In this video, I will talk about DeKalb Junction and what I think is the best way of fixing it. Sources/Further Reading www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in... www.nerdynel.me/2019/02/nytip... www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in... www.erausa.org
Whether you like or hate deinterlining (or somewhere in the middle or you don't really care about it), i think we can all agree that the dekalb av junction in its current form definitely needs this kinda rework. Great video btw.
I mean, I am more of a Van-Uday deinterliner than a Alon Levy deinterliner. What I mean is that Van-Uday mix in politics and leave behind some interlining (see CPW, Culver), while Along Levy is a more committed deinterliner (deinterline everything).
@@jointransitassociationyeah. For better and for worse, interlining was practically baked into the subway's system, and while it's technically possible to deinterline the whole thing, it would just be a nightmare on all fronts. And the whole thing would just get worse overtime as new additions to the system are made such as branches, routes like sas, and the introduction of new services. While i do agree that spots like Dekalb av, central park west, and rogers av should be deinterlined, I'd be lying if I said that the whole system needs that kinda treatment.
@@apexhunter935 deinterlining would actually *bolster* the case for extending SAS northward, as routing all Broadway Express trains via 2 Ave would enhance service towards the 30tph max, and thereby help capitalize on the investment. CPW is also really easy to deinterline, as the corridor is bookended by cross platform transfers at 59 St and 125 St. This appears to be an oversight on part of those who advocate for retaining interlining: that there's myriad cross platform transfers available to ameliorate everyone's concerns about losing one seat rides. Say for sake of argument that CPW was deinterlined such that the A runs Express and the B runs Local, each at 30tph, while the C and D are eliminated entirely. In this scenario, a rider at the Museum of Natural History would only have a train that takes them to 6 Ave. However, they'd also be able to transfer across the platform to the A at 59 St or to the E at 7 Ave (which has a *reverse* cross platform transfer that enables southward journeys). So what was once a one seat ride on the C has now become a two seat ride, but the overall trip is on average much shorter, as this rider would only wait on average 1 minute for the B, rather than waiting on average 5 minutes, or as much as 10 minutes for the C, and the transfer at 59 St or 7 Ave would likewise take less than a minute, or perhaps no time at all if the timetables are synchronized. So what's more important: one seat rides, or shorter journeys?
A note on Brighton Beach: It doesn't have to be that disruptive. Actually it's preferable because it's already on ballast. There's probably a chance here to get prefabricated structures and just lay it on the ballasted surface (or take notes from Tokyo or the LIRR), whereas on the Ocean Pkwy span you'd have to integrate everything onto the elevated steel structure (and the station spacing is only 1,000'). A six-track right-of-way only offers flexibility - a mini DeKalb Junction, in few words. But it's not necessary; stick to 4 tracks. Use the span north of the Neptune Ave overpass for the regular local/express track switches (maybe simplify here by avoiding diamond crossings). Then for the span south of Neptune Ave, you have 1,500 uninterrupted feet to make the express tracks rise over to the outside and lower again; at a 4% slope (less steep than Manhattan Bridge), it would take 500' to rise 20' (trains are just over 12' tall but you must account for the thickness of cross beams when the tracks actually curve to cross over each other). The local tracks meet up towards the middle on the surface, so you can even keep the existing center track switches just before the curve into Brighton Beach. Then, with regards to the tail tracks past Ocean Pkwy, you can forget about feasibility studies regarding the abandoned el structure, rebuilding support beams to make room for the tail tracks to curve outward, and NIMBYs complaining about trains rounding even more curves.
First of all, TTA proposed the tail tracks past Ocean Pkwy, NOT the junction between Sheepshead Bay and Brighton. Second of all, the new tail tracks past Ocean Pkwy are built right over a parking lot, where there is a lot of room. Because of this, it wouldn’t disrupt anyone, nor would it cause any buildings being taken down, and won’t be too expensive. Everyone’s complaining about 2nd Av subway costs, and you’re seriously mad about this? Come on!
@@josephrosner9051) I'm specifically responding to 10:39-11:02: "The first option I see is to reconstruct the section between *Sheepshead Bay* and Brighton Beach … But this would be expensive, time-consuming, and disruptive" 2) Incorrect. They lead directly towards existing F train tracks, sitting in between support columns that hold up the Q tracks. With that in mind, review my last paragraph. It is *because* everyone's complaining about SAS costs that I'm bringing up what I believe is the cheapest and least disruptive option. In particular, a less complicated option than was presented in the video but dismissed.
I grew up in South Brooklyn and often passed through this junction to get to Manhattan. It was such a pain in the *** and continues to be. I once got stuck for over an hour when I was a teenager while my parents went crazy worrying.
This exact situation happens in Glasgow. Between Partick and Hyndland, the Argyle and North Clyde lines are both crammed onto a single double track section and this kills the capacity of what would otherwise be a fantastic metro line.
