mrsman

On 1/26/2022 at 10:35 PM, NewFlyer 230 said:

Yes that is correct. Jamaica Center is such an inefficient terminal for the  because trains are usually forced to wait at Sutphin Blvd/Archer Avenue for a train to leave Jamaica Center so it can proceed. Personally I don’t think we will ever see an extension of the to southern Queens so I think the MTA should send the  to 168th Street/Archer Ave and call it a day. 168th street on the  was never replaced and when the station was demolished it affected business over there. 

All true.

Archer Ave is a big service reduction for  .  It seems that a big reason for doing so was to promote economic development in Downtown Jamaica by getting rid of the unsightly el.  But as we all know it is extremely short sighted, because the subway never got extended as far as the el did, so places that were close to the end of the line are now beyond walking distance from the subway.  How much is land worh that is no longer served by rail transit.

Kind of similar to the destruction of the Jackson Park Elevated in Chicago.

https://chicago.curbed.com/2011/12/2/10419932/the-biggest-urban-renewal-flubs-jackson-park-l

Instead of Archer, the IND line should have branched southwards.  The  already does this as it splits at Briarwood, making a stop at Jamaica-Van Wyck (providing transfer to the old  stop at Metropolitan) and then continued straight down the Van Wyck.  Imagine if the Van Wyck el that was built to serve JFK, was actually part of the line with stops at every major avenue that crosses the Van Wyck between Jamaica Ave and the Belt Parkway.

What adds salt in the wounds is that this is a pattern that happened before.  Tear down the el, because the subway is coming soon.  Tell that to the folks along 3rd Ave.

3 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

Thinking about it some more, I'd like to amend my plan:

The Broadway Local tracks will still be tied into the Manhattan Bridge, so that all four Manhattan Bridge Tracks feed into Broadway. The service pattern would look like this:

 Broadway Exp - 4th Ave Exp - Sea Beach

 Broadway Exp - 4th Ave Exp - West End

 Broadway Local - Brighton Local

 Broadway Local - Brighton Express

 Nassau St Subway - Montague - 4th Ave Local to Bay Ridge

Now that Southern Brooklyn is taken care of, the  trains are extended down Water St thru Lower Manhattan to a new tunnel to Atlantic Ave in Brooklyn where they take over the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR. The  curves off down Utica Ave to Kings Plaza while the  continues to Jamaica where it is tied into the Archer Ave Subway. Archer Ave is extended one stop to Archer/Merrick to a new 4 track terminal ala 179st with turnback tracks. The service pattern looks like this:

 207th St/Inwood - Kings Plaza (CPW Express)

 205th St/Norwood - Merrick/Archer (CPW Express)

 168st/Wash Hts - CPW Local - 8th Ave

Benefits:

-Dekalb Ave and Columbus Circle are de-interlined. 

-Southern Brooklyn passengers can still get 6th Ave service at Atlantic

-Much needed relief for Queens Blvd and SE Queens with the new  service

-Utica Ave subway can be more easily completed as an elevated, helping speed construction and lower costs

 

This is definitely very interesting.  I do have a few questions:

 Broadway Exp - 4th Ave Exp - Sea Beach

 Broadway Exp - 4th Ave Exp - West End

 Broadway Local - Brighton Local

 Broadway Local - Brighton Express

Do you change any of the northern terminals for these lines?  Currently, of course, we have N and W to Astoria, R to QBL and Q to 96th.  Do you envision any change to that to relieve the merge along the Broadway line, like sending all expresses to 96th and perhaps changing the frequency of trains so that there is more Astoria W service?

 Nassau St Subway - Montague - 4th Ave Local to Bay Ridge

Will  still begin at Parsons/Archer and be extended to Bay Ridge, or will  have its "northern" terminal in Manhattan?

 207th St/Inwood - Kings Plaza (CPW Express)

 205th St/Norwood - Merrick/Archer (CPW Express)

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

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 6th Ave local - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle line

I assume that the alignment for 6th Ave will be as above.  So  will head to Grand St. and then follow the MTA proposed routing of the SAS to Water Street and then via new tunnel to Atlantic Ave.  Does this mean no plans for SAS in Lower Manhattan?  Will there be a transfer to other trains at Fulton?  Are there any plans for SAS other than the existing portion north of 63rd?  Will  be a super express that only stops at the current LIRR stations along Atlantic or are more stops envisioned?  Does  replace the  train east of East New York?  How will  fit into the Archer Ave subway?

 168st/Wash Hts - CPW Local - 8th Ave

WIll A and C also be the local south of Columbus Circle?  If not, how would A and C move to the express tracks and not interfere with the running of ?  I would assume that A and C will run along Cranberry tunnel to the Fulton line in Brooklyn as current, while the  takes over the Broadway BMT tracks south of WTC to terminate at Whitehall, as you posited earlier.  Does this mean a "Canal Flip" along the 8th Ave tracks, with running express between 42nd and Canal, and then flipping to the local to reach  WTC and then Rector and Whitehall?  This would also presuppose closing City Hall  and Courtlandt .

All in all this is very interesting and it seems to accomplish a lot with very little construction.

17 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

IMHO, it really makes zero sense not to make the Interborough Express go to LGA. You're completing two major wish list projects in one fowl swoop. Also, about the Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Ave issue: They're going to have to invest in a mezanine extention ala-Court Sq. There's no where to place an LRT station around Roosevelt Ave (I used to live by there). 

Agreed.  Given where the IBX runs, it is perfectly suited to handle trips from southern Brooklyn to eastern Brooklyn to northwestern Queens.  They should make every effort for the IBX to connect with all nearby subways, including the  in Bay Ridge.  As such, for the many New Yorkers who live in the outer boroughs of Brooklyn and Queens along one of the main lines that intersects with IBX, they can have a reasonable two-seat ride into LGA.  This also avoids the issues with running  trains through the Astoria NIBMY neighborhood, or even worse splitting  trains and having some service along the Grand Central Parkway.

