Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Perhaps the (W) can take over the Queens Blvd-Broadway service if the (R) returns to Astoria after a 30-plus year absence, especially if the (M) is expanded to 24/7 service between Essex and Queens Blvd, as @W4ST suggested up thread.

The problem with deinterlining here is that it's hard to deinterline one set of lines without doing others. Once you start reshuffling lines, it really requires a full effort, otherwise, services will end up imbalanced. DeKalb can be done relatively simply ((N)(Q)(R)(W) to 4th Avenue, (B) and (D) to Brighton), as can the Broadway line ((N) and (Q) to 2nd Avenue, (R) and (W) to Astoria), but that will have ramifications for QBL, which will have impacts on the Manhattan trunks, et cetera.

QBL is deinterlinable (?) though. The simplest way to do is just to follow the existing track alignments, which means sending locals to 53rd and expresses to 63rd. 60th Street should really be out of the picture on QBL; Astoria warrants more than half the 60th Street capacity, which is all it would get if one Broadway local went there and the other to QBL. It should also mean removing the track-sharing between 8th and 6th Avenue trains through 53rd Street, since the cross-platform transfer exists at 7th Avenue. All this combined means that we can remove interlining from the (E) whatsoever - it runs World Trade to 179th, all via local, and all to itself - meaning that capacity on 8th Avenue local and QB local tracks is only restricted by the WTC terminal. This could probably handle 24 tph, more than QB local get today. Therefore, (F) and (M) trains take over 63rd and QB express, one to Parsons-Archer and one to 179th.

As noted above, the (E) gets 8th Avenue local to itself, so the (C) is shifted to express to eliminate the conflict at Canal. The (A) and (C) should stay together on the express tracks to straighten out the 59th junction, meaning the (B) and (D) switch to local. Since Concourse line riders have a longer trip downtown, they should keep CPW express service, thus they get the (A) and (C) and Washington Heights the (B) and (D).

With the exception of the (F)(G) and (J)(M) in Brooklyn, the whole B division has just been deinterlined. Poor IND planning means that the (F) and (G) will likely never be separated, and the (J)(M) sharing isn't a huge chokepoint to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

The problem with deinterlining here is that it's hard to deinterline one set of lines without doing others. Once you start reshuffling lines, it really requires a full effort, otherwise, services will end up imbalanced. DeKalb can be done relatively simply ((N)(Q)(R)(W) to 4th Avenue, (B) and (D) to Brighton), as can the Broadway line ((N) and (Q) to 2nd Avenue, (R) and (W) to Astoria), but that will have ramifications for QBL, which will have impacts on the Manhattan trunks, et cetera.

QBL is deinterlinable (?) though. The simplest way to do is just to follow the existing track alignments, which means sending locals to 53rd and expresses to 63rd. 60th Street should really be out of the picture on QBL; Astoria warrants more than half the 60th Street capacity, which is all it would get if one Broadway local went there and the other to QBL. It should also mean removing the track-sharing between 8th and 6th Avenue trains through 53rd Street, since the cross-platform transfer exists at 7th Avenue. All this combined means that we can remove interlining from the (E) whatsoever - it runs World Trade to 179th, all via local, and all to itself - meaning that capacity on 8th Avenue local and QB local tracks is only restricted by the WTC terminal. This could probably handle 24 tph, more than QB local get today. Therefore, (F) and (M) trains take over 63rd and QB express, one to Parsons-Archer and one to 179th.

As noted above, the (E) gets 8th Avenue local to itself, so the (C) is shifted to express to eliminate the conflict at Canal. The (A) and (C) should stay together on the express tracks to straighten out the 59th junction, meaning the (B) and (D) switch to local. Since Concourse line riders have a longer trip downtown, they should keep CPW express service, thus they get the (A) and (C) and Washington Heights the (B) and (D).

With the exception of the (F)(G) and (J)(M) in Brooklyn, the whole B division has just been deinterlined. Poor IND planning means that the (F) and (G) will likely never be separated, and the (J)(M) sharing isn't a huge chokepoint to begin with.

1.) You are correct in that deinterlining current service routings causes the domino effect—almost every line that converges/diverges with the adjusted route(s) will ultimately be impacted.

2.) Having the (E) run entirely local from World Trade Center to Jamaica–179th Street will undeniably revoke the two key components that make it so popular—the express section it operates on along Queens Boulevard and the Archer Avenue Line, which sees significantly higher usage than the Hillside Avenue Line.

