Amiri the subway guy

1 minute ago, Vulturious said:

What exactly is your point? Because what you're saying is that trains should not be letters, period.

 

According to the Wikipedia the reason why P U and Y aren’t used because they sound like pee you and why. And I and O isn’t used cause it looks like 1 and 0. 

17 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

sounds like bee, sounds like see, and sounds like tea. 🤷‍♂️

And  sounds like end and  sounds like are

31 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

The 63rd St line was meant to be a Queens Blvd bypass via the LIRR right of way. The plan called for a 6th Avenue service (M), as well as a 2nd Avenue service (Y). The line would've had a station at Northern Blvd and 41st Avenue, with a passageway transfer to the underground Queens Plaza station. In addition, the 63rd St line would've ramped up to the local tracks at 75th Avenue with a lower level station at 71st Avenue. As a result, this would've shifted the and services from local to express east of 71st Avenue. Finally, it would've allowed service to terminate at 71st Avenue with service to the Rockaways. It all makes sense now, doesn't it?

 sounds like the word why you think that would’ve worked 

On 10/17/2019 at 11:12 AM, Harlem Crosstown said:

QBL needs to be de-interlined and  service should go to Astoria. As part of a removal of reverse-branching I would run  service express via 53 and  local via 63.  service would run to the Rockaways and  to Northern Queens via Jewel/73rd Ave. As an alternative an  service could run to the Rockaways from Jackson Heights, allowing  service to Jamaica-179th.

To be honest H is a better option to use

Here’s my idea. 

Rebuilt the branch. Then remade the Shuttle the and extend it to WTC via Queens Blvd Local 8th Avenue Local. The would be move over to 63rd street tunnel and then add new switches at 50th street and 42 street the would become Express. The would run to Rockway Park allowing all Rockway to be diverted to Far Rockway        
 3 locals sound overkill at first but both the run under capacity causing crowding so this leaves plenty of space for the . The announcements should be Kathleen Campion Feedback please.      

Just now, Amiri the subway guy said:

Thanks for the feedback the main reasoning behind renaming the  is so that passengers know what route will go to the terminal  might seem good but the MTA never used double digits they got rid of double letter routes for a reason. I believe that the flushing extension should create a new route using entire the  and  train logo

Maybe flushing skip stop service can be studied to have balanced service on both branches

On 2/2/2022 at 6:33 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’d be all in for a Flushing extension too. I’d likely stop using the QM20 if I had a  or  line stop near me in Whitestone. It’s much too far for me to walk to and from the LIRR at Auburndale most days (if the weather is in the 50s thru 70s with no rain I can do it, but that’s it). But I’d have the  stay on Northern all the way to 221st/Springfield Blvd because Northern is a wide commercial street and most of the others are residential (like Station Road and 39th Avenue). I’d use  because it’s “the other purple line,” but only the R62As can display it and none of the newer A-Division trains can display a route number greater than . 

Interesting how you mentioned replacing the  designation with a purple . Transit actually had the chance to do this 20 years ago when they could have used the existing  sign on the rolls when they sent R62As from the  and  lines over to the . But no, they kept the , citing that it would actually cause confusion to change it to . 

Thanks for the feedback the main reasoning behind renaming the  is so that passengers know what route will go to the terminal  might seem good but the MTA never used double digits they got rid of double letter routes for a reason. I believe that the flushing extension should create a new route using entire the  and  train logo

Here’s my idea. 

Rebuilt the branch. Then remade the Shuttle the (H)  and extend it to WTC via Queens Blvd Local 8th Avenue Local. The M train would be move over to 63rd street tunnel and then add new switches at 50th street and 42 street the C train would become Express. The H train would run to Rockway Park allowing all Rockway A trains to be diverted to Far Rockway 
 3 locals sound overkill at first but both the M and R run under capacity causing crowding so this leaves plenty of space for the H train. The H Train announcements should be Kathleen Campion Feedback please.

