Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[mrsman]

28 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I will agree 59th is a terrible merge, but I didn’t know the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

Yes, if CPW were to be deinterlined, I would prefer for the locals to go to 8th Ave and the expresses to 6th. But if so, then I’d consider the possibility of an “8th Avenue flip.” This would call for the  to be the CPW/8th Ave Local between 168th and WTC (extended to 207th late nights) and the  and  to be the 8th Avenue Express trains to both Brooklyn and Queens (QBL). The  would keep the same route in Brooklyn, while the  would replace the  to the Rockaways and Lefferts. The  would replace the  as the express to/from 207 and the  would become a dual  /  service on Concourse during rush hours similar to the  /  and  /  operations.

See, I think you can get away with fully deinterlining CPW, because you don’t have a major transfer point with another subway line in the middle of the line and a diverging route before the final transfer point. This is in strong contrast to QBL, which has both (transfer to  in the middle of the line and the  diverging into the 63rd St Tunnel before Queens Plaza). With that in mind, that’s why I don’t really think you can get away with fully deinterlining QBL and why you’ll need both an 8th and a 6th service on the QB local. And unless the MTA are willing to make the investment in lengthening the original  line station platforms for 10-car trains (which certainly won’t be happening in the foreseeable future now), I don’t really think you can get away with running the  express on QBL to Jamaica Center or 179th.

Just to clarify, are you proposing the following:

 Forest Hills - QBL local -53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton local to Euclid

 Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53 - 8 Ave express - Fulton express to Lefferts or Rockaways

 168th St-  CPW local - 8 Ave local - WTC

 207/Inwood - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 Concourse (all stops) - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 Concourse express - CPW express - 6 Ave express

 179th - QBL express - 63 - 6 Ave local - Culver line

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63 - 6 Ave local - Willy Br - Myrtle Ave

 

This seems to work, so long as  has enough capacity to be the sole line to service the CPW local and that 6 Ave express would have to be divided into three services to service  and  .  [It should, especially considering that the CPW locals are not as crowded as  since CPW runs alongside the park.  Plus, I have nothing against splitting the express 3 ways as I have a proposal out there to split the QBL express three ways to equally serve Jamaica Center, 179 locals, and 179 express.]

I understand the difficulties of deinterling QBL, so that all stations would have access to both 8th Ave and 6th Ave service, but I'm concerned that without deinterlining there won't be enough capacity to handle the demand of QBL.  QBL is really a tough call, but I concede that even without deinterlining, QBL service is bound to improve by divorcing QBL from the Broadway BMT.

 

[Caelestor]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I will agree 59th is a terrible merge, but I didn’t know the entire IND is scheduled backwards from it. 

Yes, if CPW were to be deinterlined, I would prefer for the locals to go to 8th Ave and the expresses to 6th. But if so, then I’d consider the possibility of an “8th Avenue flip.” This would call for the  to be the CPW/8th Ave Local between 168th and WTC (extended to 207th late nights) and the  and  to be the 8th Avenue Express trains to both Brooklyn and Queens (QBL). The  would keep the same route in Brooklyn, while the  would replace the  to the Rockaways and Lefferts. The  would replace the  as the express to/from 207 and the  would become a dual  /  service on Concourse during rush hours similar to the  /  and  /  operations.

See, I think you can get away with fully deinterlining CPW, because you don’t have a major transfer point with another subway line in the middle of the line and a diverging route before the final transfer point. This is in strong contrast to QBL, which has both (transfer to  in the middle of the line and the  diverging into the 63rd St Tunnel before Queens Plaza). With that in mind, that’s why I don’t really think you can get away with fully deinterlining QBL and why you’ll need both an 8th and a 6th service on the QB local. And unless the MTA are willing to make the investment in lengthening the original  line station platforms for 10-car trains (which certainly won’t be happening in the foreseeable future now), I don’t really think you can get away with running the  express on QBL to Jamaica Center or 179th.

I agree that the  should run local because the 63 St line doesn't stop at Queens Plaza like the  currently all do at 59 St. However, it's simpler to have only the  run on the local tracks between 207 St and WTC full-time, and move the to 53 St / 8 Ave express. Then all the B division trunk lines

• Concourse / CPW express / 6 Ave express
• 207 St / CPW local / 8 Ave local - 
• 53 St / 8 Ave express
• 63 St / 6 Ave local lines -
• Astoria / Broadway local  
• SAS / Broadway express  

can be deinterlined from each other in Manhattan. This also standardizes the headways at 4 minutes on the , 6 minutes on the , 8 minutes on the  so that continued interlining on QBL and at DeKalb Ave remain smooth.