FWIW, one of the most popular ways of reaching LGA by transit is to take the subway to Jackson Heights and then using the bus for the remaining distance.  IBX to LGA will basically incorporate this without the bus.  Much of Manhattan and most of Queens is a one seat ride away from Jackson Heights.  One quick transfer from there can get you to LGA.

If a Bronx extension is at all feasible, then running two branches, one to Bronx and one to LGA from Jacson Heights should also work. 

On 1/22/2022 at 2:54 PM, Lex said:

And that's part of the problem. LRT and BRT can mitigate some of the costs and connectivity issues by street-running, while using trains built to mainline height and width drastically limits the amount of new infrastructure needed. The subway option is incompatible with either option, thus completely defeating the purpose if it's pushed.

Yes.  While the fact that street running makes LRT and BRT feasible options, the delays that can be incurred while street running will make this an unacceptable option from the passenger's perspective.  The only way that this train will get reasonable ridership is because the running time along the route is fast.  If this train has to deal with traffic signals, drivers blocking the tracks, or traffic generally, then it no longer will be viewed as an "interboro express" but rather a glorified slow crosstown bus.

Conventional rail thus seems to be the only choice in my view if this gets built.  We maintain the grade separation that already exists on the entire corridor.  We also make use of the existing rails where we need to at the choke points that already exist.

One thing very nice about shiznit1987's plan is that it puts in place a transfer between both Manhattan Bridge services.  While I personally see no issue with sending all Brighton trains to Broadway express and 4th Ave express to the 6th Ave express, I know that others are concerned that doing so prevents Brighton passengers from reaching 6th and 4th passengers from reaching Broadway*, so somehting like shiznit's plan allows all Manhattan Bridge customers to reach the same parts of Manhattan, thanks to the ability to transfer between  [Broadway express - 4th Ave] and  [Broadway local - Brighton] at Canal St.

One of my earlier plans had somtething similar.  I imagine the northside of Manhattan Bridge tied to the Broadway express (as was done pre-Chrystie).  The southside of Manhattan Bridge will be tied in to new track under the existing tracks along Canal.**  This lower level Canal tracks will make a stop under the existing Canal Street station (similar layout as the W4th station) to provide a transfer station.  The lower level tracks will continue to 6th Ave an merge in at that point to become the 8th Ave express.

What this boils down to is the following system (without worrying about what happens north of Midtown):

 8th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach/West End

 8th Ave local - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton lines

 6th Ave express - Rutgers Tunnel - CUlver 

 6th Ave local - Williamsburg Bridge - Jamacia/Myrtle

 Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton lines

 Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge or 9th Ave [or Bay Parkway]

WIth something like the above, every passenger that now has a direct link to Manhattan Bridge will still do so.   All Manhattan Bridge passengers will have their first Manhattan stop at Canal, which provides links to 8th Ave express or Broadway express, and existing transfers to Broadway local,  , and whatever is running along Nassau.  If the Nassau tracks were tied in to Second Ave, then the one Canal station can basically connect directly with every part of Manhattan.

* My usual response to this argument is that it isn't too important since 6th and Broadway run close throughout nearly all of Midtown.  The responsse then is how to get to 8th Ave.  If all Brighton trains ran to Broadway, we lose the  that connects to W4th which connects to 8th Ave trains.  The above plan avoids that since transfers to 8th Ave can be had at Canal.

** Altrenatively, the tracks can run along Walker to connect the Canal St station with 6th Ave (where 8th Ave lines run south of Houston).

1 hour ago, trainfan22 said:

YES! They are considering a light rail option!!!!!!

 

 

They better not make this no BRT/SBS BS, buses suck, every major transportation project from here on out should be rail, PERIOD!

 

I would think that it is done for the purpose of reports to show a careful consideration of alternatives.

BRT would make no sense over here.  You already have the rails.  The rails at present are needed for freight, so we are not ripping them apart.  To the extent that you have a wide ROW, great - separate freight from passenger to the extent practical.  But given that there are places where there is no easy way to widen the corridor to more than two tracks wide, leads me to believe that the only good option is FRA compliant train.

Here's a link to a good article from LIRR today.

https://www.thelirrtoday.com/2022/01/interborough-express.html?utm_source=LIRRToday-Twitter&utm_campaign=auto-pub&utm_medium=social&m=1

If this line gets built, and if it can be extended a little bit to the north, at minimum there should be plans to provide a transfer with Penn Station Access trains ,even if there is no plan to actually run the Interboro to Co-op City.

Not sure how feasible it is, though.

North of Jackson Heights, one branch of the Interboro could provide the link to LGA, following the BQE and Grand Central alignments - although my preference for LGA is still an extension of Astoria  lline.

I largely agree.  Bronx  passengers are not transferring to  at 125th street unless their destination is on the very east side of the Upper East Side.  Even if their ulitmate destination were on the parts of the Broadway line that are relatively far from the Lex line (basically within Manhattan that means the stops along 7 Av north of 42nd and the stops along Broadway between 23rd and 42nd), they are more likely to stay on a Lex train and transfer to  at 59th to continue that trip.  It would be shorter and quicker and as said earlier, the transfers are more familiar.  Keep in mind that there is no express on 2nd Ave, so the only folks who would transfer off  would be those who need the 2nd Ave section, not the 7th Ave or Broadway sections.

Lex trains can only be decongested by this line if some of the Bronx passengers transfer earlier, if the line reaches 3rd Ave in teh Bronx with transfers to  and  .  Full utility can only be reached with a 125th crosstown to reach West Harlem and provide transfers for pepole going from Upper East Side (and East Harlem) to West Harlem and the like.

So let's hope that extensions along 125th and 3rd Ave are on the horizon.  IMO, they should be prioritized before extending  service down into Midtown and Lower Manhattan.

