Teban54

I mean, does an average passenger really know this? How can they know, for example, that the Crosstown tracks aren't connected to the IRT or BMT systems in downtown Brooklyn (which may be perceived as being possible for the rerouted to use), or that they aren't even connected to Jay St-MetroTech so that the rerouted train can't be heading towards York St and back to Manhattan? (On the Queens side, they may also not know whether it's possible for the to make a turn from Queens Plaza to 21 St-Queensbridge, or whether the only destination possible is Jamaica-179, but that's less relevant since a would terminate at Court Sq anyway.) Coming back to the example at Times Sq, if they're unfamiliar with the system and such reroutes, someone going to Clark St can legitimately believe that the rerouted train will switch back to the after Fulton St, via an imaginary track connection that doesn't actually exist (but they don't know that). Somebody going to Grand Army Plaza may believe the train will switch back to Eastern Pkwy Express at Atlantic-Barclays, where a switch to do so actually exists. We know that even a lot of railfans making deinterlining proposals make mistakes about which track connections exist and which do not, and people commenting on them can make the same mistakes. With some proposals swapping the 8th Av/6th Av locals past W4, which is enabled by the track layout, some comments shut them down because they wrongly thought you can't do so without introducing more interlining. Some proposals forget that CPW can only feed into 6th Av express but not local, or that SAS only feeds into Broadway express but not local, while others forget tracks that can go into either local or express (e.g. 63rd to 6th, 53rd to 8th). If even railfans don't have perfect knowledge of where it's physically possible for trains to go, how can you expect that from the general public?

I find it strange that they framed it as if the Q10's loop via 134 St will be entirely removed, without even a mention of any replacements such as the Q37.

I actually feel having at Lex/53 will reduce crowding there than having . People generally wait for the next express train, not the next train. An train passing by will be much less effective at clearing the platform than an train, meaning almost twice as many passengers will build up before the next . The MTA's EIS in 1989 showed the swap will reduce crowding in trains on all three routes, as someone elaborated here.

From a Reddit comment regarding why R211Ts can't run express, credibility not verified: "There aren’t any smoke detectors installed yet in the gangway section and they’re required if there’s a gap of more than 5 minutes between stations. Once they’re installed, then they can run on express routes"

The following things can be true at the same time: Every proposal, including the status quo, has its pros and cons. Better operations (CBTC, switch replacements, etc) can resolve some issues within the current system. And, there can still be a "best" proposal that maximizes benefits and minimizes shortcomings, depending on how much you value them - and it may not be the status quo. This is definitely not saying "everything needs to be deinterlined just because the current system has issues". It can jolly well be the case that, at the end of the day, the current setup is still found to be the "best" after we carefully evaluate all options. But such evaluations need to take place - here, they're in the form of transit fans brainstorming proposals, but ideally they should have been studies conducted by the and other agencies. While it's certainly possible that they've been done internally, it's not unreasonable to cast doubt on that given the typical way the does things are often far from ideal. The fact that is officially proposing deinterlining Rogers Junction as part of the 20-Year Needs Assessment should be a sign that not everything with the status quo is optimal. Keep in mind, they were willing to do so while spending $$ for new switches, at the cost of losing the Nostrand-Lex OSR on the . And things like this PCAC study, which offered many concrete suggestions including deinterlining Broadway, suggests that Rogers may not be the only case. I think the bottom line is, the shitshow of the present-day and the fact that it has become a meme among foamers should be a sign that something is not right. Bay Ridge residents shouldn't have to endure highly unreliable service, especially if the only reason is resistance to change. It feels that something needs to be done there, whether it involves routing changes or not.

Since we're looking at yet another Broadway/DeKalb deinterlining proposal, here are some questions that I always wanted to ask. How much of a political challenge is it to remove the one-seat ride on the between Manhattan Chinatown and all Brooklyn Chinatowns? From what I've read, this is a highly popular link that can't be covered by the standard justification of "6th Ave and Broadway are close in Midtown". Preserving this OSR while deinterlining DeKalb would mean that West End and Sea Beach need to get 6th Ave service, while both Brighton express and local get Broadway. A very common idea in the Broadway proposals is to 96th St. But wouldn't this put a major limit on future 's capacity, if both and are on SAS? I believe most calls of to 96 are mainly for deinterlining purposes: that's where Broadway Express tracks lead to. Without any merges, SAS is the only place you can go. The only other ways out for a Broadway Express route (say ) are: Merge onto Broadway Local / 60th St tunnel, at either 34th (like the today) or 57th, which is basically status quo and means you still have all the same issues with interlining as today. Or merge on 63rd St from to and become a QBL local, possibly replacing . Sounds like a good way to utilize 63rd St tunnel's capacity into Queens, but there's still a merge on 63rd St, and I'm not sure how problematic that is. You also inherit all the other issues that a 63rd route has for QBL riders (skips LIC and no express transfer at Queens Plaza, no in-station transfer, etc).

Newcomer here, so please correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the only reason why Fulton isn't at capacity because both its express and local feed into the Cranberry St tunnel, which is at capacity? If another trunk under East River is connected to Fulton St local, not only does it boost service at the local stations - where the 's frequency is terrible today (and may be suppressing ridership) - but it allows better headways to all the terminals, since you can have on Fulton express to Lefferts and dedicated to Far Rockaway.