 

[shiznit1987]

On 4/1/2020 at 6:07 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I just thought of an idea since we're on the topic of Queens Blvd. 

**The CBTC Technology on the Should be upgraded to allow compatibility with Mainline B Division lines such as 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd**

Trains make a Cup-Holder extension around Manhattan Up 10th Avenue and 57th Street. After 3rd Avenue-57th Street, it will go under a new tunnel into Queens and replace both the  and  Trains on Queens Blvd to Forest Hills. Service will be extended to 10 cars and will run 26 TPH. If possible, a service split could be done within the line to allow for a new service up Jewel Avenue. Atlantic Avenue would be upgraded to allow for potential Short turn runs. 

Trains will have the Express Tracks along QB to itself. WTC Terminal will be upgraded so that it can turn up to 30 TPH. Trains will run from Queens Village on Hillside Avenue and run Express into Manhattan. Alternative here is to have those trains replace the and on the Express Tracks; creating a super long route. 

 and Trains will now use the Queens Bypass. The will run 18 TPH to Jamaica-179th and Trains will run 12 TPH to Jamaica Center. Service would be extended to 10 cars. 

 

Among the ideas, this is my favorite. The  absolutely needs to be extended up 10th Ave and after that it's crazyness not to have it go across 57th St and do something...

LaGuardia, here's me piggybacking off your idea:

 up 10th Ave, across 57th st, turns up 2nd Ave and takes over SAS to 125th-Lex. 

 run down 63rd St to QB Express (179th St)

 run down 53rd St to QB Local ( to Parsons/Archer  to 179th St)

 Broadway Local/Astoria

 Extended under 34th St Manhattan as Crosstown service to Hudson Yards. 

As an aside, is there any possiblity of adding two more tracks to 42nd st to make the  4 tracks? I always wondered if that was possible....

 

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, shiznit1987 said:

LaGuardia, here's me piggybacking off your idea:

 up 10th Ave, across 57th st, turns up 2nd Ave and takes over SAS to 125th-Lex. 

 run down 63rd St to QB Express (179th St)

 run down 53rd St to QB Local ( to Parsons/Archer  to 179th St)

 Broadway Local/Astoria

 Extended under 34th St Manhattan as Crosstown service to Hudson Yards. 

As an aside, is there any possiblity of adding two more tracks to 42nd st to make the  4 tracks? I always wondered if that was possible....

the train doesn't really need 4 tracks anywhere, since it's a route that doesn't share tracks with other trains, and runs as peak direction express. 42 is also a cross town route, so I don't think you can put 4 tracks under 42 St, note that and trains are not directly on top of each other, so I don't know which one is directly under 42 St, or 41 St if one of them is running directly under those Streets. Same thing with the train because I don't know the geography on 34 St and how this can be built without disrupting any work, or the M34/A bus.

Now this idea is interesting running the on the express tracks via 63 St isn't a good idea because there's no express service to Queens Plaza. That won't bode well with Queens Passengers going to LIC (But it's still service going there). But taking the  off 63 St just takes off capacity for both and lines to 179th and Parsons/Archer. So I guess putting the to 179th is a good idea, but run 1 TPH for Parsons/Archer on both lines. But you'd still have to cap some service and run some trains through 60 St as a local or express train (Where are you placing your trains?)

Your train is a mess, first of all if it takes over SAS and goes back to 125th St, it's just zigzagging through Manhattan, and is a triple crosstown line going across 14 St, 57 St, and 125th St with provisions to expand. Once Phase 3 becomes an actual thing, there's also the train that'll connect 72 St trains, and 2 Av - 14 St trains. A better place for that train is the Bypass, having trains end at Forest Hills, using the Express tracks/Jamaica Yard to turn back, and making the train go to Jewel Av. But the and running on the same line is a non starter. 

[Jova42R]

9 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

These underserved areas that you speak of are mostly industrial areas with few people living in said areas (with the  exception of North/Southeast Queens, Flatbush and whatever is happening in the Bronx). Therefore, bus service better serves the needs of the people living in those underserved areas. 

