Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R10 2952]

14 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I wonder what they think of the Montague tunnel job. Has anyone proposed shaving that tunnel for clearance ? 

Good question.  I'm still shaking my damn head over how the management bigwigs allowed the contractors to screw it up like that.

Edited October 25, 2020 by R10 2952

[Deucey]

13 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Good question.  I'm still shaking my damn head over how the management bigwigs allowed the contractors to screw it up like that.

Is that what happened - they narrowed the tunnel width?

[Eric B]

No, not the actual tunnel width; they just added stuff (cables, equipment, etc.) that narrowed the clearance.

 

With all this talk of deinterlining Gold St. Iseemingly inspired by then deinterlining the IND uptown, one difference is that the uptown change basically consolidated operations, so that the  and  and  and  start and dinish in nearly the same places, and use the same yards on both ends. As far as the crews, each terminal on the branches are also consolidated into the same "section" or "district" (i.e. "North", "South"). With the BMT South,    all have the same yard at one end (and the uses it too), and are in the same district, so it's already consolidated like that. (And the  and  are there too, but moving them around on that end won't really change anything in that regard).

I guess the sole benefit of these isdeas is trying to avoid the slowdowns where they come together at Gold St? I don't think that by itself is worth changing up the lines. For one, a lot of the delay is because it seems they now basically stop everybody at that interlocking to ask who they are (i.e. "spot"). They already had cameras there (at least southbound, when I used to be over there, 11 years ago), but it seems they don't even want to trust those anymore (and they even less trust punches). All of these "backup" measures, piled on top of one another!
They need a better way of the tower people knowing for sure what is what (it's already on the now computerized train registers), and also schedule it better so that trains trying to get to the same line (either way) aren;t arriving at the same time. (Which seemed to happan a lot).

It's nice to have direct access to different trunk lines on the outer branches. Also, on the uptown IND, one interlined service was rush hours only, while the other only served two local stops (weekdays only) and ended, so it wasn't as big a loss as what is being suggested for the entire BMT South.

[mrsman]

On 10/23/2020 at 11:57 AM, Theli11 said:

Yes but you're creating a merge between and , and trains twice (after 145 St and before . By removing the 59 St merge, mitigating a new 145 St merge. It's pretty much what happens in every CPW deinterlining plan. It's made to be interlined. Simply put, there has to be a Local-Express pair going to 168/207 St, and Grand Concourse. If you deinterline below 145 St, it will be interlined above it. 

 

Below 59th St [] trains, you'll have the a merge between and trains at Canal, and and  trains going on Fulton. I genuinely think that 8th Av is going to be impossible to interline unless there's a switch between local and express tracks on the upper 145th St level. 

There are definitely ways to deinterline Columbus Circle, yet still maintaing express service on both the Concourse and Inwood branches of the CPW line.  You can maintain one CPW express to 207th, One CPW express up Concourese to Norwood, one CPW local to 168th, and one CPW local to 145th, extended to Bedford Park Blvd during rush hours - as was done pre-COVID.  Once that pattern is established, though, you can have all CPW expresses to 8th Ave and all CPW local to 6th Ave (or vice versa) to avoid interference at Columbus Circle.

A proposal to send all expresses to Concourse and all locals to Inwood (or vice versa) would not cut the mustard.  Both branches have long trips and both should have one local and one express train to service the corridors.  

I always liked nerdy.nel's assesment of CPW.  Given the arrangement of tracks, the conflicts at 145th are not an all-day phenomenon as they are at Columbus Circle.  

https://nerdynel.me/2019/01/31/nytip101cpw/

 

[Vulturious]

5 hours ago, mrsman said:

There are definitely ways to deinterline Columbus Circle, yet still maintaing express service on both the Concourse and Inwood branches of the CPW line.  You can maintain one CPW express to 207th, One CPW express up Concourese to Norwood, one CPW local to 168th, and one CPW local to 145th, extended to Bedford Park Blvd during rush hours - as was done pre-COVID.  Once that pattern is established, though, you can have all CPW expresses to 8th Ave and all CPW local to 6th Ave (or vice versa) to avoid interference at Columbus Circle.

A proposal to send all expresses to Concourse and all locals to Inwood (or vice versa) would not cut the mustard.  Both branches have long trips and both should have one local and one express train to service the corridors.  

