All Train Platforms (except for 6th Avenue, because its 610 feet long) should be extended to handle AT LEAST 9 Car Trains. 
• Essex Street Should be Expanded to allow for a Greater capacity in both Passenger and Train Movement flow. This'll mean building a New Platform on the current site of the trolley Terminal and re-locating the signal tower. The Platforms should be lengthened to 610 Feet. 
• The curves between the Williamsburg Bridge and Marcy Avenue should be widened. In addition to that, Marcy Avenue Station should be relocated to be directly on top of the Williamsburg Plaza Bus Terminal. Which would then provide direct Subway-Bus Transfers. The interlockings between Marcy Avenue and Hewes Street can then be re-worked to allow trains to easily access the express track while also terminate at this New Williamsburg Station. This new Station should have 2 side platforms at the length of 610 feet. 
• Hewes Street and Loimer Street should be consolidated into one stop at Union Avenue to provide a direct Transfer to the . The Union Avenue Platforms should be 610 feet long. 
• The upper Level of Myrtle Avenue Station should be rebuilt to allow Metropolitan Bound Trains to stop there. This would remove a serious bottleneck and allow for  and Service to be increased. 
• Expanding East New York Yard would be a crucial upgrade for all of this to work, though this'll require eminent domain just east of the Yard and maybe the potential of adding Lay-Up's along Bushwick Avenue between Eastern Parkway and Jamaica Avenue. 
• Atlantic Avenue Station should be rebuilt to a 4 Track, 2 Island Platform given the amount of currently-excess infrastructure there. This space can be used to Short-Turn Trains in case of a delay. 
• Possible 3rd Track extension to Cypress Hills or Woodhaven Blvd with Crescent Street gaining a new Upper Level Express platform. 
• Doing all of this will allow for a 9 or 10 Car Train Length Extension and a 10 Car Train Length Extension. 

Other Infrastructure Upgrades:

• Train Length Extension to 480' 8 Car Trains
• Train Length Extension to 600' 10 Car Trains
• Lex 59-63rd Transfer
• Bowery-Grand Street Transfer
• Re-Work the Interlockings at Astoria-Ditmars Blvd (Reference to PCAC's Plan)
• Re-Signal Broadway between Canal Street and DeKalb Avenue
• Re-Work the interlockings at Jamaica Center-Parsons/Archer on Both Levels. 
• 137th Street or 145th Street Express conversion on the  
• Westchester Square Express conversion  
• Adding New interlockings north of 18th Avenue on the
• Prince Street-Broadway Lafayette Transfer
• Expanding Jamaica Yard by Implementing Tracks on what seems to be vacant Space within the yard itself. 
• Queens Plaza-Queensboro Plaza Transfer via an elevated Passageway from the  Manhattan Bound Platform to the  Mezzanine. 
• Extra Transfer at Court Square for passengers Transferring between the  and . 

These are all of the upgrades that we can do to the current system, there might've been more that I missed so please let me know of that. 

This is a wonderful plan.  Thanks for sharing.  These projects are within reason and could dramatically provide for a really streamlined system.

15 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

The service is not reliable at all on the Manhattan Bridge, most trains don't go through the bridge and can take about 5 minutes just waiting for the correct track alignment to go to their correct destination. I ride the and train going to DeKalb on the Manhattan Bridge, and leaving DeKalb via Manhattan Bridge and it takes about 2-4 minutes over the bridge, and a considerable amount of time around Masstransiscope, usually waiting for a or train to pass first (going into Manhattan), or a or  train going into Brooklyn. Service isn't fast, and not as efficient as you think. 

 

The  should still run on the local tracks, and the still needs to serve Bay Ridge, and the terminal for that would be Whitehall St. The still needs to serve Lower Manhattan, so let it serve Lower Manhattan, unless you just want to put it back on the Bridge? But why would you do that? the is already on the 4th Av local tracks, and if you want a speed journey from Lower Manhattan to Midtown, you still stay on Broadway or take the train. the can't serve everything neither can the  . The  /(N) via Montague serves both East Side, Times Square, and Lower Manhattan. And honestly, I couldn't think of a single section (or station) that could be closed without more cons than pros. 

I see this as a cost saving measure for low traffic times.  Late night service.  Savings of labor to close many low-used stations during the less frequent hours.  Labor costs for running the trains, labor costs for keeping stations open.