3.) Terminal swapping between the (A) and (D) should be avoided due to the considerable length of the (A). Remember, we're talking about the longest line in the entire system that extends over 30 miles. Sending it up the Grand Concourse will be overkill, especially during midnight hours where the (A) runs completely local and can easily take nearly 2 hours to make a single trip!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The problem with deinterlining here is that it's hard to deinterline one set of lines without doing others. Once you start reshuffling lines, it really requires a full effort, otherwise, services will end up imbalanced. DeKalb can be done relatively simply ((N)(Q)(R)(W) to 4th Avenue, (B) and (D) to Brighton), as can the Broadway line ((N) and (Q) to 2nd Avenue, (R) and (W) to Astoria), but that will have ramifications for QBL, which will have impacts on the Manhattan trunks, et cetera.

QBL is deinterlinable (?) though. The simplest way to do is just to follow the existing track alignments, which means sending locals to 53rd and expresses to 63rd. 60th Street should really be out of the picture on QBL; Astoria warrants more than half the 60th Street capacity, which is all it would get if one Broadway local went there and the other to QBL. It should also mean removing the track-sharing between 8th and 6th Avenue trains through 53rd Street, since the cross-platform transfer exists at 7th Avenue. All this combined means that we can remove interlining from the (E) whatsoever - it runs World Trade to 179th, all via local, and all to itself - meaning that capacity on 8th Avenue local and QB local tracks is only restricted by the WTC terminal. This could probably handle 24 tph, more than QB local get today. Therefore, (F) and (M) trains take over 63rd and QB express, one to Parsons-Archer and one to 179th.

As noted above, the (E) gets 8th Avenue local to itself, so the (C) is shifted to express to eliminate the conflict at Canal. The (A) and (C) should stay together on the express tracks to straighten out the 59th junction, meaning the (B) and (D) switch to local. Since Concourse line riders have a longer trip downtown, they should keep CPW express service, thus they get the (A) and (C) and Washington Heights the (B) and (D).

With the exception of the (F)(G) and (J)(M) in Brooklyn, the whole B division has just been deinterlined. Poor IND planning means that the (F) and (G) will likely never be separated, and the (J)(M) sharing isn't a huge chokepoint to begin with.

I like your plans for total interlining, which would be good for reliability. However, I didn't suggest total interlining, because I wanted to give people more options, while removing some interlining. That was my reasoning for CPW. If the (A) goes to 207, the (D) goes to 168, the (B) goes to Bedford Park Blvd, and the (C) goes to Norwood/205 with the (A)(C) express and the (B)(D) local, both lines get express service, and both lines get 8 Avenue and 6 Avenue service, while having interlining on only the off-peak Concourse Line track. That is partially behind my (B)(D)(R)  reasoning as well.

4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I seem to recall @Wallyhorse posting the part about running the (R) via Brighton Local and the (D) local to Bay Ridge before, though not coupled with running both (N) and (Q) to 96th-2nd. 

While I do like the idea of the (R) line not being entirely underground, I do feel that by doing a three-way switch between the (D), (Q) and (R) trains in Brooklyn, you’ll be creating two merges in close proximity for the (B) - one at Prospect Park with the (R) and the next with the (D) before entering DeKalb, which likely would cancel out any time savings gained by eliminating the big merge at DeKalb Junction (Gold St). 

Perhaps the (W) can take over the Queens Blvd-Broadway service if the (R) returns to Astoria after a 30-plus year absence, especially if the (M) is expanded to 24/7 service between Essex and Queens Blvd, as @W4ST suggested up thread.

Yeah, those merges could be troublesome. If (B)(D)(R)  service would really suffer under this plan, deinterlining them might be better. Then the (R) wouldn't have a yard though, so it might be complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Having the (E) run entirely local from World Trade Center to Jamaica–179th Street will undeniably revoke the two key components that make it so popular—the express section it operates on along Queens Boulevard and the Archer Avenue Line, which sees significantly higher usage than the Hillside Avenue Line.

Ridership will simply shift. The (E) will remain popular because it'll serve the Queens Blvd local stops more reliably; and the 53rd Street tunnel will remain a popular route into Manhattan. As a result, more people will use the (relatively) underused local trains. Service to Jamaica Center via the express will be replaced by (F) or (M) trains. No big deal.

