Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:
 

That’s good, but to me, I’m not a big fan of a 50/50 split, since at 20 trains per hour combined, you still have a 10 train per hour frequency, just with longer trip times to Atlantic-Barclays. I do like the 12/8 option as well, provided there’s no local trains short turning at Bay Pkwy, otherwise, some folks may lose service.

You’re both right. There’s going to be a lot of trade offs with any plan. Its hard to please everyone. Hell, I’ve seen some folks who are under the misguided impression that removing even ONE small interline would mean it’s the end of the world. Even if someone tells them they can transfer across the platform and there will be more train service on the deinterlined routes, they won’t hear any of it (kind of like me last year).

This actually gave me another though: has there been a time where the (MTA) or its predecessors proposed subway routing changes, ignored public feedback and a majority opposition, and just went ahead with their exact plans?

That's actually a really good question. Honestly, there are some things that sometimes the (MTA) should just straight up ignore if the long-run really benefits people, just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:
This actually gave me another though: has there been a time where the (MTA) or its predecessors proposed subway routing changes, ignored public feedback and a majority opposition, and just went ahead with their exact plans?

(G) crosstown elimination on Queens Boulevard was definitely snuck in through the back door, and was effective long before it was official (the official reason being that the (G) only did this on weekends, when most GOs were)

(1) trains used to be the West Side express. I can't imagine revoking that was popular in its day.

The 63 St (F) and replacement with the (V) was also not popular.

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

(G) crosstown elimination on Queens Boulevard was definitely snuck in through the back door, and was effective long before it was official (the official reason being that the (G) only did this on weekends, when most GOs were)

(1) trains used to be the West Side express. I can't imagine revoking that was popular in its day.

The 63 St (F) and replacement with the (V) was also not popular.

The (G) part was mostly justified as it has been already been unpopular with QBL riders before getting the boot.

For the (1) part, it probably had to do with switch reconfiguration at 96th. That's just my inference though.

For the (F) part, it would've been better if the (MTA) made the sacrifice by building the QBL bypass instead of connecting it to an already congested subway artery. Now everyone seems to agree that the (R) should be axed from the QBL for good...

And let's not forget that conductors had to literally advertise the (V) in announcements because it was so underutilized, not to mention the natural human instinct of automatically associating express trains with faster service even if there's little or no time saved compared to the local.

Edited by Armandito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Armandito said:

For the (F) part, it would've been better if the (MTA) made the sacrifice by building the QBL bypass instead of connecting it to an already congested subway artery. Now everyone seems to agree that the (R) should be axed from the QBL for good...

I believe that the removal of the (R) is definitely something that should be rammed through. This is needed to increase capacity anyway. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

The (G) part was mostly justified as it has been already been unpopular with QBL riders before getting the boot.

Eh this is kinda 50/50. Today's (M) is more popular than the (G) was for sure, but the (V) being the first replacement was not very popular at all.

The (V) when it was introduced was noticeably slower than the (F) . (Not sure about how bad timers were at the time.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The QBL local tracks were designed poorly from the start. They take a circuitous route between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave, 36 St and 65 St stations are poorly located, and they went to Brooklyn instead of Midtown. This last issue was the most serious but the only fixable one, so the TA did address it using the 11 St cut at the cost of Queensboro Plaza / Astoria capacity. Though the 63 St tunnel was envisioned as a new trunk line, repurposing it as the QBL express and sending the QBL local via 53 St would actually be a very cost-effective capacity increase.

Before we talk about building new lines, let's make sure the underwater tunnels aren't under capacity - namely 63 St and Rutgers. Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the (F) stations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Caelestor said:

 Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the (F) stations.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t the (MTA) have to look into Expanding Essex and creating a Bowery-Grand Transfer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Before we talk about building new lines, let's make sure the underwater tunnels aren't under capacity - namely 63 St and Rutgers. Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the (F) stations.

