Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

41 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The last part about Jamaica Riders having no interest in local service is correct that. Though would it only be the (E) that riders would shove onto if what I’m suggesting happens to go in effect? What about the RBB line if it were converted into the Crossrail service that we’re talking about, which would also have direct access to Midtown (GCT)? 

GCT is home to a lot of Midtown jobs, but not all of them; 53rd and 8th allows the (E) to hit most of the major job areas of Manhattan with closer walking distances. And never forget rider psychology; getting off at Woodhaven Junction for an RBB train is less "direct" than changing at Jamaica, since you have to go south and then back north.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The last part about Jamaica Riders having no interest in local service is correct that. Though would it only be the (E) that riders would shove onto if what I’m suggesting happens to go in effect? What about the RBB line if it were converted into the Crossrail service that we’re talking about, which would also have direct access to Midtown (GCT)? 

 

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's less desirable. Without direct Manhattan service, preferably to Midtown, this would mostly just shove people into an (E)

Deinterlining does not increase the total trains you can run on four tracks of QBL. It definitely doesn't increase the total trains you can run on the two express tracks. It just rearranges the deck chairs on the Titanic. The QBL express is at capacity, and riders are not interested in local trains all the way from Jamaica.

 

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Alright. I mean, Deinterlining would help on that front. (E) Local to Jamaica-179th,  (F) to Jamaica-179th (Queens Village Extension later on) and 10 Car (M) Service to Jamaica Center.

I personally wouldn’t build 2 additional tracks to run between Rego Park and Jamaica given the lack of space (the way I envision it is having the inner mainline tracks dipping underground with the outer mainline tracks shifting inward to make room for this C Division Service), but I see where you’re getting at in terms of operation. Even without an Atlantic Term - GCT connector, would the C Division be feasible right now with the following routes?: 

Route 1 - Far Rockaway to Atlantic Terminal

Route 2 - Long Beach to Atlantic Terminal 

Route 3 - West Hempstead to Atlantic Terminal 

Route 4 - Port Washington to Grand Central

Route 5 - Howard Beach/JFK to Grand Central via RBB

Would my Cross City Line (see above) be (somewhat of) an alternative for some of the lines you are proposing (Crossrail)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

 

 

Would my Cross City Line (see above) be (somewhat of) an alternative for some of the lines you are proposing (Crossrail)

In general, I'm not really interested in your proposals, so stop @'ing me. 

This isn't an "alternative". This doesn't distribute people throughout the central city.

The Lower Montauk is a waste of time. So is the West Side Line; it's mostly surrounded by Riverside Park and at a dramatically different elevation. Half the walkshed is in the Hudson. I have similar feelings about intensifying services on the inner part of the Hudson Line. And the Bay Ridge Branch north of Jackson Heights is too difficult to build train stations on, and in any case that capacity is more useful for the NEC and PSA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

In general, I'm not really interested in your proposals, so stop @'ing me. 

Ok, sorry!

This isn't an "alternative". This doesn't distribute people throughout the central city.

I meant the Rockaway Line (to GC), and Maybe an extension of the Triboro Line?

The Lower Montauk is a waste of time. So is the West Side Line; it's mostly surrounded by Riverside Park and at a dramatically different elevation. Half the walkshed is in the Hudson. I have similar feelings about intensifying services on the inner part of the Hudson Line. And the Bay Ridge Branch north of Jackson Heights is too difficult to build train stations on, and in any case that capacity is more useful for the NEC and PSA.

