mrsman

There is still a benefit in being able to run more trains along other busy sections of lines that could use more capacity, but are otherwise constrained.

THe most direct beneficiary of that would be the Queens Blvd line itself.  One of the constraints based on current operations is that Forest Hills can only turn back 20 TPH, not 30 TPH.  If 10 TPH diverts from QBL local onto Queenslink, and 20 TPH can still run to Forest Hills, you can run 30 TPH on the QBL local track west of Rego Park.

(Of course another constraint is the interlined nature of the QBL approaches to Manhattan.  So perhaps the extra service to run would be re-extending the  train back to Forest Hills and sending either  or  down Queenslink to Rockaway Park.)

I would also suggest that a growing secondary CBD that should be better served is Long Island City.  As that area grows, there certainly can be more of a need for intra-borough trips within Queens.  The Queenslink will certainly improve the trip time between Ozone Park and Long Island City and would also improve travel times to Jamaica (with a transfer to  ).  

As a short term exercise without too many changes for the system as a whole, one can make the following changes in order to allow more trains to run along the Broadway BMT:

 No changes

 Run along the 53rd street tunnel between Queens and Manhattan

 Northern terminal 57th/6.  (I.e. no longer continue to Queens Blvd)

 No changes.

 Follows  to 63rd street and then continues in the tunnel to Queens to serve Roosevelt Island and 21St-Queensbridge and continue to Forest Hills as a QBL local service.

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - 4 Av local - Bay Ridge.  [CI Yard wil serve as the yard for these trains and any out of service train will use gaps in Sea Beach service to reach the yard.]  As R is the only Astoria service, it should see an increase in service.

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Whitehall.  These trains will use Jamaica Yard.

The above will have the N and W joint together in Queens, but after the R departs from the trackway to QBL, so the merger is easier than the current mess at Herald Square.  From the Queens perspective,  replaces  but does so with a higher capacity (longer trains).  The above gets rid of a few very bad merges in Manhattan and Queens and generally does not change ridership patterns except for replacing the QBL local - 6th Ave service with an additional QBL local - Broadway service.

There is so much that was said about the Fulton and Rockaway services over the past few days, that I wanted to chime in a little.

I think there is definitely a capacity problem for the Fulton line.  But it isn't going to be solved until there is a dedicated connection between the Fulton local and Manhattan.  Right now, the full capacity of one line through the Cranberry tunnel is split between local and express service.

There are only two ways to increase the number of trains running on the Fulton line:

a) New tunnel connection from Fulton local to another line.  Most likely this means a connecion through Court Street to Lower Manhattan (to SAS or to Montague or to the 8Ave local to WTC), but it could potentially be to other lines .

b) Local service running in Brooklyn only.  RPA has made this suggestion.  Local trains serving as a Court (or Hoyt) to Euclid and all passengers will need to transfer to the express for service to Manhattan.  It means that both  and  will continue beyond Euclid, but at the cost of inconiencing all local passengers between Hoyt and Euclid and forcing them to make transfers to the express.

Barring either of those will mean that only a portion of the Cranberry trains will make it past Euclid* and unless a shuttle operation were created, that reduced train frequency will potentially be split in multiple ways.  I don't think either Lefferts passengers or Rockaway peninsula passengers would be happy with a shuttle and a forced transfer to  at Rockaway Blvd.

* This assumes that no reverse branching occurs at Euclid to put both  and  back on the elevated over Liberty Ave, or that new service branches off either the FUlton local or Fulton express to go to somewhere else beyond Euclid.  This likely means a long subway under Pitkin to continue to the casino or a short subway udner Pitkin to Conduit, with an elevated over Conduit to connect to the RBB, but closing down casino access permanently.

6 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Ig I'm a bit out of the loop on the IBX as a whole.

I understand as of right now it would be a light rail aimed at better connecting Brooklyn and Queens via existing tracks that are abandoned or just rarely used.

Would it be integrated with the rest of the subway system in the sense it's free transfer. Would it appear on the subway map as an actual route (perhaps in a thinner line)? Would it still have the turnstiles like the subways do or would there be its own payment system?

I actually like the idea of a light-rail; they can add a "charm" of sorts to neighborhoods and feel a lot lighter while still being relatively high capacity. The Hudson-Bergen Light Rail in Jersey City just increases the vibes idk how else to put it.

I would hope so.  It's probably more likely to be treated as an SBS bus for fare purposes since it likely won't have stations with turnstyles so people can go in and out without a fare control.  So there is probably a possiblity of a bus-LR free transfer and a LR-subway free transfer but probably not a bus-LR-subway free transfer, which is unfortunate as I can envision a lot of people will need a bus connection to get to the light rail.

On 12/26/2022 at 5:07 PM, TMC said:

This is another advantage of de-interlining. Weekend work on a specific segment of track won’t require the entire system to run reduced service. Weekend service as it stands is atrocious, and needs to increase to every 6 minutes. If one or two trunks are down for maintenance, and requires the reduced service, the rest of the system could keep on running with 6 minute service, meaning the “alternative routes” the MTA suggests become actual alternatives…

This is a brilliant point and one that unfortunately does not get repeated enough regarding the benefits of deinterlining.  Other benefits are that there are increased opportunities to get the train that you want from any specific station.  For most passengers, delays are a far bigger compaint than having to make an additional transfer.

My way of deinterlining would be roughly as follows:

8th Ave express:   unchanged.   Concourse line - CPW express - 8th Ave express - Fulton local to Euclid.  Add a platform extension to allow for trains to stop at 50th street. 

8th Ave local:  Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd - WTC

6th Ave express:  168th - CPW local - Brighton local.   BPB - Concourse rush hour local - CPW local - Brighton express. 

6th Ave local:  Jamaica Center,   179th Hillside local,   179th Hillside express.  All three merge into the express tracks before Forest Hills and follow 63rd st and 6th Ave local.   will follow Culver local to CI.  Depending on time of day, some  or  trains can run to Church as Culver expresses, run to Church as Culver locals to supplement the , or some may terminate at 2nd/Houston to avoid congestion at Church.

train will normally run to Kings Highway so as to not interfere with any of the Culver express services that terminate at Church.  If F and V are coming from Manhattan, the V can leave the Culver main to the express tracks at the point that the G merges into the Culver main to reduce delays.   

M will unfortunately have to revert to Chamberst Street.  The numerous merges involved with its service allows for too many possibilities of delay.

Broadway express:   and both originate at 96th and will follow Broadway express and 4th Ave express to either West End  or Sea Beach  

Broadway local: Astoria - Broadway local - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge.  Even though there is no dedicated yard, BMT has run such a service successfully for many years.  trains can easily merge into either N or Q line for non-revenue moves in Brooklyn to access Coney Island Yard.