Also to the extent that we are providing low level service, which would be better: two services a block apart that are each every 20 minutes, or one service every 10 minutes and the other service closed.  I would choose the latter.  While they do serve different parts of Midtown, they are redundant between the Battery and Union Square.  Most of the time the capacity for both are needed, but at extremely low traffic times, only one is really needed.

Replying to CenSin's post on DOOMSDAY service:

I like this, but I would go even further for bare bones.  I would think that some stations would have to be elminated (as is being done in Philly and Washington DC).  Where stations are closely spaced, people may have to walk to the next station for service.

As far as service, I'm draconian.

 No service south of 34th.  See next line.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Local service in Manhattan, and no service south of 34th, transfer to  or  for service further south in Manhattan.  Use  or  or  to transfer to  for Brooklyn IRT.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 eliminated.  148th and 145th customers need to walk to 135th/Lenox

 Local service, extended to New Lots.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Dyre Ave shuttle.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Service extended into Brooklyn serving local stops to Flatbush Ave/Brooklyn College.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Local service.  No  .  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Inwood to Far Rockaway along the local line.  No service to Lefferts.  Shuttle to Rockaway Park.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Eliminated.

 Eliminated.

 Bronx to West End line along the local lines but using Manhattan Bridge.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 WTC to Jamaica Center along the local lines.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Full line along the local lines, CI to 179.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Smith/9th to Court Square.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Jamaica Center to Fulton St.  (Trains terminate at Broad, but station is closed to passengers).  I want to preserve the transfer to  .  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Local service.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Myrtle Ave shuttle.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Full length of the line.  Express in Manhattan.  (See next line).  Local service in Brooklyn. via Manhattan Bridge.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Full length of the line.  Express in Manhattan.  All local stations on the Broadway BMT to be closed.  Use  for service in the area between Union Square and Atlantic, including Financail District and Downtown Brooklyn.  Customers wanting service at 23, 28, or 49 must walk to another nearby station.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Shuttle from 36St to Bay Ridge.  Some stations closed and people will walk to the next one.

 Franklin shuttle closed.

 eliminated.

 eliminated.

Basically, we are elminating several redundant stations and forcing people to walk.  The 7th Ave line is very close to 6th and 8th Ave services in Manhattan and the  can be used for service to Lower Manhattan to connect to Lexington trains for continuing service to Brooklyn.

The Broadway BMT south of 14th is also largely redundant in Manhattan, so most stations are eliminated.  Trains provide continuing service in order to connect to 2nd Ave, Astoria, and the Brooklyn services.  Use Lexington services to reach the local stations that are skipped.  I was also considering having N and Q Brooklyn service run as 6th Ave services (V and B) that would run to 2nd Ave and 145th St respectively, and eliminating the Broadway BMT entirely, other than a Herald Square to Astoria "shuttle".  But I felt that doing this would be more reasonable.

53 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I would argue that this is the passenger preference at least on 4th Avenue where  trains are far more crowded than  trains. It skewed the other way when the  was Broadway Local full time but went back as soon as it went express again. (I can't speak for Brighton as its not my home line) 

Add on Sea Beach's preference for a full time service to Manhattan (ruling out the ) and you're practically stuck with this arrangement or the local politicians along the line will want your head.

I definitely agree on the Broadway-Lafayette/Prince Street transfer... 

I am content with this conclusion.   and  serve Brighton, but  is a part time train serving the Brighton express.   serves Sea Beach and  serves West End, and both can service the bridge so long as the is in service.

And while the long time operating standard is to serve basically every station even at the very late night hours, I don't believe this to be absolutely necessary.  Yes, service every neighborhood, but no need to service every platform.  That being said, and in light of COVID-19 that will restrict work hours for employees.  Do we really need an overnight service between Atlantic and Canal along the Monague Tunnel?  Could the few people making this trip be served adequately by transferring to the  ?  The  and  run very close in Lower Manhattan (and in reality in all of Manhattan below 14th), both stop at Borough Hall and do connect with all of these services at Atlantic.

1 hour ago, Theli11 said:

The Benefit would be faster service, and more trains that run on time, because of the interlining at DeKalb Junction. The issue is that we'd have to make Broadway Customer's transfer, but that isn't much of an issue since 6th and Broadway are close in proximity. And there's still a transfer at DeKalb, Atlantic, and 34 St. 