I don't think that's an option at all. The (M) in its current form is too popular to route back to Nassau Street and Ridgewood commuters would be livid if this were to happen. They want Midtown, not downtown service--especially when taking into account how much ridership trends on Myrtle have changed over the past decades or so. We should leave the Williamsburg connection alone and focus on building that (B)(D)(J)(Z) transfer at Bowery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:
 

That’s good, but to me, I’m not a big fan of a 50/50 split, since at 20 trains per hour combined, you still have a 10 train per hour frequency, just with longer trip times to Atlantic-Barclays. I do like the 12/8 option as well, provided there’s no local trains short turning at Bay Pkwy, otherwise, some folks may lose service.

You’re both right. There’s going to be a lot of trade offs with any plan. Its hard to please everyone. Hell, I’ve seen some folks who are under the misguided impression that removing even ONE small interline would mean it’s the end of the world. Even if someone tells them they can transfer across the platform and there will be more train service on the deinterlined routes, they won’t hear any of it (kind of like me last year).

This actually gave me another though: has there been a time where the (MTA) or its predecessors proposed subway routing changes, ignored public feedback and a majority opposition, and just went ahead with their exact plans?

They probably would have to turn some trains at Bay Pkwy because I don’t think the stub-ended West End Line tracks at Stillwell can turn 20 tph. Van’s plan does call for the (W) to turn at Bay Pkwy, though he doesn’t say specifically whether the (W) would be the local or the express between 9th Ave and Bay Pkwy. Looking at the track map for Bay Pkwy, it would probably be easier for locals to turn there, like the (6) at Parkchester, because there are no switches north of the station that would allow a terminating express to switch to the northbound local track upon leaving Bay Pkwy.

I think they post-Chrystie services of 1967 may qualify as service changes the NYCTA went ahead with against the public’s wishes. I don’t know how they did public input in the 60s, or if they even did it at all. But I do recall reading that Brighton riders were unhappy with the :D: becoming the primary Brighton service with a :QB:  via Broadway only during rush hours and a (QJ) via Nassau weekdays only as supplementary Brighton locals (the :D: only ran local when the other two services were not in operation, a practice that continued until 1986 when the Manhattan Bridge was closed to 6th Avenue trains). The same may have happened when the :B: became the primary West End service and all that was left of the pre-Chrystie operations was a late-night/Sunday (TT) shuttle between 36th and Stillwell with no Broadway service at all. 

12 hours ago, Armandito said:

The (G) part was mostly justified as it has been already been unpopular with QBL riders before getting the boot.

For the (1) part, it probably had to do with switch reconfiguration at 96th. That's just my inference though.

For the (F) part, it would've been better if the (MTA) made the sacrifice by building the QBL bypass instead of connecting it to an already congested subway artery. Now everyone seems to agree that the (R) should be axed from the QBL for good...

And let's not forget that conductors had to literally advertise the (V) in announcements because it was so underutilized, not to mention the natural human instinct of automatically associating express trains with faster service even if there's little or no time saved compared to the local.

I recall reading that prior to 1958, there were often delays at 96th if a southbound (1) and (3) got there at the same time since the (3) was the local at the time. Eventually, they began running the current (1) local to South Ferry/ (2)(3) express to Brooklyn pattern to address those delays. 

9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The QBL local tracks were designed poorly from the start. They take a circuitous route between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave, 36 St and 65 St stations are poorly located, and they went to Brooklyn instead of Midtown. This last issue was the most serious but the only fixable one, so the TA did address it using the 11 St cut at the cost of Queensboro Plaza / Astoria capacity. Though the 63 St tunnel was envisioned as a new trunk line, repurposing it as the QBL express and sending the QBL local via 53 St would actually be a very cost-effective capacity increase.

Before we talk about building new lines, let's make sure the underwater tunnels aren't under capacity - namely 63 St and Rutgers. Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the (F) stations.