On 1/26/2022 at 9:19 AM, 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

 

Problem with the  part you piss off all southern Brooklyn riders trying to get to 6th Avenue but other than that good idea

I hear many people wanting to extend the train so here’s my proposal  

Here’s an idea I though up for extending the train build a 10th Avenue 42nd Street station and extending flushing further south to Chelsea 23rd Street an area which is developing with many office and business buildings more job opportunities are growing so a another Manhattan station will be needed. but East Queens is the REAL transit desert Flushing is in dire need of improved subway transportation.  

The train is seeing continued growth and with the introduction of CBTC signalling it is able to run more trains per hour. 
the train was supposed to extend further into Northeastern Queens to serve College Point, or Bayside. However, funding for the extension dried up during the Great Depression.  

Since Main Street was never designed to have this many riders it meant dangerous backups at the station and the surrounding streets. This makes it hard for Flushing residents to walk or drive on the surrounding streets, which decreases their quality of life. So I all in for a northeast queens flushing line extension. I noticed on the IND second system track map there were calls for extensions either to College Points or Bayside what extension I believe is necessary, BOTH. Both area are transit deserts that need subway service. However doing so will cause confusion for what northern terminal the train will head to.  

I heard that flushing riders are already confused on which train is local and which is express. 
So to prevent another train like Rockway or Lefferts dilemma I propose splitting the current single Flushing service into two services by creating a new train. All train would now be labeled as trains a win win for everyone since people on flushing will FINALLY be able to tell the locals and expresses apart from each other much easier. Express service would run at rush hour, as it does now.     
College Point Branch

The current train would be extended to College Point Blvd via 149th Street and 11th avenue stopping at 
Bayside 32nd avenue
25th avenue
19th avenue
14th avenue
Malba Dr
132nd Street
And finally College Point Blvd

Bayside Branch
The new proposed train route would run down 221 Street Bayside via Station Road and 39th avenue stopping at 
Northern Blvd 162nd Street
Utopia Parkway
Francis Lewis Blvd
210th Street
Bell Blvd
And finally 221st Street Bayside

For the announcements I instead to find I new actress to voice the 8 train announcements and redo the 7 train announcements because the current set sounds horrible    Just pretend that the 8 train is purple in this post

And there that’s how you do a Flushing extension

16 minutes ago, mrsman said:

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.

 My thoughts. The 1987 change was done to give the R direct access to Jamaica Yard (where the train is assigned to this day); previously, the N had direct access to both Jamaica Yard and Coney Island Yard, and the R, running from Bay Ridge to Astoria, lacked direct access to any yard. This change was intended to improve the appearance and reliability of service on the R, previously, R trains had to make non-passenger runs, or "deadheads", to/from the Coney Island Yard.

While it would be nice to have the R train return to Astoria. People will go on saying that the R “needs a yard” I mostly agree with that statement, However another factor you would have to consider was the fact that back in the 1980s the R train fleet was mainly of R27s R30s and on rare occasions R32s. The R27s and R30s fleet both suffered from many structural integrity issues mainly from deferred maintenance.

Since the majority of the R trains fleet back then consisted of the problem plagued R27s and R30s they really needed a yard desperately after a few trips. The R train has many spots it could shot turn at to make up for lacking a yard, Heck to this day some R train cars are maintained at Coney Island yard. The MTA wanted every line to have direct access to train yard was cause back in the day the MTA was filled to the brim of old and worn out train equipment so it was essential that the train cars be maintenance frequently .

An alternative solution to the R yard was that the MTA could’ve and should’ve given the R train the newest train cars at the time the R68s. If anything the R train could’ve return to Astoria in 1989 or 1991 when the equipment was newer and more reliable than the older. But all hope for the R train returning to Astoria was lost in 1992 when late night R train was cut back to 36th Street.

Let’s use the W train as an example. It uses the Coney Island yard yet it only goes up to Whitehall South Ferry. A very limited amount of rush hour W train head to Brooklyn. But the yard has never really been an issue for the W train, this however could be because that the W train operates weekday only, shares it equipment with the N train, or switches routes at Astoria ditmars blvd.

