mrsman

I would love to see the Port Washington line be operated, both in frequency and in fare policy, more like a rapid transit service. A handful of expresses at premium fare should operate to serve teh Nassau County stations and then skip all stops (aside from Bayside, Flushing, and Woodside) before reaching GCT or Penn. The majority of trains on the line can operate from Great Neck, stopping at all stations on a frequent basis (every 5 minutes during rush hour, 10 minutes off-peak, and 20 minutes overnight) I hate the idea of spending money unnecessarily. There already is a good corridor that services trains, just underutilized.

I also like the idea of a deinterlining pilot. Many of the deinterlining ideas require no captial infrastructure, just posting a GO to let passengers know of some of the proposed changes. I am confident that if deinterlining, even in a minor way, were allowed to happen, the system efficiency would be readily apparent. Of course, deinterlinig pre-supposes that we run trains at a relatively frequent schedule, so a good test pilot would need to be post-COVID.

There are definitely ways to deinterline Columbus Circle, yet still maintaing express service on both the Concourse and Inwood branches of the CPW line. You can maintain one CPW express to 207th, One CPW express up Concourese to Norwood, one CPW local to 168th, and one CPW local to 145th, extended to Bedford Park Blvd during rush hours - as was done pre-COVID. Once that pattern is established, though, you can have all CPW expresses to 8th Ave and all CPW local to 6th Ave (or vice versa) to avoid interference at Columbus Circle. A proposal to send all expresses to Concourse and all locals to Inwood (or vice versa) would not cut the mustard. Both branches have long trips and both should have one local and one express train to service the corridors. I always liked nerdy.nel's assesment of CPW. Given the arrangement of tracks, the conflicts at 145th are not an all-day phenomenon as they are at Columbus Circle. https://nerdynel.me/2019/01/31/nytip101cpw/

I think we all can agree that a direct connection subway is better than any people mover type idea. First, it eliminates a transfer. Second, it does provide a one-seat ride from Manhattan. The proposed 11 train, would give a one seat ride to Grand Central, Bryant Park, Times Square, and Hudson Yards and of course a one transfer ride from all of the main trunk lines. Third, is fare policy. More often than not, when a separate people mover is used, a separate fare is expected. For JFK, it is so exorbitant, because even if you have already paid $2.75 (or a LIRR fare to Jamaica), you then have to fork over an additional $7.75. [It is true that some airports with people movers will allow a ride from the terminals to the nearby regular subway station for free, but given JFK - we would have to assume at least $5 additonal for the LGA air train without a free subway transfer.] However, if the airport is just another station on the subway line, it is likely to be at normal subway fares (or even if at a premium, not a super premium). Chicago's L, which like NYC MTA, is designed with paying as you enter and not tapping as you exit, charges a $2.50 fare. No extra fare to exit at O'Hare. $5 instead of $2.50 is charged to enter from O'Hare. No premium at all is charged for riding to Midway, largely because it is also a major bus transfer point as well as a stop to service the airport. If the LGA were on the subway, it would be difficult to charge an extra fare upon exiting and even if an extra fare upon entering, it is less likely to be exorbitant, and it will also cover your subway fare and give you a bus transfer as well. However, it has to be acknowledged that splitting the does mean that less service will be available, since we have to split to serve both LGA and Flushing. Given some of the earlier comments, this may not be a problem as more trains can turn back at Hudson Yards than at Flushing, so the extra trains (that would normally terminate early) are just diverted to LGA instead.

I agree. Plans to fully deinterline 6th Ave and QBL would employ something along the lines of a 6th Ave local - 63rd - QBL local and have all of the QBL expresses to 53rd street to 8th Avenue. One can keep providing the without reducing 6th Ave or QBL service. (Of course, Culver service is limited by the number of trains provided). Run both and as 6th Ave local - QBL locals and provide instead and services as the QBL express. Whether and continue to the Cranberry tunnel as an 8th Ave express or terminate at WTC as an 8th Ave local is dependent upon what happens along CPW.