1 hour ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Terminal swapping between the (A) and (D) should be avoided due to the considerable length of the (A). Remember, we're talking about the longest line in the entire system that extends over 30 miles. Sending it up the Grand Concourse will be overkill, especially during midnight hours where the (A) runs completely local and can easily take nearly 2 hours to make a single trip! 

If the (A) and (D) swapped terminals, the (A) should adopt the service pattern of the (D) and run express overnight. Again, things will change: you can't plan a wholesale shift in the way the subway works under the idea that everything as we know it today stays as it is. Keep the (A) and (C) express on 8th Avenue overnight - or just the (A) if the (C) doesn't run, but I'd argue ridership growth on the Fulton line warrants an increase in overnight service.

36 minutes ago, W4ST said:

I didn't suggest total interlining, because I wanted to give people more options, while removing some interlining. That was my reasoning for CPW. If the (A) goes to 207, the (D) goes to 168, the (B) goes to Bedford Park Blvd, and the (C) goes to Norwood/205 with the (A)(C) express and the (B)(D) local, both lines get express service, and both lines get 8 Avenue and 6 Avenue service, while having interlining on only the off-peak Concourse Line track.

Deinterlining and preserving multiple options just don't go together. Otherwise, you're just swapping lines around, but keeping the same overall service method. Merging delays will still exist, they'll just be in different places. I've talked at length before about why I'm a fan of deinterlining, but for me, the goal is to remove as many merges and as much reverse-branching as possible, and increase frequency so transferring - especially during off-peak - is no longer a major pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a quick table of which lines merge with each other during peak hours. The (Z) is counted as part of the (J) service, and the (W) is counted separately even though it's operationally a branch of the (N).

(A): (C)(D) 

(B)(C)(D)(Q) 

(C): (A)(B) 

(D): (A)(B)(N)

(E): (C)(F) 

(F): (E)(G)(M)

(G): (F) 

(J): (M)

(M): (F)(E)(R)(J)

(N): (D)(Q)(R)(W)

(Q): (B)(N)

(R): (M)(N)(W)

(W): (N)(R) 

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 (N) was sent up SAS, which coincidentally could use a boost in service?

(N): (D)(Q)

(Q): (B)(N)

(R): (M)(W)

(W): (R) 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at a map of the B Division, you'll see 3 trunk lines, each represented with its own color.

  • Broadway (N)(Q)(R)(W)
  • 8 Ave (A)(C)(E)
  • 6 Ave (B)(D)(F)(M) 

However, these aren't the actual trunk lines from an operational standpoint. The true trunk lines are

  • Broadway (N)(Q)(R)(W) 
  • Central Park West (A)(B)(C)(D) 
  • Queens Blvd (E)(F)(M)(R)
  • plus a special case, Manhattan Bridge / DeKalb Ave (B)(D)(N)(Q) 

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 (E) 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 (A)(C)(E)(W), 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 (B) 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
    • (N)(Q) SAS / Broadway Express / 4 Ave Express
    • (R)(W) Astoria / Broadway Local / 4 Ave Local
  • 6 Ave
    • (B)(D) Concourse / CPW / 6 Ave Express / Brighton
    • (F)(M) QBL / 6 Ave Local
  • 8 Ave / Fulton
    • (A)(C) Upper 8 Ave / CPW / 8 Ave Express / Fulton
  • 8 Ave / QBL
    • (E) 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. 

Edited by Caelestor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not *that* hot on deinterlining. I think in places where it would add capacity on trunks (ignoring junction delays/cap reductions), it should be done, but otherwise it's trying to solve a reliability dumpster fire by emptying the Ashokan Reservoir. The reality is that our subway is an incidental network, one that was not built in some unified effort that would produce operational sensibility, but one whose creation was piecemeal at best. As a result, we're forced to interline in order to preserve decent service markets. Now of course, there are areas where we've gone too far -- Broadway comes to mind -- but elsewhere, for example on CPW, I don't think the deinterlining is harming anyone. I think the delays you're seeing on those sorts of lines are the result of a shit operating environment and terrible service management, not some deeply incorrect philosophy in subway service delivery. If we fix those issues and we still see frequently cascading delays, then we can talk, but I really think that deinterlining at this specific point in time in order to better service quality is putting lipstick on a pig. 