7 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I rode the  from Pelham Pkwy to Times Square many times, so I can’t even start to tell you how many years it took off my life. With that said, I do think skipping the seven stops in between East 180th and 3rd Ave, might make some difference, though maybe not as much as taking a  thru express between PP and Grand Central. At least it seemed to whenever the  expresses I rode got sent down 7th Ave. For me, the biggest problem with the WPR  was that its headways were somewhat inconsistent, especially during pm rush. At least an 8 thru express service via 7th Ave would be able to run on more consistent headways. And it would run in addition to the Dyre  express.

 

Sounds like your proposal is to split the 8 service off of the  instead of the  like in the MTA’s proposal. If 148th St can handle 20 tph of the  and 8 services, then yes, you can still have WPR  express service. But I’m not sure 148 can handle more than the current  service because the station is located past a sharp curve and the crossovers are located on the other side of that curve. And there are no tail tracks within the station. So you currently have a similar situation with the  at 148 like how the  and  trains enter and leave Stillwell Ave from their respective platforms. Adding eight more trains per hour at peak might not be feasible.

My proposal isn't to run additional trains to 148th, it is to vary the existing trains at 148th to allow for some to head to Flatbush and some to head to New Lots.  The 148th-New Lots trains will be called [8], and the 148th-Flatbush trains would be called  .   The proposed number of [8] trains plus the proposed number of  trains would be equal to the current number of  trains, at least with respect to the northern terminal.

I think the MTA rightfully recognizes that CBTC would make it easier to run 30 TPH along the 7th Ave express and the Lex express.  They also realize that some realignment of the northern terminals as well as operations around Rogers Jct are needed to accommodate the increased service pattern.  

Let's take another stab.  Northern terminals:

241 St  16 tph

Nereid  7 tph

Dyre  7 tph

Woodlawn  16 tph

148th  4 tph.

148th [8]  10 tph

If the above is planned, you can run  +  +   at 30 tph for the tracks approaching 3 Av/149th.  You can also run 30 TPH on the  +  +  Lex express and the  +  + [8] 7th Ave express.

Then when these trains head to Brooklyn, the track geometries allow for some of the Lexington trains to short turn by way of Bowling Green, so as not to overwhelm the Brooklyn terminals.*  The three existing terminals cannot turn back a combined total of 60 tph, even with improvements.  So we have the following for our southern terminals:

Flatbush  16 tph

Flatbush  4 tph

Utica Ave  16 tph

Bowling Green   4  tph

New Lots  3 tph

New Lots   7 tph

New Lots [8]  10 tph.

This amounts to service every 6 min for Nostrand and Kingston stations, while providing 20 tph to New Lots, 16 tph to Utica, and 20 tph to Flatbush with 4 tph short turning.

*(I also think that the center track just after Nevins should also be considered as a means to short-turn Lexington trains, so more trains can run to Brooklyn, even if those trains can't run all the way to the terminals.  The busiest segments of most Brooklyn-Manhattan subways are along the east river tunnels, so we want maximum throughput there.)

On 10/25/2022 at 8:36 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I really think it makes more sense just to have a single  service with 12 tph running to/from Dyre Avenue. I assume the  mentioned in the previous two posts is the Dyre 5 and the  is the WPR 5. As someone who rode the White Plains Road line most of my life, I don’t really think the line needs 24 tph made up of the ,  and 8. It can certainly use more than it currently has, but not that much more. I think it would be sufficient to run the  and 8 services for a total of 18 tph. The 8 can run peak express alongside the  so that there can still be a Bronx Thru Express from WPR. And it would be a much more consistent service than the current  service is.

Yes.  That could also work.

Conceptually, I believe the goal is to run as many trains on the Manhattan trunks of the IRT express lines and relieve the intermingling at Rogers by having all Flatbush trains running local along Eastern Parkway (and heading to the 7th Ave express), and having New Lots primarily served by Lexington express trains.  Lexington trains have the ability to short-turn at Bowling Green (by traveling along the South Ferry outer loop).  So most 7th Ave trains (2 and 3) will go to Flatbush and the excess 7th Ave trains [8] will continue to New Lots.  The provision of [8] trains heading for New Lots would mean that there would not be as great of a need to send as many Lexington trains there, so some Lexington trains will short-turn, either at Utica or at Bowling Green.

What does this mean for the north end of the lines?  Well, of course, some 7th Ave trains will go to 148th and some Lexington trains will go to Woodlawn and the remaining terminals (Dyre, Nereid, 241) could have some combination of 7th or Lex trains that serve them.  Nothing in the track geomerty along the 149th/Westchester/Southern/Boston Rd portion of the 2/5 line would dictate whether Lex trains or 7th Ave trains go express, and while there is a track preference for Dyre Ave going local, the long-standing practice is Dyre Ave express and WPR local.

With all that being said, one can envision a network that GENERALLY would go as follows, but still allowing some trains to go to alternate terminals on a semi-regular basis if there is some congestion.

 241 - Flatbush

 148 - Flatbush

Nereid - Flatbush

[8]  148 - New Lots

 Woodlawn - Utica (or New Lots)

 Dyre - New Lots (or Bowling Green)

On 10/21/2022 at 4:44 PM, zacster said:

Right now the and run a combined 14tph at rush hour from E180, half from each branch.  If they turned 4 of those at BG that would solve for the missing trains.  I just checked again after writing that first statement, and they indeed turn 4 trains at BG in the peak hour.  This in the AM.   In the PM, there are 10 trains per hour leaving GC towards Brooklyn.  There are 3 trains that start at BG in the PM rush northbound.  The bottom line though is that 10 trains per hour go to/from Brooklyn max, with extras from BG to serve the peak direction to/from the Bronx.

What I don't get is the 20tph on the .  If that is the case, 14tph on the won't work as that'll exceed the 30tph total on the line.

I think that speaks to the heart of the problem.  The report will reduce  service from 14 tph to 10 tph, which would not be adequate to service both Nereid and Dyre during rush.

So what to do?   Some adjustments are in order.

 10 tph,  12 tph, [8] 8 tph.  This means This means 30 tph along the 7th Ave express.  22 tph to Flatbush and 8 tph to New Lots. 

 18 tph,  6 tph,  6 tph.  This means 30 tph along the Lexington express.  4 tph  trains will terminate at Bowling Green, allowing 14 pth   to Utica and 12 tph   /    proceeding to New Lots.

The total to New Lots would be 20 tph.  This also means 30 tph for the Bronx line at its busiest point (between Grand Concourse and 3rd Ave).  

The crux for all of this is improving the termination at Flatbush to allow for more trains there.  But it would save construction costs at Rogers Jct.

On 10/11/2022 at 11:35 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed…if Transit is seriously considering deinterlining Rogers without doing multi-billion dollar construction on Eastern Parkway and Nostrand Avenue that’s sure to create even bigger blowback than if Transit were to ask Nostrand riders to transfer at Franklin for Lexington Ave service. I’m assuming the point of the red ( 8 ) service is so that they can run 30 tph on the 7th Ave Express and not have to build new switches to permit either the  or  to switch from express to local to stop at Nostrand and Kingston, while the other Lexington train continues express to Utica. You’ll still have a merge between the  and ( 8 ) after Utica, but I’m guessing that’s a much easier merge than today’s  merge at Franklin.