I like vanschnookenraggen's plan, since it is very streamlined. You can read more of my comments on his site. The one hurdle I see is convincing the West End riders that this is better for them than a direct express, which they will be losing. On an ops basis, it certainly is better, since they wait less for a proposed and then transfer to a or at 36th - but with all deinterlining plans the "cost" is that the West End riders will need a transfer, when before they could ride directly on the , albeit a less frequent train than what is proposed here. The basic truth of any deinterlining is a trade-off: More frequent trains and fewer delays due to merging in exchange for an additional likely transfer for a set of passengers. I think it is a good trade-off, but many others do not.

Interestingly enough, DeKalb already has no direct service to 6th Avenue on weekends and Federal holidays, as well as during the “Essential Service” plan during the early part of the pandemic when the was suspended. It’s not out of the question that DeKalb may lose that service again if the are forced to implement 40 percent service cuts. I’m really hoping it doesn’t come to that, because ridership is starting to rise again from where it was six months ago. If that keeps up, and they still have to go through with cutting service, expect overcrowded trains with no way to contain Covid. That said, my preference (assuming Covid goes the way of polio) is also to do express to Brighton, local to Stillwell via Brighton, to Sea Beach with expanded service hours and to Stillwell via West End. This is because it’s been stated in past discussions that the found there was a stronger preference from Brighton riders for Broadway and from southwest Brooklyn riders for 6th Avenue. It is interesting to imagine a deinterllining in the context of service reduction. One of the greatest benefits of deinterlining is being able to run more trains, not fewer. One could contemplate as a service reduction the following: eliminated Concourse - CPW express - 6th Ave - 4th Ave express - West End Astoria - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Sea Beach 96th - Broadway express - Brighton local Rush hour Q route with Brighton express Forest Hills - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge Such a pattern would be a cut, and would be very bad for Sea Beach riders, but can illustrate a deinterlined system. Of course the provision of comes at the direct expense of so whether such a service is maintained would have to be analyzed carefully. I don't like it. The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT. Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.

So long as Manhattan Bridge trains serve Broadway express and 6th Ave express, deinterlining DeKalb is a good idea. For the vast majority of passengers, you are only slightly increasing their walk, yet at the same time removing interference that causes significant delay. (Deinterlining DeKalb would not be possible if SAS trains were routed onto the bridge and 6th Ave trains went to Williamsburg Bridge as some others have proposed. In that case, the distance between Broadway and SAS midtown stations would be too great.) IMO, I think it was unfortunate that MTA did not implement this in 2004 when both the north and south sides of teh bridge were opened after a constuction project that closed 2 of the 4 tracks for the previous 15 years or so. During the 1990's Brighton local, Q-orange Brighton express, and West End trains all served 6th Ave while the from Sea Beach was sent to the Montague tunnel. Then, from 2001-2004, Brighton local, Brighton express, and West End trains all served Broadway express only while the from Sea Beach was sent to the Montague tunnel. These service patterns showed that the ridership was adaptable and that Brighton and West End riders directly (and Sea Beach and Bay Ridge indirectly via a transfer at 36 St) were able to ride EITHER 6th Ave express or Broadway express without complaint, because only one set of tracks were open. In 2004, when teh Manhattan Bridge project was completed was teh perfect time to implement a deinterlining regime as all riders would have a memory of either restoring back to the 1990s pattern (for their branch) or continuing the 2001-2004 pattern for their branch. So Brighton local and express to 6th Avenue restores the 1990's plan for those riders, sending West End to Broadway continues the 2001-2004 service, and making Sea Beach a Broadway express is a clear service benefit. Alternatively, sending Brighton local and express to Broadway continues the 2001-2004 service, sending West End to 6th Ave restores the 1990's plan, and making Sea Beach a 6th Ave express is also a clear service benefit. In both cases, (from the perspective of a 2004 rider) you can provide a familiar service pattern for Brighton and West End riders, a new express service for Sea Beach riders, and less interference for all riders. Unfortunately, MTA restored the 1980's service pattern which caused more interference and wasn't reallly necessary in 2004. And unfortunately to propose something different now would be politically difficult as people got used to the past service pattern that was in place since 2004 for over 16 years. Nonetheless, deinterlining DeKalb in some way would still be overall benefitical for the system and the ridership, just more difficult to do now then to have done it in 2004.