It’s true that Rutgers and 63rd are under capacity. So is Montague, but about the only way you can increase that tunnel’s capacity without the crazy high expense of building a new line is to bump the (R) up to 20 tph and reroute it to the West End Line, as discussed in Van’s new plan. Even then, there will still be leftover capacity in Montague. 

For Rutgers deactivating the 6th Ave-Willy B connection would definitely allow more trains to run via Rutgers. But it would likely also require the current (M) to be split back into separate (brownM) and (V) trains, which may very well turn out to be another one of those instances where a popular service gets taken away against the wishes of the riding public. Even during the “Essential Service” pattern during the early months of the pandemic, they still ran the (M), even with the (B), (C) (until April), (W) and (Z) trains suspended. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

They probably would have to turn some trains at Bay Pkwy because I don’t think the stub-ended West End Line tracks at Stillwell can turn 20 tph. Van’s plan does call for the (W) to turn at Bay Pkwy, though he doesn’t say specifically whether the (W) would be the local or the express between 9th Ave and Bay Pkwy. Looking at the track map for Bay Pkwy, it would probably be easier for locals to turn there, like the (6) at Parkchester, because there are no switches north of the station that would allow a terminating express to switch to the northbound local track upon leaving Bay Pkwy.

It’s true that Rutgers and 63rd are under capacity. So is Montague, but about the only way you can increase that tunnel’s capacity without the crazy high expense of building a new line is to bump the (R) up to 20 tph and reroute it to the West End Line, as discussed in Van’s new plan. Even then, there will still be leftover capacity in Montague. 

For Rutgers deactivating the 6th Ave-Willy B connection would definitely allow more trains to run via Rutgers. But it would likely also require the current (M) to be split back into separate (brownM) and (V) trains, which may very well turn out to be another one of those instances where a popular service gets taken away against the wishes of the riding public. Even during the “Essential Service” pattern during the early months of the pandemic, they still ran the (M), even with the (B), (C) (until April), (W) and (Z) trains suspended. 

I'm pretty sure what Van had in mind was both the (R) and (W) running local and express. Correct me if I'm wrong (I've said this before, but no one has corrected me since then), prior to the 2010 cuts, the (D) and (brownM) were alternating express service. At least when it used to be around when I was much younger, I've seen it happen a lot were I've see an express (brownM) running and a local (D) running in the same direction. Then later on, I saw an Express (D) and a local (brownM). Again, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how service would run.

Well isn't the (N) in this scenario just the <Q> since it's being rerouted to 96th St-2nd Av? The same could be said about the (R) and (W)(I said this before, too) which the (W) in this case is a short-turned (R). Reason is because the (R) is routed to Astoria instead of QBL now since there isn't a need to keep it on QBL anymore which would allow more trains per hour on QBL as well as 60th St Tunnel now. There aren't any merges happening that involves the (R) now because the merge on Broadway have been eliminated.

Well, the (M) in this case was essential service that helped provide service from Williamsburg into Midtown like you said. It doesn't really duplicate anything. If they were to have kept the (M) at Essex, service might've been a little worse than it already was during those months. Hell, I'm pretty sure the (MTA) was planning on keeping the (M) at Myrtle Av-Broadway, but that didn't happen. Having the (C) count as "Non-Essential" was just another mistake the (MTA) made which they did fix unlike the (B)(W), and (Z) (especially the (Z)). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm pretty sure what Van had in mind was both the (R) and (W) running local and express. Correct me if I'm wrong (I've said this before, but no one has corrected me since then), prior to the 2010 cuts, the (D) and (brownM) were alternating express service. At least when it used to be around when I was much younger, I've seen it happen a lot were I've see an express (brownM) running and a local (D) running in the same direction. Then later on, I saw an Express (D) and a local (brownM). Again, I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's how service would run.

Well isn't the (N) in this scenario just the <Q> since it's being rerouted to 96th St-2nd Av? The same could be said about the (R) and (W)(I said this before, too) which the (W) in this case is a short-turned (R). Reason is because the (R) is routed to Astoria instead of QBL now since there isn't a need to keep it on QBL anymore which would allow more trains per hour on QBL as well as 60th St Tunnel now. There aren't any merges happening that involves the (R) now because the merge on Broadway have been eliminated.