It seems to be the exact point.  While it is certainly ideal to prevent as many of the reverse merges as possible, if a reverse merge has to happen, it is far better for that merge to happen at a point where there are fewer trains to deal with, and ideally further away from Lower Manhattan, so that fewer trains and passengers are affected.

If CBTC can allow for 30 TPH on both the 7th Ave express and the Lex express, that's wonderful, but the trains have to go somewhere.  Under the current ops,  trains interfere with every 7th Ave train at Franklin.  But under the proposal,  will only interfere with 8, leaving  and  to be largely spared from the merging issues.

In any event, I am glad that MTA is considering the issue, since I believe it will ultimately be helpful and would cause fewer delays for IRT in Brooklyn. Ultimately, a new service pattern needs to be tried out for like 6 months to see if the changes actually improve trip times for both trains and passengers.

There is definitely a lot of possibilities with running 8 train service.  

To reiterate from the report:

 12 TPH

 12 TPH

 20 TPH

 10 TPH

[8]      6 TPH

The baseline basically separates Flatbush and New Lots trains as much as possible.  Run as many 7th Ave trains that can be turned at Flatbush, and any excess will continue to New Lots.  At the same time, run all of the Lexington trains to Brooklyn regularly with  to Utica and  to New Lots.  The overall impact of the proposed change means far fewer conflicting movements in Brooklyn.  The only trains "reverse merging" are 8 and 5.

I imagine that the 8 train is basically a  train in every way, other than its Brooklyn terminal, heading to New Lots instead of Flatbush.  In the Bronx,  and 8 are both run from as local with   serving as the rush hour expresses of the Bronx line.  With only 10 TPH, there seems to be no more room for  trains, so perhaps those are also to be replaced with 8 trains.

On 9/8/2022 at 3:34 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Number 4 is the best service plan IMHO. Number 3 is basically the MTA's current plan, which will leave the SAS south of 72nd with much less frequent service, though not as bad as in Number 2's  plan. At least in Number 1, you can have frequent service with both the  and  for most of 2nd Ave. But I'd much rather leave the 2010-16 Broadway service pattern in the scrap heap of subway service plans where it belongs. Broadway was a complete shit show during those years with both the 34th and Prince switches in regular use. Let's not revisit that again. 

I think if there's a 63rd St-SAS service, it should run express alongside the . So perhaps

 via 63rd and Queens Blvd express with the  replacing the  to Jamaica Center.* The  would remain unchanged.

  via 53rd and Queens Blvd local, with both turning at 71st-Continental and the  continuing to South Brooklyn via the  line.

 rerouted to Astoria. In order for it to have a yard at one end, either build connecting tracks from the 4th Ave local tracks to 38th Street Yard in South Brooklyn, or do the Vanshnook reroute proposal like so,

Deinterlining with One Switch

*However, if the  replaces the , then it has to run 10-car trains, which would require lengthening the current  platforms in Brooklyn and South Queens to accommodate 10-car trains. So one possible way around that could be to run the  as the 63rd-SAS service and run the  from Essex all the way up 2nd Ave. I think you could get away with 8-car  trains if it's running alongside the  on upper 2nd Ave and the  on lower 2nd Ave.

This is all quite interesting.  I could see  service being a useful complement on a SAS service.

I, of course, like to see a more de-interlined system, particularly for the B division, so if I had to provide a link from M to Midtown somewhere, running M up SAS may be useful, if the following is done with the rest of the B division.

 Unchanged.

 168 St - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - Sea Beach.

 205 St - Concourse (rush hour express) - CPW express - 8 Av express - Euclid

 (Concourse rush hour local) [168 St other times] - CPW local - 6 Av express - 4 Av express - [vanshnook's switch] - Bay Ridge

 71 Av - QBL local - 53 - 8 Av local - WTC

 71 Av - QBL local - 53 - 6 Av local - Culver

  96 St/2 Av - 2 Av - Williamsburg Bridge - Met Ave

 179 St - QBL express - 63 - Broadway express- Brighton express

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 63 - Broadway express - Brighton local 

 Astoria - 60 - Broadway local - 4 Av local - West End line

 96 St/2Av - 2 Av - Fulton Seaport

 57 St/6 Av - 6 Av local - Culver express

So a brief explanation.  The Brooklyn routings of BDNQR trains are in line with the vanshnook plan of deinterlining DeKalb and the Broadway line with the addition of a switch on the 4 Av line just south of 36 St station.  This allows Bay Ridge trains to have access to the Concourse yard via 6 Av and Astoria trains access to CI yard via the West End line.  All trains going through the DeKalb station are no longer intermingled since all Brighton trains head for Broadway express, all 4 Av express trains head for 6 Av express, and all 4 Av local trains head to the Montague tunnel and Broadway local.  At the same time, Broadway service is separated since all Broadway locals head to Astoria and all Broadway expresses head to 63rd st tunnel.

As Broadway trains take up all the capacity of 63rd st tunnel, we no longer have 6 Av trains using that tunnel, so some 6 Av trains, represented by  simply terminate at 57/6 Av.  57/6 Av will be a part time station, as  will be a part time service, only serving as an express supplement for the southern portion of during the busiest times.

and  service the whole SAS line north of Houston St station.  The key problem with SAS is that it has poor connections to much of the rest of the system.  If it is infeasible to route  onto the Nassau tracks south of Chambers, then at the very least there should be a  station that is connected with the main Fulton St station so that  passengers can transfer to all of the trains that are served there, and vice versa.  Likewise,  doesn't have an easy connection to any part of Midtown, other than the far east side, so at a minimum, better connections need to be made with the Lexington stations at 42nd and 51/53 st to provide access to central and western midtown.  These connections create connections to   for both  and .  

I also envision a great Northeast Midtown station complex (maybe known as Bloomingdale's transfer).  The existing  station at 59th/Lex will connect with the  station at 60th/Lex which will connect with a   station that runs from 59th to 61st which will connect with the 63rd/Lex station that will service  and  trains.  This is the first CBD station for every subway coming from the Upper East Side and most of Queens*  and will allow access to SAS, Lexington, or Broadway stations in Midtown.  A station complex like this could easily be the second or third busiest station in the entire system, since it will facilitate so many transfers.

* most of Queens:  Astoria line passengers have direct access to this station complex.  A good number of  line passengers will transfer at 74 St or QBP to trains with access to the station complex.  The new QBL expresses,  and  will have access to this station complex.  QBL local passengers who transfer to the express at Roosevelt will also have access to the station complex, but not those who board west of Roosevelt or who decide not to transfer to the express.  But those Queens passengers will have access to   at 53rd street station.