Could you build low-level stations? The Nippon Sharyos (trains that run on that line) can board at low-level platforms

A plan for all the stations is below:

  • Inwood:
    • on viaduct, so just stairs/elevator down.
  • Fort Washington:
    • exit to path that leads to 181 St
  • Hamilton Heights
    • stairs/elevator up to 158 St
  • West Harlem
    • stairs/elevator up to 145 St
  • Manhattanville
    • exit at 125 St, stairs down
  • Bloomingdale
    • tunnel to Riverside Dr, exit to Riverside Park
  • UWS
    • tunnel to Riverside Dr, exit to Riverside Park
  • Riverside South
    • stairs up to 62 St
  • Hells Kitchen
    • stairs up from cutting to 48 and 49 Sts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Jova42R said:
  • Inwood:
    • on viaduct, so just stairs/elevator down.
  • Fort Washington:
    • exit to path that leads to 181 St
  • Hamilton Heights
    • stairs/elevator up to 158 St
  • West Harlem
    • stairs/elevator up to 145 St
  • Manhattanville
    • exit at 125 St, stairs down
  • Bloomingdale
    • tunnel to Riverside Dr, exit to Riverside Park
  • UWS
    • tunnel to Riverside Dr, exit to Riverside Park
  • Riverside South
    • stairs up to 62 St
  • Hells Kitchen
    • stairs up from cutting to 48 and 49 Sts

 

No one wants to cross busy highways and take lots of stairs or escalators down to stations.

The problem with the TriboroRX north of Jackson Heights is that it is one massive bridge approach for the Hell Gate, which means it's not flat. Stations need to be flat for a whole host of reasons. And reconstructing a massive bridge approach in a dense area is simply a non-starter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

GCT is home to a lot of Midtown jobs, but not all of them; 53rd and 8th allows the (E) to hit most of the major job areas of Manhattan with closer walking distances. And never forget rider psychology; getting off at Woodhaven Junction for an RBB train is less "direct" than changing at Jamaica, since you have to go south and then back north.

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I’d still like to see some elements of Crossrail (The C Division; I don’t know what to refer to at this point) come into fruition in the intermediate term. Then long term, connect GCT with Atlantic. 
 

There’s also the idea of connecting GCT-RBB with LB, WH and FR using part of Lower Montauk, but that would bypass Forest Hills completely. 
 

@Jova42R 

You have an interesting plan, but as many others said in this thread, Lower Montauk would not be a good place to implement passenger service. As ridership is not there, connections would be quite poor and whatnot. As for the West Side, I don’t know much about that area, but only 1 stop at 62nd Street should be good enough. Triboro is ok, but there are connections that would be missed when you really think about it (i.e. Broadway Junction (A)(C)(J)(Z), Flatbush (2)(5), Jackson Heights (7)(E)(F)(M)(R) just to name a few) Also, an Astoria Station would not be feasible due to the elevation. Building one would require a good amount of eminent domain and might disrupt operations on the (N) and (W). Same goes for Randall’s Island. I don’t remember much else that you proposed to be honest, but those are my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Ah, I see. That makes sense. I’d still like to see some elements of Crossrail (The C Division; I don’t know what to refer to at this point) come into fruition in the intermediate term. Then long term, connect GCT with Atlantic. 
 

There’s also the idea of connecting GCT-RBB with LB, WH and FR using part of Lower Montauk, but that would bypass Forest Hills completely. 
 

@Jova42R 

You have an interesting plan, but as many others said in this thread, Lower Montauk would not be a good place to implement passenger service. As ridership is not there, connections would be quite poor and whatnot. As for the West Side, I don’t know much about that area, but only 1 stop at 62nd Street should be good enough. Triboro is ok, but there are connections that would be missed when you really think about it (i.e. Broadway Junction (A)(C)(J)(Z), Flatbush (2)(5), Jackson Heights (7)(E)(F)(M)(R) just to name a few) Also, an Astoria Station would not be feasible due to the elevation. Building one would require a good amount of eminent domain and might disrupt operations on the (N) and (W). Same goes for Randall’s Island. I don’t remember much else that you proposed to be honest, but those are my thoughts.

Ok, maybe the UWS stop should be axed. But, as you can see below, the 106 St stop has a not-that-complicated exit (currently a grating) to a BIG area of Riverside Park. Maybe make that a request stop?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8032668,-73.9724982,3a,15y,101.37h,89.92t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1spwZf3fS0Y7j4laoCpLy2pQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DpwZf3fS0Y7j4laoCpLy2pQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D335.56992%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Bway Jct: an exit from ENY

Flatbush: an exit from Bklyn Col

Jackson Hts: use (7) from Roosevelt Av

Ok, but again I ask, could a low-level platform be feasible?