Anyways fast forward 34 years later. The R train is using the newer R160s which are much more reliable train cars. When the R and N swapped it was a move made mostly because of the terrible  Quality  of the equipment on the R. Flash forward 35 years almost out of all the problems the R has it doesn’t have a decrepit fleet that needs constant maintenance.  So the yard issue seems to be less of an problem than it was in the 1980s but that just my theory. What are your opinions on my theory

3 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

The reputation of this line having as part of the trio of the ever, Arely, and whenever.

So what do we call the  

On 2/19/2021 at 4:44 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

I figure I should jump in and defend some of my choices.

First off, the argument that the E shouldn't be extended to Fulton and Rockaway is moot because from Jamaica to Far Rock is slightly shorter than the current A from 207 to Far Rock. If you want to make the argument that the line would still be too long, I fell you but within the scope of this project (ie no big expansion) there really isn't more you can do.

You argue that there is a correlation between East NY and Harlem but in none of my census research have I found anything to support this. I'm sure there are a few people who do make this commute but not so many that a direct OSR makes all the difference. Just because the demographics are the same doesn't mean the job markets are.

What I do find is that many work close to home or in the major CBDs (downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, midtown Manhattan, and Jamaica). Similarly, West Harlem and Washington Heights riders primarily work close to home (Columbia or New York-Presbyterian) or in midtown with a smaller percentage in lower Manhattan. So for uptown, the   express makes the most sense. If you really have to get downtown, switch at W 4th St. It won't add any more time.

One thing that I have come around on is Queens Blvd. In my post I presented the  as the local via 63rd St and  express via 53rd. Many people have pointed out that this strands some riders. My main concern with swapping the services is that the M runs with shorter trains due to the platforms on the Jamaica and Myrtle Lines. I do propose extending these but as a separate project. Should the Myrtle platforms be extended first then I would be happy with  express and I think it would be a better alternative.

Additionally, I've looked at extending the  up to Queens Plaza and beyond. The Twitter thread is here:  

The long short of it is that because of the location of the existing 63rd St Tunnel connection, any track extension or station expansion that would host a terminal for the would require complex engineering and most likely expensive land taking (not just the land but we are talking about heavy concrete warehouses). This isn't to say that extending the isn't feasible (all the alternatives I presented are) but that they would all be very expensive and probably not worth the cost simply to have the  terminate north of Queens Plaza. However, if this was part of a larger Northern Blvd Subway extension the costs may be justified. 

My solution was to simply add an infill station on the 63rd St Tunnel at 41st Ave right before the tunnel connects with QBL. Early plans for the super-express had a station here and given the growth of LIC I think an infill station would make sense. This way all riders can change no matter the local or express service.

That is bad. The E is a high ridership route that benefits from not being too long. E and Fulton exp would be the high-tph branches from either end of Cranberry), the E's reliability, and thus Queens, would suffer.

15 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Amiri, that could work (possibly?)

I also have plans that both the  and  be rerouted to Coney Island via the Culver Line, and  to run via West End Line, with the  going to the Second Avenue Line, where it will meet up with the  service. During rush hours, the  makes express stops on the Culver Line while the  (which in this proposal, it became a diamond) makes all stops. The  makes all stops on the Culver Line in times the  is not running.

If there is room, I could put in a  peak express service which combines the old NX and the new Q services.

I will then have the  running as the old "C" service that used to run from Bedford Park Boulevard to Rockaway Park or Euclid Avenue. I would then eliminate the  and  skip stop, replacing it with the  peak express.

I would reinstate the  (Nereid Avenue service).

I will have the  and 's northbound terminals swapped, with an extra service that is basically the brown M running to 95th Street instead of Bay Parkway (I will call it the ) and it will only run during rush hours as an addition to the normal service, helping the number of trains per hour to 36 TPH.