I always liked nerdy.nel's assesment of CPW.  Given the arrangement of tracks, the conflicts at 145th are not an all-day phenomenon as they are at Columbus Circle.  

https://nerdynel.me/2019/01/31/nytip101cpw/

 

There are maybe a couple or few things that I want to point out in this proposal, one being the biggest problem, the yard situation for  trains. There is no way  trains can be based out of 207th St because they need full length trains. Especially running express on 6th Av as well as 4th Av in Brooklyn, there is no way they can run eight 60 feet long trains. This idea basically screws  riders because they have to ride a trains that is a much shorter length, even if the letters are swapped because Concourse has been with the  ever since basically converting the  into a Blue D and the  to an Orange C, the result still ends up the same. "I recall the M-V combo controversy from last decade – MTA originally called this route the V, but riders preferred the historic M designation, and so the latter stuck. If the C/D swap were to generate a similar controversy, the alternate scheme shown above could work. Nevertheless, I will proceed assuming the C/D swap wins." Just like the proposal that Vanshnookenraggen came up with, this ends up screwing 1 line more than it needs to be, hell, technically 2 lines because Concourse is now stuck with local trains on CPW forcing people to most likely transfer. 

With  trains running full time now, there literally is no need to run  trains to Norwood-205th St at all. This also means  trains would have to be based out of Concourse now because Coney Island needs trains during the weekend.

I don't necessarily hate the idea, however this proposal just ends up making more problems than solving, unless someone has a good solution to fix the whole  train yard access as well as fleet problem.

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, Eric B said:

and also schedule it better so that trains trying to get to the same line (either way) aren;t arriving at the same time. (Which seemed to happan a lot).

Deinterlining is generally seen as a way to do this. If you have less different services interacting in different parts of the network, delays will ripple across less.

[Eric B]

But there's going to still be merging anyway. Keeping trunk lines together will not solve the problem enough to justify the limited direct access it would leave.

[R10 2952]

Quote

Keeping trunk lines together will not solve the problem enough to justify the limited direct access it would leave.

Exactly; if anything, the impending reductions in service frequency on all lines will become a compelling argument against deinterlining.  With the current circumstances being what they are, forcing people to make additional transfers would go over like a lead balloon.  No regular rider is going to accept that if these upcoming 40% across-the-board cuts translate into things such as waiting 15 minutes for the connecting train, or 45+ minutes for the bus.

Edited October 27, 2020 by R10 2952

[Armandito]

Thoughts?

 Second Avenue Local/Queens Boulevard Super Express: Hanover Square to Fresh Meadows (all times) or 179 St (all times except nights)

*Woodhaven Blvd converted to express stop

[LGA Link N Train]

9 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Exactly; if anything, the impending reductions in service frequency on all lines will become a compelling argument against deinterlining.  With the current circumstances being what they are, forcing people to make additional transfers would go over like a lead balloon.  No regular rider is going to accept that if these upcoming 40% across-the-board cuts translate into things such as waiting 15 minutes for the connecting train, or 45+ minutes for the bus.

Ahhh, So if I'm understanding this correctly, given the current circumstanses that the is in, deinterlining just wouldn't be a practical solution, and if done incorreclty under ideal circumstances, would cause more problems than it solves? Interesting.

I don't have a problem with the whole idea of Deinterlining because it has potential to benefit the system, but given all of the arguments that I've seen against it (both in these forums and in chats with some of my friends who don't use these forums), I've decided to chillax with the idea and rethink a few things because I don't want to put forth proposals that hurt more than they help. 

[bobtehpanda]

18 hours ago, Eric B said:

But there's going to still be merging anyway. Keeping trunk lines together will not solve the problem enough to justify the limited direct access it would leave.

Less merging is still better.

If there are 4 traffic lights and you reduce that down to 2, you can obviously move faster even if you can get held up at one of the two remaining ones.

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Ahhh, So if I'm understanding this correctly, given the current circumstanses that the is in, deinterlining just wouldn't be a practical solution, and if done incorreclty under ideal circumstances, would cause more problems than it solves? Interesting.

I don't have a problem with the whole idea of Deinterlining because it has potential to benefit the system, but given all of the arguments that I've seen against it (both in these forums and in chats with some of my friends who don't use these forums), I've decided to chillax with the idea and rethink a few things because I don't want to put forth proposals that hurt more than they help. 

The general crux of the problem is that deinterlining relies heavily on transfers, and generally speaking the way the subway was built (the IND in particular, but also things like the 63 St line and lines since that time period) miss so many transfers that it is quite the unattractive setup here.