8 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Source: https://new.mta.info/20YN

Anyone notice how difficult it is to get to the planned 2 Avenue line from anywhere else? Suppose this is the last stretch of 2 Avenue the MTA will manage in our lifetimes, there are awfully few convenient ways to access it:

• : Lexington Avenue/53 Street — a long walk to the next avenue and streets
• 
  • Lexington Avenue/63 Street — a transfer to the for points north of 63 Street
  • 2 Avenue — a transfer to the for points between 63 Street and Houston Street
• : 3 Avenue
• : 57 Street–7 Avenue — a transfer to the for points north of 63 Street, backtracking on the otherwise
• 
  • 125 Street — only useful for those coming from the Bronx
  • Grand Central–42 Street — (see below)
• : Grand Central–42 Street — an even longer walk than the and riders will have to suffer

That leaves out which will require a two-legged transfer. Granted, they are all one transfer away from a Lexington Avenue alternative running two blocks west of the Second Avenue line. That’s unfortunate for the new line, because every other north south line in Manhattan currently has connections to every other north south lines—all of them tied together at Fulton Street and a subset of them in the South Bronx. Even assuming the line gets extended west, It makes me wonder if the MTA plans to have Second Avenue grow all of its ridership at the expense of the Bronx end of the Lexington Avenue and grow no further.

This is true and it is a consequence of not having enough real connections to the east.  The crosstown subways do not have any entrance east of 3rd Ave.

This is one reason why I favor a 3rd Ave alignment in Midtown.  Even with the existing line in place, a new line could be branched from the existing  by going west on 68th and south onto 3rd.

The first station on 3rd would be at 61st street.  This platform would have a connection to  's Lexington station as well as  's Lexington station.  The new platform can be in use as a way to provide an in-system transfer between Lex/63rd and Lex/59.  The Northeast Midtown station complex would thus provide connections to SAS, Lex local and express, 63rd st line and 60th st line (which are currently connected with Broadway and 6th Ave services).  This would be well connected.  This one station complex would provide connection to every trunk line in Manhattan except 7th and 8th and allow access to all of the Upper East Side and much of Queens.

The next station at 53rd would provide direct connection to the current  station.

The next station at 42nd would provide direct connection to all the services at Grand Central with less walk.

I envision stations at 34th and 23rd.  In a nod to history, the line should turn east for a block at 23rd because the island gets significantly wider to the east at that point.  (This is why the old 2nd ave el moved from 2nd to 1st at 23rd.)  South of 23rd, the subway should get back to the 2nd Ave alignment to provide better connections to Houston  and Grand St  .

Further south, the promise of better connections, I feel, is a good reason why  should take over the Nassau line south of Chambers, so it has access to all the transfers at Fulton.  If that is not feasible, then at least, a station at Fulton/South Seaport should be consructed in such a way to make it an easier walk and a free transfer to the current Fulton St station.

^^^^

WIth the one-way tolling of NJ, a little more thought has to be put into those crossings.

Tolls on Outerbridge, Goethals, Bayonne are $13.75 NY bound and free in the other direction.

Tolls on GWB are $13.75 NY bound and free in the other direction.

Tolls on Lincoln/Holland are $16.10 NY bound and $8.05 in the other direction.  These charges are partially creditable.  If one crosses from NJ to NY on Lincoln/Holland, their return trip on Lincoln/Holland would be fully creidted (or free) if done within 24 hours.  Likewise if one crosses from NY to NJ and pays $8.05, half of the return toll on the Lincoln/Holland would be credited if they make the return trip within 24 hours. 

But the payment of the toll at Lincoln/Holland should have no credit effect at all towards a charge for crossing 60th or the East River.  So if I start in NJ and take the Lincoln, I pay $16.10, and then I take the Midtown tunnel to Queens, I pay an additional $8.05 without credit.  If I then make the reverse trip back to NJ within 24 hours, I will pay an additional $8.05 on the Midtown tunnel, but my return trip on the Lincoln Tunnel would be free.  As a second example, if I start in Queens and take the Midtown, I pay $8.05 and then I take the Lincoln, I pay an additional $8.05.  If I make the return trip within 24 hours, my crossing of the Lincoln would be discounted at $8.05 and my crossing of the Midtown tunnel would also be $8.05.  So regardless of how I make the trip, if I make a roundrtip between Queens and NJ by way of Midtown in peak times within 24 hours my total toll would be $32.20.  If I do the same roundtrip by way of GWB and RFK bridges, my toll would be only 6.55+13.75+ 6.55 = $26.85, a savings of $5.35.

And for similar reasons, the toll at GWB should not allow for a credit toward a charge for crossing 60th or the East River.

There is so much wrong with the plans that they are proposing.

What really needs to happen is a wholesale review of all tolling in the Metropolitan area and improvise a system that charges for travel in the CBD, but no so much that no one would go there.

OK, the current one-way EZ-Pass toll on Port Authority crossings is $13.75, with discounts for off-peak usage.  (And premiums for buses and turcks and other heavy vehicles.)  For MTA crossings like Triboro and  Verrazano, the NY EZ-Pass toll is $6.55 each way or $13.10 round trip.   While this isn't cheap, it is a fair toll and should be the basis of a regional tolling system.  This means that a base toll at all crossing points should really be in the $6.50 range each leg, with a slight premium (maybe 20%) for crossing into the CBD.

Tolls on the MTA crossings (Verrazano, RFK, Whitestone, Throgs Neck): $6.55 each way.

Tolls on Midtown and Cary Tunnels: $8.05 each way.  6.55 toll and 1.50 congestion pricing charge.

General congestion charge: $8.05 each way.  This means that crossing 60th street or crossing Brookklyn.Manhattan/Williamsburg/Queensboro bridges (and not going directly onto FDR or from queensboro to north of 60th) would be subject to an $8.05 charge each time.  

The tolls of the RFK and Henry Hudson Bridges should be fully creditable with the congestion charge.  So if someone crosses from Bronx to Harlem on RFK and pays $6.55, and then they later drive down 2nd Ave to cross 60th street and head to Midtown, the charge that they pay when crossing into Midtown should be $1.50.  For the reverse trip, a driver from Midtown will pay $8.05 when crossing 60th and would then have a free crossing when reaching either the Henry Hudson or the RFK.

One immediate effect of the crediing, is that it will push more traffic onto the RFK and HH bridges and relieve some traffic from the free Broadway, Third Ave, and Willis Ave bridges.  People will take the more direct routing when there is no financial penalty.  The free bridges between Bronx and Upper Manhattan would be for more of the local traffic, not the traffic bound to Midtown.

I imagine something similar for the NJ crossings, adjusted for the fact that tolls are normally only charged in one direction.