Two new services, the  (168th Street to Jamaica-179th Street) and  (Metropolitan-Culver peak express) could help with the crowd numbers. During evening rush there could be an option to reroute  trains via the  line, and it will be called the . It will jump the number of trains per hour to 20 TPH.

NOTE: The circle C is changed to a diamond C when this new proposal happens.

Feedback, anyone?

WTF are you even proposing. Here’s people are trying to deinterline the system. In this proposal you add EVEN MORE interlining that flat out unnecessary. 
 

1. Why the hell are you swapping the  and  routes that just stupid and unnecessary the   Becoming rush hours only is just plain stupid.  is going to be too damn long AKA the reason why the  got eliminated in 1992. Central Park West cannot handle 5 services at once. 
 

2. The  and  swap is going to be a problem too as the  will lose access to a yard AKA The reason why they HAVE to swap routes in the first place. The  could be sent back to Astoria in different ways but not like the way your planning. The  makes no sense once so ever. The Jamaica line can’t handle the  at the same time this would cause huge delays. 
 

3.  WTF is that route is stupid and idiotic  the Christie Street connection wasn’t designed to allow for a route like that the  reroute to is unnecessary complicated. 
 

4.  that could work out but Jamaica line needs to be rebuild to have three tracks for the peak way express service to work

5. The  still exists it’s been relabel as  to reduce confusion 

New proposal for IRT Jerome Avenue line. 
 

I saw on IND Second System Track Map proposal that Vanshnookenraggen made and that the was gonna be extended to Bronx using 9th Avenue el and connect to Jerome Avenue. But we can’t do that now since 9th Avenue el is gone. Harlem 148th Street is build and the Yankee stadium is build over the former location of the subway el. My Proposal is called the 7th Avenue-Jerome Avenue link. The would be extended to the Bronx Running underneath the Macombs Bridge. Then stopping at Anderson Avenue after that it’s runs Elevated to 170th Street where’s it then connects to the Jerome Avenue line meeting up with the . Finally the terminates at Bedford Park Blvd heading straight to Jerome Avenue yard with the continuing to Woodlawn.      

Currently the operates at 13 TPH in the Bronx this leaves plenty of space for the to be extended to Jerome Avenue. The would run at 11 TPH Bringing Jerome Avenue up to 24 TPH. Anderson Avenue would be three tracks to store extra trains during peak hours. This would make Jerome Avenue more attractive as now people have one seat rides to the West Side of Manhattan via 7th Avenue. And less people would be transferring at 149 street to the . This would start off as a rush hour only extension to Bedford Park Blvd. And if proven to be popular it will be all Weekday route. Evenings Weekends and Late Nights the will only run up to Anderson Avenue. CBTC would be installed to further encourage ridership and boast up capacity.      

Bonus the could be rerouted to 7th Avenue in case of emergencies on Lexington Avenue. And vice versa with the via Lexington Avenue   Similar to the current  pattern in the Bronx. Feedback anyone?

On 11/29/2021 at 10:29 PM, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Why would you name that service ? Its sounds like the word you so try another letter please.

Fun fact  sounds like the word Bee.  / sounds like the word Sea.   sounds like the word end.  sounds like the word are  sounds like the word tea. Yet those letters are still used and they isn’t a problem so I don’t see how  would make any difference. Many words in the English language are homophones so it shouldn't be a problem. "This is the Manhattan bound you train" doesn't even make grammatical sense so it definitely won’t  be a problem.

6 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Admittedly, I felt that the plan to interline at 36th Street would've provided good service since it has allowed for both local and express train access to Queens Plaza. However, given the flaws you pointed out, I am open to modifying it with 8th Avenue to local and 6th Avenue to express or the other way.

Long term, should the Second Avenue Subway plans change to something for both local and express service, an Idea that I came up with involved connecting the QBL local tracks with the Second Avenue Subway, allowing the SAS to take over all service on the local tracks (via a new tunnel). This project would combine with a new Queens bypass along the LIRR Main Line, which would allow for all 63rd Street-6th Avenue trains to use this line to make room for the new SAS-Queens Blvd trains. This move would truly allow for deinterlining without severing local/express access to/from Queens Plaza and increase new service options between Queens and the East Side.