Pretty much the only deinterlining I've really supported is QBL, because right now we have one tunnel at 50% capacity that doesn't need to be; but because 63 St was built the way it was, it's pretty annoying and you'd need some capital expenditure (which we don't have money for) to even get it kind of workable.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 10/26/2020 at 2:30 PM, Vulturious said:

There are maybe a couple or few things that I want to point out in this proposal, one being the biggest problem, the yard situation for  trains. There is no way  trains can be based out of 207th St because they need full length trains. Especially running express on 6th Av as well as 4th Av in Brooklyn, there is no way they can run eight 60 feet long trains. This idea basically screws  riders because they have to ride a trains that is a much shorter length, even if the letters are swapped because Concourse has been with the  ever since basically converting the  into a Blue D and the  to an Orange C, the result still ends up the same. "I recall the M-V combo controversy from last decade – MTA originally called this route the V, but riders preferred the historic M designation, and so the latter stuck. If the C/D swap were to generate a similar controversy, the alternate scheme shown above could work. Nevertheless, I will proceed assuming the C/D swap wins." Just like the proposal that Vanshnookenraggen came up with, this ends up screwing 1 line more than it needs to be, hell, technically 2 lines because Concourse is now stuck with local trains on CPW forcing people to most likely transfer. 

With  trains running full time now, there literally is no need to run  trains to Norwood-205th St at all. This also means  trains would have to be based out of Concourse now because Coney Island needs trains during the weekend.

I don't necessarily hate the idea, however this proposal just ends up making more problems than solving, unless someone has a good solution to fix the whole  train yard access as well as fleet problem.

No disagreement there. The  needs to have 600-foot trains. Personally, I'd rather leave the  at 205 and based out of Concourse. Can both the  and  be fully based there, or is there not enough space at Concourse to house two full-time services? Even with Vanschnook's plan, the  and  can stay as they are. Although that would result in two full-time service on Concourse or for the  to turn at 145th on weekends.

 

On 10/26/2020 at 8:09 AM, Eric B said:

No, not the actual tunnel width; they just added stuff (cables, equipment, etc.) that narrowed the clearance.

 

With all this talk of deinterlining Gold St. Iseemingly inspired by then deinterlining the IND uptown, one difference is that the uptown change basically consolidated operations, so that the  and  and  and  start and dinish in nearly the same places, and use the same yards on both ends. As far as the crews, each terminal on the branches are also consolidated into the same "section" or "district" (i.e. "North", "South"). With the BMT South,    all have the same yard at one end (and the uses it too), and are in the same district, so it's already consolidated like that. (And the  and  are there too, but moving them around on that end won't really change anything in that regard).

I guess the sole benefit of these isdeas is trying to avoid the slowdowns where they come together at Gold St? I don't think that by itself is worth changing up the lines. For one, a lot of the delay is because it seems they now basically stop everybody at that interlocking to ask who they are (i.e. "spot"). They already had cameras there (at least southbound, when I used to be over there, 11 years ago), but it seems they don't even want to trust those anymore (and they even less trust punches). All of these "backup" measures, piled on top of one another!
They need a better way of the tower people knowing for sure what is what (it's already on the now computerized train registers), and also schedule it better so that trains trying to get to the same line (either way) aren;t arriving at the same time. (Which seemed to happan a lot).

It's nice to have direct access to different trunk lines on the outer branches. Also, on the uptown IND, one interlined service was rush hours only, while the other only served two local stops (weekdays only) and ended, so it wasn't as big a loss as what is being suggested for the entire BMT South.

Maybe that's the problem. They implement a backup measure in the name of safety, then later don't trust it. And they spend millions to implement it. Then spend more to implement another backup measure. And the cycle continues. Money Thrown Away. I don't think just scheduling it better is going to make the merging delays at Gold St go away. If left the just way they are, the four services that run through have to be rescheduled. So do all the other services they operate together with elsewhere in the system. Either you run less service on each route or you untangle the mess that's there. With the MTA's finances where they are now and for the near future, obviously they will (and should) choose the first option. But if money and ridership bounce back in a couple years (they seem to be predicting they will by 2022-23), and you want to run more frequent service to keep up with the riders, I think choosing the second option is well worth considering.

16 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Exactly; if anything, the impending reductions in service frequency on all lines will become a compelling argument against deinterlining.  With the current circumstances being what they are, forcing people to make additional transfers would go over like a lead balloon.  No regular rider is going to accept that if these upcoming 40% across-the-board cuts translate into things such as waiting 15 minutes for the connecting train, or 45+ minutes for the bus.