Well, the (M) in this case was essential service that helped provide service from Williamsburg into Midtown like you said. It doesn't really duplicate anything. If they were to have kept the (M) at Essex, service might've been a little worse than it already was during those months. Hell, I'm pretty sure the (MTA) was planning on keeping the (M) at Myrtle Av-Broadway, but that didn't happen. Having the (C) count as "Non-Essential" was just another mistake the (MTA) made which they did fix unlike the (B)(W), and (Z) (especially the (Z)). 

He might have, I don't know. Though it would make much more sense to use just one letter for both the local and the express, since this would be a peak-only express, just like the <6> or <7>.

It's possible what you saw was a train rerouted up the middle track to keep service moving. As far as I know, there has not been a regularly scheduled West End express service in the post-1967 (Chrystie St connection) era. From 1967-86, there was just the (B) on the West End (the (TT) was the name for the shuttle until 1971). The (brownM) was rerouted from the Brighton Line to the West End Line in 1986, while the ( B ) and ( D ) were rerouted to Broadway. In late 1988, they resumed their pre-1986 routes, but the (brownM) stayed on West End alongside the (B), then the (W) in 2001, and finally the (D) in 2004-10. For none of that time was there ever a scheduled express between Bay Pkwy and 9th Ave. From 2004-10, the (D) was always express and the (brownM) was always local, but only between Atlantic Ave and 36th St. There was a time - 1986-94 - when the (brownM) ran express through there, but it was the (B) - not the (D) - that was running via 4th Ave at that time. And the (B) also ran express on 4th.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Before we talk about building new lines, let's make sure the underwater tunnels aren't under capacity - namely 63 St and Rutgers. Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the (F) stations.

 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If that’s the case, wouldn’t the (MTA) have to look into Expanding Essex and creating a Bowery-Grand Transfer?

 

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For Rutgers deactivating the 6th Ave-Willy B connection would definitely allow more trains to run via Rutgers. But it would likely also require the current (M) to be split back into separate (brownM) and (V) trains, which may very well turn out to be another one of those instances where a popular service gets taken away against the wishes of the riding public. Even during the “Essential Service” pattern during the early months of the pandemic, they still ran the (M), even with the (B), (C) (until April), (W) and (Z) trains suspended. 

1. The orange (M) costs less to operate than M+V, which is why it was introduced.

2. Prior to the introduction of orange (M) one of the transfers that was most under pressure was Delancey-Essex, which is the first and probably highest quality transfer within Manhattan. Most Jamaica/Myrtle riders are not looking for Downtown these days. The transfer was so high volume that disrupting it was a major point against Nassau SAS, with transfer conditions so bad that the stairways between the platforms were noted to be full of people standing. Splitting the (M) means embarking on a capital expansion of Delancey-Essex to handle the resulting transfer flow, and the MTA doesn't have money lying around for capital expenditures of any kind right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 

 

1. The orange (M) costs less to operate than M+V, which is why it was introduced.

2. Prior to the introduction of orange (M) one of the transfers that was most under pressure was Delancey-Essex, which is the first and probably highest quality transfer within Manhattan. Most Jamaica/Myrtle riders are not looking for Downtown these days. The transfer was so high volume that disrupting it was a major point against Nassau SAS, with transfer conditions so bad that the stairways between the platforms were noted to be full of people standing. Splitting the (M) means embarking on a capital expansion of Delancey-Essex to handle the resulting transfer flow, and the MTA doesn't have money lying around for capital expenditures of any kind right now.

Agreed. I'm not a fan of splitting the (M) back up. Just pointing out that it would be easier to run more trains through Rutgers and 63rd if it were. I for one, definitely don't want to go back to the days of people standing in the stairways at Delancey-Essex.