I did draft up the Fulton Street Line connection as a new tunnel to clear congestion in the current tunnels and allow for a service increase on the whole Fulton Street Line overall, which could also benefit Queens residents. My experience with the and have involved trains on both lines crowded between Broadway Junction and Hoyt-Schermerhorn (where the population has grown), with train frequencies limited to the fact that the routes merge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (the running shorter trains can also plat a part too). While a two-track connection in Brooklyn would be cheaper to construct due to tunneling required, and could accomplish the same purpose, the location at the Brooklyn end of the Montague Street Tunnel, along with splitting the combined  and  frequencies would inhibit the ability to have both the Fulton Street Line Local tracks and the Fourth Avenue Local tracks operate at full capacity. My intention with the new tunnel is to deinterline operate a full 20-30 train per hour frequency on both lines, reducing wait times and easing train congestion overall, with the , now operating at 24 trains per hour (12 trains north of Chambers Street), using the 4th Avenue Line in place of the  and . With the  now running express with the  and going to Lefferts Blvd, Southwest Queens riders would see more frequent service overall, and would also see a quicker ride to Lower Manhattan.

I also have a Jamaica Avenue connection to further allow for a quicker ride between Southwest Queens and Lower Manhattan, as the Fulton Street Lines are more direct and features a cross-platform to all-day bi-direction express service, something that the current Jamaica Line services do not have (the  route has only unidirectional express service, and it's only during weekdays). This could persuade Lower Manhattan-bound riders to use the Jamaica Line rather than crowd the  route.

I should've also noted that  and  service on the Fulton Street Line is temporary, and it is not the final service plan. Long term, with the expanded SAS, the new SAS lines would be routed to the Fulton Street Line, and  and  trains would be rerouted back to 4th Avenue, with the  trains again terminating at Broad Street, unless there could be something worked out. Regardless, both the temporary Broadway Line routes and the new SAS services would result in permanent impacts in subway service for the better. I'm still drafting up the new long term plan

In my plan, service to Nassau Street would still be available at Essex Street, which would be rebuilt to provide a cross-platform transfer between  trains now terminating there on the middle track and the  and  which will use the Williamsburg Bridge via the outer two tracks. As of now, only 12 trains per hour would terminate there, but I'm also looking into etching in a 4th track to convert the station into a 4-track 2-island platform station to allow for more  trains to terminate there (there would also be the need to have additional relay tracks built to allow for reverse moves beyond the station). In addition, during late nights, the  would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue replace the current Myrtle Avenue shuttle service.

This is a long term service plan, and even then only two trunk lines would be needed, which would be Nassau Street and 6th Avenue Line. I will look into incorporating the 8th Avenue Line's new connection into a portion of these plans.

Old post but I recommend using this Vanshnookenraggen post as a guide https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/05/the-futurenycsubway-bushwick-trunk-line/

12 minutes ago, mrsman said:

It seems that the key aspect of JeremiahC99's plan is a subway line along Broome Street that will connect the 8th Ave local to the Delancey Street subway on its way to the Williamsburg Bridge.  A key connection like this could really simplify alot and make deinterlining easier:

AC:  CPW express - 8th express - Cranberry tunnel

EK:  QBL line to 53rd street tunnel - 8th local - Williamsburg Bridge

BD  CPW local - 6th express - Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express

FV QBL line to 63rd street tunnel - 6th local - Rutgers tunnel to Culver line

N  2/96th - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton line

RW Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Tunnel

I do have issues with parts of this plan, like the lack of deinterlining along QBL, but I think a small connecting line from 8th local to Williamsburg Bridge is a key element that would allow more trains to flow in our system.  We (mostly) get rid of the WTC dead end which will allow full flow on the trunk lines along 8th, 6th, and Broadway.  What it basically does is connect 6 portals to the north (CPW express, CPW local, 2nd Ave, 53rd, 60th, and 63rd) uniquely to the 6 trunk lines (8th exp, 6th exp, Bwy exp, 8th local, Bwy local, 6th local) to 6 portals to the south (Cranberry, M Br N, M Br S, W Bridge, Tunnel, and Rutgers).  This is the goal of deinterlining: a one to one allocation form the portals to the trunk lines without any intermingling in the central parts of town.