11 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

No one wants to cross busy highways and take lots of stairs or escalators down to stations.

The problem with the TriboroRX north of Jackson Heights is that it is one massive bridge approach for the Hell Gate, which means it's not flat. Stations need to be flat for a whole host of reasons. And reconstructing a massive bridge approach in a dense area is simply a non-starter.

Where would they cross highways? Also, the only station that has LOTS of stairs is West Harlem. I'd be ok changing that to 138 St.

See underlined above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/22/2020 at 2:20 PM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I don't think the ridership would be anywhere near high enough. I've been there and it's probably just best to take the :bus_bullet_bx9:

Ok, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Ok, but again I ask, could a low-level platform be feasible?

no.

 

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

Bway Jct: an exit from ENY

Flatbush: an exit from Bklyn Col

Jackson Hts: use (7) from Roosevelt Av

Even though you can connect the Triboro with these stations, they're going to be lengthy ones. (maybe not as lengthy as 42nd Street between the (A)(C)(E) and the (7) but you get my point.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any sort of Lower Montauk reactivation would need to have a large shift in alignment, thereby only applying to a portion of the line. Something could be worked out for LIC, but the line would ultimately need to serve Manhattan and pass through less of the industrial area split between Brooklyn and Queens. (This goes for the subway and railroad sections.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/22/2020 at 12:25 AM, EvilMonologue said:

I tend to favor returning the Brown M service so as to maximize the capacity you get out of the Rutgers tunnel but I understand that probably would be a hard sell. Still though, even will the Orange M, I'd think the platforms should probably be extended to accommodate 10-car trains anyway, no?

Definitely they should be, but we’ll need an MTA where decisions aren’t made by the bean counters for the bean counters. And running the (F) and (M) local to/from 71st, while running the (E) and the (H) / (K) express to 179 or Parsons/Archer is another way to deinterline Queens Blvd without having to spend big bucks to lengthen the Myrtle and Jamaica el platforms and Essex St. 

Returning the M to Nassau/4th Ave would make it possible to make the most of the Rutgers tunnel’s capacity. But it would also make the an almost-useless service once again, unless maybe it goes to Bay Ridge instead of Bay Parkway. Previously, I suggested a partial deinterlining of Queens Blvd by having the (E) and (F) run express and the (M) and a revived (V) run local to/from 71st. The (F) would run via 53rd alongside the (E), while the (M) and (V) would run via 63rd (except during late nights when the (F) would run via 63rd as now). The (R) would be rerouted to Ditmars (eventually LGA and beyond), replacing the (N) and (W). This plan would allow us to keep the current 6th Avenue (M) service, while making better use of Rutgers with both (F) and (V) trains. The (E) can also get a modest boost in train frequency. 

However, the problems I found with this idea was that the (F), (M) and (V) services would be limited at best to 10 tph apiece if evenly split, and all three services would make for a tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue Local tracks. And Rutgers, while getting more service than it has now, would still be under capacity because it would be limited to 20 tph between the (F) and (V)

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

no.

 

Even though you can connect the Triboro with these stations, they're going to be lengthy ones. (maybe not as lengthy as 42nd Street between the (A)(C)(E) and the (7) but you get my point.

 

why not?

ENY would have one exit of the platform to Atlantic and one to Fulton, but the others would be rather short paassageways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Lex said:

Any sort of Lower Montauk reactivation would need to have a large shift in alignment, thereby only applying to a portion of the line. Something could be worked out for LIC, but the line would ultimately need to serve Manhattan and pass through less of the industrial area split between Brooklyn and Queens. (This goes for the subway and railroad sections.)

could my (EE) routing work?