On 1/12/2022 at 11:01 AM, Lawrence St said:

You hit all the points on this one.

And to add on to it, a lot of the young activists will to try to "cancel" anyone who says what you said in bold, but that's the truth. I've seen a lot of people on social media taking videos of themselves showing other people how to fare beat, and their reasoning is "f*** the fare". 

So why should the people that actually pay their fare get service cut because of these morons? Farebeating should be prosecuted, because as long as the DA looks the other way, it sends a message that it's ok to farebeat. 

I agree.  And to the extent that we have no bail policies and other leniencies coming out on the prosecution side, we will unfortunately continue to see an increase in all kinds of crime.

I see alot of this as a proof in concept service.  If MTA seriously provides sufficient funding to build and operate it can be a huge opportunity for better, more frequent operation of railroad corridors within city limits.

The line should be frequent.  The line should be affordable - subway fare with free transfers to nearby subways (as if it were a closed transfer) and transfers to buses (in a similar vein to existing bus-subway transfers).  While I don't beleive 24 hour service is necessary, service should definitely be running 7 days a week and at frequent enough intervals during the operating period to not need to rely on a schedule.  (Something like every 10 minutes.)

The line should operate a fleet similar to that of LIRR.  For purposes of governance, it would seem that it should operate under its own authority, like the Staten Island Railroad and not as a subsidiary of NYCT or LIRR.

Other possilble lines that can garner similar treatment in the future can (should) be the Lower Montauk branch and the Atlantic-Jamaica branch "shuttle" after ESA is completed.  It would also be nice if certain sections of existing railroads be operated in a similar way, with frequent service and lower fates, but realistically those will have to be operated by either LIRR or MNRR, like Port Washington branch withiin the city, Atlantic branch between Rosedale and Jamaica, Hudson line branch into Penn Station, and New Haven line branch into Penn Station.

12 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Frankly, a lot of problems could be solved in that regard if NYC had:

a) one DA and court as opposed to five (but that would require consolidating all 5 boroughs into a single New York County)

b) the DA was an appointed official as opposed to a separately elected one (but that would require at the very least, a referendum or ballot initiative)

 

Most other cities are covered by a single prosecutor as opposed to multiple ones, and in Europe, most prosecutors are appointed officials, not elected.  Takes a lot of the political bullshit out of the process.

Even though we are getting off topic, I do agree that it would be far better to have one DA over the whole city.  I don't think it makes sense to have five separate counties serving one city.  The boroughs should be used to identify a location, but the boroughs should not have an independent legal identity.

7 hours ago, Vulturious said:

That's actually a very interesting question. Here's a follow-up: if they were to open it in segments, what would they open first?

I could see this opening in segments, with the southern section (Bay Ridge - East New York) opening first.  That section could replace (or redirect) some cross-Brooklyn bus service and provide a service shortcut for passengers from Southern Brooklyn who may be heading to Jamaica or JFK.

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

That’s assuming R211s will be assigned to the  and  lines. So far, it seems like the base order is going to the  and  lines, given that 8th Ave is next in line to get CBTC. That spotting thing at DeKalb Tower ain’t going nowhere for quite some time (even though it should). On the other hand, the  and  already operate with R46s or R68/As - trains with big, visible front route markers (although the speculation mill has the R160s coming back to the  and  when the R211 option orders come in).  

As far as “scheduling them better,” what else can they do with the current service plan? If there was something better, then wouldn’t they have already done it? Heck, I can remember when only the 6th Ave bridge tracks were open and I’d be on a  or  train that got stopped at the junction to let a  pass through. 

They really can't schedule them any better.  Even if by schedule they plan for trains that could interfere with each other to come at different intervals, those can be disrupted over the very small delays that are common and routine in the system.  Even extra crowding at stops could cause a train to be delayed by a little.  Ordinarily, that's not so bad, but if the delay propagates it can affect the movements at the junction and affect all the bridge routes.  The junction doesn't really work well during the busier times (when the gaps between trains are shorter) and the movements at the junction also limit capacity.

If all Brighton trains were routed to the Broadway express and all 4th Ave express trains were routed to the 6th Ave express, the junction is eliminated.  For those who need the other trains, they can still utilize existing transfers at Atlantic or Herald Square, but very likely most passengers will not need to transfer since 6th Ave and Broadway trains run close together in most of Midtown.

While many may consider light rail to be somewhat slow, that's largely because many light rails are run on the street.  Trolleys are run on the street and they often interact directly with car traffic, and even generally share the lanes with cars.  These are obviously no good, especially in NYC where double parkers could block the trollley completely.  The trolleys in West Philly are like this.

Light rail is the next step up, having their own right of way, but without grade separation.  So the light rail will have its own lanes on the street, but would typically be forced to stop at traffic signals and the tracks could still be blocked by cars that block intersections.  The HBLR along Hudson Street in Jersey City is like this.

What is being proposed here seems to be a step up from that, because it is nearly all grade separated from traffic.  Light rail cannot accelerate and decelerate as quickly as the subway, but a very good operation can be had here, because this train will avoid interacting with streets completely.  It seems like it will be similar to HBLR in Bayonne, which does not cross streets as it follows a pre-existing freight right of way that is grade separated.

Hopefully, if they can keep the costs in line, this can be a good project.  It can provide rail service to certain corridors that have none and can form a great connection between some of the busiest subway stops in Brooklyn and Queens.  The main question is how many people will make these trips.  How many people travel from north-central Queens to southern Brooklyn and would use this line?  I don't know. 

22 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Welp, all is lost in de-interlining the system. I emailed the MTA with my suggestions. Here’s what they said:

 

https://share.icloud.com/photos/0f7LNC-Udt9AXpg5zRveFifEQ

 

At least it was worth a try…

A typical bureaucratic response by the MTA.  

Thank you for your efforts MTA Researcher.

