Caelestor

When it comes to rapid transit, frequency is valued more than travel time because waiting time is perceived more negatively than a slightly slower train. So basically none of the BMT south Brooklyn lines should be running express unless a second service is added like on Brighton. Similarly, the express can't happen unless another service through Rutgers is added.

It's not necessarily about being anti-car, it's about expanding capacity and increasing mobility. Right now, getting into and around NYC by car, bus, taxi, train, ferry, etc. are all slow and if everyone's QOL is to improve, more modes of transportation are needed. Typically rail is preferred because it's the most cost-effective and there's existing pre-war infrastructure that can be used, but in NYC costs are so outrageous that everyone will be stuck in gridlock for the foreseeable future. The map that Alon drew is a fantasy map, but it represents what could be possible if costs were about the same as other developed countries. Existing rail infrastructure is leveraged and modernized to create a set of efficient through-running lines that offer subway-like service in the regional rail's core system. He based this system on two cities he's lived in, Paris and Berlin, with some inspiration from Tokyo. Also Alon grew up and lives internationally so he's not fixated as much on the NJ / NY state divide, which geographically doesn't exist. Not all of it is logical like the Staten Island tunnel that should just be an extension, but the gist of his proposal is fundamentally sound and 4 regional rail lines can and should be built in Manhattan. Unfortunately, the politics are the biggest obstacle to actually implementing any of this. Ideally, a central agency such as in DC, Philly, or Boston administers the transportation network of the entire area. If NJT and LIRR can't ever be merged to form Regional Rail line 1, then none of this is actually worth talking about.

Seems about right, based on schedules a skipped stop saves about 45 seconds. Express service only really makes a big difference on the IRT due to its really closely-spaced stops, the BMT Brighton line, and the long express stretches on the IND (CPW, QBL, Fulton). Otherwise, treat it as another subway line with fewer stops to save construction costs and riders' time.

FYI

Perhaps the discussion should be about why the MTA can't run more than 20 tph on a 4-track line on weekends. Is there an actual logistical reason or are they just cheap?

At this point, it might be worthwhile cutting back the to a shuttle on weekends and running the and at 6 minute headways. I'd consider the same thing with 7 Ave, but the doesn't have a suitable terminal.

There's a lot of ways to improve service not just for Bay Ridge but systemwide. One obvious issue that needs to be addressed is the dispatching, as trains can't run on time if they don't leave the first stop on time. For whatever reason, trains don't depart the terminal on time except on the single-service lines. Luckily operations issues are much easier to resolve compared to building new tunnels. Deinterlining can improve service too. Right now the has to deal with the twice (btwn 36 St and 59 St in Brooklyn due to construction, then btwn Times Sq and 59 St - Lex Ave), the in Manhattan, and then the in Queens. In any reasonable service plan, the should stay on the express tracks to 96 St and then the Bay Ridge trains have fewer merges that impede them. Also, headways should be standardized. Assuming the Astoria line is limited to one train every 4 minutes, the needs to have similar headways so that there won't be conflicts. In practice that means the has to run every 8 minutes, and it follows that the has to run every 8 minutes as well. Fortunately the QB local trains aren't crowded and the run on 4 minute headways so everything syncs up nicely. Since the will be the more frequent route, it should replace the in Brooklyn. In the end, the ideal plan is something in the lines of Sea Beach / Bway express / 2 Ave, shuttle between CI and Whitehall St at night Brighton / Bway express / 2 Ave, local at night Forest Hills - Whitehall St local, no service at night Astoria - Bay Ridge local, all times

Just shut down the on weekends west of Bedford Ave and run the rest of the line on 6 minute headways. Almost no one is going to wait around for a 3 tph service. While not ideal the + + M14 SBS should be able to handle the weekend traffic.