Also, no disrespect but I will also bandwagon onto the fact that the way you post some of your proposals at random derail the conversation at hand, and its kinda getting annoying. Personally the only areas that I think would benefit from a LRT/Streetcar would be Main Street, Fordham/Pelham Bay, and Red Hook. 

Before I forget. I saw you map with the relief streetcar on it. Why not have it run on Northern Blvd between Sunnyside and Main Street instead of the lineup that you proposed? And wouldn't it make sense for that line to follow the current Q32 route in Manhattan as opposed to sending it uptown? 

 

10 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Also, the bronx link can be served with a train that goes down Fordham, on Allerton or Pelham Parkway, to Either Co-Op or Pelham Bay Park, which can easily be a train, or train, or just an extention off Concourse . NYC doesn't need a light rail line when it has subway services that can do the job.  

 

11 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Mate this is becoming a little repetitive, and most of your lines can be served by a shuttle. I think like 20% of your proposals actually have SUBWAYS in it. And the rest were really weird Light Rail lines, or something that doesn't make sense or much use, OR something that can just be served by a train or already has trains around it. I wouldn't have a real issue with this, but it does derail the conversation, and it gets rather annoying. 

Also a tramway? to Greenpoint? They have the  to Queens with tons of transfers and the train. I don't know anyone who needs that, but when it comes from you i'm not really surprised.

Ok, what corridors could use trams in NYC? I think (just off the top of my head):

• Union Tpke
• Northern Blvd
• BQE north of Navy St
• Francis Lewis Blvd
• Astoria Blvd
• Queens Blvd
• 3 Av (Bklyn)
• Kings Hwy
• Flatbush Av
• McGuiness Blvd
• Pelham Pkwy
• Mosholu Pkwy
• Flushing Av
• Main St Queens
• Jewel Av

Assuming we don't want to duplicate subway service, then we have:

• Union Tpke
• Northern Blvd
• BQE north of Navy St
• Francis Lewis Blvd
• Kings Hwy
• Flatbush Av
• Pelham Pkwy
• Mosholu Pkwy
• Flushing Av
• Main St Queens
• Jewel Av

That's still quite a few corridors, but not all are suitable for trams for their whole length, and some would be better served by subway/BRT extensions. Of these, we now have

• Union Tpke
• Northern Blvd west of Flushing
• BQE north of Navy St
• Main St Queens

So, I think that the those tram lines could work, and they would all be median-running LRTs:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Jo4-6UtxakKdVubc7TsN8aNwJ8y1uJo8&usp=sharing

All trains would run CAF Urbos 3s, as there would be no catenaries on the following sections:

• Queensboro Bridge
• Lee Av to Metropolitan Av on the BQE Line
• Kew Gardens/Jamaica Branches of Union Link
• South of Union Tpke on the QueensLink

Thoughts on these @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Around the Horn @Union Tpke @Collin @Theli11?

 

[Jova42R]

@Theli11 just a note, the  is on 41st and the  is on 42nd. Hope that helps!

[Union Tpke]

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I'll second this...

Northern Blvd is wide enough for a busway or tramway running down the center if you remove the parking and use the center three lanes.

The 14th Street busway has already shown that high frequency articulated vehicles with dedicated rights of way attract more ridership. Doing the same on Northern Blvd seems like a no brainer to me. BRT or LRT from Flushing to Columbus Circle (like the DOT had planned previously) would do quite well.

Realistically, peak load point from Brooklyn on a hypothetical train extension would probably be 34th Street-Hudson Yards, assuming full build out and occupancy of the developments at Hudson Yards and Manhattan West, so a three track two platform station (like North Greenwich on the Jubilee line) there would do the trick. If we're aiming for 30 TPH on the line I would have at a minimum 20 TPH to 72nd Street/10 TPH to Hudson Yards, given how high density the Upper West Side is.

Those photos are amazing! Then drastically increase density on the corridor by rezoning it, turning it from a corridor with autoshops to a corridor that is actually urban.

[Union Tpke]

52 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

 

 

Ok, what corridors could use trams in NYC? I think (just off the top of my head):

 

Again, what is the obsession with streetcars? Frequency and the overall quality of service is more important than mode.