On 8/9/2022 at 10:55 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think @Trainmaster5 was talking about the  line riders who transferred there for 6th or 8th Ave service after that transfer opened in 1988. They had other options for West Side service.

As for Queenslink, I'm in favor of it as long as they don't cram the  on QBL. I know there are some people who pine for the  to come back to Forest Hills and believe the MTA greatly underestimated the demand for it when they cut it to Court Square, and accuse riders who point out there is far more demand for Manhattan-bound service of being selfish (happened to me on Reddit). But I'm not going to back off from that. Three locals on QBL is going to be a tight squeeze, especially if two of them will still be terminating at 71st Ave. My objection to running the  via Queenslink is that it already has too many merges and it's the first to go and the last to come back when QBL shits the bed (which is often). With a truncated  (to Whitehall or City Hall), at least you have a seven-day train that is less likely to get the boot in a service meltdown and you're able to preserve the ability to run three services on acceptable headways whenever one or two tracks is out of service for construction.

Though I do wonder how Queenslink/RBB would be integrated into a deinterlined QBL.

A deinterlined QBL in my book means that the locals run to 53rd and the expresses run to 63rd.  For simplicity,  and  are locals and  and  and Orange-H are expresses.  [M is relegated to teh brown M Nassau service.]

Regardless of how the QBL connects with Manhattan, one can add some switches in the Rego Park area to deinterline the east side of the QBL.  

I would do the following:

Make Woodhaven an express stop.  This makes it easier to permit transfers between QBL local - Rockaway trains and QBL express - Jamaica trains.

Send all the locals to the RBB.  This would provide enough frequency on the RBB line to service the different Rockaway branches, to Rockaway Park and to Far Rockaway.  Both services would run as 8th Ave locals that terminate at WTC.   

Add a switch between local and express tracks east of where the RBB splits off.  This will allow three types of service to be run:

 Jam Ctr - QBL express (skips Briarwood, 75 Av, 67 Av) - 63rd - 6 Av local - Culver - CI.

Orange - H.  179th - Hillside local (makes all stops through 67 Av) - merges into express, 63rd - 6 Av local - 2 Av/Houston.  

 179th - Hillside/QBL  express (only stops at Sutphin, Union Turnpike, Forest Hills, Roosevelt) - 63rd - 6 Av local - Church Ave.  During rush hours,  can run express in Brooklyn between Jay St and Church Ave.

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Out of all the things that was mentioned in the assessments, the CPW-SAS connection is what stood out to me the most. I've gone ahead talking about the advantages with this connection and how it would be a really good investment even surprised they would ever consider such to begin with and I'm glad it's acknowledged. I dare say it's a better investment compared to the other three 125 St crosstown extensions as there is a lot more that can be taken advantage in this scenario.

I agree.  Not only will this allow the 2nd Ave line access to a yard at the northern end (Concourse Yard or 207th Yard and some of the smaller yards that CPW trains can reach), but this will also allow for emergency reroutes of IND trains if there are problems on 6th or 8th.  If the trains are to be put into revenue service going uptown, then it can provide access for Washington Heights and Concourse customers to the Upper East Side.  My preference would be that trains from 207th will lead to the Upper East Side, since Concourse folks could transfer at 161St to 4.  This would mean that  OR would extend to 168th.     and  would both extend to 207th as 8th Ave expresses, with the only distinction being Fulton local/express.   and  from the Concourse line will run exclusively on the CPW local tracks to the 6th Av express tracks.  

Looking at this map, focusing on the 125th to 135th segment.

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf

Allow  and  to operate on the orange tracks as the express.   and  will connect to the black tracks which should be extended to the tunnel uner the other tracks leading to the Concourse line.  will connect to the outer blue tracks at some point north of where the locals connect with the black tracks.   will have its own new platform at 125th to provide connections to the other trains.

Or if they continue the interlined mess, allow  to join the  once  trains diverge toward the Bronx.  

I'm not a fan of to Red Hook.  I agree that if we diverge out of the Montague tunnel, a more useful routing would be to send some of the Broadway locals to Euclid.   to Red Hook would be interesting though, especially if we had a BMT/IND/IRT transfer station at 4th and 9th in Brooklyn.

Reddit has some good pictures of a track bridge over teh 149th-GC station that is being used to facilitate construction of an elevator:

It led me to thinking about the possibilites of implementing similar track bridge along the 50th st station of the AC line in order to better incorporate deinterlining along CPW.  My comment on reddit is below:

Thank you for posting this picture as it allows us to see what is going on. It really gives more space to the station.

Add'l thoughts:

1) Could something like this be made permanent if new switches between express and local track were added just to the south of the station? IMO, the only reason to run any trains on express track is to make the merge with easier, will stop at 138th and will not, so it allows to merge into the stream of traffic behind a 4 if they both arrive at the same time.     

2) This rail bridge has given me other ideas in hypothetical plans. A de-interlining plan to have AC run express on CPW and BD run local.* This avoids merging issues at Columbus Circle. AC continue as the 8th Ave express while E runs as the sole 8th Ave local. AC continue toward the Cranberry tunnel and E terminates at WTC, thereby avoiding the merges at Canal St as well. This has one small problem with regards to no access to 50th st station, since both A and C would skip it on the 8th Av express tracks. But what if the 8th Ave local tracks were simply closed in the area (i.e. blocked from trains running through). This means that any Downtown train on the local tracks at 59th must continue toward 53rd st and follow BD line and any Uptown train on the local tracks at 42nd must continue toward 53rd st and follow E line. Even emergency reroutes could not continue on the local between 42nd and 59th. Then there would be no trains running local at the 50th st upper level, so a bridge (like the one at 149th -GC) over the current local tracks could be built to turn 50th into a stop for the AC express. And as a plus, it seems to allow for a wider platform as well.

* The full plan involves:

running as current, except no late night service. 

running 168th St to Manhattan Bridge (and into Brooklyn) at all times except late nights, running local on CPW.
Late nights B is extended to 207th St.

running from 205th St, Bronx to Euclid Av, Brooklyn at all times except late nights. Express in Manhattan, local in Brooklyn. Rush hours will run express along Grand Concourse in the dominant direction. Late nights, is extended to serve Lefferts and Far Rockway in place of the A.   

running from Bedford Park Blvd to Manhattan Bridge (and into Brooklyn) as a local train along CPW. No night or weekend service. 

The plan maintains current CPW services, while avoiding merging at Columbus Circle (and at Canal along the 8th Ave line). During daytime hours, there is one express from Inwood and one local from Washington Heights, and one express from Bronx and one local from Bronx. Nights and weekends all services are maintained, except the local from Bronx. Late nights, we have an express along CPW that heads to Bronx and a local along CPW that heads to Inwood.