(see below)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

However, the problems I found with this idea was that the (F), (M) and (V) services would be limited at best to 10 tph apiece if evenly split, and all three services would make for a tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue Local tracks. And Rutgers, while getting more service than it has now, would still be under capacity because it would be limited to 20 tph between the (F) and (V)

The Nassau line definitely needs to be looked at in a critical way, especially given the popularity of the (M) (look at that it only took me 20 posts to figure that out haha). Sending the Brown (M) to Bay Ridge isn't really that much more valuable just because people still ultimately want to go to Midtown, and this is just an inherent flaw with the Nassau line. 

In the medium term (hopefully) maybe you could do it this way. The (B) and (D) take over the (J) and (M) in Brooklyn and Queens once the southern section of the 2 av (with provisions for 4 tracks) replaces (B) and (D) service on the Manhattan Bridge (under a de-interlining scheme). Stop consolidation should occur along today's (J) line, also making sure to combine Hewes and Lorimer stations for a better transfer with the (G). A 3rd track connecting to Cypress Hills station and platform extensions should be done as well. The Manhattan portion of the (J) is now a downtown shuttle.

In the long term (again hopefully but realistically never), this is what I'd like to see. Start the Utica av line as a (4) extension, but with the intention of shaving back platforms for eventual B Division conversion. The line would go first from Av U to the (4). And then once it was converted, extended to the (A) and (C), then to the (at this point) (B) and (D), and as far as the (L) and the (G) eventually. The goal would be to have a line with an obvious connection to the (B) and (D) and 2 av, you'd just need to build the tunnel. When the other 2 tracks for 2 av are built, they would take over the (J) south of the Bowery station. To have the (B) and (D) connect to the Utica av line, introduce a new 5 av line which would go over the Williamsburg Bridge and would go to Middle Village and Jamaica on today's (J) and (M) lines. 

Breaking up the Nassau line, in the long term, is probably the best way to increase ridership along the corridor to provide Midtown access. In the medium term this can be done by replacing (J) and (M) service with (B) and (D) but in the long term, we'd hope to see the number of services in the outer boroughs increase with the number of services in Manhattan. Sending the (B) and (D) down Utica av and the (J) and (M) up 5 av might be the long term solution to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

The Nassau line definitely needs to be looked at in a critical way, especially given the popularity of the (M) (look at that it only took me 20 posts to figure that out haha). Sending the Brown (M) to Bay Ridge isn't really that much more valuable just because people still ultimately want to go to Midtown, and this is just an inherent flaw with the Nassau line. 

In the medium term (hopefully) maybe you could do it this way. The (B) and (D) take over the (J) and (M) in Brooklyn and Queens once the southern section of the 2 av (with provisions for 4 tracks) replaces (B) and (D) service on the Manhattan Bridge (under a de-interlining scheme). Stop consolidation should occur along today's (J) line, also making sure to combine Hewes and Lorimer stations for a better transfer with the (G). A 3rd track connecting to Cypress Hills station and platform extensions should be done as well. The Manhattan portion of the (J) is now a downtown shuttle.

In the long term (again hopefully but realistically never), this is what I'd like to see. Start the Utica av line as a (4) extension, but with the intention of shaving back platforms for eventual B Division conversion. The line would go first from Av U to the (4). And then once it was converted, extended to the (A) and (C), then to the (at this point) (B) and (D), and as far as the (L) and the (G) eventually. The goal would be to have a line with an obvious connection to the (B) and (D) and 2 av, you'd just need to build the tunnel. When the other 2 tracks for 2 av are built, they would take over the (J) south of the Bowery station. To have the (B) and (D) connect to the Utica av line, introduce a new 5 av line which would go over the Williamsburg Bridge and would go to Middle Village and Jamaica on today's (J) and (M) lines. 

Breaking up the Nassau line, in the long term, is probably the best way to increase ridership along the corridor to provide Midtown access. In the medium term this can be done by replacing (J) and (M) service with (B) and (D) but in the long term, we'd hope to see the number of services in the outer boroughs increase with the number of services in Manhattan. Sending the (B) and (D) down Utica av and the (J) and (M) up 5 av might be the long term solution to that.