7 hours ago, Armandito said:

I don't think that's an option at all. The (M) in its current form is too popular to route back to Nassau Street and Ridgewood commuters would be livid if this were to happen. They want Midtown, not downtown service--especially when taking into account how much ridership trends on Myrtle have changed over the past decades or so. We should leave the Williamsburg connection alone and focus on building that (B)(D)(J)(Z) transfer at Bowery.

17 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The QBL local tracks were designed poorly from the start. They take a circuitous route between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave, 36 St and 65 St stations are poorly located, and they went to Brooklyn instead of Midtown. This last issue was the most serious but the only fixable one, so the TA did address it using the 11 St cut at the cost of Queensboro Plaza / Astoria capacity. Though the 63 St tunnel was envisioned as a new trunk line, repurposing it as the QBL express and sending the QBL local via 53 St would actually be a very cost-effective capacity increase.

Before we talk about building new lines, let's make sure the underwater tunnels aren't under capacity - namely 63 St and Rutgers. Regarding Rutgers, the Williamsburg Bridge connection to 6 Ave is of the same vein, and it should probably be deactivated if the city / MTA moves forward its development plans around the (F) stations.

In theory, it should be possible to have both an (M) and a (V). After all, there is some spare capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks. In the past, I suggested the idea of running 12 (F), 9 (M) and 9 (V) trains on 6th and QBL, plus 18 (E) tph (with six of them going to 179th; a 100% increase over the current three). To pull it off, I suggested running the (E) and (F) express via 53rd and the (M) and (V) local via 63rd. The (V) would replace the (R) in Queens. This would be an increase of tph in both tunnels, as well as Rutgers, which would have 21 tph. The downside is that the 53rd St Tunnel and 6th Ave Local tracks would be maxed out and all express passengers would be funneled to 53rd, which was seen as a crowding problem at 53rd-Lex, pre-2001. There would also be a slight decrease in QBL local service (18 (M)(V) vs the current 19-20 (M)(R)). But then everything on 6th and 8th avenues would have to run smoothly for all this to work, which we all know is impossible for the MTA to do. But hey, I gave it a shot.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. I'm not a fan of splitting the (M) back up. Just pointing out that it would be easier to run more trains through Rutgers and 63rd if it were. I for one, definitely don't want to go back to the days of people standing in the stairways at Delancey-Essex.

 

In theory, it should be possible to have both an (M) and a (V). After all, there is some spare capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks. In the past, I suggested the idea of running 12 (F), 9 (M) and 9 (V) trains on 6th and QBL, plus 18 (E) tph (with six of them going to 179th; a 100% increase over the current three). To pull it off, I suggested running the (E) and (F) express via 53rd and the (M) and (V) local via 63rd. The (V) would replace the (R) in Queens. This would be an increase of tph in both tunnels, as well as Rutgers, which would have 21 tph. The downside is that the 53rd St Tunnel and 6th Ave Local tracks would be maxed out and all express passengers would be funneled to 53rd, which was seen as a crowding problem at 53rd-Lex, pre-2001. There would also be a slight decrease in QBL local service (18 (M)(V) vs the current 19-20 (M)(R)). But then everything on 6th and 8th avenues would have to run smoothly for all this to work, which we all know is impossible for the MTA to do. But hey, I gave it a shot.

Well, do you still plan on having (V) trains terminating at 2nd Av? Personally, I would rather have them terminate somewhere else like Church Av with the (G) so the (F) can finally run express in this scenario in Brooklyn. I say Church Av instead of Kings Highway because 18th Av because of no Breakroom at least last I checked, plus it would be carrying dead air anyways since ridership is higher around 18th Av and onwards to Manhattan. Anywhere between 18th Av and Coney isn't high at all and would be a wasted to do so unless it allows express service to run, but (V) trains are already long as is, especially local all the way from Forest Hills. This also allows for people to still have service into Manhattan. I don't know how many trains per hour can run through to allow this or if anywhere else like 6th Av and QBL can handle this kind of service. I'm all ears if you have a better place to terminate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

In theory, it should be possible to have both an (M) and a (V). After all, there is some spare capacity on the 6th Ave Local tracks. In the past, I suggested the idea of running 12 (F), 9 (M) and 9 (V) trains on 6th and QBL

Merging 12, 9 and 9 with any sort of reasonable headways for each service would be an absolute nightmare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Merging 12, 9 and 9 with any sort of reasonable headways for each service would be an absolute nightmare.