The real problem is that de-interlining requires a different way of thinking.  Thinking 3 dimensionally, when you are used to 2 dimensions.  Thinking about the system as a whole, rather than on each individual line.  Thinking beyond parochialism, politics, unions to achive an overall improvement of service for all passengers by actually removing preventable delays.

MTA is not willing to try.  Not even an incremental approach.  Not even taking advantage of historic opportunities that will allow them to try.  And we are now at such an opportunity, given that COVID and the resultant increase in working from home will dramatically change travel patterns.  Will service patterns be adjusted to match?

But this wasn't always the case.  in the early 1950's, the following was the service pattern along the Broadway IRT, which ran four services:

Van Cortlandt Park - Broadway/7th express -  Brooklyn

137th St - Broadway/7th local - South Ferry 

Wakefield - Lenox - Broadway/7th Express - Brooklyn

148 St - Lenox - Broadway/7th Local - South Ferry.

They realized that this service pattern was no longer workable as too many trains kept crossing in front of each other around 96th.  They rebuilt the junction and created the service pattern that we more or less know today where the trains from upper Broadway are local between 96th and Canal and the trains from Lenox are express between 96th and Canal.  Much more streamlined service with fewer delays.  A defiinite success that produced a deinterlined  and a much more deinterlined  , notwithstanding the existing issues in Bronx and Brooklyn.  Were their complaints about it?  Yes.  Did passengers from Upper Broadway who wanted express service to Lower Manhattan lose their one seat ride and were forced to transfer at 96th? Yes.  Did Central Harlem passengers who wanted the local lose their one seat ride and became forced to make a corresponding transfer at 96th? Yes.  Was it better overall for all passengers on all three lines? After 70 years of history, undoubetdly and very clearly yes.

I would say that a similar issue to this now exists along the BMT Broadway line.   trains crossing from express to local is highly detrimental to the operation of the line.  A relatively minor step of sending  to 96th and increasing service significantly on  [and corresponding service adjustments to N/Q/R to make it all work] would be a similar monumental service improvement to what was done on the IRT.  Astoria passengers will no longer have the direct ride to express, but everyone on the Broadway line will have smoother service.

With respect to the issues at DeKalb, MTA lost a huge opportunity in 2005 when Manhattan Bridge service was fully restored.  From (approx.) 1990-2002 every rider along the Manhattan Bridge was limited to the 6th Ave express.  From 2002-2005 every rider along the Manhattan Bridge was limited to the Broadway express.  Thus, nearly every Brighton and West End rider (directly) and most Bay Ridge and Sea Beach rider (indirectly via transfer) in 2005 had experience using BOTH 6th Ave and Broadway expresses to get to their jobs.  They only had access to one service at any time for 15 years, but somehow they made it work, even when they were forced to use a 6th Ave train when they really wanted a Broadway train and vice versa.  It would have been so easy to eliminate the DeKalb merges once the Bridge reconstruction was completed, send all Brighton passengers to Broadway, send all West End and Sea Beach passengers to 6th Ave.  Every passenger would have had the experience of using either train to get to their destination.  And for nearly all of Midtown, the two services run a short distance away from each other.  [I do concede that the distances are considerably further between Canal and 14th, but the vast majority of Brooklyn riders who work north of City Hall/FiDi are heading north of 23rd.]  This means that most passengers will not overburden transfers at Atlantic or Herald Square, but would simply walk the extra avenue block to their final destination.  This was truly a lost opportunity.  It is much harder to argue for this change now than it would have been in 2005. 

With respect to possible  and  service pattern changes, with  along 53rd and along 63rd, I know that such a plan is actually something that the MTA is actually considering and may come to fruition when service patterns return to normal following the pandemic.  If nothing else, such a change does eliminate at least one set of mergers overall (E/M inbound and E/F outbound) in the LIC area.

CPW and some of the other possible deinterlinings are a little harder to justify to the MTA, but even if just the thee changes outlined above (N to 96th, DeKalb deinterlining and F/M tunnel switch) were implemented the benefits to riders would be clear and apparent, if they just would try.  That would be the basis to argue for further improvements, including CPW.  But, sadly, they will not listen.

5 minutes ago, P3F said:

Did you expect anything else in reply? No, emailing MTA customer service is not going to make them consider your proposed major service changes...

I certainly did not as well.  I don't know how one goes about actually making these types of changes but clearly MTA will not listen to random riders on these matters.  Perhaps if leading academics or known planners were on board,  then perhaps change can come about.  But they certainly are not going to take "advice" from random passengers.

Then again, even with the proper experts transit authorities may ignore all but their own consultants.  SEPTA never fully implemented Prof. Vukan Vuchic's plan for an S-bahn like commuter rail.  There are some elements that are similar, but the shortcomings are significant.

Unverified quote:   Vuchic: "I constantly submit proposals to SEPTA management on a regular basis. Little has been done to increase frequency of service, decrease fares, integrate Regional Rail with city transit.  Does SEPTA want to maximize revenue or ridership?"

The good professor is 86 years old.  Will SEPTA ever listen to his advice while he is still around to give it?

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

I know it hasn't been mentioned yet, but another advantage of de-interlining is the freeing up of capacity to have available in case of emergency reroutes (of which there have been many of lately). 

Example: Lets say Broadway is having an issue and trains need to be rerouted to the local tracks. Clearly the all don't fit on the local tracks during rush hours at once, so a good solution would be to have the extra flexibility due to available capacity and reroute the  via 6 Av and the  via lower Manhattan. 

Example 2: Lets say the Manhattan Bridge North Side is blocked and the cannot get to 6 Av. The can run with the  via the Manhattan Bridge South side and the  rerouted via lower Manhattan (that way, all Queens trains use the tunnel and all 96 St trains are using the Manhattan Bridge (obviously the coming from the south), with the trains coming from the north turning at West 4 St or 34 St. 

In both examples above, the taking up slots in both (which has been mentioned countless times) the local and express tracks detracts from capacity. 