And it's not just that there are several transfer opportunities, it's that in the largest parts of Midtown, the 6th Ave and Broadway services run relatively close together.  There is no reason that most people could not walk the distance between any Broadway line station from 23rd to 63rd to any 6th Ave line station from 23rd to 63rd, the largest employment area in the city.  Yes, Broadway people that want CPW need to transfer and 6th Ave people that want 2nd Ave need to transfer as well, but they can do that in Herald Square.  Both groups have a direct transfer to  for trips to Downtown Brooklyn and the Financial District.  So the only areas where there will really be a difference is the area betweeen Canal and 14th and the ability to reach key transfer stations like W4 and Union Sq.  But as I discussed earlier, while these areas the lines are generally farther apart, you can largely get to those areas with one transfer or possibly two easy (cross-platform) transfers.  And again, while there are jobs in this part of town, it is not nearly the same density as 23rd and north.

While I'm supportive of deinterlining DeKalb, not really sure whether it would be better to run Broadway expresses to 4th Ave express or to Brighton.  (But I do posit a theory at the bottom of this post.)

But it does seem like a good idea to isolate the locals as one line.   from Astoria, along the Broadway local, through Lower Manhattan, ending at Bay Ridge.  No interference with other lines in regular service.  Consistent service for passengers from Astoria and Bay Ridge.

The one issue with this is the lack of dedicated yard service, but I believe it would be possible for  trains heading to the yard could run along the Sea Beach to Coney Island when necessary.

Of course doing this means removing  from QBL, which would also be an improvement to allow deinterlining there.  The transfer from 63/Lex to 59/Lex should be installed to be designed well to allow for any QBL 63rd st trains,[  likely both running as QBL expresses] to have access to  and  .  In addition to the already existing cross-platform transfer to the Broadway express  and  .
 

From the perspective of Brooklyn, let's look at what deinterlining DeKalb would mean.  It would mean that both Brighton trains would be exclusive to 6th Ave express and Sea Beach and West End would be exclusive to Broadway express OR both Brighton trains would be exclusive to Broadway express and Sea Beach and West End would be exclusive to 6th Ave express.  If this were to be done, there would be some missed direct connections, but for the most part, through the densest parts of Midtown, they run within one avenue of each other and most passengers who may be inconvenienced would not make new transfers, but rather walk an extra block.  Of course, as pointed out, for those who do really need the other service they still have the option to transfer at Atlantic Ave or 34 st.

But there are other options as well:

If you are on the 4th Ave express and want to go to wherever the Brighton trains are heading in Manhattan, you can also make two cross-platform transfers: to the  at Atlantic and to the Brighton trains heading to Manhattan at DeKalb.  This may be easier than a transfer at Atlantic (it certainly means less walking).

If you are on a 6th Ave express and want to go to East Manhattan stations, you can transfer to  at Broadway-Laffayette.  Between City Hall and Union Square the  runs very close to the Broadway BMT.  [I would also support a new-transfer from Broadway-Laffayette to Prince St  to further this option for people, but it really isn't necessary, given the proximity of  .]

Given the above two paragraphs, it may make more sense to connect Brighton to 6th Ave and Sea Beach/West End to Broadway express, even if this is against the preferences of passengers based on polls. 

If you are on the Brighton-6th Ave line and really want to go to the area of a Broadway stop: transfer to  at DeKalb for service to Downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan; transfer to  at Broadway-Laffayette if you want to go between City Hall and Union Square; walk an avenue between 23rd and 59th;cross-platform transfer to  to reach the 63/Lex area; cross-platform transfer to  and then to  to hit 2nd Ave; transfer at 34 St for service to Astoria.

If you are on West End/Sea Beach-Broadway express line and really want to go to a 6th Ave stop:  cross-platform transfer at Atlantic and then again at DeKalb to hit every 6th Ave line station (especially Grand St, W4 St and transfer to , and Broadway-Laffayette if you want an in-system transfer to  toward Lower East Side ); transfer to  (or ) at Canal to get to Bleeker St station (or Prince St station) for the area near Broadway-Laffayette;  walk an avenue between 23rd and 59th; Transfer at 34 St for service along CPW; cross-platform transfer to  at 63/Lex to continue along QBL.

It seems to me that all the current connections are still totally doable even when you deinterline DeKalb.  For the cost of one additional transfer in most cases, or two cross-platfrom transfers, or a long walk transfer at Atlantic, you can still get everywhere you want.  But deinterlining will allow for a higher train service with more frequency and less crowding.