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 (M) without reducing 6th Ave or QBL service.  (Of course, Culver service is limited by the number of (M) trains provided).  Run both (F) and (M) as 6th Ave local - QBL locals and provide instead (E) and (K) services as the QBL express.  Whether (E) and (K) 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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrsman said:

One can keep providing the (M) without reducing 6th Ave or QBL service.  (Of course, Culver service is limited by the number of (M) trains provided).  Run both (F) and (M) as 6th Ave local - QBL locals and provide instead (E) and (K) services as the QBL express.  Whether (E) and (K) 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.  

Then you lose all local service from Queens Plaza. You'd force a horrible backtrack of a transfer (either forcing a transfer at W4, or Jackson backwards).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Then you lose all local service from Queens Plaza. You'd force a horrible backtrack of a transfer (either forcing a transfer at W4, or Jackson backwards).

This right here is why I’m reluctant to support any Deinterlining arrangement for Queens Blvd, and all because the (M) is 8 cars.
 

  If we were to go with the 8th>53rd>QBLocal; 6th>63rd>QBExpress arrangement, then that means that either the (M) would have to be split into the (brownM) and (V) again or the BMT Eastern Division would need to be expanded in order to handle 10 car trains. I prefer the latter option but I don’t know how feasible that would be. 
 

  Now on the inverse: if we were to do 8th>53rd>QBExpress; 6th>63rd>QBLocal, then riders between 65th and 36th lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Square. Although Lexington 63rd has an OOS Transfer to Lexington 59th (which isn’t that bad IMO), any QB Local Rider would have to make a Transfer to any nearby Bus Line. Either that or Jackson Heights will be overcrowded, unless you were able to convince some riders to transfer at 7th Avenue-53rd. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If we were to go with the 8th>53rd>QBLocal; 6th>63rd>QBExpress arrangement, then that means that either the (M) would have to be split into the (brownM) and (V) again or the BMT Eastern Division would need to be expanded in order to handle 10 car trains. I prefer the latter option but I don’t know how feasible that would be. 
 

  Now on the inverse: if we were to do 8th>53rd>QBExpress; 6th>63rd>QBLocal, then riders between 65th and 36th lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Square. Although Lexington 63rd has an OOS Transfer to Lexington 59th (which isn’t that bad IMO), any QB Local Rider would have to make a Transfer to any nearby Bus Line. Either that or Jackson Heights will be overcrowded, unless you were able to convince some riders to transfer at 7th Avenue-53rd. 

I really prefer the 8th > 53 > QBL; 6th > 63 > QBE solution. I think the (M) will likely be the weak link, and the (V) should come back and fill in that 6th Av local capacity during Weekdays only. (Likely going to be 12/9/6). My MAIN problem is the terminals, and what train terminates where. If you have (E)(K)(F)(M)(V) trains would likely have to do some weird terminal stuff. I don't think express trains and local trains can terminate and go through Forest Hills with the same (F)(E) service to Jamaica, that'll have to change or be merged with (V) service or (M) service, but not both.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well, do you still plan on having (V) trains terminating at 2nd Av? Personally, I would rather have them terminate somewhere else like Church Av with the (G) so the (F) can finally run express in this scenario in Brooklyn. I say Church Av instead of Kings Highway because 18th Av because of no Breakroom at least last I checked, plus it would be carrying dead air anyways since ridership is higher around 18th Av and onwards to Manhattan. Anywhere between 18th Av and Coney isn't high at all and would be a wasted to do so unless it allows express service to run, but (V) trains are already long as is, especially local all the way from Forest Hills. This also allows for people to still have service into Manhattan. I don't know how many trains per hour can run through to allow this or if anywhere else like 6th Av and QBL can handle this kind of service. I'm all ears if you have a better place to terminate it.