I think part of the idea is that this is a Queens line to 50th, so most of the passengers are destined for Midtown and a transfer to a local on a trunk line would be enough as few people would need to go any further south than 23rd.

I really envision that service cuts would have to include some form of station closure. While there may be a cost to install lockable gates, and there may still need to be some level of policing to ensure that people don't sleep in the stations - there could be significant savings in closing the station. Cleaning and maintenance do not need to be performed as often. Station agent do not need to service the station, so there is a labor savings. One less station would also help with the end to end runtime of trains, which also saves costs. Having said that, neighborhoods still need to be served, so in most cases the end station still needs service of some type. Stations that close should have an alternate open station within walking distance. And ADA needs to be taken into account.

Yes, in a way I am ridding the Broadway line of Downtown service as the plan is to have all Montague tunnel trains ride up the 8th Ave local line. All Broadway service (both local and express) will run to the Manhattan Bridge South tracks. This necessarily means that both the local and the express tracks will each run at half-capacity. The point of the design is to run as much capacity at the portal from Brooklyn to Manhattan as much as possible. As there are more trunk line tracks than portals, there is no way to run maximum service on the trunk lines, unless more portals to Brooklyn are built. Run full capacity of Cranberry tunnel to the 8th Ave express Montague tunnel (with new construction) to the 8th Ave local Rutgers tunnel at half-capacity to the 6th Ave local (to leave room for some Williamsburg Bridge trains to 6th Ave local). You can't have full capacity on the Rutgers tunnel unless you cancel the move from W Bridge to 6th Ave local. Manhattan Bridge North tracks to the 6th Ave express Manhattan Bridge South tracks to the Broadway lines. You could run all lines express and close down the local station. You could run all lines local and not use the express tracks at all. Or you could split the approach, with each line getting half service. --------- If all of the above seems too drastic, then don't build the connection to the 8th Ave local to the Montague tunnel. But the point is that you simply cannot run 6 trunk lines at full capacity if there are only 5 portals to Brooklyn. One of those trunk lines is not making it to Brooklyn and its capacity will be limited by its turnback. Given the current layout of tracks, the current set of tracks that are limited are the 8th Ave local which terminate at WTC. Full capacity at Cranberry tunnel, Rutgers tunnel, Montague tunnel, Man Bridge N, and Man Bridge S would mean respectively full capacity at 8th Ave express, 6th Ave local, Broadway local, 6th Ave express, and Broadway express

The problem was that the occupied both local and express tracks, thus blocking both. My sentence quoted above pre-supposes no trains at all. The only two services that exist on Broadway would be express and local, both run at half capacity, that would then merge together. I see this as being similar to the merge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn or the merge at Prospect Park.

Which further the argument to deinterline even more of the system so that more of these merges do not take place, simply because they only have the effect of slowing people down with little benefit to ridership as a whole. Take the Broadway line. Most of us agree that switching between local and express tracks in Manhattan severely limits the capacity for both local and express trains and helps induce backups on every line that interacts with [all trains on Broadway, Queens Blvd, and all trains through DeKalb]. So we know that the better approach is to avoid the switch and have all Broadway locals run from the 60th street tunnel to City Hall/Montague tunnel and the express trains from 96 st to the Manhattan bridge. The devil is in the details, of course, and issues like yard space for Astoria-Bay Ridge runs do need to be addressed. That being said, the same analysis should also apply for the 8th Ave line. Currently, the 8th Ave line is limited by the turnback at WTC from running 4 services. MTA has long decided that instead of running one service on the local and two on the express (continuing into the Cranberry tunnel), they should have the merge from local to express tracks at Canal so that the local stations at Spring, 23, and 50 get maximum service. But if 8th Ave trains are not limited by WTC (with the proposed extension into the Montague tunnel, which should still require some turnbacks at WTC so as not to hamper Broadway service), then we can operate two local services and two express services on 8th Ave. Run the locals from 53rd street to WTC/Montague and the expresses from CPW express tracks to the Cranberry tunnel.* This in turn would force the CPW local tracks to exclusively serve 6th Ave express. Deinterlining DeKalb would also be helpful, but probably not necessary here. While DeKalb does produce its own delays, if CPW and 8th Ave are deinterlined, DeKalb's current setup would not introduce any new delays. The point is that while some merging is necessary, most merging in Manhattan, where trains on both local and express tracks are generally frequent, can be avoided where possible in order to run maximum loads through Manhattan. * Alternatively, the tracks are set up to have the expresses run from 53rd street to Cranberry, the locals from CPW local to WTC/Montague, and having the CPW express exclusively serve 6th Ave express trains