 

Another classic example is the shuffling of trains on Queens Blvd and how to get to Manhattan. The 63 St tunnel has it made with all that spare capacity, being able to handle rerouted and  trains in a pinch (with the  slightly less so because it takes up slots now on 6 Av instead of 8 Av all the way down to West 4 St). Trains can be rerouted in case of issues in any tunnel while preserving some Queens-Manhattan service on all four lines in the trunk. If there's too much traffic, sometimes the  just bypasses Manhattan altogether and runs with the  via Crosstown, and even eliminating a merge at Bergen (except with the few  trains that were still running thru Manhattan). Long as any restructuring of trunk lines leaves behind some leftover capacity for spur-of-the-moment reroutes and we should be good. 

 

It is only when you start stacking trains and maximizing track capacity usage that shit starts hitting the fan when there's the tiniest hiccup (stuck door on a train, sick customer, high school teens fighting on the train) because then trains have to be rerouted in a way that the capacity is not even available and then the trains that are having to share their tracks with suffer from delays (looking at East Side and West Side IRT Expresses). The IRT has the biggest issue with this because their capacity is MAXED out not only due to structural limitations along the line (Lexington Av Express @ Union Square, 7 Av Express @ 142 St Junction, and Rogers Av Junction @ Franklin Av in Brooklyn

 

I think you make a very good point.  The system does need some redundancy to handle emergencies as you describe.  If the track's capacity is 30 TPH, then you do make good arguments for running 24-26 TPH instead to allow for those reroutes.  But those reroutes do not have to come at the expenses of providing a good regular service.  Deinterlining is a way to ensure that if there is a problem on one line, it doesn't propogate delays over the whole system.  In other words, you can acheive more reliability at the expense of capacity by simply running fewer trains than the absolute maximum, without the need of introducing more intermingling in the regular service structure.

Here is a plan that eliminates merges on Broadway, DeKalb, and CPW, but maintains many other mergers.  QBL service is largely like today's service except that I'm switching the tunnels of the M and F and erminating R at Whitehall.  This is similar to other plans that I have posted before.

207 - Far Rockaway/Lefferts: CPW/8 Av/Fulton St Exp  [same as today]

205 - Euclid: Concourse RH Exp - CPW/8 Av Exp - Fulton St Lcl  

JC-WTC: QBL Exp - 53rd St - 8 Av Lcl  [same as today]

168 St - CI: CPW Lcl - 6 Av Exp - 4th Ave Exp - Sea Beach  

BPB/145 - CI: Concourse RH Lcl (or 145th) - CPW Lcl - 6 Av Exp - 4th Ave Exp - West End    

179 - CI:  QBL exp - 53rd St - 6 Av local - Culver [same as today, except along 53rd tunnel]

 71 Av - Metropolitan:  QBL loc - 63rd St - 6 Av local - Myrtle el [same as today, except along 63rd tunnel]

 96 St/2 Av - Brighton Beach: 2nd Ave - Bway Exp - Brighton Exp   [alternatively, could be named  ]

96 St/2 Av - Coney Island: 2nd Ave - Bway Exp - Brighton Loc  [same as today] 

71 Av - Whitehall:  QBL local - 60th - Bwy local  [same as today, switching southern terminal with W]

Astoria - Bay Ridge: Astoria line - 60th - Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Av local [same as today, switching southern termianl with R].

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I really don’t think this is an issue. I fail to see how it would be, unless maybe there’s a huge percentage of Astoria riders whose destination is Canal Street. The  and  make the exact same stops between Ditmars Blvd and 34th St-Herald Square. Neither one is faster or slower than the other. Even with Union Square, there’s very little time saving, because the  skips only two stops between 34th and 14th. 

I don’t think the third option is all that bad. How would Queens Plaza lose a local train? Run the  and  local via 53rd and the  and  express via 63rd. And the  would replace the  to/from Jamaica Center. The fourth option is kind of confusing, because what train is running local on Broadway if the  is express along with the  and ? The second option is the one I prefer because there is a clean express/local operation on the Broadway Line. The first option - killing the  - can only work with a fully deinterlined QBL with only 8th and 6th Ave services. Maybe also with a future QBL-2 Ave service via the 63rd St Tunnel.

 

I largely agree. Midtown is such a huge jobs center.  Astoria riders will get basically the same service with  as they have with  .  Almost all proposals that push  to 96th include a proposal to significantly increase  service.  For any Astoria rider whose destination is 23rd street or north, the proposal is clearly better as you have increased service without the  interfering with the local tracks.  And as the Broadway express doesn't even serve the Financial District, people heading that way are likely not staying on  to Canal.  The faster ways are likely transfer to 4/5 at Lex/59 or the transfer to 2/3 at Times Square.

I also agree that the third option is the best of the choices that you laid out, since it involves the least amount of intermingling.  Even if the only change you make is to move  to 96th and increase  service, but leave the rest of the subway system the same, you can move so many more people by getting more out of the Broadway line.  It has a lot of untapped capacity.

(Of course, I also support deinterlining CPW and the DeKalb junction for further efficiency.  It is harder to deinterline QBL, as people are wedded to the QBL-Broadway service as well as QBL expresses serving both 6th and 8th Ave.  Such a consensus plan I will post next.)

10 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Unfortunately, it seems that the only way to de-interline Broadway without screwing over south Brooklyn in some way, is to just have an Astoria-Bay Ridge route. Otherwise, we will just have to live with an Astoria-to-Broadway Express route. With the incoming R211 order, the likelihood for a subway fleet expansion (either by the entire R211 with options exercised OR by subway service reductions caused by the pandemic), is very likely. This will probably lead to riders to push for more 2 Av service (meaning more s rerouted to 2 Av, and more s to Astoria to maintain the service balance since the  is at capacity in terms of the Manhattan Bridge merges). This would mean that Whitehall St would no longer be a feasible terminal for the . This could force the  and  to have their south terminals switched, changing the  to a weekday-only route (or just having two 96 St services overnight and weekends), switching the  to a Brooklyn Local weekends if the  becomes a weekend Brooklyn shuttle again.

