Caelestor

QBL's capacity is 1 pair of tracks / 15 tph for the foreseeable future, which sucks but is understandable. The real issue is that the 8 Ave/53 St, 6 Ave/63 St, Broadway/4 Ave, and Culver lines all have capacity cuts just to accommodate QBL. Also, the terminal at Forest Hills is prone to delays, and no crossovers exist west of the station to allow trains to switch over to the express tracks where delays are less likely. If the was rerouted to 96 St, then the old 8-10 minute headways can be restored on the . The is close enough to the in Manhattan that QBL riders shouldn't be too inconvenienced greatly. The biggest downside is probably the yard access, though.

The biggest problem with DeKalb Ave is that the 4th Ave express trains don't stop there and so the cross-platform transfers are between the and . If the and stopped on the same platforms at either DeKalb or Atlantic Ave, I think that stretch of the BMT would have been interlined a long time ago. In any case, there's no reason to deinterline unless additional capacity along the in Manhattan is needed. Both pairs of tracks are currently running at 20 tph during the peak and deinterlining is really only needed at 24+ tph. As for Rogers Junction, the weekend service operates much more smoothly than on weekdays, and it's not difficult to see that the is the bottleneck. When the only disadvantage in Alternative 4 from the MTA report is that it's politically difficult given bus transfers (and that can be fixed by building the Nostrand Ave extension and Utica Ave line), it's time to undergo the reconstruction and get the 12+ tph it would offer. My stance on deinterlining is to implement it wherever Cross-platform transfers exist so that the transfer penalty is effectively zero. The IRT has a plethora of them at 125 St, 96 St, Chambers St, Brooklyn Bridge, and Franklin Ave, so basically the express and local trains should be separated from each other there. Core capacity is needed - so basically the Broadway Line and 53 St / 63 St. There is no need for a lower level because Nostrand Ave will eventually become a through station when the southwards expansion is built. That is Alternative 6 in the MTA report - also acceptable, but more expensive than deinterlining because new tunnels are needed.

@RR503 just stated that Lower Canarsie doesn't have that much ridership. During the shutdown, most of the existing ridership should be redirected to or stations, so the Broadway Junction transfers shouldn't spike dramatically. Myrtle-Wycoff might spike, but the plan is for most of the Bushwick riders to walk to or take a bus to the stations instead, so transfer volumes at that stop aren't likely to change dramatically. Unfortunately, most riders want Midtown service, and the doesn't go there, hence the . That said, service will be naturally boosted once the skip stop service west of Broadway Junction is cancelled.

There is no real need to fix the flat junction at Myrtle Ave because there's another solution: instead of using the flat junction and further delaying trains, additional trains should be running towards Broadway Junction since the stations along that stretch are expected to see significant ridership increases (the are also running local for this reason). The stops between Myrtle Ave and Broadway Junction already have more ridership than those along the Myrtle Ave branch, so the ridership is warranted. Even after the shutdown, if the keeps some of its increased service, the additional trains should originate and terminate at Broadway Junction, which is a bigger destination than Middle Village ever will be.

1. PBP to 125 St via the takes ~30 minutes, Eastchester to 125 St takes ~35 minutes. However PBP has 2x the ridership than any of the Dyre Ave stations, implying that riders prefer to make the bus transfer there. So there is some merit to providing the natural extension into Co-op City - the Bx12 is currently inefficiently routed towards PBP to provide that connection. That said, I think the Pelham Parkway crosstown subway is more needed than the extension. 2. Agree Pelham Parkway / Fordham is definitely the crosstown subway to be built. The maybe needs a one-stop extension to WPR so that north WPR riders have an alternate route into Manhattan if south WPR is shut down. 4. Not certain why we're connecting the to Concourse. That capacity needs to be reserved for additional service. Station costs will be reduced, but stations will be deeper and it will take more time to access them. Personally, single core tunnels work better with automated lines. As for the extension the stops should be at 23 St, 34 St, 41 St, 50 St, 60 St, and 72 St.