My issues:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

Do we need Nassau trains on the Montague tunnel? No.  To me it seems that if we still want to maintain Downtown connection from the Will Bridge, then we can have 1/3 of the Will Bridge trains head down Nassau to Broad St and 2/3 of Will Bridge trains head to the 8th Ave local.  Likewise, if only 2/3 of the capacity of the 8th Ave local is going to the Will Bridge, it will leave the possibility of 1/3 of the 8th locals that can reach Lower Manhattan and terminate at WTC.  [If designations are easier, then E will run from 8th Ave local to WTC, K will run 8th Ave local to Broadway Junction, M will run 8th Ave local to Metropolitan, and J will run Broad St to Jamaica (with express sections in peak direction west of Broadway Junction) so EKM on 8th local and JKM on the Will Bridge].

The only solution to this is to build a new South 4th street subway line with connections to Nassau Street 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue 

9 minutes ago, mrsman said:

It seems that the key aspect of JeremiahC99's plan is a subway line along Broome Street that will connect the 8th Ave local to the Delancey Street subway on its way to the Williamsburg Bridge.  A key connection like this could really simplify alot and make deinterlining easier:

AC:  CPW express - 8th express - Cranberry tunnel

EK:  QBL line to 53rd street tunnel - 8th local - Williamsburg Bridge

BD  CPW local - 6th express - Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express

FV QBL line to 63rd street tunnel - 6th local - Rutgers tunnel to Culver line

N  2/96th - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton line

RW Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Tunnel

I do have issues with parts of this plan, like the lack of deinterlining along QBL, but I think a small connecting line from 8th local to Williamsburg Bridge is a key element that would allow more trains to flow in our system.  We (mostly) get rid of the WTC dead end which will allow full flow on the trunk lines along 8th, 6th, and Broadway.  What it basically does is connect 6 portals to the north (CPW express, CPW local, 2nd Ave, 53rd, 60th, and 63rd) uniquely to the 6 trunk lines (8th exp, 6th exp, Bwy exp, 8th local, Bwy local, 6th local) to 6 portals to the south (Cranberry, M Br N, M Br S, W Bridge, Tunnel, and Rutgers).  This is the goal of deinterlining: a one to one allocation form the portals to the trunk lines without any intermingling in the central parts of town.

My issues:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

Do we need Nassau trains on the Montague tunnel? No.  To me it seems that if we still want to maintain Downtown connection from the Will Bridge, then we can have 1/3 of the Will Bridge trains head down Nassau to Broad St and 2/3 of Will Bridge trains head to the 8th Ave local.  Likewise, if only 2/3 of the capacity of the 8th Ave local is going to the Will Bridge, it will leave the possibility of 1/3 of the 8th locals that can reach Lower Manhattan and terminate at WTC.  [If designations are easier, then E will run from 8th Ave local to WTC, K will run 8th Ave local to Broadway Junction, M will run 8th Ave local to Metropolitan, and J will run Broad St to Jamaica (with express sections in peak direction west of Broadway Junction) so EKM on 8th local and JKM on the Will Bridge].

There also the issue that they is no more service to Nassau Street so this plan must be modified 

Proposed capacity improvements part 1: Deinterlining IND/BMT

Central Park West

CPW runs along the west side of Central Park for most of its length. It serves the west side of Manhattan from 145th Street to 59th Street – Columbus Circle. Two 8th Avenue services from Inwood and Washington Heights express and local and two 6th Avenue services from The Bronx local and express serve the trunk. Under the current setup, the and run express, and the and run local. This setup induces merging conflicts for both local and express services at two points – south of 145th Street and south of 59th Street.        