I've always envisioned LRTs as being a possibility for NYC, but it has to be very well planned and essentially a separate system from the subways.  Essentially a high capacity bus system, but with tracks.  At-grade, with an occasional grade separation, and with dedicated ROW.

It would work on only the widest streets and avenues, where a lane can be spared, ideally in the median of two-way streets.  Of course it would not be on corridors that are duplicataed by the subway.

To the extent that Northern Blvd is feasible for it, and a subway is deemed too costly, you can basically remake Northern Blvd.  One lane in each direction for cars, room for parking/loading, but strict adherence to prohibition of double parking.  Then, there would be room for tracks in the median that are dedicated to transit.  But in no way should this extend into Manhattan.  The line should terminate at Queens Plaza area and provide transfers to the subway there.

I can see a similar LRT along other wide outer borough streets: Pelham Parkway, Woodhaven, Kings Highway, Linden Blvd.  It may also work along expressway medians, if the expressways can be widened into the ROW of the service roads.

52 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

@RR503 The only reason I would ever ride QB local is if my feet hurt a lot and I am exhausted, and even then, I am party to taking the  or bailing for the express at Queens Plaza or Roosevelt. We really need to market deinterlining in Queens as adding a whole new tunnel's worth of capacity for only modifying service patterns with minor capital investments. We could compare the cost of building new tunnels vs. Lex 59/63 transfer + Astoria improvements + M to 10 car, and there is no contest.

Right.  This is so true.  This is the whole reason to advocate for deinterlining:  more trains, less crowding.  Can be done within budget constraints.  realistic.  Achievable in the short term.  fewer merging delays. fewer cascading delays. etc.

Basically, for the cost of possibly adding in one additional transfer in people's commutes or walking the extra distance of about an avenue we can achieve a significant service improvement.  Yes, fewer people will have one seat rides, but that's OK.

While I love people's extesion ideas that are posted here, I realize that most will not even be considered seriously by MTA for at least 30 years.  If we want improvements soon, we have to rearrange the existing service better.  Small improvements like adding switches and creating new transfers could make deinterlining really achievable.

28 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I will agree 59th is a terrible merge, but I didn’t know the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

Yes, if CPW were to be deinterlined, I would prefer for the locals to go to 8th Ave and the expresses to 6th. But if so, then I’d consider the possibility of an “8th Avenue flip.” This would call for the  to be the CPW/8th Ave Local between 168th and WTC (extended to 207th late nights) and the  and  to be the 8th Avenue Express trains to both Brooklyn and Queens (QBL). The  would keep the same route in Brooklyn, while the  would replace the  to the Rockaways and Lefferts. The  would replace the  as the express to/from 207 and the  would become a dual  /  service on Concourse during rush hours similar to the  /  and  /  operations.

See, I think you can get away with fully deinterlining CPW, because you don’t have a major transfer point with another subway line in the middle of the line and a diverging route before the final transfer point. This is in strong contrast to QBL, which has both (transfer to  in the middle of the line and the  diverging into the 63rd St Tunnel before Queens Plaza). With that in mind, that’s why I don’t really think you can get away with fully deinterlining QBL and why you’ll need both an 8th and a 6th service on the QB local. And unless the MTA are willing to make the investment in lengthening the original  line station platforms for 10-car trains (which certainly won’t be happening in the foreseeable future now), I don’t really think you can get away with running the  express on QBL to Jamaica Center or 179th.

Just to clarify, are you proposing the following:

 Forest Hills - QBL local -53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton local to Euclid

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton express to Lefferts or Rockaways

 168th St-  CPW local - 8 Ave local - WTC

 207/Inwood - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 Concourse (all stops) - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 Concourse express - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 179th - QBL express - 63 - 6 Ave local - Culver line

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63 - 6 Ave local - Willy Br - Myrtle Ave

This seems to work, so long as  has enough capacity to be the sole line to service the CPW local and that 6 Ave express would have to be divided into three services to service  and  .  [It should, especially considering that the CPW locals are not as crowded as  since CPW runs alongside the park.  Plus, I have nothing against splitting the express 3 ways as I have a proposal out there to split the QBL express three ways to equally serve Jamaica Center, 179 locals, and 179 express.]

I understand the difficulties of deinterling QBL, so that all stations would have access to both 8th Ave and 6th Ave service, but I'm concerned that without deinterlining there won't be enough capacity to handle the demand of QBL.  QBL is really a tough call, but I concede that even without deinterlining, QBL service is bound to improve by divorcing QBL from the Broadway BMT.

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

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.