I have a similar plan with Fulton service replacing the Jamaica Line past Bway Junction, then branches to Utica Ave and a Metropolitan Ave extension to the LIE which would be the (D)<D> on utica and (B)(brownM) on LIE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

Sending the (B) and (D) down Utica av and the (J) and (M) up 5 av might be the long term solution to that.

Wouldn't it just be easier to send the (4) down Utica Av. Also, 5th avenue is a hard place to put trains. Not only would residences not welcome the train, you'd have to do digging interrupting 5th Avenue's constant movement. Especially since it's next to the park. You'd probably do better if you made it a Second Avenue Route, with track connections to the Manhattan Bridge off of Grand St, while the (B)(D) goes to Willy B. It's as close to Midtown as you can get without causing too much of a fuss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Wouldn't it just be easier to send the (4) down Utica Av. Also, 5th avenue is a hard place to put trains. Not only would residences not welcome the train, you'd have to do digging interrupting 5th Avenue's constant movement. Especially since it's next to the park. You'd probably do better if you made it a Second Avenue Route, with track connections to the Manhattan Bridge off of Grand St, while the (B)(D) goes to Willy B. It's as close to Midtown as you can get without causing too much of a fuss.

If you do it that way, though, you limit frequency of Utica and New Lots. And I agree that 5 av in the UES is a difficult sell, but I don't think it necessarily needs to go to the UES. It could go to Midtown and end there, or go to Queens, or (given the timeline we're talking about here maybe transit is integrated by now with New Jersey) go to New Jersey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Northern Queens Trunk Line

The Northern Queens trunk line would be a northern counterpart to the Queens Boulevard Line. While that line would carry 8th and 6th Ave trains, the North Queens line would carry Broadway and Second Ave trains.

Broadway (R)(W) trains would be extended past Astoria to LaGuardia and Mets Willets Point. (U) (V) would go via 63rd Street and Sunnyside, then to Northern Blvd until Mets Willets Point. At this station the (R)(W) would take the local 2 tracks and (U) (V) express until 162nd Street via Northern again where locals would terminate. (U) (V) would then run to Clearview Expy.

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Northern Queens Trunk Line

The Northern Queens trunk line would be a northern counterpart to the Queens Boulevard Line. While that line would carry 8th and 6th Ave trains, the North Queens line would carry Broadway and Second Ave trains.

Broadway (R)(W) trains would be extended past Astoria to LaGuardia and Mets Willets Point. (U) (V) would go via 63rd Street and Sunnyside, then to Northern Blvd until Mets Willets Point. At this station the (R)(W) would take the local 2 tracks and (U) (V) express until 162nd Street via Northern again where locals would terminate. (U) (V) would then run to Clearview Expy.

Maybe not.

The (H) runs from Hanover Sq to 96, crossing at Randalls Island, then N Queens Exp to Flushing, then down the Whitestone Branch to Fort Totten.

The (V) runs from Abingdon Sq, then up 10 Av, through Riverside South, crosstown on 79, 79 Tunnel, up 21st to Ditmars, and then N Queens Local to Flushing, then down the Bayside Branch to Bayside.

The (T) runs from Hanover Sq to 72 St, crossing at 79, then via Northern to Flushing. (S) runs from 69 St-Northern to LGA weekdays only. Use (V) late nights and weekends.

The (G) runs up 21 St to 63 St, then up 63/2nd to 125th, then 125th Crosstown.

The (R) (rerouted to Ditmars) goes via N Queens Exp to LGA, terminating at Flushing.

The (W) goes via Randalls Island, then up 2 Av to 125 St, then with the (Q) to Throgs Neck.

That’s the basis of my plan.