This can be solved by do this

 unchanged 

 local to 168th Street

 express to Norwood 205th Street

 local to Bedford Park Blvd 

Both and trains would serve The Bronx all day, every day, to encourage ridership. The runs with full-length (600-foot) trains as opposed to 480-foot trains, though it does not run overnight – the   replaces the overnight.      
 

Broadway

The Broadway trunk line runs from 57th Street and 7th Avenue to Canal Street in Manhattan. The run express and cross the Manhattan Bridge, while the trains run local via Lower Manhattan. Conflicts occur north of 34th Street – Herald Square station when the joins the on the local tracks; the three services run together until reaching Queens

This problem could solved by sending both the  to 96th Street via 2nd Avenue. The  would be rerouted to Astoria to replace the  in queens. In the  place in Queens blvd the  would be sent to Forest Hills 

Queens Blvd

The Queens Boulevard (QB) trunk line serves three distinct Manhattan trunk lines and connects to many other lines, making it one of the busiest corridors outside of Manhattan. It serves 8th Avenue  6th Avenue and Broadway . trains run express in Queens, with entering Manhattan via 53rd Street and entering Manhattan via 63rd Street. run local, with entering Manhattan via 53rd Street and entering Manhattan via 60th Street. This pattern poses several conflicts:             

The express and local merge near Queens Plaza.  

The express diverges west of 36th Street station to serve the 63rd Street line; this switch induces delays on the QB express. 

Forest Hills – 71st Avenue, due to its nature as a relay terminal for the induces delays on the QB local.  

Queens blvd would be changed to have it 

 the same 

 rerouted to 53rd Street 

 rerouted to 63rd Street 

 to Forest Hills

Swapping the  would greatly improve capacity on the 6th Avenue and Queens Blvd  

The would still run to 63rd street on weekends/overnight hours to replace the Either the or would be expand to daytime weekend hours to continue providing queens blvd with local service. Preferably the since that 10 cars and Broadway needs two locals as shown on historical Broadway maps.  

The  would run more frequently to make up for the  being move to the express. Both Fulton and Culver would remain the same .

Dekalb Avenue 

cross the Manhattan Bridge on the north side. The B serves the Brighton line and the D serves the 4th Avenue trunk line.  

cross the Manhattan Bridge on the south side. The N serves the 4th Avenue trunk line and the Q serves the Brighton line.   

enters Brooklyn via the Montague Street tunnel and serves the 4th Avenue trunk line.  

The Manhattan Bridge has the worst interlining here, which causes a lot of problems. The key is eliminating merging conflicts at the Gold Street interlocking.

Dekalb Avenue is pretty easy. All you have to do is either swap either or  I go with swapping since Brighton prefers Broadway service on 2:1 ratio so at least this would work in their favor but for west end and sea beach my defense is 6th Ave and Broadway trains only run a block from one another most of the time so how bad would it really be? In order to have the to Astoria the would go to via West End to Coney Island by building a new switch in order to have access to Coney Island yard. The would be sent to Bay Ridge 95th street cause at least it still has Grand Concourse Yard. Using new switches at 36th street since there’s already provisions. But the things is that more modifications would need to make. The would be the local on Brighton with the (Q) being the weekday express . Reason: The (N)was always a full time route and historical the (Q) only operated during Weekdays after all N comes before Q. The (B)seeing how it’s a weekday route will likely have to be a shuttle on sea beach during Weekends and late nights since Central Park west ridership is not high enough to justify four services during Weekends.      
 

The (W) would be expanded to operate during Daytime Weekends hours in order to provide local service to Queens Blvd. The (E)stills run local late night. 
 

In conclusion 

This is part 1 of improving capacity the IRT and BMT Eastern Division requires different measures in order to improve capacity. Part 2 IRT part 3 BMT Eastern Division. 