They should double track to wherever the end of electrification is, as ridership at electrified stops are an order of magnitude greater than those that aren't.

To add on, the Ronkonkoma branch has the higher catchment area and it's the straighter line, so electrifying it was seen as more cost-effective. I do think the PJ branch should be electrified to Northport or King's Plaza however.

It makes sense to eliminate freight along a potentially useful crosstown corridor. In his map, the stops at transfer stations or streets with a north/south bus route and commercial development. Albany Ave doesn't have that and a potential stop there would be in a mostly residential neighborhood with low possibility of commercial development.

My original proposal was to extend the 8 Ave local platforms to the express tracks over the now disused local tracks but this is a pretty interesting idea given that 53 St / QBL has more ridership than CPW / Upper 8 Ave. With no new construction except SAS Phase 2, the plan appears to be 168 St - WTC local (late nights runs to 207 St) Inwood - Brighton Beach (all times except late nights, so service increase!) Bedford Park Blvd - WTC local (weekdays only) Norwood - Coney Island (unchanged) QBL express - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton express (all local late nights) Jamaica - Coney Island (unchanged) QBL local - 53 St - Lower 8 Ave express - Fulton local (doesn't run late nights) Forest Hills - Middle Village local via 63 St (short turns at Essex St on weekends) SAS - Coney Island via Sea Beach SAS - Coney Island via Brighton (unchanged) Astoria - Whitehall St (short turns) OR Bay Ridge (regular terminal) OR 86 St Sea Beach (CI yard access) consolidated with the fleet moved to R160 due to multiple southern terminals

The problem with any underwater tunnel project is that usually a hugely expensive dead-end station cavern is part of the plans. That's why ARC and Lower Manhattan LIRR were cancelled, why Gateway won't get out of planning, and why the SI-South Ferry tunnel won't be on the table for at least two generations. On a final note, ESA is even worse because there's actually no underwater component (tunnel was already built back in the 1980s) and all the cost is the extravagant 8-platform station deep below an already existing 60+ platform terminal.

Until construction prices actually go down (SAS Phase 2 is still at $6 billion, which is a bad sign), it's reasonable to assume that resources continue to remain scarce. There's no shortage of transit projects that need funding, and also there's stuff like education which arguably has a higher ROI. At the moment, building an underground tunnel between SI and South Ferry is only on the table because of political boundaries, i.e.g SI is part of NYC when geographically it is an island off the coast of NJ. There is a very urgent need for another pair of tunnels btwn Penn Station and Secaucus that isn't getting built because NJ Transit, Amtrak, and the MTA can't play nice with each other, forcing a redundant multi-platform terminal that has blown up costs by an order of magnitude. The only feasible solution for an underwater tunnel to SI is to extend MNR south of GCT to St. George where it would take over SIR. Such a project actually has merit as a relief line, a SI ferry replacement, and in general a huge public works program to radically turn the ~60 mile stretch between Tottenville and North White Plans into a new urban north-south spine of the entire NYC metropolitan area, all in one. Think Crossrail but even grander: 21 stops in SI, 31 stops along the Harlem Line to Southeast, two additional stations at 14 St and Fulton St, plus provisions for expansion to other branches such as the North Shore branch, the Hudson Line, and even the New Haven Line. But that seems to be way too much change for too many people to handle at once (will SI actually approve this?) and the government needs to commit to a 15-year long project, which I doubt the politicians are actually invested in.

The is overcrowded because it's running 20 tph when it could be doing 26 tph with enough trains and electrical power. Build some tail tracks at 8 Ave for a fraction of the cost of another East River tunnel into Williamsburg and the can reach 30 tph. While induced demand is a thing, a 50 percent capacity increase should be enough for at least a decade, plus the Williamsburg bridge is modernized to add more trains along that corridor as well. Even if a South 4 St trunk line were to be built, where would it run in Manhattan? The Second System had it connecting to the 6 Ave express tracks, which now run to the Manhattan Bridge via Chrystie St, and a Worth St branch off 8 Ave, which doesn't makes sense at all. SAS is running into Lower Manhattan, so that's out. And where would it run east? The South 4 St line was supposed to take over Myrtle Ave (unneeded) and also run down Utica Ave, which is actually needed but really should be an IRT Eastern Parkway Line extension given the system today. On one final note, Brooklyn already has 9 pairs of tracks into Manhattan, several not at capacity. The Bronx and Queens only have 4 and 5 respectively, and new tunnels should be built further up the East River. The BMT 63 St line almost certainly has to be taken off SAS and sent into Queens so that the lower SAS has enough capacity to warrant being built.