Ok, so the suggestion then is that the 8th Ave local tracks will merge into the Broadway BMT local tracks south of WTC. This may mean some track improvements along both lines such that some 8th Ave trains can still terminate at WTC and some Broadway trains can terminate at City Hall, but that the remaining trains will merge together and continue into the Montague tunnel. This may mean the addition of some bypass tracks at WTC and City Hall and some switch upgrades. In some ways this seems analagous to some older service patterns that had some Broadway trains terminate at Whitehall and some Nassau trains terminate at Broad and the remainder joining together into the Montague tunnel. So it could probably also work for 8th and Broadway trains as well. Obviously, if such were done Nassau trains can't also be scheduled to run through the tunnel, except in emergency. But the benefit seems to be to allow for more trains to run through midtown on both the 8th Ave and Broadway trunk lines. It may also allow us to obviate the need for the to switch from local to express tracks at 34th street (or Prince street). from 71 to Whitehall, 15 TPH from Astoria to the tunnel to either Sea Beach or West End to reach CI yards. and from QBL servicing the 53rd street tunnel and 8th Ave local, with terminating at WTC and to Bay Ridge.

It would provide redundancy as well as a new way of operating trains. If all 8th Ave locals ran from Queens to Whitehall or Bay Ridge, that would be one less reason to have the train on the QBL. Once SAS opens (to Downtown), you could have 15 TPH and 15 TPH trains that start at 2nd ave or Astoria. express and local along Broadway, and then both lines merge together to the Manhattan Bridge.

Today, in the COVID era, mass transit of all sorts is going to have to really make an effort to win back their customers. There are enough people out there who believe mass transit to be a COVID risk that they are now going to be in great competition with people driving themselves to work and paying for parking. A good way of being more competitive is by rethinking the fare structure. Yes, providing new transfer discounts between commuter rail and buses/subways would go a long way in attracting new customers.

Agreed. I think by design the higher fare was meant to discourage usage so that city residents would not crowd the RR so that there would be room for suburban passengers. The problem with that thinking is that they are meant to serve passengers in their zone. E Queens is just as much part of their service area as Nassau and they should serve as such. Especially off-peak, why is it so expensive? No good reason.

That's right. A service change should change the routing as little as possible to avoid confusion. Between Queens and W4th, under your proposal, the trains would be exactly the same and would confuse less riders. As it is, E Queens passengers have to concern themselves with the reconstruction on the Archer Ave line, they shouldn't have to concern themselves with Rutgers which is a Brooklyn problem. Brooklyn passengers would focus on taking the instead of the , but by doing so, they know that their train is going to run on 8th Ave and if they want 6th Ave they need to transfer. For Brooklyn passengers to Manhattan, there is little confusion as there is only one train to choose from anyway. For Mahnattan passengers heading to Brooklyn, they will need to focus on this and the announcements will be geared to them: will not be terminating at WTC, next stop is Fulton, train to Coney Island. train to 2nd Ave station, transfer at W4th for train to Coney Island.

What it really means is that the fare structure of commuter rail needs to be thought through very carefully in order to siphon some riders off the overcrowded subways in areas within the city. If the fare for travel on LIRR or MNRR within the city were reduced (ideally to the subway/bus fare) and a free transfer to buses/subways were provided, the MTA could better utilize some of the existing capacity along these lines Many transit advocates in Chicago support something like this along their Metra Electric line: https://chi.streetsblog.org/2016/01/14/south-side-groups-make-the-metra-electric-run-like-the-cta-l/ The proposal makes a lot of sense in Chicago because it is the only commuter line with 4 tracks and electric infrastructure. Plus it is isolated from most of the other commuter lines that emanate from the West Loop train stations (Ogilvie, Union). The ME runs through museums, U of Chicago, and other points of interest as well as going through a heavily transit dependent neighborhood. It certainly makes sense to at least explore the option rather than commit to an expensive capital project to extend the red line. Something like this is a no-brainer to improve service along the Atlantic branch of LIRR. It can probably help most Queens and Bronx commuter stations as well.