On 6/23/2022 at 1:26 AM, darkstar8983 said:

I guess in terms of yard assignments:

concourse -  

Coney Island -  

jamaica -  

 

since concourse really can’t handle more than one line. Another problem I see is the 4 Av Line. We’re now going to have two locals ( the  and  ) and one express ( the  ), and 30+ TPH will be platforming at DeKalb Av for the  and . If the  is planned to skip DeKalb Av, then it would be the 4 Av Express to 36 St; then local to Bay Ridge-95 St. So in that case, the  cannot arrive at 36 St and allow for cross-platform connections with any other lune since it has to switch to local just past 25 St, similar to how the  did when the 4 Av Express track was out of service between 36 and 59 Sts. These changes do not allow for additional trains or services to be added since you still have interlining along 4 Av

To me, it seems like a plan like this would only work if you add a switch between local and express tracks south of 36th.  This is vanshnookenraggen's deinterlining plan.

So  and  both skip DeKalb and run as 4th Ave express.  South of 36th, once  has left toward West End,  switches to local to serve Bay Ridge and  continues as express to Sea Beach.  I think that would resolve the interlining on 4th Ave.

You are correct that the existing switches would not be sufficient, because now you are introducing a conflict between  and  on the 4th Ave local.  That would be silly.  Keep the lines separated as follows:

 6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge N lines - 4th Ave express.  Lines diverge south of 36th street, with one service to Bay Ridge via 4th Ave local and one service to Sea Beach via 4th Ave express.  New switch between express and local would be needed so that the divergence does not interfere with  service.

 Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge S lines - Brighton.  Lines diverge south of Prospect Park, with one service express to Brighton Beach and one service local to Coney Island.

 Broadway local.   can terminate at Whitehall, but conceivably could be extended into Brooklyn to either 9th Ave or Bay Parkway if service demands it.   will follow Montague tunnel and serve as the 4th Ave local, stopping at DeKalb.  This service does not interfere with any other South Brooklyn line.  Service south of 36th continues on the West End line to Coney Island.

On 5/31/2022 at 2:33 AM, Vulturious said:

This is more of me hearing a lot of people, those that take the  and me asking them what they prefer. This also includes what is currently running along Brighton right now, that being the  for local service. If it was the opposite, the  would've been the full time line running around or maybe the , depending on what the MTA would've kept.

On 5/31/2022 at 12:20 AM, MTA Researcher said:

@Vulturious

I have a question, where is the proof that Brighton prefers Broadway over 6 Av?

If I see undeniable evidence; I will believe you. Please Show Me!

In my view, it is still very anecdotal that Brigthon riders prefer Broadway over 6th Ave.  I really think that most people are probably ambivalent about it.

My thoughts:

If you are coming from Southern Brooklyn and your train is heading to the 6th Ave express, it is far easier to transfer to get to a location that is close to the Broadway line in Manhattan than is the reverse ( i.e. your train is heading to the Broadway express, many areas near the 6th Ave stations are harder to reach).  The previous sentence is meant to address the area between City Hall and 23rd.  For Midtown, both lines run really close to each other, so assuming most people on the subway on the bridge are headed to Midtown, it really shouldn't matter. 

Based on the above, I think the cleanest easiest method to deinterline the DeKalb junction would be a  /  swap.  Both  and  run 24 hour serivice and both go to Coney Island.  This would mean that  and  run along the Brighton line and  and  run along the 4th Ave line. 

Brighton passengers can make a cross-platform transfer to for Downtown Brooklyn and the Financial District at DeKalb.  They can also transfer at Broadway-Laffayette to  to reach a station that is pretty close to every Broadway line station between City Hall and 14th.  The midtown Broadway stations (23rd and north) are a relatively close walk from the 6th Ave stations.  If a Brighton passenger is headed to Upper 2nd Ave or Astoria, a transfer can be made at Herald Square.  If a Brighton passenger wants to reach QBL, they can cross-platfrom transfer to  or  .

Sea Beach/West End/4th Ave passengers can make a cross-platform transfer to for Downtown Brooklyn and the Financial District at DeKalb.  The areas near the 6th Ave stations are a little harder to reach, but might still be achievable.  From , 6th Ave service can be reached by transferring to  at 9th,  at DeKalb, and  at Jay St.  Additionally,  are also at Jay St, and at Courtlandt for those who are headed to 8th Ave.  But these all require a transfer to   as none of these are directly connected to the 4th Ave express stations.  Broadway-Laffayette is close to the Prince St station and Bleecker St stations, transfer to  R, W, or 6 at Canal.  The midtown 6th Ave stations (23rd and north) are a relatively close walk from the Broadway stations.  If a Sea Beach/West End/4th Ave  passenger is headed to CPW, Washington Heights, or the Bronx,  a transfer can be made at Herald Square.  If a Sea Beach/West End/4th Ave passenger  wants to reach QBL, they can transfer to  or  at 34th, cross-platfrom transfer to just about anywhere or make the cross-platform transfer to at Lex/63rd.  So the only 6th Ave stations that are hard to reach are the 6th Ave stations south of 23rd, other than Broadway-Laffayette.  Grand street is somewhat walkable from Canal, and is very close to Bowery, but   is relatively infrequent.  West 4th is a decent walk from 8th St station.  14th/6th can be reached by transferring to  at Union Square.   And of course, a transfer can always be made at Atlantic Ave, as a last resort.  But the overall takeaway is that untangling DeKalb will bring so much benefit to more people, even if it means a little extra walking on the Manhattan end.

--------------

One very important point  to remember is that deinterlining certainly will avoid the backups due to the intermingling at DeKalb and will ultimately allow more trains to run on both the 6th Ave and Broadway express lines, especially if other deinterlining measures are taken at other chokepoints like Columbus Circle and 34th on the Broadway line.

But another important to remember is that another benefit is that more trains to your destination will be at one station.  This means that a train that you  would likely want would be more frequent and will certainly reduce your waiting time at the platform.

Example: Let's say you work in Midtown near 42nd and your home station is a Brighton express station.  Under the existing pattern, I can walk to Byant Park express platform and half the trains there will lead to my destination or I can walk to Times Square's Broadway express platform and half the trains there will lead to my destination.  The stations are only a block apart and the extra block is unlikely to make much difference.  But my average wait time at either could be significant, especially if I am unlucky to have just missed my  or  train and I now have to wait for two trains to pass, since the next train is likely a  or .

Now, let's say that the D/Q swap is implemented.  All Brighton trains will be served on the 6th Avenue line.  If I walk to Bryant Park, even if it is a block further, every possible train that reaches the Brighton stations will pass by the southbound express platform.  Every single one.  The wait time on the platform is minimized and most Midtown riders will have better service, even if their office is closer to Times Square.

On 5/31/2022 at 8:40 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

While I continue to have mixed feelings about restoring service onto the RBB, I would like to see a real solution to the two-headed mess called Woodhaven and Cross Bay boulevards. I don’t claim to have the solution, but if it can involve some sort of improved bus, bike or rail transportation that will encourage more people who drive on Cross Bay/Woodhaven to leave their SUVs at home, then I’m all for it. At least if rail is restored to this corridor, the right-of-way doesn’t have to be built entirely from scratch, unlike many other, better candidates for subway extension in Queens (though some new tunneling would be required to connect into the existing system, of course).   