We need to adopt an "organization before electronics before concrete" approach to running the subway system. More service begets more ridership and fewer budget deficits, which increases the likelihood of funding for future expansion. There's a lot of unused capacity in the existing infrastructure today, namely Broadway, 8 Ave, and Broadway. Deinterlining + fixing terminals to increase capacity is an order of magnitude cheaper than new tunnels + East River tubes. Now back to Chrystie St Connection II... The problem with completely severing the 6 Ave express tracks from the Chrystie St connection is that one of the 6 Ave track pairs will dead end in the LES, which really doesn't have to be the case. The IND Second System planned for an extension of the express tracks into Williamsburg via a new East River tunnel, but clearly that's not on the table. Connecting the express tracks with the Williamsburg Bridge effectively achieves this at considerably less cost by utilizing existing, underused infrastructure. Ignoring the inevitable cost overruns and the massive service disruption, this is also one of my favorite proposals for SAS Phase 3. Sending the over the Williamsburg bridge fulfills the IND Second System plan to extend the 6 Ave express tracks through North Brooklyn. The 6 Ave express tracks are probably the only track pair that can handle 8-car trains, given current ridership along the Concourse line. The initial phase would simply build SAS Phase 3 + realign Chrystie St to achieve to Metropolitan Ave, displacing the to Jamaica Center, displacing the Culver express Culver local 72 St - Coney Island via lower SAS + West End (full time) SAS local / Brighton Beach express (part time), probably should be a recolored or train Bay Ridge - Essex St shuttle via Nassau St. At lower ridership hours, this could replace the to Middle Village Then in a future phase, build the Whitehall - Court St tunnel to send the to Fulton St. The independent Bay Ridge - Nassau St line can become the basis for the SAS express tracks, with the Nassau St stations rehabilitated with extended platforms as appropriate.

The maximum capacity solution is the taking over the Fulton St local to Euclid, to Rockaways, and express to Lefferts. Then the takes over the Bay Ridge branch and the takes over the Culver local, allowing the to run express. Then build the QB bypass / 50 St crosstown, stopping at Woodhaven Blvd, Woodside, Sunnyside Yards, Court Sq, 2/3 Aves, Rockefeller Center, Broadway/8 Ave, and 10 Ave. SAS from 72 St to Hanover Sq would have the biggest investment, but presumably it would link up with a new Northern Blvd line in Queens.

Phases 1 + 2 are well-integrated, as they are effectively the extension of the Broadway express tracks. However the new service would cause a reverse branching situation, and so lower SAS (72 St - Hanover Sq) needs to be reevaluated. Given the latent capacity on the south of Essex and the south of LES - 2 Ave, a Chrystie St II Connection could provide an additional pair of tracks up Midtown East while solving the yard access issue that the will have.

The Bypass would be built in currently unoccupied space along the LIRR row, formerly used by the Rockaway branch. In the initial proposal, the line had no stations, but nowadays there'd probably be stops at Woodside, Woodhaven Blvd, and possibly Sunnyside Yards. ESA is just going to use the existing 4 main line + 2 PW tracks, which will split into 4 tracks to NYPenn + 2 tracks to GCT. Traffic is planned to be split 50/50, which opens up a lot of capacity into Penn, even after Amtrak is accounted for. Hence the reason for MNR Penn Station Access, though logistically it probably makes more sense to extend NJT NEC trains to Stamford instead.

Are the stations between Court Sq and Roosevelt Ave receiving that much development? I'd imagine the have plenty of space during rush hour, though the definitely has no more capacity by the time it reaches Queens Plaza. Unfortunately the 63 St line misses LIC entirely, otherwise the deinterlining would have been implemented from Day 1 and service would be better throughout the system. There's a couple of reasonably inexpensive ways to better reduce QB express crowding. The easiest one would have the skip Roosevelt Ave in the peak direction, forcing riders to take the instead and better balance the crowding along QBL. I also agree that full deinterlining would do the trick, and in that case 30 tph would be achievable by having local trains run to 179 St or via a new line under Jewel Ave.

The should not be extended to College Point or Whitestone, which represent dead ends, as there is no justification to build an expensive subway tunnel to Throgs Neck. A northern extension would also permanently limit capacity on the eastward Northern Blvd extension to Broadway / Bayside, which is the denser corridor that needs to be served. CityTicket should be extended to weekdays, and PW service should be increased off-peak, as well as during the peak after ESA opens. Queens needs every bit of capacity it can get. Regional rail through NJT / LIRR consolidation would be nice, but it would only really open up trips to NJ. The real game changer would be an ESA extension to Union Square and Jersey City / Fulton St, which is even more long term than new SAS + Northern Blvd subway lines.