One nice thing about the suggestion is that it not only reduces service, but it also deinterlines Columbus Circle. CPW to be served by and expresses and local. We sacrifice the Concourse rush hour express. I agree with the other suggestion that this would necessitate runs on the weekend. For budget purposes, this may mean some cuts or reroutes of some sort on the Brooklyn side. We may not be able to afford two services on the Brighton line, so the may have to run elsewhere, perhaps to the Sea Beach line --. with no service on weekends and service from Astoria to Bay Ridge via the tunnel

There is a lot of merit to a deinterlined Bronx IRT. Pelham trains to 7th Ave express. Transfers at Hunts Point for Lex local. Transfer at Grand Concourse for Lex express. "Bronx" trains (Wakefield/Dyre) to Lex local. Transfers at Hunts Point for 7th Ave express. Transfer at 125 st for Lex express. Jerome trains to Lex express. Transfer at E 149 fro 7th Ave trains. Transfer at 125th for Lex local. It provides all of the Bronx IRT lines (except ) a connection or a transfer to Lex local, Lex express, and 7th Ave express. If the transfers were built to make some of the connections easier, this may work. Regarding Third Ave service, it would seem that tying in to the Lex Express and perhaps tying it into the Park Ave Bronx routing may make the most sense. In that regard, each of the Manhattan trunk lines will have two terminals: Lex Express to Jerome Ave or Third Ave. 7th Ave express to Pelham or Parkchester. Lex Local to Wakefield or Dyre. Operationally, this should work pretty well.

If ran along the , it would be a 24/7 service, but the would not necessarily need to be. local can take care of Fulton and can provide the connection to Broadway at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. I would presume that and would both be run to Astoria, so only one of those is needed late nights. The would not run in any sort of loop. This idea of running to the G line is based on an idea to run on a new tunnel to Court St station and thence to the Fulton local tracks, not the Montague tunnel. (under the proposal a train would connect Essex to 95 St). The Crosstown trains coming from Queens would run as they do towards Fulton station. Then, they would be connected to the Fulton local tracks, joining with the Fulton local trains. The Fulton local trains would stop at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, then at Court St (transit museum), and then onto the new tunnel to connect to the Broadway BMT local tracks.

The trains on the WIlliamsburg Bridge are likely to be crowded by the time they reach Hewes making it difficult to accept a significant number of passengers. passengers already face this problem everywhere in that they have to transfer to a Manhattan bound train at a point that is near the load point of each train they come across. Having dedicated access into Manhattan would alleviate that. The idea would be that it would obviate the need for any passenger from having to make the transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn to and the potential . It would have its own access into Manhattan via the new tunnel that connects to the Fulton line. The line would probably need a track connection into the Fulton local somewhere between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and the Laffayette station for this to work.

I like this and it will be nice to see a full scale map to see what becomes of QBL and Uptown/Bronx service given these changes. It appears to be a nearly deinterlined system, except at DeKalb and one or two other places that aren't yet apparent. along the Fulton line would be alot of service. I beleive this is the first proposal I have seen with 4 services along Fulton, whereas a more common proposal would be to split service coming out of Montague tunnel, with half of the trains to Fulton local and half the trains to 4th Ave local. I wonder if it would make sense to send one of those services [perhaps the ] to the Crosstown line to replace the and to give those stations a direct link to Manhattan. THe new tunnel is certainly the biggest capital investment of the proposal. Would it make sense to have 8th Ave local trains connect to the new tunnel to Fulton and/or Crosstown and for Broadway to maintain its connection to Montague? That would create a system of 7 trunk lines to 7 portals. There could still be a diversion of a handful of Montague trains along the to service the Banker's special to Essex.

It's also true that which have been cut also don't serve unique stations. Cutting those services will reduce the frequency of trains as well as reducing some express train service but it has no effect on cutting access to any station or neighborhood. It is the easiest way to make a cut. But if you need to cut service overall by 40%, simply reducing service may not be enough - you will have to begin eliminating some service and some jobs as well, sadly.