There are several pieces by the amazing transit consultant Jarrett Walker that you should read. Here are a couple about streetcars:

https://humantransit.org/2011/12/outtake-on-endearing-but-useless-transit.html

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

[Theli11]

43 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

@Theli11 just a note, the  is on 41st and the  is on 42nd. Hope that helps!

 

49 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Ok, what corridors could use trams in NYC? I think (just off the top of my head):

• Union Tpke
• Northern Blvd
• BQE north of Navy St
• Francis Lewis Blvd
• Astoria Blvd
• Queens Blvd
• 3 Av (Bklyn)
• Kings Hwy
• Flatbush Av
• McGuiness Blvd
• Pelham Pkwy
• Mosholu Pkwy
• Flushing Av
• Main St Queens
• Jewel Av

Assuming we don't want to duplicate subway service, then we have:

• Union Tpke
• Northern Blvd
• BQE north of Navy St
• Francis Lewis Blvd
• Kings Hwy
• Flatbush Av
• Pelham Pkwy
• Mosholu Pkwy
• Flushing Av
• Main St Queens
• Jewel Av

That's still quite a few corridors, but not all are suitable for trams for their whole length, and some would be better served by subway/BRT extensions. Of these, we now have

• Union Tpke
• Northern Blvd west of Flushing
• BQE north of Navy St
• Main St Queens

So, I think that the those tram lines could work, and they would all be median-running LRTs:

alright anyone in NYC would be very very wary of any light rail routes, so you'd probably get 1 every 10 years. if not worse, nobody really wants a light rail route, so you might as well do a subway that's surface level or at grade.

[Jova42R]

5 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

 

alright anyone in NYC would be very very wary of any light rail routes, so you'd probably get 1 every 10 years. if not worse, nobody really wants a light rail route, so you might as well do a subway that's surface level or at grade.

But you think the plan is solid?

[Jova42R]

10 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Again, what is the obsession with streetcars? Frequency and the overall quality of service is more important than mode.

There are several pieces by the amazing transit consultant Jarrett Walker that you should read. Here are a couple about streetcars:

https://humantransit.org/2011/12/outtake-on-endearing-but-useless-transit.html

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

This is LRT, not streetcars, and would run on dedicated ROWs.

Edited April 3, 2020 by Jova42R

[Around the Horn]

30 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Again, what is the obsession with streetcars? Frequency and the overall quality of service is more important than mode.

There are several pieces by the amazing transit consultant Jarrett Walker that you should read. Here are a couple about streetcars:

https://humantransit.org/2011/12/outtake-on-endearing-but-useless-transit.html

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

Always good to see Jarrett Walker linked here!

I'll add another piece that I think is relevant to the bus/streetcar/LRT discussion in the last few pages:

https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html

https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html

and on how buses can complement rail networks (ostensibly making LRT unnecessary) when you properly invest in them:

https://humantransit.org/2016/09/paris-the-triumph-of-the-bus-stop.html

Quote

There are several principles at work here:

-The more subways you have, the more surface transit you need.  This excellent bus system operates right on top of the world’s densest metro network (in terms of stations/sq km).  Almost everyone in Paris is near a metro station, but there are still plenty of markets (short trips, trips along paths not followed by metro) where surface transit is the right tool.

-Unless you already have streetcar tracks everywhere, the only surface transit that can cover your whole city, soon, is bus service.

-So if you want an effective transit system for everyone, you have to convey that the bus system matters, through network design, branding, and infrastructure.

-The order is important.  First get the network design right, then develop branding that works with the network design.  Finally, conceive infrastructure that serves and celebrates both.

 

 

 

[Jova42R]

11 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Always good to see Jarrett Walker linked here!

I'll add another piece that I think is relevant to the bus/streetcar/LRT discussion in the last few pages:

https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html

https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html

and on how buses can complement rail networks (ostensibly making LRT unnecessary) when you properly invest in them:

https://humantransit.org/2016/09/paris-the-triumph-of-the-bus-stop.html

 

 

 

Could BRT work in some of my proposals

[Jova42R]

45 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Always good to see Jarrett Walker linked here!