This might be controversial, but I don't think QBL local needs 20 tph, especially since most riders east of Roosevelt Ave transfer over to the . The running at 15 tph should be more than enough to accommodate riders at the ten local stops between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills. In fact, it may very well be possible that running the at 15 tph each could work very well in practice. Keep the and the same, and run the between Forest Hills and Middle Village at all times except late nights, replacing the . Some peak trains would have 10 cars, terminating at Houston St / 2 Ave. The only impediment would be the signaling, which IIRC currently limits tph to 28 along 6 Ave, and a potential chokepoint in moving all QBL / Lex Ave transfers to 53 St. As for the , consolidating it with the and moving the to 96 St would also improve the current congestion at Times Sq. The ideal service pattern would be 15 tph between Astoria and Bay Ridge, plus additional short turns between Queensboro Plaza and Whitehall St.

I'll do QBL first since that's actually the easier problem to solve. If the is ever taken off QBL, then the only feasible service pattern is running the via 63 St (it stays local in Queens). This frees up capacity for the along the QBL local tracks and 53 St. Deinterline the and the along 8 Ave and every pair of tracks through Midtown is running at full capacity. Broadway is the trickiest trunk to schedule, assuming all trains run to the same northern terminals at all times. All Broadway local trains should be running via 60 St and Montague, while all Broadway express trains should be running via 63 St / SAS and the Bridge. This scheduling works on weekdays and weekdays, the latter assuming the or runs on QBL during weekends. Late nights Broadway only has a SAS train via the Bridge and an Astoria - Coney Island train via Montague, the latter of which won't exist if the goes to 96 St. Honestly, the best solution is to run the to 96 St + to Astoria at all times, which will increase costs but will dramatically improve service along SAS + Broadway.

This is what a lot of mainline rail systems do, and frankly the MTA should do so as well. It will relieve a lot of congestion at the ticket counters and ticket machines at NY Penn, and save a reasonable amount of paper. The mainline rail systems can even consider moving to POP, though I'm not certain if it's feasible because NYC actually has significant rail ridership unlike the rest of the country.

I think you can just go for a Bleecker St style transfer - 3 blocks instead of 1 but same principle. Then move the to 63 St and then traffic flow through the complex should be much more balanced. Even though the transfer will be less convenient than the , Lex express / QB express riders get an actual transfer between the .

Hudson Yards, a two-track terminal with tail tracks, works fine. There's two potential improvements for the eastern end of the . The cheaper solution is to build tail tracks at Flushing Main St with crossovers so that trains can enter the terminal at higher speed. The more practical solution is to extend the further out to a modern two-track terminal with tail tracks and relieve the bus transfers at Main St.

There is no need to adjust the Dekalb services. Brighton is the busiest of the BMT branches, and so all Brighton service should run via the Bridge. The and also run express via the Bridge given their longer routes + greater catchment area. This leaves the to serve Montague. QBL local doesn't need more local service, and the express tracks are maxed out. So send the to 96 St, separate the from the and merge the into the timetables. The can serve Astoria / Forest Hills - Whitehall St - Bay Ridge in whatever way makes sense.

Actually, CBTC is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve capacity, the other being articulated subway cars. The expensive infrastructure, i.e. tunnels + stations, are already there, and the signals have to be replaced anyways. That said, the 63 St line should be extended to Woodside and later Forest Hills to relieve the current QBL chokepoint at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave. As for the , the only split it needs is from the , especially along 60 St. Neither the nor are frequent enough to impose serious merging delays, so the problem lies in poor operations.

In general branches of existing services shouldn't have different names. For example the have two different northern terminals during rush hour.

I think the MTA should just suspend trains in Manhattan and run the to 96 St on weekends. With 20-minute service not only will trains be dangerously overcrowded, but it'll also be faster to walk along 14 St.