Agreed! If you're going to reduce service frequencies, then of course, that's a big argument against deinterlining. I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it now with the MTA's finances in the toilet. With fewer trains per hour, you can easily have the current interlined services with fewer delays, because there is less chance of conflict at merge points. It’s only if you want to run more frequent train service (which looked like a realistic near-term possibility a year ago), where untangling those messy junctions like Gold St might be worth looking at. Is there another way? Maybe. Lots of posters on here say CBTC will let them run more trains closer together safely. But I haven’t seen that happen. Maybe CBTC isn't the “magic bullet” it's been made out to be. Even if it were, the MTA's CBTC schedule (done pre-Covid) didn't have the BMT South lines scheduled to get CBTC until late in the process.

Edited October 27, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

33 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed! If you're going to reduce service frequencies, then of course, that's a big argument against deinterlining. I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it now with the MTA's finances in the toilet. With fewer trains per hour, you can easily have the current interlined services with fewer delays, because there is less chance of conflict at merge points. It’s only if you want to run more frequent train service (which looked like a realistic near-term possibility a year ago), where untangling those messy junctions like Gold St might be worth looking at. Is there another way? Maybe. Lots of posters on here say CBTC will let them run more trains closer together safely. But I haven’t seen that happen. Maybe CBTC isn't the “magic bullet” it's been made out to be. Even if it were, the MTA's CBTC schedule (done pre-Covid) didn't have the BMT South lines scheduled to get CBTC until late in the process.

CBTC has noticeably increased frequency on the  which is otherwise limited by the lack of tail tracks at 8th Avenue. In fact aren't they working on increasing power supply to add an additional 2 trains per hour?

It is also worth noting that CBTC is not some moonshot, it is literally the next generation of signalling equipment. It's hard to find a metro these days that isn't getting installed with CBTC.

Edited October 27, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

No disagreement there. The  needs to have 600-foot trains. Personally, I'd rather leave the  at 205 and based out of Concourse. Can both the  and  be fully based there, or is there not enough space at Concourse to house two full-time services? Even with Vanschnook's plan, the  and  can stay as they are. Although that would result in two full-time service on Concourse or for the  to turn at 145th on weekends.

I don't think there is enough to run 2 full-time services at Concourse even with Vanschnook's proposal. Sure  trains get stored at Concourse, but that isn't a lot of trains that is getting stored there. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, the  also stores their trains at Concourse since from the look of it, Jerome Yard isn't actually that big of it and is pretty close to Concourse so they can get away with storing a few trains over there. But I've also heard that in the plan, Vanschnook had it where he had the  based out of Coney Island instead of Concourse now since  trains still have access to 2 yards and the  now is 1.

[Theli11]

On 10/27/2020 at 6:46 AM, Armandito said:

Thoughts?

 Second Avenue Local/Queens Boulevard Super Express: Hanover Square to Fresh Meadows (all times) or 179 St (all times except nights)

*Woodhaven Blvd converted to express stop

Yes, but I'd think that the  or train with  on Astoria would be a better candidate for the Super Express rather than the SAS. It would be better than the  since it will have less connections on Second Av. than the Broadway Line which runs through the center of Manhattan. 

[Armandito]

Which of the Bayside alignments would work best for my proposal: straight along Northern Boulevard or via Crocheron and 35th Avenues?

[bobtehpanda]

That is a map clearly drawn by someone who has never been to Eastern Queens.

[LGA Link N Train]

3 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

That is a map clearly drawn by someone who has never been to Eastern Queens.

It was drawn by Vanshnookenraggen about 10 years ago. The blog he posted regarding that was written before the 2010 cuts if I'm not mistaken. Here's the article where that picture came from:

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/06/the-futurenycsubway-queens-flushing-trunk-line/

[vanshnookenraggen]

8 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

That is a map clearly drawn by someone who has never been to Eastern Queens.

For what it's worth, I've never been to eastern Queens.

[bobtehpanda]

7 minutes ago, vanshnookenraggen said:

For what it's worth, I've never been to eastern Queens.

To be fair, there's not a lot there other than houses

5 hours ago, Armandito said:

Which of the Bayside alignments would work best for my proposal: straight along Northern Boulevard or via Crocheron and 35th Avenues?