Agree that a new trunk line through Brooklyn isn't needed at the moment. One aspect that people doesn't realize is that the existing infrastructure hasn't even come close to hitting its maximum throughput. Without CBTC the theoretical max capacity of a pair of subway lines is 30 tph, assuming proper terminals exist to turn around the trains (which there is a surprising lack of). So really the only pair of tracks that are truly at capacity are the express tracks along Lex Ave and QBL. The recent timetables schedule the Midtown core lines during the AM peak as follows: Lexington Ave 29 tph SB / 20 tph NB, 20 tph SB / 20 tph NB 6 Ave 15 tph SB / 20 tph SB, 24 tph SB / 21 tph NB 7 Ave 19 tph SB / 19 tph NB, 23 tph SB / 19 tph NB Broadway 10 tph SB / 10 tph NB, 10 tph SB / 11 tph NB, 10 tph SB / 10 tph NB, 8 tph SB / 6 tph NB 8 Ave 10 tph SB / 17 tph NB, 6 tph SB / 8 tph NB, 15 tph SB / 15 tph NB 42 St 27 tph SB / 27 tph NB 14 St 20 tph WB / EB So instead of adding new routes or building new subway tunnels, how about increasing service on some of these lines first? We know that the is going to 22 tph after the shutdown, but IIRC the existing 14 St terminal could handle 26 tph if enough electricity was available. A 30 percent increase on the would be an order of magnitude cheaper than a South 4 St subway line and tunnel. Next, send more, if not all, trains to/from 96 St for more tph along Broadway and the currently underserved SAS stops, plus fewer delays at the 34 St merge. Then for more trains into Queens, convert the express track at Astoria Blvd into a proper terminating track so that all Broadway local trains can run into Astoria. With the removed from QBL, trains can be rearranged to add another 10-15 tph through 63 St, though extensive deinterlining will be needed by cutting the 53rd St / 6 Ave connection and turning the express. The next question is, what happens to the lower half of SAS if all the capacity is used up? Frankly, it might make more sense to extend East Side Access or even MNR down to Union Square to prevent LIRR riders from further overcrowding the bottleneck at GCT. Once that's in place the regional rail line can be further extended to Fulton St or Hoboken to link up with NJT. Answering my own question, there appears to be bellmouths in place to connect Whitehall St and Atlantic Ave, which can definitely be repurposed into a Fulton St line local connection.

North of 116 St, SAS would split into two branches: 125 St branch to Broadway, and 3 Ave / Webster Ave to Fordham Plaza. For the latter branch trains could also run up 3rd Ave or Park Ave / MNR, but Webster Ave is the easiest to built under because it would be a straight line. I like the proposal of having the take over the Montague St tunnel / Bay Ridge trains and sending the to the Fulton St line, but is it even possible to build a tunnel between Whitehall St and South St with the Joralemon St tunnel in the way?

After thinking of it some more, I'd rather see a transfer between Wall Street and Hanover Sq . Another southern transfer stop is needed when 6 Ave is shut down and is unavailable. As you mentioned the IRT transfer (with the available across the platform at Nevins St) is more valuable than a connection to the local . There's a decent chance that the SAS capacity north of 63 St will be used up by the before Phase 3 ever comes online and new plans have to be drawn up.

The transfer will absolutely be used by riders to get to 8 Ave or LIC and for QBL riders to access destinations along 1 Ave and 2 Ave. At 42 St, I do see an underground passage being built, but not necessarily a free transfer to GCT. I actually don't think that a transfer to South Ferry is necessary. Financial District riders along Water St should just take the nearby for West Side access. Chatham Square riders can be serviced by the Grand St and Houston St transfers, albeit inconveniently.