Thoughts @KK 6 Ave Local?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I have a similar plan with Fulton service replacing the Jamaica Line past Bway Junction, then branches to Utica Ave and a Metropolitan Ave extension to the LIE which would be the (D)<D> on utica and (B)(brownM) on LIE

Then what service stays on Fulton?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm new here.  This is my first post.  I really like the LGA (R) train extension and de-interlining of Broadway that's on vanshnookenraggen.  There could just be one local service from LGA, through Astoria, Broadway, and 4th Avenue that never merges with another.  Express service would still need to merge at 57th Street, but I think that point is better suited to have a merge than 42nd Street.  The other question to ask is whether it creates more problems than it solves (as in additional merges).  The (R) and (N)/(W) merge at 59th would be eliminated, and the (N) and (Q) merge would move from 42nd Street to 57th Street.  However, with the new service pattern, an additional merge would be created with the (F) at 36th Street.  So it's the same number of merges, but I think it would be more efficient than the ones we currently have, and would de-interline one service to run alone.  So I'd say it's worth it.  Since the existing terminal at Bay Ridge and the future terminal at LGA likely can't handle a very high 24+ tph frequency, some trains would need to short turn at Astoria Ditmars and/or Whitehall Street.  Peak direction express service could also potentially be revived on the Astoria Line since there would be the frequency to support it.

The one issue is that the train would need to hit every terminal in LGA or it wouldn't be a one seat ride.  So only having one station wouldn't work.  Maybe do the same thing as Howard Beach where there's a station almost entirely dedicated to the air train and has little walk up ridership.  That could be located in that Con Edison lot.  And what about security considerations for having the trains go directly under the airport runways.  I would think the DHS, FAA, TSA would pitch a fit if the MTA even suggested doing that.

I'm normally skeptical of large scale de-interlining because it reduces the availability for one seat rides, but Broadway as it is now is just so inefficient and is an ideal candidate for it.  The IND lines I think are designed to interline better, and there really aren't issues with it.  I'm not sure de-interlining Brooklyn would make sense.  I'm not under the impression that any of those services have capacity issues.  Also, if it were de-interlined so that all Broadway trains went to 4th Avenue and all 6th Avenue trains went to Brighton, it would impose a transfer at Atlantic/Barclays that's not cross-platform since 4th Ave express trains bypass DeKalb.  It's not as big of a deal if the extra transfer caused by de-interlining is cross platform.  That's why I think there's no real pressure to have express one seat express service from the (1) or (6) line.  The express trains are right across the platform at 96th or 125th if you want them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2020 at 12:12 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Some of the content in the map was changed after some recent discussion on it. I’d still rather build that Yard at Astoria though that should be saved as part of an extension project to LGA.

In my view, a real reason to focus on deinterlining plans is because with a little political will, it is actually something that can happen in the near term.  Extensions take many years and lots of money.

For most deinterlining plans, they can be implemented in short order, maybe with the addition of a few new transfers and possibly the addition of a few track switches.  Those types of changes are taking place and require $$ as opposed to the $$$$$$ for many of the other extensions here.  I am unfortunately a realist and I don't expect any changes beyond the official SAS plans to even be on the drawing board for the next 30 years.

But deinterlining can happen.  And it can improve many commutes because it will allow more trains to flow.  Yes, many customers willl probably be forced to have an additional transfer to their current commutes -- but the trains will be more frequent and less crowded, so it is a fair tradeoff.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think de-interlining needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.  It doesn't make sense in every scenario.  Some lines don't have problematic merges, and others do.  In some cases, the cost of de-interlining outweighs the benefit by creating inconvenient transfers.  One area I don't think should be de-interlined is CPW.  It's designed to have local and express service coming from both Washington Heights and The Bronx, and heading to both 8th and 6th Avenue.  There also is no opportunity to create a service that operates alone it's entire route (like the (1) or (6)) since every service on it has to merge with another further down the line.  There are other cases like this where it doesn't make sense to de-interline.

Broadway on the other hand is a perfect opportunity to de-interline because it's possible to create a local service from Astoria all the way to Bay Ridge that never merges.  It also has inefficient merges in the current service pattern.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Collin here is my proposal for <1> service:

242nd

225th*

207th*

191st**

181st**

168th**

157th**

145th**

137th*

116th*

96th

all (1) stops to South ferry

*the stations marked with a star (*) would be rebuilt as 3-track expresses.
**the stations marked with a double star (**) would still be 2-track stations, and (1)s and <1>s would stop there.

Share this post


Link to post
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.