To more directly answer the question:

Eastern Queens today, especially Bayside, is full of middle to upper-middle class families that wanted the suburban dream (yard, quiet streets, good schools) without having to move to the suburbs or Staten Island, and still be a short drive from relatively dense areas (namely, Flushing.) That, or empty nesters who moved to Queens 50 years ago for the same reasons.

While there is a massive generational shift among racial lines (namely, White to Asian), and newer residents are more supportive of denser development, what they mean by denser development is generally something ~5 stories, at most 8-10 stories. Nothing crazy, and still has to fit in with the whole bougie suburb vibe. If you tell these people you are going to dig up their nice quiet street for a subway line, they will sue and start harassing their electeds faster than you can put up posters saying where the public meetings are. 

For this and other reasons (namely, developable areas, convenient bus access and turnaround areas) you pretty much have to stick to transportation corridors that are already noisy, so that would be the Port Washington branch, Northern Blvd, the LIE, Hillside, the LIRR Main Line, and any other big radial streets coming out of Jamaica.

(Also last I checked, in the rough vicinity of PW and Northern, busiest buses are Q27, Q12/13, and Q28, in that order, which would also suggest a southerly alignment.)

[Union Tpke]

On 10/24/2020 at 12:21 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

As a person who worked work trains in the Steinway tubes in the prehistoric era it’s my observation that the only way B division equipment could traverse this area is if the tubes were shut down and replaced with wider tunnels. R62 equipment scraped the walls when they underwent testing. The door indication lights on the upper car bodies were being knocked off in the tubes. I’ve walked from First Avenue uphill to the Grand Central platform a few times and it is a tight fit. We would rather take a diesel and a flat car rather than a diesel and a rider car through the area because the former seemed safer than the latter. My personal experience. Carry on.

For some of our younger posters, here are some more details on how narrow the tunnels are:

When there have been incidents in the Steinway tubes, it has been really hard to evacuate passengers, leading to disasters like these:

https://www.nytimes.com/1971/05/28/archives/hazards-cited-in-rescuing-stranded-irt-passengers.html

Quote

Transit Authority officials said yesterday that they were forced to leave passengers for almost two hours in a disabled, smoke‐filled subway train under the East River Wednesday be cause of the difficulty and hazards of evacuating them, through several stalled trains and along the tracks.

Quote

The Steinway tunnels from Manhattan to Queens were completed in 1907 for trolley cars, according to the M.T.A. spokesman and were first used for IRT subway trains in 1915. The tunnels are so narrow, he said, that it is impossible to use the catwalks.

Moving passengers would have meant leading them through the trains and onto the tracks at several points en route to the Vernon‐Jackson station. Since some passengers were ill, it was decided to wait until power was restored and move the trains with passen gers aboard.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/08/29/archives/1000-trapped-in-an-ir-t-tunnel-accident-man-dies-of-heart-attack-in.html

Quote

One man died and 1,000 passengers were trapped in 115‐degree heat and heavy smoke yesterday after an archway in the ancient Flushing line tunnel under the East River collapsed on the first car of Queens‐bound IRT train.

At least 18 passengers were carried from the tunnel on stretchers by sweating policemen and firemen, and scores of others had to be assisted to the street for treatment before they were sent home. The dead man apparently suffered a heart attack in the heat, smoke and confusion.

Normal service on the Flushing line was restored at 8:46 P.M. after the track at the site of the collapse, near First Avenue and 42d Street, had been cleared.

The 1 hour 20 minutes that the passengers were trapped in the intense heat and smoke was a time of terror and quiet heroism, of ehaos and people finding a moment to be kind to one another. Many remarked about the minimum of hysteria.

There is no clearance in the tunnels, making it very hard to do necessary repair work:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ancient-steinway-tunnel-no-1-headache-no-7-train-article-1.122193

Quote

On other stretches of track in the sprawling system, workers can do similar equipment inspections and maintenance in the time gaps between trains, tucking themselves into concrete niches or between iron columns when a train approaches and emerging when it passes.

That's not possible in Steinway. The two cast-iron tubes - Manhattan-bound and Queens-bound - are narrow. Very narrow. The only way to avoid getting struck by an approaching train is to scramble up a high bench wall along the tracks. It's too dangerous and impractical to pull that off repeatedly with regular train traffic.
"We can't have people working in here at all when the trains are moving," Prendergast said. "We can't respond to make repairs."