Prior to 1987,  [and before that some iterations of RR and BMT #2] ran from Astoria to Bay Ridge via Broadway local and Montague tunnel.  Yes, there is no direct yard access, and yes direct yard access is deisrable but not required.  If the overall service can run better with an Astoria-Bay Ridge line, it should be run even if it means some deadhead runs to the CI yard.

Overall, I feel like there will always be some level of QBL-Broadway service, but this type of service should not be the main QBL service or the main Broadway service, since it necessarily involves mixing.  Better to have Astoria-Bay Ridge as the main Broadway service with the QBL service being a supplemental service.

As you correctly note, there will be more demand to 2nd Ave.  Let's send the  there, so then we can increase service.  Once that happens,  will be the prime Broadway local and will be the supplemental Broadwya local, so the prime train should continue to Bay Ridge.

11 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yes, it’s true that have the  local via 63rd cuts off LIC from the inner QBL local stations. This is also a reason why I backed off from this plan. At the time I came up with it (2019ish), I didn’t think it was necessary to preserve that access. But it probably is. So I see why you have the  local. But if you have the  local  via 53 and the  express via 63, then yes, 53 gets less service which wouldn’t be so good. The  has to go via 53, so having it plus one of the 6th Ave local services as the expresses in Queens keeps that busy corridor with a proper amount of service (at or near 30 tph).

My more recent plan, 12/30 at 10:32 am, cleans a lot of this up, but unfortunately utilizes the to maintain connection from QBL local to LIC.  I hate mixing in Broadway trains in the IND system, but am beginning to see that it becomes the only way to adequately provide enough service on all of the QBL system.  As I explain in my opening paragraph, the WTC terminal limits the 6th and 8th Ave lines to having only 7 services.  That means 3 services on CPW and 4 on QBL or vice versa.  The only way to get 4 CPW and 4 QBL is to have the 4th QBL service be either  or  .  Otherwise, we are relegated to only having one service on the QBL local.  So by using the  [sigh], I can run a QBL local on 63rd-6th and another QBL local on 60th-Broadway and maintain two QBL expresses on 53rd-8th.  More merges, but more overall service than my plan from 12/28 at 10:46am.

MTA Researcher,

I do like this plan with regard to how it handles the 8th Ave and 6th Ave trains.  You are providing good service to key destinations and are eliminating a lot of the unnecessary merges.  AC is fully deintelined, except around 145th St.  The EM is a good way of mixing the two services without too many other merges.  Q and F very carefully avoid merging with each other, which has always been a problem that I had with the current system involving current E,F, and M.  Of course, the problem in the current system has M diverging from E and then merging with F in the 6th/53rd area.  This isn't alleviated by simply switching F and M (although that plan does eliminate the EF merge in the Queens Plaza area).  But your system does it better, because the Q trains coming in from 63rd are merging in with D trains from CPW and not affecting  E or F at all.  The E/F divergence is clean, since the F south of that point is all by itself.

Like in my latest plan, I realized that the R is necessary to provide QBL local connections to Broadway so that QBL local customers can access Long Islnad City and the transfer to 456.

I am not a fan of the plan for Broadway as it still provides for crossing between the local and the express.  Granted, it is a far better place to do this crossover north of 57th, then to do it at 34th street under current practice.  If I had to make adjustments to your plan, I would do it in one of two ways, but both unfortunatley relegate Astoria trains to the Broadway local, which I know you are dead set against.  Also, I prefer the 4th Ave local to Bay Ridge being a Broadway service rather than a Nassau service.

ALT 1: Astoria and QBL on Broadway local, 96th trains to Sea Beach and West End:

All Times : Astoria - Bay Ridge: Bway/ 4 Av Local via 60th st tunnel and Montague Tunnel   

All Times except Nights: 71 Av - Whitehall St: QBL Lcl via 60 St- Bway Lcl  

Nights: No Service

Yellow-V* All Times: 96 St/2 Av - CI: Bway/4 Av Exp via Manhattan Bridge and Sea Beach  Line

All Times: 96 St/2 Av - CI: Bway/4 Av Exp via Manhattan Bridge and West End  Line

ALT 2: Astoria and QBL-60 on Broadway local, 96th trains to West End, QBL-63 on Broadway express to Sea Beach.  Orange Q emanates from 57 St:

All Times : Astoria - Bay Ridge: Bway/ 4 Av Local via 60th st tunnel and Montague Tunnel   

All Times except Nights: 71 Av - Whitehall St: QBL Lcl via 60 St- Bway Lcl  

Nights: No Service

Yellow-V* All Times: 71 Av - CI:  QBL lcl via 63 St - Bway/4Av Exp via Sea Beach 

Note: will  not divert to 63rd street on nights and weekends in this alternative

All Times: 96 St/2 Av - CI: Bway/4 Av Exp via West End  

 Orange-Q Weekdays: 57 St - Brighton Beach: 6 Av Exp - Brighton Exp

Weekends and Nights: No Service, 57 St station will close at those times.

I prefer the first alternative.  V and W are basically twins, except that they branch to two separate places in southern Brooklyn.  As such, both should run all day.  Plus, another down side to the second alternative is that it gets rid of the nice cross-platform transfer between Broadway express and 6th Ave express. The tansfer can be used to go from Broadway express to QBL local or from Upper 2nd Ave to 6th Ave express.  The 63rd/Lex station thus allows cross-platform transfers to express lines to West  End, Sea Beach, and Brighton which is great for any south Brooklyn person heading to the Upper East Side or inner Queens.

* An alternate to Yellow-V would be  and renaming Orange-Q to  or  , but I know that you love the Orange-Q, so the nomenclature is up to you.