I'll add another piece that I think is relevant to the bus/streetcar/LRT discussion in the last few pages:

https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles.html

https://humantransit.org/2010/07/paris-converging-vehicles-contd.html

and on how buses can complement rail networks (ostensibly making LRT unnecessary) when you properly invest in them:

https://humantransit.org/2016/09/paris-the-triumph-of-the-bus-stop.html

 

 

 

Could BRT work in some of my proposals?

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

This is LRT, not streetcars, and would run on dedicated ROWs.

Light Rail, Streetcars, Trams and Trolleys all technically count as the same thing. Now while there are notable differences between the modes, they’re all some type of surface transit.

[Jova42R]

Just now, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Light Rail, Streetcars, Trams and Trolleys all technically count as the same thing. Now while there are notable differences between the modes, they’re all some type of surface transit.

Could BRT work in NYC?

[Theli11]

7 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Could BRT work in NYC?

Can it work? Probably, but are there better ways, yes. Which is easier? a subway probably.

[Around the Horn]

50 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

Could BRT work in some of my proposals?

Ultimately this is up to you, since they're your proposals. I would just say weight the pro's and con's of each mode as you're making them. 

[Jova42R]

Thought I'd post this here. Here's my BRT (posted in Bus Proposals):

Thoughts @Around the Horn @LaGuardia Link N Tra @Theli11 @Collin @Union Tpke?

 

[RR503]

16 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

Among the ideas, this is my favorite. The  absolutely needs to be extended up 10th Ave and after that it's crazyness not to have it go across 57th St and do something...

LaGuardia, here's me piggybacking off your idea:

 up 10th Ave, across 57th st, turns up 2nd Ave and takes over SAS to 125th-Lex. 

 run down 63rd St to QB Express (179th St)

 run down 53rd St to QB Local ( to Parsons/Archer  to 179th St)

 Broadway Local/Astoria

 Extended under 34th St Manhattan as Crosstown service to Hudson Yards. 

As an aside, is there any possiblity of adding two more tracks to 42nd st to make the  4 tracks? I always wondered if that was possible....

This effectively limits 8th local and 6th local to a _combined_ 30tph. Have the decency to give the  its own trunk!

20 hours ago, Caelestor said:

I agree that the  should run local because the 63 St line doesn't stop at Queens Plaza like the  currently all do at 59 St. However, it's simpler to have only the  run on the local tracks between 207 St and WTC full-time, and move the to 53 St / 8 Ave express. Then all the B division trunk lines

• Concourse / CPW express / 6 Ave express
• 207 St / CPW local / 8 Ave local - 
• 53 St / 8 Ave express
• 63 St / 6 Ave local lines -
• Astoria / Broadway local  
• SAS / Broadway express  

can be deinterlined from each other in Manhattan. This also standardizes the headways at 4 minutes on the , 6 minutes on the , 8 minutes on the  so that continued interlining on QBL and at DeKalb Ave remain smooth.

It seems I'm fighting a losing battle here on convincing folks that interlining 36 St is a bad idea, but I'll make one last pass at it. 

As I mentioned upthread, 59 St -- whose merge configuration is exactly the same as 36 -- is a bad merge. It is, in fact, a _very_ bad merge. It causes a massive amount of runtime variability on the routes that pass through it, and is in fact so limiting of B division performance that the entire division is scheduled backwards from it. Here are variability charts for the  and  to help attach numbers to the issue:

The merge performs badly not because it's cursed with slow switch speeds or poor signalling, but because of its design and its position on the routes that transit it. 59 St is what I like to call a 'conflicting merge,' where a merge delay can ripple backwards through the pipeline and cause a delay on a different service (think: ). Here, this effect is especially pernicious because a  delaying a  or vice versa can further complicate things by messing up the merge of the second service -- if a  is delayed by an  and delays a  behind it, that  may end up delaying (or being delayed by) a . Worsening its impact is the fact that it's positioned immediately before a high-dwell station, meaning delays from a merge get followed by a nice dose of NYCT close-in fixed block ops, which are...bad. Finally, the merge in both the north and southbound directions is downstream of at least one other merge, making consistent operation through it that much more difficult. 