But again, I have mixed feelings. And I do think there are better corridors that merit an extension of the subway. The problem is, almost all of them would have to be built entirely from scratch. A potential Queens Super Express or an  extension to Rosedale/Laurelton would likely not be, but they would still need some new tunneling to connect to the existing system. 

Yes.  There is a better way to implement true BRT on Woodhaven Blvd.  A median bus lane would be easier to enforce and keep away bikes, legal or illegal parked cars, and cars needing to make right turns.  A very good design for BRT exists along Van Ness Ave in San Francisco, where the left lane was simply converted to a bus only lane.  Median bus stations and prohibition of most left turns also makes this work.

A median BRT could be convertible to a light rail system, if the demand so dictates.

Northbound, the three lanes of Woodhaven can shift to the right as Woodhaven crosses over the Belt Parkway.  The right lane will be forced onto ramps for Belt and Conduit and two lanes of traffic continue northward.  This leaves room to make the existing left lane, a bus only lane.  The buses using the median bus lane should stop roughly every half mile, preferably at locations to allow transfers to crossing bus and subway lines.  There would be 1 bus lane, 2 lanes (or more) for traffic, and a parking lane that could be used for traffic during rush hours, if needed.  Woodhaven is one of our widest streets.  There is ample room to do this properly.

Southbound, the left lane should simply be a bus only lane starting from Queens Blvd and heading all the way to the Belt Parkway.

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve always wanted to see them connect Queens and Queensboro Plazas. They seem so close, yet so far away.

There would be a good deal of utility to this connection.  Many intra-Queens trips between stations on the Astoria line and the QBL line could be made more easily (without the need of taking  ).  It also could make it easier to de-interline the QBL, by having all QBL trains run to 8th Ave or 6th Ave, allowing people who want Broadway trains to transfer to QBP.

On 5/10/2022 at 9:12 AM, Theli11 said:

The connection wouldn't be bad to have service from Howard Beach to Jamaica. It wouldn't even hurt.

I agree.  If the hypothetical involves working with the already in existence JFK Airtrain and converting it to subway spec, then let's use the entire Airtrain.

I can envision the following train lines:

Local Fulton service from Court to Euclid.  This service will either connect to a new tunnel to Lower Manhattan or possibly as a split from the Montague Tunnel.  This allows for possibilities to conect to 8th Ave local, Broadway local, or 2nd Ave local.  For these purposes, let's assume it is a 2nd Ave train. 

 Fulton express to Far Rockaway

 Fulton express to Ozone Park and thence JFK via Van Wyck Aritrain line.

[K]  Jamaica to JFK via Van Wyck Airtrain line.  This line should allow for a few local stations along Van Wyck at 95 Av, 105 Av, Linden Blvd, Rockaway Blvd, and 133 Av.  133 Av seems to be the closest feasible point for a station to serve the hotels near Belt Parkway.

[H] Rockaway Park to Howard Beach to JFK via Howard Beach Airtrain line.  A small connection should allow for this connection to be made to provide better train services.

If the Queensway (or similar) plan revives Rockaway Branch Service, I can see even greater expansion potential.

For the QBL, assuming current train services, I would make the following changes. 

 instead of moving from express to local platforms after Forest Hills (to serve 75 Av, Briarwood, Sutphin, 169), have  merge to local tracks on new switches east of where RBB splits off from.  This will add one new local station to be served by  , 67th Ave.  Woodhaven will be converted into an express station allowing  and  to stop there.

 QBL local trains will service all local stops until 63rd Dr.  Then both locals will continue onto the RBB tracks with stops at Metropolitan, Myrtle, Jamaica Ave  , Atlantic, Liberty  , Aqueduct, and Howard Beach.  South of Howard Beach,  to Far Rockaway and to Rockaway Park using the existing stops on the line.

 as mentioned above.

 The RBB express tracks will be rehabilitated so that after Rockaway Blvd,  merges onto the RBB express tracks without interfering with  or .   will then only stop at Howard Beach and then a connection to the Airtraing would be built to allow  service into JFK.  Howard Beach to be configured like a normal express station to allow cross platform between QBL-Rockaway service and Fulton express-JFK service.

[K]  Jamaica to JFK via Van Wyck Airtrain line, as mentioned above.

 Since  will serve JFK directly, there would be no need for  to serve it as well.  So  should instead merge with [K] to continue service toward Jamaica.

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Wasn't it because of the lack of a punchbox from 57 St-7 Av to the 60 St line and vice versa? I thought someone here or maybe somewhere else pointed that out. Maybe I'm tripping.

I don't know if that is the case, but it seems like adding a punchbox would be a very inexpensive captial expense that could reduce the problem.

 running on both the local and express tracks along the Broadway Manhattan trunk causes severe problems for all other Broadway trains.  Ideally, all Broadway expresses should go to 96th and all Broadway locals  should go to Queens with no interference at all along the Manhattan trunk.  If the switch had to be made, it is better to be done north of 57th than at 34th.  There will still be problems with any merge of the express and local tracks, but switching at 57th will mitigate some issues.

19 hours ago, Vulturious said:

In all honesty, this idea isn't that bad of an idea. I decided to make an edit of how the idea can be implemented:

There are provisions north of 57 St-7 Av that would've had a Broadway local trains split just before a switch north of the station from express to local to run along CPW or Morningside Av or whatever street the BMT wanted to build. I decided to take that idea and use it as another connection to the 63 St line. 

The only issue with this idea is the Broadway local train that is running to 2 Av must be based out of Coney Island, there are direct ways of doing so straight from Montague St tunnel. You can have trains routed via West End or to the Brighton line.

Now that I mention the Brighton line, I have a way of how the routing can run which also de-interlines Dekalb Av:

•  Bedford Park Blvd/145 St to Bay Parkway/9 Av [Concourse Peak Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Local, West End Local]
•  Norwood-205 St to Bay Ridge-95 St [Concourse Peak Exp, CPW/6 Av Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Local]
•  Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Exp, Sea Beach Local]
•  96 St-2 Av to Coney Island [2 Av Local, Broadway Local, via Montague St, Brighton Local]
•  () 96 St-2 Av to Brighton Beach [2 Av Local, Broadway Local, via Montague St, Brighton Exp]
•  Forest Hills-71 Av to Coney Island [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Exp, West End Local]

There are some drastic changes in service so let's start of with the Cons:

• Brighton riders lose express access in Manhattan
• they also only have access to 6 Av cross-platform transfers at Dekalb
•  trains are mostly local now
• 4 Av and West End are in a way prone to some delays because of the merge with 2 different trains merging with 2 other trains
• 2 Av runs only local trains

Onto the pros side of things:

• Astoria only has to deal with the  so hopefully no more delays at terminals
• QBL gets a Manhattan express service replacement
• Dekalb Av is de-interlined
• 4 Av riders can get better service with direct access to a full time Manhattan express service
• West End keeps its express service along both 4 Av and in Manhattan
• Broadway is de-interlined

I do like seeing more deinterlining, but it seems that sending all the Brighton trains into Montague would be a major con.