Thank you darkstar8983 for your comments.  I envisions my train in the above proposal as being merely a supplemental service, so every 10 min (or 6 TPH) is perfect.  The main QBL local should be  and the main Broadway local should be  .   is to be used primarily by QBL local passengers who need access to Queens Plaza area, who use Queens Plaza to transfer to an 8th Ave  or  service, and who need a direct transfer to  .  As is   meant to be more frequent, and since  stops are relatively close to most other  stops, even QBL local customers who want to head to a Broadway stop can just as easily walk from an stop in most of Midtown or make the cross-platform transfer at 63-Lex to  if headed to one of the express stations.

By very unscientific means, I measure the distance from 207 St station to Far Rockaway to be 32.3 miles and the distance from 179 St station to Far Rockaway to be 36.2 miles.  So yes, an 8th Ave express - Far Rockaway train starting at 179 St Jamica Estates will be 4 miles longer [the distance of 80 Manhattan street blocks] than one that starts at 207 St. Inwood.  Whether that in itself is a problem, I couldn't say.  I beleive that the intermingling of different train lines is far more likely to cause delays and operational problems than the mere length of the line.  And in the context of a line that is already over 30 miles, will an additional 4 miles make much difference?

With regard to the Myrtle line, my  from BPB to Metro is about 19.6 miles.  The current  from Forest Hills to Metro is about 18.2 miles.  Again, not sure if the extra 1.4 miles makes much difference relative to the length of the whole line.

You are right about people not realizing the extra time it takes to make some of the convoluted transfers.  I would certainly rather walk a little further, if it meant that I would get to a service that was more frequent to my home station.  When I lived in Eastern Queens, my main lines that I took were  and  .  Back when ran on 53rd, it was far better for me to walk a little further to the 5th/53rd station (where every train went my direction) than it would be to go to the closer 42nd/6th station where I only had the .  Under my plan, every 8th Ave express station will be a station that serves all QBL expresses.  If you can get to 8th Ave (or 53rd street), your wait for a train will be half the time statistically speaking than under today's plan where  and  stop at separate stations in all of Manhattan except W4th.

Another anecdote.  Many years ago, I was a student at NYU, and my department's closest station was W4th.  (Most of the campus is of course closer to 8th st on the Broadway line.)  Anyway, some fellow students who took Metro-North in told me that it was faster and easier to walk from GCT to 6th Ave and take the B/D/Q [this was in the era of Orange Q] directly to W4th than to do take 4/5 to Union Square and then transfer to R to 8th.  How many people realize that the 6th Ave line is only a little walk further than the 4/5/6.  How many people heading to the 6th Ave corridor realize that they should just walk to 6th and take the subway from there as opposed to maybe taking the shuttle to 1/2/3 or possibly further overcrowding the 4/5/6.  So even from GCT, I would say that the current F/M trains are plausible alternatives to 4/5/6 to reach 14th and 5th.  It is unfortunatly automatic for too many Metro-North customers that the only subway available to go south is the Lex line.  And of course, since B division cars are wider, they are going to be roomier than anything on the 4/5/6. 

Before I get to my latest B division deinterlining proposal, I wanted to clearly outline a key limitation that is involved.

You can only run 11 full services on the three trunk lines (8th, 6th, Broadway).  This is because of the dead end at WTC.  Today's service runs 4 services on Broadway and 4 services on 6th, but only 3 services on 8th because of the dead end at WTC.  Even with all of the rearragnging you can't get around this fact.

If Broadway BMT service were completely separated from QBL, then we would have 7 services that can be run on the 8th and 6th lines.  This means that we can either run 3 services to CPW an 4 services to QBL or vice versa.  This largely means that the CPW local or the QBL local will not run at capacity.  For the plan that I posted on 12/28/21 at 10:46am, I was indeed hampered by this fact by running an  service that was limited to 20 TPH because it connected Forest Hills to WTC.  QBL local was limited, unless I can add service via  or  .  With that in mind, I decided to implement the latest plan that maintains  as a supplemental QBL local service to allow 2 services on the CPW local and 2 services on the QBL local.  The  will also provide service for the local QBL passengers who board west of Roosevelt to the Queens Plaza and Long Island City area.

Here is my latest proposal:

168 St - CPW local - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Culver line - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St. 

207 St - CPW exp - 6 Av exp - 4 Av exp - West End - CI.  Service all times except late nights.  Late night West End shuttle 36 St - CI.

  BPB - Concourse local - CPW local - 8 Ave loc - W4 switch - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle El - Metro Ave.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction, C and D will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  service runs to 168th.  Nights and weekends  shuttle between Essex and Metro Ave.

  205 St - Concourse RH exp - CPW exp - 6 Av exp - 4 Av exp - Sea Beach - CI.  24 hour service.  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction.  Local Concourse service at other times.  During late nights,  will run local in Brooklyn.

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Ave exp - Fulton local - Euclid.  24 hour service.  Late nights extended to Far Rockaway. 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Ave local - W4 switch - WTC.  24 hour service.  Late nights extended to 179 St.

Court Square - BQ Crosstown Line - Culver local - Church.  24 hour service. 

 179 St - QBL express - 53rd - 8 Ave exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  All times except late nights.  Late night Euclid-Lefferts shuttle.  Some rush hour  service will run express along Hillside Ave to 179.

96th/2nd - Broadway express - Brighton express.  No night or weekend service.  

96th / 2nd - Broadway express - Brighton local - CI. 24 hour service. 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall.  No late night service.

Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge.  24 hour service.  Yes, there is no direct yard access, but there should be room for out of service trains to hop along the Sea Beach line to Coney Island yard. 