I was planning on having the (V) terminate at Church. Or to have the (V) run express in Brooklyn to Stillwell and have the (F) terminate at Church, with the (F) extended to Stillwell when the (V) isn't running. 

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Merging 12, 9 and 9 with any sort of reasonable headways for each service would be an absolute nightmare.

Agreed, and that's why I backed off this plan some time ago. There's too much that could go wrong along 6th (or on 8th, necessitating reroutes of 8th Ave trains onto 6th) with that many trains on the local.

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This right here is why I’m reluctant to support any Deinterlining arrangement for Queens Blvd, and all because the (M) is 8 cars.
 

  If we were to go with the 8th>53rd>QBLocal; 6th>63rd>QBExpress arrangement, then that means that either the (M) would have to be split into the (brownM) and (V) again or the BMT Eastern Division would need to be expanded in order to handle 10 car trains. I prefer the latter option but I don’t know how feasible that would be. 
 

  Now on the inverse: if we were to do 8th>53rd>QBExpress; 6th>63rd>QBLocal, then riders between 65th and 36th lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Square. Although Lexington 63rd has an OOS Transfer to Lexington 59th (which isn’t that bad IMO), any QB Local Rider would have to make a Transfer to any nearby Bus Line. Either that or Jackson Heights will be overcrowded, unless you were able to convince some riders to transfer at 7th Avenue-53rd. 
 

 

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I really prefer the 8th > 53 > QBL; 6th > 63 > QBE solution. I think the (M) will likely be the weak link, and the (V) should come back and fill in that 6th Av local capacity during Weekdays only. (Likely going to be 12/9/6). My MAIN problem is the terminals, and what train terminates where. If you have (E)(K)(F)(M)(V) trains would likely have to do some weird terminal stuff. I don't think express trains and local trains can terminate and go through Forest Hills with the same (F)(E) service to Jamaica, that'll have to change or be merged with (V) service or (M) service, but not both.

 

I think 6th>63rd>QBLocal/8th>53rd>QBExpress is not feasible for this same reason. Cutting off the QB local stops south of Roosevelt from LIC would be a major deterioration in service for many riders. Essentially, to make it feasible, you would have to rebuild 36th Street into an express stop, and that will cost more than a crap ton of money the MTA doesn't have (or would even want to spend if they had it). 36th St wasn't designed to be converted to an express stop, unlike Woodhaven Blvd. The (E)(F)(M)(V) plan I suggested in the past would have this same problem too. 

But I do agree the (M) being limited to 8-car trains would be a problem if we do the 8th>53rd>QBLocal/6th>63rd>QBExpress arrangement. You can get away with the (M) as a local. Obviously, we have for the past 10 years, and we had 6-car R46 (G) trains on the Queens Blvd local for decades prior to 2001. But given how busy the QB express is, 8-car trains just won't cut it there. Also, the (M) won't be able to run as frequently as the (E) or (F) do because it has capacity constraints on the Williamsburg end. Sending local trains east of 71st is a non-starter because those trains will almost certainly carry air. We tried it before with the (R) in 1988 to replace the (E) after it was rerouted to Parsons-Archer.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a loose plan for Second Avenue Subway service so I think I will just lay it out here.

(T) runs local from Fordham Plaza/3rd Ave to the main trunk.

(V) runs express from LGA on the Astoria Line, and replaces (W) service to the main trunk using a new connection with the 60th street tunnel.

(Y) runs on the Queens Bypass replacing (E) service to Rosedale and the (E) will be moved to Hillside Av, which will be extended. I am uncertain about this because now JFK loses direct connection to TSQ and PABT but it is much faster. So theoretically transfer time would be shorter.