From an article in New York Magazine:

Quote

Trackworkers most fear the narrow tunnels that run beneath the East River, which they refer to as “tubes.” One of the most narrow is the Steinway tube, completed in 1907 and originally intended for trolleys; now the 7 train runs there, from Grand Central to Long Island City. The tube is so narrow that if you’re standing on the bench wall next to the track when a train comes, it’s best to turn sideways and crouch down on your hands and knees. If you don’t, if you instead try to press your back against the tunnel’s curved wall, your head may be right in the path of the train.

 

[Armandito]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be fair, there's not a lot there other than houses

To more directly answer the question:

Eastern Queens today, especially Bayside, is full of middle to upper-middle class families that wanted the suburban dream (yard, quiet streets, good schools) without having to move to the suburbs or Staten Island, and still be a short drive from relatively dense areas (namely, Flushing.) That, or empty nesters who moved to Queens 50 years ago for the same reasons.

While there is a massive generational shift among racial lines (namely, White to Asian), and newer residents are more supportive of denser development, what they mean by denser development is generally something ~5 stories, at most 8-10 stories. Nothing crazy, and still has to fit in with the whole bougie suburb vibe. If you tell these people you are going to dig up their nice quiet street for a subway line, they will sue and start harassing their electeds faster than you can put up posters saying where the public meetings are. 

For this and other reasons (namely, developable areas, convenient bus access and turnaround areas) you pretty much have to stick to transportation corridors that are already noisy, so that would be the Port Washington branch, Northern Blvd, the LIE, Hillside, the LIRR Main Line, and any other big radial streets coming out of Jamaica.

(Also last I checked, in the rough vicinity of PW and Northern, busiest buses are Q27, Q12/13, and Q28, in that order, which would also suggest a southerly alignment.)

IIRC, a few people in one of my FB groups have even suggested rebuilding the abandoned Bayside Yard and adding extra service on the PW Branch instead of building a new subway line along Northern. I'm not very enthusiastic about this plan because of the different fare structure on the LIRR.

[Reptile]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be fair, there's not a lot there other than houses

To more directly answer the question:

Eastern Queens today, especially Bayside, is full of middle to upper-middle class families that wanted the suburban dream (yard, quiet streets, good schools) without having to move to the suburbs or Staten Island, and still be a short drive from relatively dense areas (namely, Flushing.) That, or empty nesters who moved to Queens 50 years ago for the same reasons.

While there is a massive generational shift among racial lines (namely, White to Asian), and newer residents are more supportive of denser development, what they mean by denser development is generally something ~5 stories, at most 8-10 stories. Nothing crazy, and still has to fit in with the whole bougie suburb vibe. If you tell these people you are going to dig up their nice quiet street for a subway line, they will sue and start harassing their electeds faster than you can put up posters saying where the public meetings are. 

For this and other reasons (namely, developable areas, convenient bus access and turnaround areas) you pretty much have to stick to transportation corridors that are already noisy, so that would be the Port Washington branch, Northern Blvd, the LIE, Hillside, the LIRR Main Line, and any other big radial streets coming out of Jamaica.

(Also last I checked, in the rough vicinity of PW and Northern, busiest buses are Q27, Q12/13, and Q28, in that order, which would also suggest a southerly alignment.)

Would the southern alignment be along Northern Blvd the whole way? It's more south than other proposed corridors

[nerdynel]

Greetings all!

I see my NYTIP series has gained some traction here, so allow me to clarify some things.

For the CPW de-interlining, I envision all routes using full-length trains. I have since revised that proposal to have A/B on Inwood and C/D on Concourse to avoid "rocking the boat" too much with regard to yard access.

Having two full-time services on Concourse is intentional and designed to encourage ridership. Before the Rona, I used to joke that the most frequent service on Concourse was the taxi because taxis came more often than buses or trains!

Also, bear in mind NYTIP is a long-term improvement strategy. De-interlining certain corridors is just Step 1 of that strategy. I know some say we shouldn't think of such plans in light of the Rona knocking out transit ridership and potential doomsday cuts that make 2010 seem like a dream in comparison; however, I disagree. I think this is the best time, because we effectively have a blank slate in some ways. There will likely be a permanent shift in travel patterns owing to telework, for one, and how MTA recovers will depend on their ability to adapt, IMO.

Criticisms of cost are definitely fair, but also remember that the supposedly broke state somehow has money to widen highways, and the supposedly broke city keeps subsidizing empty boats - both to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. My plans may not be perfect, but I think we can all agree on the need to Save Transit and convince city and state leaders to get their priorities in order. Thanks for reading and commenting!