36 St would be all of this, but worse. While there isn't a high dwell station to aggravate things, switches at 36 are slower and train volume is higher. With _current_ throughputs (before you up service levels, which sorta is the whole point of this exercise) Jackson Heights (closest measure point with all services passing through) sees 4tph more trains (in both peaks) than 59 St does in the AM. Both charts show n/b train volumes: 

vs

Given that merge delays are proportional to throughput (see chart below of  runtimes through a day), you've got a problem. I am _extremely_ skeptical that you'd be able to hold the PM peak railroad together through 36 St, what with the lines having passed through merges and a bunch of high-dwell Midtown stops on their routes to 36. I think as throughputs went towards 50 or 60tph, you'd end up with trains stacking up through 63 St and into Queens Plaza, which really just...isn't a way to run the trains.

This operational logic alone should be enough to convince folks that this may not be the wisest of ideas. In case you don't feel this way, let's talk about O/D. Sure, QB local loses direct 6th local access, and QB express gets cut off from 53/8. But express riders can easily transfer at Jackson Heights to recapture that O/D, and local riders can get the  at 7-53 for 6th; neither of those losses should be dealbreakers. The O/D argument that _should_ give pause is that interlined 36 St would mean there is zero incentive to stay on the local past Roosevelt (or Woodhaven, if that gets built out). On the ? Take the . On the ? Take the . That would likely make the Queens Boulevard dwell time issue -- which already produces peak hour runtime increases as pronounced as this:

...to say nothing of the fact that it'd further reduce the efficiency of the Queens subway network by reducing loads on the one part of said network that has significant room for growth: QB local. 

I really don't suggest this course of action. 

[Collin]

No one who is already on the express wants to ride the local from Jackson Heights so they can get to 53rd.  You'd have a tsunami of complaints if that happened.  There's already an incentive for customers who got on at local stations between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights to stay put that's the fact that they probably will have a seat vs having to pack in like sardines on the express.

[Around the Horn]

50 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I am _extremely_ skeptical that you'd be able to hold the PM peak railroad together through 36 St, what with the lines having passed through merges and a bunch of high-dwell Midtown stops on their routes to 36. I think as throughputs went towards 50 or 60tph, you'd end up with trains stacking up through 63 St and into Queens Plaza, which really just...isn't a way to run the trains.

[snipped]

This operational logic alone should be enough to convince folks that this may not be the wisest of ideas. In case you don't feel this way, let's talk about O/D. Sure, QB local loses direct 6th local access, and QB express gets cut off from 53/8. But express riders can easily transfer at Jackson Heights to recapture that O/D, and local riders can get the  at 7-53 for 6th; neither of those losses should be dealbreakers. The O/D argument that _should_ give pause is that interlined 36 St would mean there is zero incentive to stay on the local past Roosevelt (or Woodhaven, if that gets built out). On the ? Take the . On the ? Take the .

So wait you're saying my original idea to run the as a WTC to Forest Hills local with as many trains per hour as physically possible (and the on the express) was actually a good idea?

I got roasted badly when I suggested that lol

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

So wait you're saying my original idea to run the as a WTC to Forest Hills local with as many trains per hour as physically possible (and the on the express) was actually a good idea?

I got roasted badly when I suggested that lol

Yes! This is exactly what I’d do. People underrate the capabilities of WTC (look at 8th  or SF ) as well as the operational convenience of having your QB-53 service be a short line.

[RR503]

9 hours ago, Collin said:

No one who is already on the express wants to ride the local from Jackson Heights so they can get to 53rd.  You'd have a tsunami of complaints if that happened.  There's already an incentive for customers who got on at local stations between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights to stay put that's the fact that they probably will have a seat vs having to pack in like sardines on the express.

Yeah, of course they don’t want to. But we aren’t getting new Manhattan<>Queens tunnels anytime soon, and the only way you can extract more capacity from Queens boulevard is by getting more people to ride locals west of Roosevelt, sooooo...

As anyone who rides QB can tell you, the incentives to stay on the local today are mighty weak. Ever been to Roosevelt during the AM rush? Wall of lining the express, that grows whenever a local pulls in.

[LGA Link N Train]

29 minutes ago, RR503 said:

As anyone who rides QB can tell you, the incentives to stay on the local today are mighty weak. Ever been to Roosevelt during the AM rush? Wall of lining the express, that grows whenever a local pulls in.

That is a fact. And also very annoying. Whenever I’m headed to Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn, I sometimes have to backtrack to Forest Hills just to avoid the crowd at Roosevelt (and hopefully get a seat).