Here's a thought exercise from a different perspective: Assume that no new tunnels will be built for the next 15 years sans East Side Access (which unfortunately is likely given current trends). Without new tunnels, what would you do to improve the existing system? I'll start it off by saying that we should run all trains up to 96 St to maximize SAS and Broadway capacity, as well as build switches south of Astoria Blvd to enable trains to terminate at that stop (estimated 6 tph capacity improvement), but I'm interested to see what you guys would think.

The whole purpose of reviving the is to send it to Church Ave and turn the express. Unless the city commits to massive redevelopment along the Culver Line, which admittedly there's been talk of doing so, there's really no reason to take the off 6 Ave. The IRT in the Bronx shouldn't be deinterlined until Rogers Junction in Brooklyn, which is the greater bottleneck, is fixed, but Alon leaves it for last anyways.

It makes more sense to add an train to equal the number of trains, since any additional QB Express service has to run to 179 St given the terminal limitations at Jamaica Center. Regardless, it looks as if the is going to 14 tph peak, and the train increase is probably a decrease in headways to 8 minutes during offpeak hours to meet the train riders at Court Sq. I personally think that based on "crowding guidelines" the MTA will not replace the lost service with extended service. Additional service will only appear if more trains are rerouted to 96 St during the peak.

I'm surprised my proposal was this thought-provoking. Some comments: I didn't specifically state this in my OP, but the would be running express on 8 Ave, freeing up enough capacity for the . (The 50 St platforms may or may not be extended over the now disused local tracks to create a new express stop / transfer station.) The 8-car trains are a major downside of the deinterlining that I didn't notice - good catch. Without the expensive reconstruction of the Eastern Division stops, I could see a CPW-style merge at 36 St QBL with 53 St / QBL Express (15 tph) 53 St / QBL local (10 tph) 63 St / QBL Express (15 tph) 63 St / QBL local (10 tph) In any case, the 53 St / 6 Ave merge and 60 St / QBL connections are the bottlenecks of the existing Queens subway lines and both have got to go in order to maximize the capacity of the existing infrastructure. The aforementioned redistribution of QBL services should resolve these issues. Similar to CPW, the primary problem with the design of the QBL is that the local stations west of 74 St / Roosevelt Ave not only have significantly less ridership than those east of the transfer point, but also that everyone transfers to the much more direct and faster trains. Based on current crowding it's arguable that the QBL tracks needs more than 15 tph, let alone 20. Nonetheless, the 63 St tunnel is not at capacity and since the has been overcrowded with the transfer to the new SAS service, more trains need to be sent along that corridor. As for 60 St, most of the capacity should be going to Astoria, but if the terminal issues aren't fixed, the reroute is an interesting scenario to ponder. The used to be a pretty insignificant service until the combo revitalized it, and a merger could have similar benefits. If the Astoria Line didn't exist, the could run up Astoria and into Manhattan along 125 St, but that's never happening.

Ostensibly the purpose of the is to offer a faster ride between Queens and Downtown Brooklyn, but because the line runs local the are far superior alternatives. QBL needs every train into Midtown it can, so the will never return to the QBL. A lot of ideas have been proposed on how to extend the northwards, but here's a somewhat crazy one: Sever the existing connection between the QBL and the 60 St tunnel, and modify the existing tunnels so that they connect to Court Sq instead. Deinterline aggressively: send all QBL express trains via 63 St and local trains via 53 St, so all that all the existing Queens tunnels are maximized capacity. The major downside is how the existing service is going to be disrupted. Shutting down the 60 St connection isn't really the problem, because the QBL deinterlining isn't that difficult to implement. The however won't have a northern terminal nor access to the Jamaica Yard, so it's going to have to be rerouted to Astoria. The would go to SAS full-time but that should be happening right now. Maybe Astoria riders will really need the additional train service and there's no need to build the connection between the and 60 St. That said, it's not entirely certain whether Astoria can handle or needs that much train service considering there's limited opportunity to extend or modify the existing line without community pushback. On the other hand, Northern Brooklyn really could use more than the . The shutdown next year is probably going to be a disastrous disruption, and the is criminally underutilized considering the neighborhoods it passes through. Furthermore, since the tracks between Court Sq and Queens Plaza aren't in active service, construction to realign the tracks north of the current terminal could be done reasonably quickly. As a quick recap, here are the new lines if the is rerouted to the Broadway Line: becomes only full-time QBL local, headways decreased accordingly no changes QBL express, presumably to Jamaica Center rerouted to SAS full-time no changes rerouted full-time to Astoria merged with Pretty insane proposal, but food for thought.