 

Southern end, it seems connections to Northern Brooklyn or Fulton Street will be best as DeKalb Ave is too stuffed up as it is. Adding a deinterlining solution does not help when it is just taken away

However there needs to be a way to connect to Atlantic Ave. The sheer amount of connections there would near-eradicate the issue of SAS being isolated, along with the 51st street station.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reptile said:

(V) runs express from LGA on the Astoria Line, and replaces (W) service to the main trunk using a new connection with the 60th street tunnel.

I don't see any point in doing this whatsoever. You're basically just rerouting the (W) and converting it into an Orange W, no need to go for a name change. Not to mention, you would have to move the (M) off of 6th Av to make room for it which would not be good at all. You also congest 60th St Tunnel even more than it needs to be. You have the (N) already delaying (R) trains on Broadway because it needs to go from express to local, the (R) delaying (N) trains because it needs to get onto QBL, and now this Orange W(calling it this because there is no need for a letter change whatsoever) trying to get from 6th Av onto 60th St Tunnel. It sounds like a good idea, but it will never work as it ends up making service more worse than it needs to be, 60th St Tunnel may have been dealing with 3 trains operating all at once, but the (N) and (W) are operating on the same trunk line even if they operate separately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I don't see any point in doing this whatsoever. You're basically just rerouting the (W) and converting it into an Orange W, no need to go for a name change. Not to mention, you would have to move the (M) off of 6th Av to make room for it which would not be good at all. You also congest 60th St Tunnel even more than it needs to be. You have the (N) already delaying (R) trains on Broadway because it needs to go from express to local, the (R) delaying (N) trains because it needs to get onto QBL, and now this Orange W(calling it this because there is no need for a letter change whatsoever) trying to get from 6th Av onto 60th St Tunnel. It sounds like a good idea, but it will never work as it ends up making service more worse than it needs to be, 60th St Tunnel may have been dealing with 3 trains operating all at once, but the (N) and (W) are operating on the same trunk line even if they operate separately.

Forgot to clarify the (V) was teal and on 2nd Ave. Sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Reptile said:

have a loose plan for Second Avenue Subway service so I think I will just lay it out here.

(T) runs local from Fordham Plaza/3rd Ave to the main trunk.

(V) runs express from LGA on the Astoria Line, and replaces (W) service to the main trunk using a new connection with the 60th street tunnel.

(Y) runs on the Queens Bypass replacing (E) service to Rosedale and the (E) will be moved to Hillside Av, which will be extended. I am uncertain about this because now JFK loses direct connection to TSQ and PABT but it is much faster. So theoretically transfer time would be shorter.

 

Southern end, it seems connections to Northern Brooklyn or Fulton Street will be best as DeKalb Ave is too stuffed up as it is. Adding a deinterlining solution does not help when it is just taken away

However there needs to be a way to connect to Atlantic Ave. The sheer amount of connections there would near-eradicate the issue of SAS being isolated, along with the 51st street station.

60th St is already packed as it is, you'll have to create a new tunnel, and (Y) doesn't need to replace (E) service if it's going on the Queens Bypass. The (E) works fine, and you're forcing people to transfer onto another interlined line (E)(F). It won't make it much faster since it's running on the 2nd Av and not on the West Side. You'll make (E) passengers transfer to the (Y) at a long 51 St, or at Forest Hills/Grand St

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Reptile said:

Forgot to clarify the (V) was teal and on 2nd Ave. Sorry

Even so, it would be much better for this V service to enter Queens via its own line as opposed to piggybacking onto the 60th St Tunnel and the Astoria Line. Having the V piggyback onto the Astoria Line would restrict the amount of Broadway service that can run there. It’s true that a new tunnel and a separate V line in Queens will cost more, but you would be able to provide more frequent service with a separate route vs piggybacking onto an existing line and tunnel.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.