Deinterlining should be done where trains currently switch between local and express tracks, because having a train occupy two tracks at once is always a loss of capacity. To me these are The going from express to local btwn Times Sq and Herald Sq Keep the on the express tracks The going from the Eastern Parkway express tracks to the Nostrand Ave line via the EP local tracks During peak hours, all trains should run to Flatbush Ave as today. trains should also go down Nostrand as much as possible, with the excess continuing to New Lots Ave. All and trains continue on the express trains to Utica, with the terminating at Utica and the continuing to New Lots Ave. Off-peak, the run to Flatbush Ave, the goes local after Franklin Ave to New Lots Ave, and the continues to Utica. The running via 53 St A special case, but in practice 63 St is only running at half capacity. The going via 53 St also results in loss of capacity at 7 Ave / 53 St and the 8 Ave line Send the via 63 St, it can stay local on QB Frees up a slot for the train The going from the express tracks to the local tracks north of WTC Keep all Cranberry Tube trains express in 8 Ave This is minor because 8 Ave doesn't currently have 4 services, but it's absolutely necessary if the comes to 8 Ave On weekends, 6 Ave, Broadway, and 8 Ave ideally should have 3 services each. I think the is going to be shut down every weekend for the foreseeable future because one-track service will be a disaster, so the will be effectively the third off-peak service along 6 Ave. At the south end of these trunks, one 8 Ave local train terminates at WTC, and the other 8 services continue into Brooklyn along Bay Ridge, Sea Beach, West End, Culver, Brighton, Fulton x2, and Myrtle Ave like they do today. The northern end is trickier, but it seems that the optimal service is 3 CPW, 2 SAS, 1 Astoria, and 3 QB - note that the MTA does this today by sending the to 96 St. To implement the deinterlining, both Broadway expresses should be running to SAS and the Broadway local should be running to Astoria. Then this leaves CPW Express, 8 Ave Express, Fulton Express CPW Local, 8 Ave Local, Fulton Local QB Express, 53 St, 8 Ave Local (terminates at WTC) CPW Express, 6 Ave Express, West End QB Express, 63 St, 6 Ave Local, Culver QB Local, 53 St, 6 Ave Local, Myrtle Ave SAS / Bway Express, Sea Beach SAS / Bway Express, Brighton Astoria, Bway Local, Bay Ridge So not perfect deinterlining, but better than what we come before. The biggest issue right now is that the doesn't have a yard servicing it and so its base of operations has to be moved to CI. However, CI yard should be big enough to accommodate the as necessary. On weekdays, you keep these lines, and add in the (unchanged from today) and a train between Whitehall St and Forest Hills. If the goes to 63 St, replace the train with more trains on Broadway and the new QB local / 53 St / 8 Ave service.

Late to the conversation, but I posit that a Jewel Ave line should always be built before a LIE line. As a QB local branch, Jewel would divert half the trains away from the congested and sup-optimal Forest Hills terminal, increasing capacity on the local tracks. LIE would presumably be a 63 St line extension which is still far off. The Jewel Ave and LIE lines would stop at the same major roads and both offer good access to QC, but the catchment area of the Jewel Ave stations is much greater. LIE does have the 99 St / 108 St stop in its favor. Building an LIE line necessitates a Union Turnpike line to improve access to that area, while the eastern end of Jewel / 73rd serves UT reasonably and thus the Jewel Ave line is probably more cost-effective in the long run. I actually think a Midtown crosstown route should be prioritized as a relief line for 53 St, and thus 50 St is the better option because it's in the middle of everything. Not to say 57 St is bad because of all the transfers, but here's a comparison between the two lines with potential stops: 2 Ave / 3 Ave (double-ended station): Both 50 St and 57 St are going to require a tunnel to connect to the 52-55 St SAS station. 3 Ave / Lex Ave: Both have good access to the . Slight advantage to 59 St because of the but I don't know if we want to overload the Lex Ave express services even more. 5 Ave / 6 Ave: 50 St has a definite advantage over 57 St because of Rockefeller Center and its express stations. 7 Ave / 8 Ave: While the 3 north/south lines all stop along 50 St and 57 St, the latter is better because of the Columbus Circle and 57 St / 7 Ave express stops. So overall, I don't think 50 St is much worse than 57 St transfer-wise. Then again, I think transfers to the are adequate enough because of how busy every stop in Manhattan is, so YMMV. As for lower SAS, it needs to be reevaluated. If we're going to build such a long new tunnel, we should be getting 24+ tph out of it. Current SAS Phase 1 and Phase 2 offers that if / when the Bway express trains are permanently routed to SAS, but there will be nothing left for the 2-track tunnel south of 72 St. Honestly, the proposal of building lower SAS up from the Grand St / Delancey St area has a lot of merit because it punts the issue of how to link up lower SAS with the Queens and UES lines, while adding direct Brooklyn service to SAS which isn't currently available under any SAS plan.