With an eye to the future, I don't think there is any way to avoid deinterlining. SAS phase 3 is indeed a ways off, but when it opens, it will either require the construction of a separate terminal for Broadway Expresses, or a reinstating of all many of changes in order to provide the southern end of SAS with more than 15tph, as without separate tunnels for SAS Queens trains, the only way to add that capacity is to have a SAS service take the (R)'s place in Queens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. De-interlining services means nothing if riders are adamantly against it. Looking at some of examples above, it looks more like some of you are trying to punish riders with longer and more complex trips rather than offer better ways of getting around. For example, making the (E) the Hillside-Queens Blvd Local with the (M) as the Hillside-Queens Blvd Express is reminiscent of the 1988-'92 failed (R) extension where riders bailed at the next express stop of quicker Manhattan-bound service. Regardless of how many trains that can run on a track, the services are still at the mercy of the trains ahead of them, the track layout and the inherent speed limits and other such restrictions. Also making the 207 Street (D) the Central Park West local is a complete disservice to Washington Heights riders as it gives them a needlessly slow trip for no real reason other than to have the (A) run to the Bronx. De-interlining is great and all, but people actually want to go places in a timely fashion, not at a leisurely pace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of de-interlining, here is my plan on what to do with it. Feel free to critique and comment.

Brooklyn IRT:

(2)(3) run to Flatbush, (4) runs to New Lots and (5) runs to Utica. This is to untangle Rodgers, and this plan would also connect the SB local track and the SB Nostrand track without crossing with the (5) .

Broadway trunks and QBL:

(B)  Norwood to CI via Concourse, CPW, and Brighton locals and 6th Av express. Full-time route.

(D)  Norwood (if capacity permits, if not BPB or 145th) to Brighton Beach via Concourse peak, CPW, 6th, and Brighton express. Runs weekdays (minus late nights) only.

(N) runs 96th-Stillwell via Broadway Express. After phase 3 opens, you could either eliminate the (W) and make the (N) run its 2010-2016 service pattern or try to add a 3rd track at 72nd for turning trains. Operates during weekdays (minus late nights) only.

(Q) runs 96th-Stillwell via West End full time. Mimics (D) service pattern south of Atlantic. Skips DeKalb.

(R)  is cut from QBL and runs to Astoria at all times except late nights. I know it will lose direct connection to a yard, but I would look to move it to 36th-38th since that yard is planned to accommodate revenue service stock in the future. If you wanted you could also have some short-turns at 59th (Bklyn). If this still isn't feasible, just leave the line as-is. 

(W) runs Astoria-CI via Broadway, Montague, and 4th Av local. Weekdays (minus late nights) to Bay Ridge, to CI via Sea Beach other times, replacing the (N).

(M) becomes a 18/7 line to Forest Hills, replacing the unreliable (R) (if it is cut from QBL) . Weekdays you could send some (W) s up QBL but given that most people bail for the express as early as possible, the (M) should be able to handle it. A free-full time out of system transfer is provided between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

On the subject of de-interlining, here is my plan on what to do with it. Feel free to critique and comment.

Brooklyn IRT:

(2)(3) run to Flatbush, (4) runs to New Lots and (5) runs to Utica. This is to untangle Rodgers, and this plan would also connect the SB local track and the SB Nostrand track without crossing with the (5) .

Broadway trunks and QBL:

(B)  Norwood to CI via Concourse, CPW, and Brighton locals and 6th Av express. Full-time route.

(D)  Norwood (if capacity permits, if not BPB or 145th) to Brighton Beach via Concourse peak, CPW, 6th, and Brighton express. Runs weekdays (minus late nights) only.

(N) runs 96th-Stillwell via Broadway Express. After phase 3 opens, you could either eliminate the (W) and make the (N) run its 2010-2016 service pattern or try to add a 3rd track at 72nd for turning trains. Operates during weekdays (minus late nights) only.

(Q) runs 96th-Stillwell via West End full time. Mimics (D) service pattern south of Atlantic. Skips DeKalb.

(R)  is cut from QBL and runs to Astoria at all times except late nights. I know it will lose direct connection to a yard, but I would look to move it to 36th-38th since that yard is planned to accommodate revenue service stock in the future. If you wanted you could also have some short-turns at 59th (Bklyn). If this still isn't feasible, just leave the line as-is. 

(W) runs Astoria-CI via Broadway, Montague, and 4th Av local. Weekdays (minus late nights) to Bay Ridge, to CI via Sea Beach other times, replacing the (N).

(M) becomes a 18/7 line to Forest Hills, replacing the unreliable (R) (if it is cut from QBL) . Weekdays you could send some (W) s up QBL but given that most people bail for the express as early as possible, the (M) should be able to handle it. A free-full time out of system transfer is provided between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza.

 

 

 

These would probably be the only two cases where i’d consider untangling the services. I’d leave the 8th Ave line and CPW/Concourse out of it. Though I don’t think it’s necessary to make the Sea Beach service run local through Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan on weekends. Maybe keep the (N) as a seven-day service between CI and 2nd Ave and overnights as a shuttle to either Pacific or Whitehall (presumably the (R) to/from Astoria would be 24/7) while running the (W) as a weekdays-only service from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge or Whitehall (assuming the (M) goes to seven-day operation on 6th Ave and QBL).

Perhaps untangling DeKalb (Gold St) Junction and keeping the Broadway Expresses express and the Locals local will be enough to run more trains and minimize delays on those lines without needing to completely rearrange the B Division. Likewise with untangling Rogers Junction for the A Division.

 

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

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

These would probably be the only two cases where i’d consider untangling the services. I’d leave the 8th Ave line and CPW/Concourse out of it. Though I don’t think it’s necessary to make the Sea Beach service run local through Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan on weekends. Maybe keep the (N) as a seven-day service between CI and 2nd Ave and overnights as a shuttle to either Pacific or Whitehall (presumably the (R) to/from Astoria would be 24/7) while running the (W) as a weekdays-only service from Forest Hills to Bay Ridge or Whitehall (assuming the (M) goes to seven-day operation on 6th Ave and QBL).

Perhaps untangling DeKalb (Gold St) Junction and keeping the Broadway Expresses express and the Locals local will be enough to run more trains and minimize delays on those lines without needing to completely rearrange the B Division. Likewise with untangling Rogers Junction for the A Division.

 

In my view it would be more or so a waste to have the (N) still run on weekends under this plan as you would have two Broadway express and one Broadway local. You could have the (N) run local, but that could delay the (Q) at 57th. Even with the (W) taking over for the (N) and running local, riders who want a faster ride can just transfer at 36th or New Utrecht for the (Q) which will be express in and to Manhattan, as well as via the bridge. Having the (W)  to Forest Hills would also get rid of the increased reliability on QBL and in the 60th street tubes due to streamlining. 

 

Edited by R68OnBroadway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah if you're going to deinterline DeKalb, there is no need to run the (N) outside of weekdays 6AM-12M, since the (Q) will take you express on Broadway and 4th Av all the way to 36th Street.

An (N) or (R) rider looking for a faster trip to Sea Beach can simply take a (Q) to 36th or New Utrecht and then the (W). For people who use the (N) to (R), they can simply use the (Q) to 36th then take the (R) from there.

Deinterlining also has the added benefit (on weekdays, particularly PM rush hour) of reducing the dangerous overcrowding at Canal Street bridge platform, since you can take any train to 36th and transfer there instead of specifically waiting for an (N) on that extremely narrow platform (which they should find some way to widen) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a new line I created that would operate as a "bypass" for northern Queens riders that would run on the recaptured PW branch, the PW tracks until Sunnyside, Jackson Avenue adjacent to the (G) , and then under 34th street to Hudson Yards. As for where it will run in Sunnyside is unknown, as it could either run adjacent to or above the LIRR or turn into portal a to Northern Blvd, where it will run until Jackson. 

The line to Manhattan would first start at Great Neck, as building the Manhasset viaduct to 2 tracks might be unfeasible, so shuttles will run between Great Neck and Port Washington. Double-tracking the line may be infeasible as well. The Great Neck-Hudson Yards line will use a dark red or burgundy red "X" designation, while the shuttle portion will use an "S" with that color. 

The "X" would make all the stops on the PW branch from Great Neck until Flushing. From there, Willets Point will be made a full-time stop, and a new stop will be built at Broadway called Elmhurst (this station is already under consideration). The line would then run adjacent to the LIRR ROW to Woodside, where it will then dip underground and run to Northern Blvd, where it will run adjacent to the QBL express tracks. At 36th the line will curve around to run behind the walls of the station. The train will then stop at Queens Plaza at a new, deeper platform west of the current stop. The train will then run under Jackson to the LIC LIRR station with stops at Court Sq and Vernon Blvd-LIC while running as on tracks that will be behind the (G) 's station walls. The line will then run in a tunnel under the East River to 34th St with stops at 2nd Avenue, Park Avenue, Herald Square, Penn Stations and Hudson Yards.

A simplified version of the stops with transfers listed:

Great Neck

Little Neck 

Douglaston

Bayside

Auburndale

Broadway

Murray HIll

Flushing (7) 

Willets Point (7) 

Elmhurst

Woodside (7) 

Queens Plaza (E)(M)(R) 

Court Square (E)(M)(7) 

Vernon Blvd-Long Island City (7)  and LIRR

2nd Avenue-34th Street (T) 

Park Avenue  (6) 

Herald Square (B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W) 

Penn Station LIRR, NJT, Amtrak, (1)(2)(3)(A)(C)(E) 

Hudson Yards (7) 

Stops in bold could be eliminated to avoid duplication with the (7) as this line is mainly to serve riders east of Flushing. You could end the line at Penn Station if you don't want to extend the line to Hudson Yards. You could also have the line run across 57th in Manhattan if 34th is too difficult.

Edited by R68OnBroadway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2018 at 2:39 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

In my view it would be more or so a waste to have the (N) still run on weekends under this plan as you would have two Broadway express and one Broadway local. You could have the (N) run local, but that could delay the (Q) at 57th. Even with the (W) taking over for the (N) and running local, riders who want a faster ride can just transfer at 36th or New Utrecht for the (Q) which will be express in and to Manhattan, as well as via the bridge. Having the (W)  to Forest Hills would also get rid of the increased reliability on QBL and in the 60th street tubes due to streamlining. 

 

Having just one Broadway Local and two Broadway Expresses on weekends would be no different than having just one Lexington or 7th Ave Local and two Lexington or 7th Ave Expresses, like we do now. And if the (R) finally gets its own yard in Brooklyn at 36th-38th streets and is sent back to Astoria, then it shouldn’t be a problem to run the (R) more frequently on weekends since it won’t have any merges. 

On 4/29/2018 at 4:28 PM, Around the Horn said:

Yeah if you're going to deinterline DeKalb, there is no need to run the (N) outside of weekdays 6AM-12M, since the (Q) will take you express on Broadway and 4th Av all the way to 36th Street.

An (N) or (R) rider looking for a faster trip to Sea Beach can simply take a (Q) to 36th or New Utrecht and then the (W). For people who use the (N) to (R), they can simply use the (Q) to 36th then take the (R) from there.

Deinterlining also has the added benefit (on weekdays, particularly PM rush hour) of reducing the dangerous overcrowding at Canal Street bridge platform, since you can take any train to 36th and transfer there instead of specifically waiting for an (N) on that extremely narrow platform (which they should find some way to widen) 

It’s true that you could take the (Q) to the (W) for Sea Beach service with the (N) being reduced to weekdays only. But why complicate things that way? 

Yes, on the surface it does look like the (N) duplicates the (Q) in Manhattan under a “deinterlined DeKalb” plan. But still, that would still provide more service to the 2nd Ave corridor and the crowded Canal St bridge platforms, which are heavily trafficked on the weekends too.

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

5 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Heres an Idea I just thought of. 

Re-arranging the platforms at Howard Beach on the (A) along with new switches north of the station. 

Once that is done, then the Rockaway (S) can be extended to Howard Beach

There isn't really a purpose for this and doesn't do much other than give people headed for Rockaway Park a faster ride. If you are to extend the (S) , have it run to Rockaway Blvd instead and increase service to 6 TPH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

There isn't really a purpose for this and doesn't do much other than give people headed for Rockaway Park a faster ride. If you are to extend the (S) , have it run to Rockaway Blvd instead and increase service to 6 TPH.

That would be the main reason for doing such and I agree, having the (S) go to at least Rockaway Boulevard gives riders transfers to/from both (A) lines (though obviously, a quick way of fumigating would be required at Rockaway Boulevard for it to happen). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

(though obviously, a quick way of fumigating would be required at Rockaway Boulevard for it to happen). 

Which is why I chose Howard Beach - JFK Airport for such a job

The Rockaway Blvd extension should (In my opinion be expanded so that it's used throughout all of summer. Then there's RBB which I don't want to propose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

Which is why I chose Howard Beach - JFK Airport for such a job

Which does pretty much zero for Rock Park commuters, given that all would still have to transfer to the Rockaway (A) there. Rock Boulevard gets you better frequency, but requires fast fumigation and running light for a stop to get onto the middle. Not impossible, just a pain.

What really should be done to solve all this is a (C) extension to Lefferts. Yes, I know Lefferts has good ridership #s, but the bump in off peak service especially will vastly outweigh any time lost to transfers. Then you can run all (A) to the Rockaways, solving all these annoying RPK (S) issues. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

Which does pretty much zero for Rock Park commuters, given that all would still have to transfer to the Rockaway (A) there. Rock Boulevard gets you better frequency, but requires fast fumigation and running light for a stop to get onto the middle. Not impossible, just a pain.

What really should be done to solve all this is a (C) extension to Lefferts. Yes, I know Lefferts has good ridership #s, but the bump in off peak service especially will vastly outweigh any time lost to transfers. Then you can run all (A) to the Rockaways, solving all these annoying RPK (S) issues. 

What you could probably do is placate those on Lefferts who don't want to lose their precious express service by running a limited number of rush-hour (A) trains in the peak direction from/to Lefferts in addition to the (C).  I would also make the (C) a 24/7 line in doing this that would eliminate the late-night Lefferts shuttle while the (A) runs the old round-robin route late nights, but timed so those coming from Rockaway Park have time (4-6 mins) to transfer to (A) trains going to the mainland at Beach 67th.    

It would be easier to do this if you could connect the (T) is the SAS is ever completed to the Fulton Street line in Brooklyn since then the (T) can be the Fulton Local to Euclid and the (A) and (C) can both run express on Fulton. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

What you could probably do is placate those on Lefferts who don't want to lose their precious express service by running a limited number of rush-hour (A) trains in the peak direction from/to Lefferts in addition to the (C).  I would also make the (C) a 24/7 line in doing this that would eliminate the late-night Lefferts shuttle while the (A) runs the old round-robin route late nights, but timed so those coming from Rockaway Park have time (4-6 mins) to transfer to (A) trains going to the mainland at Beach 67th.    

It would be easier to do this if you could connect the (T) is the SAS is ever completed to the Fulton Street line in Brooklyn since then the (T) can be the Fulton Local to Euclid and the (A) and (C) can both run express on Fulton. 

If you want to make the Rockaways more accessible at night, just extend the shuttle to Rock Boulevard during those hours. This whole round robin thing is wholly unnecessary and is probably more of a time penalty than a benefit. And while it'd be nice to have a 24/7 (C), given late night ridership on Fulton/Lefferts, we're better off adding a tph to all relevant services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

If you want to make the Rockaways more accessible at night, just extend the shuttle to Rock Boulevard during those hours. This whole round robin thing is wholly unnecessary and is probably more of a time penalty than a benefit. And while it'd be nice to have a 24/7 (C), given late night ridership on Fulton/Lefferts, we're better off adding a tph to all relevant services.

Then you probably need to have both the Rock Park shuttle AND the Lefferts shuttle run to Euclid Avenue since it's easier to fumigate there, though if you can do it quickly Rockaway Boulevard could suffice for both shuttles, with both timed to start at Rockaway Boulevard the other way after the regular (A) to Far Rockaway comes through.    That probably can work in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking earlier about how more service is needed in eastern Queens, so would it be better to extend the (7) via the PW branch, turn the PW branch into some part of a Triboro-RX like service with connections and overlap with the LIRR, or would it be best to create an entire new subway line instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I was thinking earlier about how more service is needed in eastern Queens, so would it be better to extend the (7) via the PW branch, turn the PW branch into some part of a Triboro-RX like service with connections and overlap with the LIRR, or would it be best to create an entire new subway line instead?

I think it would be best to connect it with Queens Bypass, or maybe create a new line. The (7) is quite a bit slower than the LIRR, and already has very high ridership as it is. Connecting the PW branch to the Queens Bypass could bring riders quickly into Manhattan while increasing service on the branch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an extension thats not feasible what so ever but one that came in mind, now that I think of it. 

Extending the (A) from Lefferts Boulevard to Van Wyck Expressway to connect with the AirTrain to JFK. 

But I don't know what this'll mean for the Rockaway Beach Branch (South of Liberty Avenue)

Any thoughts or input?

Edited by LGA Link N train
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.