Deinterlining QBL will cut down the delays but will do little to improve crowding. The fundamental issue is that there is much more demand for express service than local trains. At Jackson Heights, all the riders get off and transfer over to the . Ultimately, the 63 St and 53 St lines should both be running ~30 tph, all express, meaning additional tracks needs to be built in Queens. Once the QBL bypass is built to at least Woodside, I think the should start running via 63 St and the should go express on 8 Ave, allowing the to take over the 53 St corridor full-time.

If you're going to have another 10-year phase, might as well expand the scope of the project. Either build the whole line to 125 St / Broadway or 3 Ave / 138 St, or don't do it at all.

If you look at a map of the B Division, you'll see 3 trunk lines, each represented with its own color. Broadway 8 Ave 6 Ave However, these aren't the actual trunk lines from an operational standpoint. The true trunk lines are Broadway Central Park West Queens Blvd plus a special case, Manhattan Bridge / DeKalb Ave Each of these "lines" have 4 services on 2 pairs of tracks, meaning they're effectively at capacity, and in many cases the local and express routes recombine with each other. Note that 8 Ave / Fulton is effectively a branch of the CPW line that happens to intersect with the branch of the QBL. The 6 Ave line is an even more interesting case - as originally constructed in 1940, the express tracks were a branch of the CPW line and the local tracks were a branch of the QBL express tracks. After the Chrystie St Connection was built, the express tracks became a really long connector line between the CPW and Manhattan Bridge trunks, and the local tracks added reverse branches to the Williamsburg Bridge and many years later the 63 St tunnel. It's fairly apparent that other than the , the other lines traverse multiple trunk routes. The overarching issue with the B division is that all the trunk routes are too interlinked, and that an issue with one of them will ultimately impact all of them. When the best solution to major service disruptions is to suspend individual services such as the especially, there exist inherent issues with the design of the subway system. Through de-interlining, an ideal B division would have more well-defined trunk routes. Broadway SAS / Broadway Express / 4 Ave Express Astoria / Broadway Local / 4 Ave Local 6 Ave Concourse / CPW / 6 Ave Express / Brighton QBL / 6 Ave Local 8 Ave / Fulton Upper 8 Ave / CPW / 8 Ave Express / Fulton 8 Ave / QBL 8 Ave Local / QBL What services run on which tracks along CPW and QBL should be based on ridership demands and possibly track reconfiguration (cheaper than building new subway lines), but that's not the main point. While the subway was historically built as a series of underground routes with a lot of operational flexibility, modern metro systems built single lines to prioritize capacity over flexibility. The conclusion is that the subway might have to follow its peers and de-interline aggressively (see London), since new construction of any kind in NYC that could add meaningful capacity is just not happening.

Here's a quick table of which lines merge with each other during peak hours. The is counted as part of the service, and the is counted separately even though it's operationally a branch of the . : : : : : : : : : : : : : It's apparent that delays on one line can propagate to multiple others and snarl the entire B Division, hence why lines are often completely suspended in major service disruptions. De-interlining is enticing because it reduces bottlenecks that don't really need to exist. For instance, what if the was sent up SAS, which coincidentally could use a boost in service? : : : : Now the Broadway line looks much better, plus more trains can be added to the local tracks. That said, proposals to de-interline the whole system are futile and counterproductive without fully understanding current subway operations in the B Division. See next post.