Question about the  ridership is there anyone that rides the  daily is the  helpful

People keep marking this claim large number of passengers transfer at Broadway Junction to other trains. I know the MTA doesn't track transfers so I'm looking for truthful evidence of ridership on the J. I want to know if there is a majority of riders at Broadway Junction who transfer or stay and go via the Williamsburg Bridge? The  is faster than the  What have any of you witnessed?

And for Williamsburg is that people keep making the claim that midtown is more popular and that lower Manhattan is not popular. Basically claims that favoritizes the hate on the  for no reason. Do many people from Williamsburg ride the  to lower Manhattan is lower Manhattan popular. People keep calling Nassau Street useless but I doubt that true. 

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Sharing isn't a bad idea, unfortunately that can't happen. Norwood is a 2 tracks island platform, only one line can terminate there because of how limited the capacity to turn trains around. You're right about the  not operating during late nights, but you can run service similar to how the  and  currently runs in Brooklyn with  to Norwood everyday except for late nights and the  taking over during that time. It might be confusing, but people will catch on and regardless, most people will usually take  trains anyway most of that time so it wouldn't matter much.

The  should become full length to allow for a smoother swap. The R211 order hopefully got that covered

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Sharing isn't a bad idea, unfortunately that can't happen. Norwood is a 2 tracks island platform, only one line can terminate there because of how limited the capacity to turn trains around. You're right about the  not operating during late nights, but you can run service similar to how the  and  currently runs in Brooklyn with  to Norwood everyday except for late nights and the  taking over during that time. It might be confusing, but people will catch on and regardless, most people will usually take  trains anyway most of that time so it wouldn't matter much.

That’s work good. For the other  deinterlinings I see other routes would also need to be modified 

On 11/21/2021 at 6:06 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

 

The Jamaica Line in its current form looks to be a relic from a bygone era. The line is also a slow alternative to Lower Manhattan due to it's indirect routing, and is not any more quicker than using the train or transferring at Broadway Junction to the and . Population and travel pattern changes have also occurred since there is more demand for Midtown Manhattan due to the popularity of the and there are few alternatives to the .

By altering the Jamaica Line, you would have more direct service to Lower Manhattan and provide enhanced service to Midtown at the fraction of the cost of a new subway. Admittedly, I have come up with something similar two years ago, and since then I refined it to make things more efficient, as seen in this link below:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1QfJN268FDI5whFQqlImHKARjpU_UUh9U

Note that I did not take into account Phase 3 and 4 of the Second Avenue Subway since this plan is solely focused on increasing Jamaica capacity to Midtown Manhattan, providing more direct Lower Manhattan service, etc, all without having to wait for Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway. That is why you see the and still using the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn, though the long term plan I am drafting up they will not be staying there.

It is also of note that these plans are a variation of what Vanshnookenraggen has proposed before in this link, which also proposed modifications to Jamaica Avenue and Second Avenue Service.

The J train is not useless in fact it has a HIGH RIDERSHIP. Gentrification has caused a SURGING GROWTH of   ridership between Chauncey Street and Marcy Avenue. Midtown is popular but their is no need to cut off direct service to lower Manhattan. The BMT Eastern Division could be expanded to 10 cars. You argue that more riders transfer to Broadway junction cause “Fulton street” quicker than Jamaica when in reality not everyone does that most people actually remain on the the ends up being quicker than the if your trying to get to lower Manhattan. The route is shorter than the         

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Ah okay, but there's a slight issue with this plan.

You're going to need to swap the  and  in terms of terminals so you don't have crossover merging involved. You didn't say which line is running express along Concourse. If  trains are express, 145 St won't have any merging unless  trains are running express which shouldn't. Bedford Park Blvd was built to have express trains continue further past it because express tracks only have access to the outer tracks with the middle track mainly used either a short-turn or a terminal. There is no other way to relay on the outer tracks unless trains use the yard leads to Concourse Yard. 

The thing is that the  doesn’t operate overnight so I figured that having like that would be simply things maybe the  could share terminals