If we are still going to maintain a Broadway service to Forest Hills, we can maintain a better service pattern allowing every southern Brooklyn train line (except Bay Ridge) with express access to Midtown Manhattan:

•  Bedford Park Blvd/145 St to Coney Island [Concourse Peak Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Exp, West End Local] {CI Yard or Conc Yard}
•  Norwood-205 St to Coney Island  [Concourse Peak Exp, CPW/6 Av Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Exp, Sea Beach Local] {CI Yard or Conc Yard}
• ( ) 96 St-2 Av to Brighton Beach [2 Av Local, Broadway Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Exp] {CI Yard}
•  96 St-2 Av to Coney Island [2 Av Local, Broadway Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local] {CI Yard}
•   Forest Hills-71 Av to Bay Ridge-95 St  [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local] {Jamaica Yard}
•  Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Bay Parkway/9 Av [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local, West End Local] {CI Yard}

With the above pattern, assume  ,  , and  run 24/7.  will not run weekends or late nights, so  is extended to CI to service West End, while  provides the replacement service for most of the rest of the run and  or late night  covering CPW local.   will run all-times except late nights, when  will only run south of Whitehall, with covering the rest of the route and  or serving Queens.

Can something equivalent be done while doing a 57th flip on the Broadway line?  A simple switch of the northern terminals of each Broadway line willl result in a 2nd Ave - Bay Ridge service that has no yard connection.  So we need to do something akin to vanshnookenraggen's plan to add a switch south of 36th on the 4th Ave line to enable 4th Ave express service (originating along Manhattan's 6th Ave) so that Bay Ridge trains can go to 6th Ave and eventually to the Concourse Yard.  Perhaps something like:

•  Bedford Park Blvd/145 St to Bay Ridge-95 St [Concourse Peak Local, CPW Local, 6 Av Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Exp, switch to 4 Av local] {Conc Yard}
•  Norwood-205 St to Coney Island  [Concourse Peak Exp, CPW/6 Av Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, 4 Av Exp, Sea Beach Local] {CI Yard or Conc Yard}
•  Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Brighton Beach [Astoria Local, via 60 St, Broadway Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Exp] {CI Yard}
•  Forest Hills-71 Av to Coney Island [QBL Local, via 60 St, Broadway Exp, via Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local] {Jamaica Yard or CI Yard}
•  96 St-2 Av to 9 Av/Bay Parkway/Coney Island [2 Av Local, Broadway Local, via Montague St, 4 Av Local, West End Local] {CI Yard}

The biggest downside with the above is forcing all of the West End riders into the Montague tunnel.  But this is better than forcing all Brighton riders into the Montaguge tunnel, because most of the West End stations are closer to alternatives with express service to Manhattan than the Brighton line.  Plus West End riders can transfer at New Utrecht/62 to  service or at 36th for  service.

Another alternative to the above would send trains to West End to provide a local and then splitting  service to provide  trains linking 96th to Coney Island via Sea Beach and  trains linking 96th to 9 Av or Bay Parkway via West End.  This will make Sea Beach the line with only a Montague connection instead of West End.

On 4/30/2022 at 1:13 PM, shiznit1987 said:

This is a simplified version of my South Brooklyn re-arriangment combined with Queens Blvd redesign:

Step 1: The Broadway Local is routed onto the south side of the Manhattan Bridge and the Broadway Express is routed onto the north side, so that all 4 Broadway tracks feed into the Bridge. 

Step 2:  The 6th Ave Express is extended under Water St thru Lower Manhattan then under a new tunnel then taking over the LIRR Atlantic Branch. The Utica Ave subway is brached off of the Atlantic Branch to Kings Plaza. The LIRR Atlantic branch is tied into the Archer Ave Subway once it reaches Jamaica.

Step 3:  The  takes over the lower manhattan section of the  and runs thru the Montague tunnel and 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge

Broadway Service: 

 125th/Lex via SAS -> Broadway Express -> Manhattan Bridge -> Sea Beach via 4th Ave Express 

 179th/Hillside -> QB Express -> 63rd St -> Broadway Express -> Manhattan Bridge -> West End via 4th Ave Express 

 Forest Hills -> QB Local -> Broadway Local -> Manhattan Bridge -> Brighton Local 

 Astoria-Ditmars -> Broadway Local -> Manhattan Bridge -> Brighton Express (truncated to Prospect Park on weekends and late nights)

6th Ave Service: 

 168st/Wash Hts -> CPW Local -> 6th Avenue Express -> LIRR Atlantic branch -> Utica Ave Elevated to Kings Plaza 

 168st/Wash Hts -> CPW Local -> 6th Avenue Express -> LIRR Atlantic branch -> Parsons/Archer 

 Forest Hills -> QB Local -> 53rd St -> 6th Avenue Local -> Culver Line 

 57st/6th Ave -> 6th Ave Local -> Williamsburg Bridge -> Myrtle Ave Line to Metropolitan Ave 

Queens Blvd Service:

 Parsons/Archer -> QB Express -> 53rd St 

 Forest Hills -> QB Local -> 53rd St 

 179st/Hillside -> QB Express -> 63st 

 Forest Hills -> QB Local -> 60st

8th Ave/CPW Service: 

 207th/Inwood -> CPW Express -> 8th Ave Express -> Fulton Express to Rockaways/Lefferts

 205th/Norwood -> CPW Express -> 8th Ave Express -> Fulton Local to Euclid Ave

 Parsons/Archer -> QB Express -> 53rd St -> 8th Ave Local -> Lower Manhattan via former  line and Montague St tunnel -> 4th Ave Local to Bay Ridge

 

Reasons Why:

8th Ave, 6th Ave, Broadway, CPW and Dekalb are all deinterlined.

South Brooklyn riders wanting 6th Ave service can still transfer at Atlantic Ave

Better Queens Blvd Local service w/ full time  and  service.

Service thruput on Broadway Line increased. 

Utica Ave line built as El to lower costs

Taking over LIRR Atlantic Branch means SE Queens riders now have a faster connection to Downtown Brooklyn plus an express that does not use Queens Blvd in case of service disruption. 

 now has a purpose at it's other end and should provide better 4th Ave local service than current  

This is very good.  I have two recommendations:

I think it would be better to have  as a QBL express and  as a QBL local.  This eliminates some of the merges in the Queens Plaza area that still exist in your plans.

 should provide service to the Bedford Park Blvd, at least during rush hours.  There is no need to sacrifice the Concourse express.