With the above, we have deinterlining along CPW, the Broadway BMT trunk line, and the DeKalb junction.  We run 4 services on Broadway, 4 services on 8th Ave, and 3 services on 6th Ave.  We run 4 services on CPW,  and 4 services on QBL (EFKR).  The 6th Ave express trains are deinterlined, except in the 145th area.  The QBL-8th Ave express trains are completely deinterlined, but run a very long service.  The Broadway express is deinterlined.  Broadway locals merge with 6th Ave locals along the QBL local line.  8th Ave locals merge with some 6th Ave expresses around 145th, merge with  service along the Culver line, and merge with  service along the Williamsburg Bridge line.  The QBL line runs 2 services on the 53rd tunnel, 1 service on the 60th tunnel (that merges with Astoria line), and 1 service on the 63rd tunnel.  By running  local, we do provide access to the upper level of the 50th st station.

22 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

@mrsman I think it should be  to 207,  to 168,  to 205 (145 on weekends) and  to BPB (205 on weekends/late nights). I don’t see any real advantage to sending the  to 205 and the  to 168. Have the  serve Washington Heights/Inwood and the  serve Concourse; it’s what riders have been used to for 80-plus years. 

Your QBL plan is interesting in that it has one 8th Ave service and three 6th Ave services. I proposed a QBL with that same split a couple years ago, but with the  and  express to/from Jamaica and the  and  local to/from 71st Ave, with the  removed from QBL. The idea was to have both a Culver express (the ) while still having the  and having QBL deinterlined as much as possible. But like your QBL plan, it would have called for splitting the 6th Avenue local’s 30 tph three ways between the , K and . That’s going to be a very tight squeeze. In order for it to work, nothing can go wrong on the railroad that would require trains to be rerouted. And we all know that just isn’t possible with the NYC Subway in general. Not to mention that have 30 tph between the , K and  would force QBL to operate well below the line’s capacity because you definitely won’t be able to run 30 tph on the . Maybe 20 at the most. And you have the K dead-ending at 2nd Ave/Houston St. At least with my  plan, the  can still be the popular service it has been for the past 11 years, albeit with a tight squeeze on the 6th Ave local tracks.

I’m not in favor of returning the  to Nassau St with the  and  because that will make it a relatively unpopular service once again. I get why you want to remove the  from 6th, but I can predict it won’t go well with riders, even if there are more choices than before. As for the   and , I like them better on Brighton since the consensus seems to be that Brighton riders prefer Broadway over 6th. The only reason to do  and  on Brighton is that it’s a more simple operation that can allow the  to stay weekdays-only. But even so, it may prove to be a less popular option with riders than even the current  operations.

Thank you for your comments.

I could rearrange the service as follows, to better keep the IND naming scheme.  But I want the heavier 8th Ave service (servicing two southern terminals Lefferts and Far Rockaway) along the Concourse to be matched with the part time (no weekend or late night) BDB/145 service.  But the change in nomenclature will change how these lines are run in Brooklyn.  Now the C will be the Fulton express and the A will be the Fulton local.  But if the naming is your only issue, I present the following:

207 St - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton local - Euclid. Service all times except late nights. 

168 St - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton local - CI.  24 hour service.  Late nights, service is extended from 168 St to 207 St. 

205 St - Concourse exp - CPW exp - 8 Av exp - Fulton exp - Lefferts/Far Rockaway.  This will run 24 hours.  will run local along Fulton during late night hours. [An optional alternative would be to rename the Lefferts service as , but H will be like C in every other way.  During late night hours, H wil run as a Lefferts-Euclid shuttle.]  Express service on the Concourse line only during rush hours in the prevailing direction. This is a very long train that runs in 4 boroughs.   

BPB/145th - Concourse local - CPW local - 6 Ave exp - Brighton exp - Brighton Beach.  Pretty much today's B service.  During rush hour, in the prevailing direction will run local as  runs express along Concourse.  In the non-prevailing direction C and D will share tracks along Concourse.  During mid-day weekdays,  terminates at 145th.  No service nights or weekends. 

Here, I envision twice as many C trains as A trains, since C serves two destinations and is the full time service in Brooklyn and at times the only service in the Bronx.  Likewise, I expect twice as many B trains as D trains, since D is the Brighton express and B is the all-stop service.  Plus, it overall balances the two uptown branches, if i have proportionately two B's and one A serving Washington Heights and two C's and one D seriving the Bronx.  Another consideration is that I want the late night to be served by B and C, where the CPW express goes to the Bronx and the CPW local goes to Inwood, much like today's late night service.

Witth regard to QBL, you are right that I envision a service that has a tight squeeze, but I don't envision it as being a problem.  This is a QBL express service that has three northern branches (JC, 179 via local, and 179 via express).  The current service has those same three branches as well, albeit the to 179 being a less frequent service then what I envision.  I want to make the 179 express a more frequent train to benefit the folks transferring from buses from Eastern Queens, as opposed to simply using the 179 express as a reliever for Jamaica Center.  When those three services come together in Forest Hills, they stay together for many miles with no merges or diverges until the Lower East Side.  And that is only done because I necessarily have to make room for the .  

You are correct that I am limited in my capacity for the QBL local, but the QBL local is already limited to 20 TPH due to issues at Forest Hills.  So if I am limited on that end, I might as well take those locals to a southern terminal that is also limited to 20 TPH - namely WTC.

Your  plan is definitely intriguing.  My two main hesitations are: [1] by running all locals on 63rd, you cut off QBL local stations west of Roosevelt from Long Island City, so my plans always send the local to 53rd, and [2] you are feeding trains from two different tunnels (53rd and 63rd) onto one set of Manhattan tracks (6th Ave local).  Assuming you use the full capacity on 6th Ave, you are absolutely unable to use the full capacity on 63rd since 1/3 of the 6th Ave trains are now going to 53rd.  Perhaps this is better, since 53rd is the busier tunnel and if one of the two should get full service, it should probably be 53rd.

I'll keep cracking at this.  Likely, I may revert to one of my earlier plans that seems to avoid many of these problems.

This one from August was one of my favorites: