Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Around the Horn]

That point is moot since they'll never send the  to Astoria if there isn't a new yard built up there...

[Coney Island Av]

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

 Come on man! The whole post you’ve written here is predicated on your espoused wish to deinterline Broadway, yet you decide to fill the capacity hole on QB with some *really* ugly interlining. Methinks you can do better. 

Specifically, sending the  via 63 is in essence flipping off  riders. That line already has to merge with  — the former two taking place at some of the most tightly scheduled interlockings in the system. Do you really want to add another line to the mess? I generally don’t like using cascading delays as a justification for choices in service planning, but do you realize that if, under your service plan, something goes wrong on the , it’ll directly affect all 3 B division trunks AND the bloody  train? Maybe think about that. As an alternative, why don’t you do what is gonna be necessary in a few years anyway and send the  up SAS. On the capacity management side of things, keeping the  out of 63 conveniently leaves you the option of sending the  via 63, which, as you know, enables capacity capture on 8th Avenue. Maybe construe some service patterns based on that, no? 

Now, the  thing you’ve invented. You’re spending money here on a new crossover, and are creating a turnback style terminal on non-adjacent tracks. I guess my question is why? I love then train  — it’s my back route when the  has been supplemented out of existence — but do you *really* think the best way to improve it is by making passengers play a guessing game about which local track’s  will depart first — something that will inevitably cause the requisite dashes to the other platform when they’re wrong? I know many here fap to that cross platform transfer at Queens Plaza, but I really don’t think it produces any savings whatsoever for those in the dominant, Manhattan bound commute flow — remember, it’s backtracking. I personally think that a more useful way to foam away time and money would be to figure out ways to reroute the northern end of the  to Queensboro Plaza or 21st-Queensbridge in order to give  riders a better spread of Queens options. This is especially true for people like me who support some level of deinterlining in Queens, as such changes would make it so the only direct northern connection options for  riders are 53/8 services and the .  

I've always not been a big fan of sending the  to SAS. It won't work after Phase 3 opens unless express tracks or a lower level are built (knowing MTA, they won't), and the  would be forced to run 19/7 unless the  got extended back. The  will already have adequate SAS coverage and the only realistic way to send the  somewhere, without building lower levels/express tracks/stub-ends, is 63rd. However, I guess you could say sending the  up SAS pre-Phase 3 would be the best option. Now I do see your point about delays affecting other lines, but alternatively, we could swap the  and , so that the  could exclusively go to QBL local via 63rd, and  exclusively to QBL express via 53rd. That would be a lesser evil because there would be no merging at 36 St or Queens Plaza between the expresses/locals, and the  wouldn't have to merge with any additional lines. Unfortunately, crowding on 53rd St may return to pre-2001 levels. But overall, sending the  via 63rd vs. reextending the  seems like a "pick your poison" option. 

In my opinion, I think the 's current terminus at Court Sq isn't really good since it wasn't meant to be one. Ever since the  got cut back, it misses crucial connections to other lines, and was reduced in length. Like above, I would send it to Forest Hills, but it doesn't go to Manhattan. I do see your point about the passenger guessing game, which is indeed reminiscent of when 21 St-Queensbridge was a terminal. However, back then, countdown clocks weren't added yet. Now that the latters are being added to each station, it'll be very easy to tell which track a Brooklyn-bound  will depart at. Plus, I also mentioned "new transfers between Queensboro Plaza/Queens Plaza should be constructed" since the latter two are in close proximity to each other, so simply constructing the latter transfer would already give  riders a multitude of options to choose from, even if it was simply extended to Queens Plaza. 

[LGA Link N Train]

37 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

I also mentioned "new transfers between Queensboro Plaza/Queens Plaza should be constructed" since the latter two are in close proximity to each other

I agree with that also, but lets not forget that construction would be very disruptive and knowing how busy that area is on a regular basis, it'd be hell. Not to mention that elected officials and the neighborhood would advocate for ADA accessibility. So the feasibility of such a transfer is debatable. 

 

 

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

I've always not been a big fan of sending the  to SAS. It won't work after Phase 3 opens unless express tracks or a lower level are built (knowing MTA, they won't), and the  would be forced to run 19/7 unless the  got extended back. The  will already have adequate SAS coverage and the only realistic way to send the  somewhere, without building lower levels/express tracks/stub-ends, is 63rd. However, I guess you could say sending the  up SAS pre-Phase 3 would be the best option.

You can't worry about Phase 3 now. There's a good chance that you'll be retired by the time that's done. And regardless of that fact, I can guarantee you that New York will be a vastly different place -- who knows where people will want to go. 

In the more immediate future, we have Phase 2. That extension is projected to require a minimum of 19 trains per hour, a level which the  -- limited as it is by Dekalb and Stillwell -- simply cannot produce. Thus, both from an operational and capacital perspective,  to 96 and then 125 is the superior option. I also think that there's a good chance plans for Phase 3 will be changed substantially before construction. Look at the way these first two phases have been built -- you never know what will happen. 

Finally, if Phase 3 is built doltishly as you predict, there will be no way to 'fix' Broadway completely, as doing so would deny 8th full capacity. Right now, we have 6 B division track pairs in Manhattan's core (3x 4 track trunk lines), and 6 exiting it to the north (2 on CPW, 1 each on 53, 60, 63 and SAS). With Phase 3, we'll have 7 in the core but still 6 beyond, so in fact we will not -- when looking at the larger picture -- gain any capacity whatsoever. We'll simply have to decide whether we want to screw over 8th in routing a second service on 63, forcing the  to remain on 53, or whether we're better off capping Broadway by denying the line a second service on its express tracks. If, in 2060 or whatever, the world does come to this catch-22, I'd give 8th the pass. Hudson Yards and the general rezoning of Manhattan's West Side are about to send Midtown's centre of gravity lurching west, a fact which will greatly increase the strain on lines there. With the 's platforms already public safety hazards, its imperative that 8th be as functional as possible, thus we must choose it. On a more pedestrian level, unless you are willing to cut Queens Boulevard local off from Long Island City (more on this below) or are willing to truly deinterline Queens Boulevard, giving full service to Broadway means further complicating the 's route, while the 8th alternative at the very least preserves the status quo. 

4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

ow I do see your point about delays affecting other lines, but alternatively, we could swap the  and , so that the  could exclusively go to QBL local via 63rd, and  exclusively to QBL express via 53rd. That would be a lesser evil because there would be no merging at 36 St or Queens Plaza between the expresses/locals, and the  wouldn't have to merge with any additional lines. Unfortunately, crowding on 53rd St may return to pre-2001 levels. But overall, sending the  via 63rd vs. reextending the  seems like a "pick your poison" option. 

I thought you were big on Queens Boulevard to Brooklyn ridership... Sending the locals via 63 makes it so that the tens of thousands of riders who use QB Local beyond Roosevelt will have no means of accessing LIC and the transfers contained therein without using a bus or backriding. So maybe not? 

And it really is not a pick your poison situation at all. What I'd do -- before your deus ex machina of SAS Phase 3 comes along and bites me in the a$$, at least -- is send 2 8th services (one exp on QB, the other local) via 53, and the other two via 6th and 63. Then we send all Bway express to 96, et voila, everything in the B division's core is at capacity. 

4 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

However, back then, countdown clocks weren't added yet. Now that the latters are being added to each station, it'll be very easy to tell which track a Brooklyn-bound  will depart at. Plus, I also mentioned "new transfers between Queensboro Plaza/Queens Plaza should be constructed" since the latter two are in close proximity to each other, so simply constructing the latter transfer would already give  riders a multitude of options to choose from, even if it was simply extended to Queens Plaza

Queensboro Plaza to Queens Plaza would be about 700' including one hell of a level change. While I'm sure some would use it, I don't see it as something destined to be particularly popular. 

You make a valid point about countdown clocks, but I still don't think QP would be a good terminal. Almost immediately after Court Square, the 's tracks split, meaning that any new switch would have to be added directly abutting that stop. With that length of a terminal block, you'd be lucky to get 12tph out of the area -- if that. Just see what such a design did to Archer Avenue. 

Better, put it this way: if you're invoking Phase 3 of SAS to justify planning decisions, I can have my moved  terminal. 

[LGA Link N Train]

As controversial as this would sound, I think the best plan for the is to re-extend it to Forest Hills. If you really want it to terminate it at Queens Plaza then the tunnels would need to be re-arranged to provide adequate service while allowing the to relay as well

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

As controversial as this would sound, I think the best plan for the is to re-extend it to Forest Hills. If you really want it to terminate it at Queens Plaza then the tunnels would need to be re-arranged to provide adequate service while allowing the to relay as well

Please provide a good reason why a service pattern that has been proved inferior since the Queens Blvd line opened should be restored. For once, those who continue to preach "send the back to Forest Hills" need to please provide reasons why trains running along QB would be any less empty than they were back in 2001 when service was cut most of the time, or back it 2010 when the line was finally truncated permanently. Court Square isn't an ideal terminal - I'm not arguing with that - but that is consequence of poor planning decisions in the construction of the line that would not be rectified by running empty or near-empty trains back and forth on a busy line. I want as much as anyone for the line to be better-used and to have more and easier connections, but the fact that we've built two separate connections since QBL opened just to allow more trains to go to Manhattan should show us that the simply doesn't belong running along Queens Blvd.

I'm not against useful extensions that would improve connectivity, though. As @RR503 wrote, a better choice than building a likely less-than-popular transfer between Queens and Queensboro Plaza would simply be to reroute the to make these connections itself. You could realign the tracks (or build a flat junction) so they shift from Jackson over to Hunter Street, then turn left onto QP North; here you could build an elevator and stairs to connect to Queensboro Plaza. From there, a right turn on to 21st would carry the line up to a terminal at Queensbridge. You'd gain connections to the , , , and - meaning that all the Midtown to Queens tunnels would have a connection with Crosstown without having to backtrack (today, riders have to take the back to Court Square and riders have to go all the way to Roosevelt just to go all the way back on the ). You'd also open up the possibility of extending the further, taking it under the river and across town possibly on 86th - but I don't want to get too ahead of myself here.

A map of the proposal here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1UARGuOmG-fFzKzuiFac5b8V8Ut7AkmQr&ll=40.758009636160246%2C-73.954060066333&z=14

 

[Caelestor]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

4 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

We can't move the  to Bway because people in Greenpoint need it.

[KK 6 Ave Local]

Could the SAS and go to the QBL local while the   stay the same?
But before that happens, I might go with @RR503's proposal to have  service local and  express with a reincarnated  to cover CPW.

(by the SAS I mean a (U) train from a Brooklyn terminal to Rego Park or Continental, then going to RBB if possible)

 

Edited June 25, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[Lance]

I'll address a few points on some other suggestions in a moment. First, I want to understand something in regards to the oft-proposed DeKalb de-interlining proposals. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the present proposal is to have the and run down the Brighton while the and take Sea Beach and the West End respectively, right? Assuming full de-interlining, only Brighton and 4th Avenue local services will stop at DeKalb Av. It would be a concern for Brighton riders looking for Broadway service and vice-versa as the only connection is provided through the meandering  service at DeKalb Av. As the present setup, while inefficient, gives riders options for both Broadway and 6th Avenue, how do you continue to provide the best possible service despite the service changes? From my view, it looks like the only way is via the long transfer between Atlantic Av and Pacific St.

16 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

As controversial as this would sound, I think the best plan for the is to re-extend it to Forest Hills. If you really want it to terminate it at Queens Plaza then the tunnels would need to be re-arranged to provide adequate service while allowing the to relay as well

As has been said a few times now, sending the to 71 Avenue (or anywhere else on Queens Blvd for that matter) is a complete waste of resources. The overwhelming majority of local riders want direct Manhattan service, which is why it got booted off the line back during peak periods back in 2001 and completely in 2010. The only reason why the stuck around as the primary local for so long was because of the track layout that wouldn't change until 2001 and an apparent hard-on for not using the 11th Street cut at all times. For the first point, the and express lines reigned supreme on 53rd Street, preventing any local service from using that link. In regards to the latter, it's almost baffling how long it took to get the Broadway-Queens Blvd local service to run beyond weekdays only. In fact, it would be over 30 years from the opening until 24/7 service was provided by the rerouted back in '87.

4 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

One of my major problems with this idea is that it over-serves 63rd Street at the expense of 53rd Street. Assuming the and retain their present 15TPH intervals during the rush hour, this would be a significant service cut to 53rd Street as the would run in tandem with the . Also, assuming the would run to Jamaica Center in lieu of the current , service on the would have to be boosted tremendously to handle the crowds boarding at Jamaica Center and Sutphin-Archer. Even assuming no change to the present headways, that's still over 20 TPH on 63rd Street for no real reason other than to get the  off 53rd Street. Looking at the 2016 ranking information (most recent available), only Lexington Av-63 St cracks the top 100 most used stations at 93rd. 21 St-Queensbridge is ranked 173rd and Roosevelt Island is a paltry 236th. Meanwhile, each one of the 53rd Street stations ranks in the top 100 by a wide margin. Even accounting for the addition of users in the non-Queens Blvd parts of stations (51 Street is counted as part of Lexington Av-53 St and the entire Court Square complex is counted as one station), the scales are still tipped in favor of 53rd Street. We've all seen the severe overcrowding on the 53rd Street stations, which will likely only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown. Less service, even if it does run smoother without merges, is still less service and riders will not stand it.

In regards to the Broadway changes, I'm not as adverse to these as I am to the ones on Queens Blvd. I believe the yard access problem is a bit overstated in my opinion. The has operated between Astoria and 95 Street for over 50 years, scattered interruptions notwithstanding, without any real problems. If the yard access thing was as major concern, the #2/ would not have run that route for 26 consecutive years from '61 when it swapped with the #1/QT to '87 when it finally switched with the . Also, if direct yard access is such a major concern, why does the continue to have such long dead-heading trips to the yard? When service was nominally cut back to Court Square, the line continued to be serviced at Jamaica, despite not running on that line most of the time. This would continue until 2010 when responsibility was shifted to Coney Island, still a ways away from the terminal at Church Av. If a yard can be built for the on the site of the 39th Street Bay Ridge yard, by all means they should do so. However, this should not preclude running a straight-line service from Astoria, a route that has been proven to work time and again as it would not interact with any other service.

Finally, as for merging the with a rerouted , that would be an interesting, if not very circuitous route. I don't really have an opinion either way on this one.

[bobtehpanda]

19 minutes ago, Lance said:

One of my major problems with this idea is that it over-serves 63rd Street at the expense of 53rd Street. Assuming the and retain their present 15TPH intervals during the rush hour, this would be a significant service cut to 53rd Street as the would run in tandem with the . Also, assuming the would run to Jamaica Center in lieu of the current , service on the would have to be boosted tremendously to handle the crowds boarding at Jamaica Center and Sutphin-Archer. Even assuming no change to the present headways, that's still over 20 TPH on 63rd Street for no real reason other than to get the  off 53rd Street. Looking at the 2016 ranking information (most recent available), only Lexington Av-63 St cracks the top 100 most used stations at 93rd. 21 St-Queensbridge is ranked 173rd and Roosevelt Island is a paltry 236th. Meanwhile, each one of the 53rd Street stations ranks in the top 100 by a wide margin. Even accounting for the addition of users in the non-Queens Blvd parts of stations (51 Street is counted as part of Lexington Av-53 St and the entire Court Square complex is counted as one station), the scales are still tipped in favor of 53rd Street. We've all seen the severe overcrowding on the 53rd Street stations, which will likely only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown. Less service, even if it does run smoother without merges, is still less service and riders will not stand it.

There are three components that are necessary for a QBL deinterlining:

• All express service moves to 63rd
• All local services moves to 53rd
• All Fulton service is moved to the 8th Av express.

This is the only way that you could reasonably get any room to boost service to the point where it could be the only service on 53rd and on 63rd. (Based on the capacity rating of New SF, I would estimate that WTC could provide 20-24TPH without the messy Canal interlocking.)

That way, you have:

• 20-24 TPH from 8th to 53rd to Forest Hills
• 30TPH from 6th to 63rd to Jamaica, with the current 179/Parsons split of services
• 20-30TPH to Astoria.

This would be a massive under-river boost in capacity. As part of this, redirecting express riders to 63rd is actually a feature, because all things held equal 53rd will always have insane levels of overcrowding, so it's a better matching of demand with capacity. You can have express service to Manhattan or direct Midtown access, but not both.

[Lance]

Under this proposal, does the run express the whole way down or does it switch to the express track at 59 St-Columbus Circle? Under the latter, that would force the to run local as I cannot see anyone calling for the to run local. The local from 205 Street to 59 St-Columbus Circle would be a hard-sell for riders, an almost impossible one in fact.

42 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This would be a massive under-river boost in capacity. As part of this, redirecting express riders to 63rd is actually a feature, because all things held equal 53rd will always have insane levels of overcrowding, so it's a better matching of demand with capacity. You can have express service to Manhattan or direct Midtown access, but not both.

There in lies the problem. Most people want both and will be hard-pressed to give up either. You can make the case for all Astoria service running local on Broadway as express stops are a dime a dozen there. Not so much so on Queens Blvd, especially when the main transfer points between local and express service will only be Roosevelt Av and 71 Avenue under this plan. Also, isn't part of the problem the terminal at 71 Avenue? You can boost service on the World Trade Center end, but you still run into the problems on the Queens end with the lengthy relay process at Continental. It doesn't matter if they're all trains or the current combo of  and trains; until the relay problem is addressed, the delays on the local tracks will persist.

[Wallyhorse]

18 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Please provide a good reason why a service pattern that has been proved inferior since the Queens Blvd line opened should be restored. For once, those who continue to preach "send the back to Forest Hills" need to please provide reasons why trains running along QB would be any less empty than they were back in 2001 when service was cut most of the time, or back it 2010 when the line was finally truncated permanently. Court Square isn't an ideal terminal - I'm not arguing with that - but that is consequence of poor planning decisions in the construction of the line that would not be rectified by running empty or near-empty trains back and forth on a busy line. I want as much as anyone for the line to be better-used and to have more and easier connections, but the fact that we've built two separate connections since QBL opened just to allow more trains to go to Manhattan should show us that the simply doesn't belong running along Queens Blvd.

I'm not against useful extensions that would improve connectivity, though. As @RR503 wrote, a better choice than building a likely less-than-popular transfer between Queens and Queensboro Plaza would simply be to reroute the to make these connections itself. You could realign the tracks (or build a flat junction) so they shift from Jackson over to Hunter Street, then turn left onto QP North; here you could build an elevator and stairs to connect to Queensboro Plaza. From there, a right turn on to 21st would carry the line up to a terminal at Queensbridge. You'd gain connections to the , , , and - meaning that all the Midtown to Queens tunnels would have a connection with Crosstown without having to backtrack (today, riders have to take the back to Court Square and riders have to go all the way to Roosevelt just to go all the way back on the ). You'd also open up the possibility of extending the further, taking it under the river and across town possibly on 86th - but I don't want to get too ahead of myself here.

A map of the proposal here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1UARGuOmG-fFzKzuiFac5b8V8Ut7AkmQr&ll=40.758009636160246%2C-73.954060066333&z=14

 

And perhaps what could be done if you extended the to 21st-Queensbridge would be to also provide a connection to the  at least going to/from Manhattan so in an emergency, the can operate as a loop line between Coney Island and 21st-Queensbridge in both directions and perhaps the  on weekends could be made into such a loop line, 

 

7 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

I have said before the Astroia line instead of being extended to JFK could be extended to The Bronx.  As I would do it, after Ditmars the line would continue north to a new station at 20th Avenue (possibly even building a yard there that would allow the  to return to its old route of going to Astoria) while continuing after that over a new bridge to a new stop in The Bronx at Food Service Drive that would be elevated.  After that, this line would go underground and operate on a line that would include transfers to/from the  and  at East 180th Street and the  at Elder/Westchester Avenue, with such a line going to Jacobi Medical Center, an area that has never had subway service.   This would give Bronx riders looking for Queens a way to get there without having to go through Manhattan.   You can include in this a new OOS transfer between Queens and Queensboro Plaza.  

As for the rest of this, I see why you'd want to do that.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Lance said:

Under this proposal, does the run express the whole way down or does it switch to the express track at 59 St-Columbus Circle? Under the latter, that would force the to run local as I cannot see anyone calling for the to run local. The local from 205 Street to 59 St-Columbus Circle would be a hard-sell for riders, an almost impossible one in fact.

There in lies the problem. Most people want both and will be hard-pressed to give up either. You can make the case for all Astoria service running local on Broadway as express stops are a dime a dozen there. Not so much so on Queens Blvd, especially when the main transfer points between local and express service will only be Roosevelt Av and 71 Avenue under this plan. Also, isn't part of the problem the terminal at 71 Avenue? You can boost service on the World Trade Center end, but you still run into the problems on the Queens end with the lengthy relay process at Continental. It doesn't matter if they're all trains or the current combo of  and trains; until the relay problem is addressed, the delays on the local tracks will persist.

Why does CPW express have to be tied with 6th Av at all? Why do Concourse riders have to be tied with 6th Av at all? Send and trains as CPW expresses to Norwood and BPB/145, and and trains to 168 and Inwood. 6th Av services will still be available for cross platform transfers.

There are plenty of places where riders can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't get on a Concourse express and go to Yankee Stadium. You can't get on a 7 express and wind up at 74th. You can't get on a Broadway express train headed downtown. Etc. The only 53rd station that isn't that close to a corresponding station on the is Lexington.

[Lance]

The services don't have to be tied to anything. The fact remains however that these services have run in a similar fashion since the '40s. In fact, the only major change in the north was the and swap in 1998. People are accustomed to the present service plans, especially those that have been around for decades. That's why I asked how does one continue to give the best service possible even with the proposed service changes. It was in regards to DeKalb Av, but it still fits here.

Also, you needn't lecture me on unavailable subway connections. There's a difference however in expecting a connection where one never existed and having it removed entirely. Take for instance Queens Blvd: if the  becomes the express to Jamaica Center and the goes the way of the do-do on Queens Blvd, there is only Queens Blvd local service at 5 Avenue though Queens Plaza. As you mentioned,  express service is available at nearby stations for the most part, but that requires a transfer that did not exist previously. The bit above on Central Park West also applies here. Right now, 8th and 6th Avenues are split evenly between express and local services. Shifting one line to the express and the other local will introduce another series of transfers that did not previously exist.

I'm not being difficult for the sake of it; quite the opposite in fact. I'm just looking at this from a passenger perspective where riders are creatures of habit and just want the current services to run better, not have to do a series of transfers to get around when it was just a one-seat ride previously.

[RR503]

43 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Why does CPW express have to be tied with 6th Av at all? Why do Concourse riders have to be tied with 6th Av at all? Send and trains as CPW expresses to Norwood and BPB/145, and and trains to 168 and Inwood. 6th Av services will still be available for cross platform transfers.

There are plenty of places where riders can't have their cake and eat it too. You can't get on a Concourse express and go to Yankee Stadium. You can't get on a 7 express and wind up at 74th. You can't get on a Broadway express train headed downtown. Etc. The only 53rd station that isn't that close to a corresponding station on the is Lexington.

Exactly. And if you really don’t think that such deinterlining is feasible, you can simply send one 63/6 service express, and the other local, while doing the same for 53. Sure, you have a good number of merges at 36, but with decent service management (something that CBTC should make a lot easier) I don’t see that as much of an obstacle. 

Generally, there are three separate questions here: what to do at 50/59, what to do at 145, and what to do at 36th St/Queens Plaza. If you think of routings not as pertaining to individual services but to express and local services heading to various tracks, then you can arrange these junctions patterns independently of one another. 

In terms of what I’d do, I absolutely support unlocking the shadow capacity on 8th by sending two services east on 53, but beyond that, I’d air on Lance’s side of preserving as much flexibility as possible. As has become abundantly clear, the agency has done little — if anything — to mitigate the very operational dysfunction that makes our merges so inefficient, and deinterlining thus so attractive. Until a serious effort is made to resolve the operational issues that today surround junction ops (and indeed, the operating environment of the entire sysem), I don’t think that we can in good faith suggest that we inconvenience riders in this way. We haven’t exhausted our other viable alternatives.  

Edited June 25, 2018 by RR503

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On ‎6‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 11:47 PM, officiallyliam said:

The isn't really isolated running on State Street - it still transfers to the at Hoyt. While it loses some of the transfers it has today, that's sort of the point of this: the IND lines (Fulton and Crosstown) were planned with characteristic IND competitive interests in mind and thus lack transfers to the BMT and IRT; sending the to Fulton allows IND riders to have easier trips to BMT and IRT destinations - such as the heart of the Financial District and Union Square. So while the route might become somewhat more "isolated," it helps lines like the and become far less isolated. And as @RR503 mentioned, the provisions at Whitehall should be built in a way that allows them to cross under Joralemon, considering the BMT was built later (it wouldn't make sense to put in the bellmouths if you couldn't cross the tunnels right in front of you!)

True, you can get to Borough Hall from a Fulton Local  if you transfer to the  or to South Brooklyn on the  if you transfer at Schermerhorn. 

Whitehall St is certainly a deeper station than Bowling Green. I’m just uncertain how much deeper (though Whitehall does seem to be quite deep) or how far down the  descend upon leaving Bowling Green. I agree it would be kind of silly to have built the Whitehall provisions in such a way that they couldn’t clear under the . But maybe locate a new station on the  in the new tunnel at Court or Clinton St to better serve the Atlantic Avenue corridor and the areas south of it.

On ‎6‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 2:01 PM, bobtehpanda said:

4th av riders will still have access to all the services they have today for a transfer, at Atlantic or across the 4th Av platforms on the express. The Nassau Line runs almost exactly parallel to the downtown segment of the (R), and the only thing that loses access is maybe one-seat rides from NYU-land to 4th Av.

Fulton riders will actually gain a lot, since the only line Fulton does not connect to at Fulton St is the Broadway Line.

Even with NYU, 4th Ave local riders can transfer to the  across the platform and get off at Union Square.

10 hours ago, Caelestor said:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.

I like merging the  and , as well as rerouting the  back to Astoria, but I’m not sure about running the  as the sole QBL local and the  and  express, especially because the  line stations from Essex to Metropolitan would need to be extended to handle 600-foot trains.

Edited June 25, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R68OnBroadway]

What is with all these convoluted plans? De-interlining should only be used where interlining causes the most trouble. As stated by a few other members, we used to operate greatly interlined services at high frequencies, and I'm sure antiquated signalling and poor dispatching is the reason why many junctions are bottlenecks. The only junctions that should be deinterlined are Broadway and Rogers. Broadway could be as easy as just sending the  up SAS and maybe to a lower level at 72nd later, and you could swap the  and  in Queens to improve reliability on the former given that the  would now have only a merge with the  , which runs low frequencies anyways. As for Rogers, send the  to Utica,  to New Lots, and the  to Flatbush. 

I also have a rather sh*t-crazy proposal for an easy Fordham line- this was posted earlier but ignored due to the Reads Lane fiasco, so I'm reposting it:

Lenox Yard is converted into a storage yard for the , which now branches off after 145th to the old Lenox station on the  (now the  's terminus). The connection to the  at 145th is removed due to a tight curve. 145th could be lengthened if possible.  

Meanwhile, a portion of the local tracks are demolished to allow for the  to connect to the former  tracks before 155th, allowing the  to take over for the  by connecting to the express tracks after 155th but before 163rd. The  could run under the Harlem River Drive until 155th, where it could then turn west, connect with the  and  , and then curve onto St. Nicholas Av. 

At 168th, the  now terminates using the 's former tracks, and the captures the north of 168th with a cross-platform transfer. After 207th, the  now crosses into the Bronx under Fordham Road to Co-Op city. Stops at Jerome-Grand Concourse, Fordham Plaza, Southern Blvd-Bronx Zoo, White Plains Road, Ben Nolan Way, Eastchester Rd, Bay Plaza/Co-op City South, and Co-Op city North at Co-Op City Blvd. A extension would also run to Co-op city.   

As for the issue of yard connectivity, you could just link up the storage tracks at 168th with the  's tracks and build bypass tracks for the stations to avoid the wider platforms, assuming the tunnel is kept to B div specifications. 

This plan gives many improvements, like:

-adds more A-div and B-div connections:

-Shortens both the and  

-Creates a cross-Bronx line mimicking the Bx12 (SBS on this route can be eliminated but local service would be retained) that has a cheap connection to Manhattan

-With the now at 207th, Rogers can be deinterlined without taking direct yard access from the   ( could be moved to Pitkin if feasible, which could get rid of the issue of building station bypass tracks, and you could move major multi-division operations to Concourse.)

-gives the  a better terminal

-allows for any SAS service into the Bronx to be routed up Third or Webster to Woodlawn rather than some half-a**ed proposal by a politician to have it run via Fordham

[W4ST]

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

What is with all these convoluted plans? De-interlining should only be used where interlining causes the most trouble. As stated by a few other members, we used to operate greatly interlined services at high frequencies, and I'm sure antiquated signalling and poor dispatching is the reason why many junctions are bottlenecks. The only junctions that should be deinterlined are Broadway and Rogers. Broadway could be as easy as just sending the  up SAS and maybe to a lower level at 72nd later, and you could swap the  and  in Queens to improve reliability on the former given that the  would now have only a merge with the  , which runs low frequencies anyways. As for Rogers, send the  to Utica,  to New Lots, and the  to Flatbush. 

I also have a rather sh*t-crazy proposal for an easy Fordham line- this was posted earlier but ignored due to the Reads Lane fiasco, so I'm reposting it:

Lenox Yard is converted into a storage yard for the , which now branches off after 145th to the old Lenox station on the  (now the  's terminus). The connection to the  at 145th is removed due to a tight curve. 145th could be lengthened if possible.  

Meanwhile, a portion of the local tracks are demolished to allow for the  to connect to the former  tracks before 155th, allowing the  to take over for the  by connecting to the express tracks after 155th but before 163rd. The  could run under the Harlem River Drive until 155th, where it could then turn west, connect with the  and  , and then curve onto St. Nicholas Av. 

At 168th, the  now terminates using the 's former tracks, and the captures the north of 168th with a cross-platform transfer. After 207th, the  now crosses into the Bronx under Fordham Road to Co-Op city. Stops at Jerome-Grand Concourse, Fordham Plaza, Southern Blvd-Bronx Zoo, White Plains Road, Ben Nolan Way, Eastchester Rd, Bay Plaza/Co-op City South, and Co-Op city North at Co-Op City Blvd. A extension would also run to Co-op city.   

As for the issue of yard connectivity, you could just link up the storage tracks at 168th with the  's tracks and build bypass tracks for the stations to avoid the wider platforms, assuming the tunnel is kept to B div specifications. 

This plan gives many improvements, like:

-adds more A-div and B-div connections:

-Shortens both the and  

-Creates a cross-Bronx line mimicking the Bx12 (SBS on this route can be eliminated but local service would be retained) that has a cheap connection to Manhattan

 -With the now at 207th, Rogers can be deinterlined without taking direct yard access from the   ( could be moved to Pitkin if feasible, which could get rid of the issue of building station bypass tracks, and you could move major multi-division operations to Concourse.)

-gives the  a better terminal

-allows for any SAS service into the Bronx to be routed up Third or Webster to Woodlawn rather than some half-a**ed proposal by a politician to have it run via Fordham

I like some aspects of this plan, but I'm not so into it, for 2 reasons:

• the  would become a bit of a winding line from 168th Street to 42nd Street, as opposed to the more straightforward  , and would have more stops. This would increase the time taken a bit.
• This isn't as big, but there would be a bit less flexibility in the region, as riders from Washington Heights or Inwood would almost be directed towards 7th Avenue, so if something goes wrong on 7th Avenue, it could be worse for the area.

[Caelestor]

I'm surprised my proposal was this thought-provoking. Some comments:

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I like merging the  and , as well as rerouting the  back to Astoria, but I’m not sure about running the  as the sole QBL local and the  and  express, especially because the  line stations from Essex to Metropolitan would need to be extended to handle 600-foot trains.

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.

7 hours ago, Lance said:

One of my major problems with this idea is that it over-serves 63rd Street at the expense of 53rd Street. Assuming the and retain their present 15TPH intervals during the rush hour, this would be a significant service cut to 53rd Street as the would run in tandem with the . Also, assuming the would run to Jamaica Center in lieu of the current , service on the would have to be boosted tremendously to handle the crowds boarding at Jamaica Center and Sutphin-Archer. Even assuming no change to the present headways, that's still over 20 TPH on 63rd Street for no real reason other than to get the  off 53rd Street. Looking at the 2016 ranking information (most recent available), only Lexington Av-63 St cracks the top 100 most used stations at 93rd. 21 St-Queensbridge is ranked 173rd and Roosevelt Island is a paltry 236th. Meanwhile, each one of the 53rd Street stations ranks in the top 100 by a wide margin. Even accounting for the addition of users in the non-Queens Blvd parts of stations (51 Street is counted as part of Lexington Av-53 St and the entire Court Square complex is counted as one station), the scales are still tipped in favor of 53rd Street. We've all seen the severe overcrowding on the 53rd Street stations, which will likely only get worse during the Canarsie shutdown. Less service, even if it does run smoother without merges, is still less service and riders will not stand it.

In regards to the Broadway changes, I'm not as adverse to these as I am to the ones on Queens Blvd. I believe the yard access problem is a bit overstated in my opinion. The has operated between Astoria and 95 Street for over 50 years, scattered interruptions notwithstanding, without any real problems. If the yard access thing was as major concern, the #2/ would not have run that route for 26 consecutive years from '61 when it swapped with the #1/QT to '87 when it finally switched with the . Also, if direct yard access is such a major concern, why does the continue to have such long dead-heading trips to the yard? When service was nominally cut back to Court Square, the line continued to be serviced at Jamaica, despite not running on that line most of the time. This would continue until 2010 when responsibility was shifted to Coney Island, still a ways away from the terminal at Church Av. If a yard can be built for the on the site of the 39th Street Bay Ridge yard, by all means they should do so. However, this should not preclude running a straight-line service from Astoria, a route that has been proven to work time and again as it would not interact with any other service.

Finally, as for merging the with a rerouted , that would be an interesting, if not very circuitous route. I don't really have an opinion either way on this one.

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. 

Edited June 25, 2018 by Caelestor

[officiallyliam]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I like merging the  and , as well as rerouting the  back to Astoria, but I’m not sure about running the  as the sole QBL local and the  and  express, especially because the  line stations from Essex to Metropolitan would need to be extended to handle 600-foot trains.

1 minute ago, Caelestor said:

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. 

This via Broadway proposal is almost as much a capacity waste as trains to Forest Hills; it's not really like the and combination at all and would be no more useful than ReThink NYC's misguided / combination. A combined / is only going to be the fastest way into Manhattan for a very small number of people: those in Greenpoint, who (mostly) don't currently have direct Manhattan service, and in Long Island City, where there are a plethora of Manhattan-bound trains. For everywhere else along Crosstown - particularly people south of the - going to Midtown via LIC and 60th Street is a circuitous and not-very-direct way into the city. The is much more of a straight shot into Manhattan, only mildly circuitous if you're coming from the northern end of the line near Middle Village. And this proposal does nothing to decongest 60th Street. One of the advantages of taking the off of QBL is that it allows 60th Street to run all services to Astoria, removing some of the congestion caused today by the 11th Street merge.

The way to get ridership up is not to find any old way to shove it in to Manhattan through existing tunnels; rather, it is through building more and better transfers (like to the at Broadway, or the and at Hoyt) or possibly through short extensions to Queensboro Plaza or 21st Street. None of the existing Queens to Manhattan tunnels should have any of their spare capacity spoken for by a looping train.

 

[KK 6 Ave Local]

22 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Could the SAS and go to the QBL local while the   stay the same?
But before that happens, I might go with @RR503's proposal to have  service local and  express with a reincarnated  to cover CPW.

(by the SAS I mean a (U) train from a Brooklyn terminal to Rego Park or Continental, then going to RBB if possible)

 

Whoops.. I meant @officiallyliam

[KK 6 Ave Local]

If expresses should run on 63rd, and locals on 53rd or 60th, then here's my plan:

 Express to Jamaica Center via a new junction to 63rd

 Express to 179

 Local to Forest Hills (and if the Bushwick-Queens trunk line is built, the )

either , , , or  (in order of best-worst) to be the 2nd local on QBL

Edited June 26, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[officiallyliam]

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

If expresses should run on 63rd, and locals on 53rd or 60th, then here's my plan:

 Express to Jamaica Center via a new junction to 63rd

 Express to 179

 Local to Forest Hills (and if the Bushwick-Queens trunk line is built, the )

either , , , or  (in order of best-worst) to be the 2nd local on QBL

19 hours ago, RR503 said:

f you think of routings not as pertaining to individual services but to express and local services heading to various tracks, then you can arrange these junctions patterns independently of one another. 

I would agree with this when it comes to these proposals; people tend to get too caught up in the idea of keeping certain route designations going to certain places when that really shouldn't factor in to the planning of what trains actually go where. Which trunk services in Manhattan are paired with which branches in the boroughs is what we should be thinking of first - the routes themselves can be designated as anything. But if we must look at what route bullets might be involved, I think this is what I (and @RR503) were thinking, both with regard to the  to Fulton proposal and the resulting reshuffle:

 from Astoria to Euclid; cut the , you don't need two (unless you really want a separate letter for short-turns at Whitehall);

 moves to Fulton and 8th express, then via 53rd and local to Forest Hills;

 via 63rd;

possibly a reborn  to cover CPW in place of the ;

 and  stay unchanged.

And please, don't touch the  or attempt anything else through 11th Street. The whole point of this is to get rid of that merge and still serve QBL adequately.

[RR503]

15 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

I would agree with this when it comes to these proposals; people tend to get too caught up in the idea of keeping certain route designations going to certain places when that really shouldn't factor in to the planning of what trains actually go where. Which trunk services in Manhattan are paired with which branches in the boroughs is what we should be thinking of first - the routes themselves can be designated as anything. But if we must look at what route bullets might be involved, I think this is what I (and @RR503) were thinking, both with regard to the  to Fulton proposal and the resulting reshuffle:

 from Astoria to Euclid; cut the , you don't need two (unless you really want a separate letter for short-turns at Whitehall);

 moves to Fulton and 8th express, then via 53rd and local to Forest Hills;

 via 63rd;

possibly a reborn  to cover CPW in place of the ;

 and  stay unchanged.

And please, don't touch the  or attempt anything else through 11th Street. The whole point of this is to get rid of that merge and still serve QBL adequately.

Yes! Exactly! 

If I may add one thing, we need a Nassau-Bay Ridge service to cover where the  once was. This could be an extension of the  or, if you’re willing to mess with the switch config around Essex, a new service from the aforementioned station to 95th St.