I think peak express service should happen on West End. As the ride along West End can be long, peak express service could shorten that time on the train. As you mentioned, 25 Av would be converted to express station, and a new flyover to Coney Island yard would be built. The (R) would terminate at 25th, while the would continue to Coney Island, which wouldnt cost too much money.
Why only peak? The sea beach also has a nearby express track and the west end and sea beach have a shared station and express stations at kings hwy and bay parkway are in the same shed of each other
The Sea Beach line should not have peak express service, as its express track skips all the stops between 59 St and Coney Island, so there would hardly be any demand at all. It would also create more interlining than there already is, as southbound express trains have to merge wit locals south of 86 St or Kings Highway. Also, the ride along Sea Beach isn’t too long, as there are less stops along the line.
00:13 "uses it to time trains"... um, well, yeah? I am a railway scheduler in Germany, and of course we use junctions to time trains. That is nothing out of the ordinary, yet you sound as that would be desireable to avoid. If you run a clockface schedule that gets very easy, because you basically do it once and copy that along the day, or once per pattern if you differ between peak, non-peak and late nights. Also makes for better connections, especially when planning to deinterline. Would also have the advantage that a cross-platform transfer always has its lines running at the same frequency.
Obviously some pinch point has to be the determinant in scheduling trains. The problem is that these specific junctions (DeKalb and Columbus Circle) are so inefficient that having to schedule around them forces other parts of the network to have, essentially, wasted capacity in order to avoid overloading those junctions. If they could be improved it would help service all over the network.
There are 2 issues with this 1. Your doing the same exact thing with the N budo switch or not. 2. Withyour purposal your affecting both B and D trains as they share the same track. This is why you should have the R head to ecuild while the W takes over. Look at that I manage to kill 2 birds with one stone.
I still haven't forgiven the MTA for screwing up the Brighton Line with the Chrystie Street connection. The old Q express was the best ride on the entire system, express in both Brooklyn and Manhattan, with easy connections to both the Lex and 7th Ave lines in both Brooklyn and Manhattan.
i think while this plan could definitely work, but a much simpler option would be to run broadway down 4av and 6th ave down brighton. even though brighton riders prefer broadway, like you said, the lines only run one block apart and theres transfers at atlantic and dekalb. with this plan we can possibly forsee the entirety of broadway run on 4av with the (Q) via west end with possible extended (W) service to help, (N) via sea beach as it is and (R) via bay ridge as it is. this doesnt change much and lowers the cost of this plan as well as keeping it simple. i dont see the mta activating the (B) on weekends as it’s more expensive, so the (B) would stay on brighton exp however i do like the proposal to extend brighton exp to coney island and brighton lcl to ocean pkwy. so maybe on the weekends and weekdays that can switch around so that it allows for all the current infrastructure to be used as well. with this plan there is pretty much no new switches. im just saying that this would be the simplest plan with the existing issues in finance that the mta has and them not wanting to start an new project.
Agree this doesn't affect them after all they still got a transfer at Dekalb and Altantic Avenue but yet again this means booting the r off and build a tunnel to the Fulton Street line.
Your proposal has merit. The only problem is that Bay Ridge would still lack direct yard access, which is why the (R) currently runs via QBL. I really like Vanshnook's proposal of adding switches within the provisions south of 36 St so as to route Bay Ridge trains via 4 Ave Express. If we run all 4AE trains via 6 Ave, then Bay Ridge would have direct yard access via Grand Concourse. By consolidating the various South Brooklyn lines onto dedicated trunks, we could do away with redundant route bullets and end up with the following services: *(D) 6 Ave Exp, Sea Beach Lcl* Norwood to Bay Ridge, Coney Concourse Exp. Rush Hour *(N) Broadway, West End Lcl* Astoria to Coney *(Q) Broadway Exp, Brighton Lcl* 96 St to Coney Brighton Exp. Day (B/R/W) Eliminated Note that each service has 100% dedicated tracks with no interlining, and thus could be operated at their maximum physical capacity: (D) and (Q) = 30+tph, (N) = ~20tph
@@dorf33 of consolidating the route bullets? I think it's the natural end-state for a deinterlined subway, and frankly it's something the MTA has been doing since the days of Vignelli. Every deinterlining proposal I've seen so far goes out of its way to retain all the current bullets, and sometimes even add a few more, without considering that, from a wayfinding perspective, many of those bullets become redundant once the services themselves have been consolidated onto fewer tracks. It's less confusing for passengers to read "" and immediately understand that it's a day-only Express service, rather than having to be told as such about the (N) or (R) or whatever runs over Brighton Express.
The B runs the way it does because it fills two niches, CPW local and Brighton express, both of which are redundant in the overnights and weekends, plus, the trains can be taken out of service at both Concourse Yard (when it's extended to Bedford Pk Bl) and Coney Island (a few trains making the additional stops). The Q runs as it does to fill two niches also, 2Av and Brighton local 24/7.
The (R) needs a yard, and cant use Jamaica yard because it causes merging there, so the (R) must run to Astoria and the (N) runs to 2 Av. Because the (R) cant use Jamaica, it should use Coney Island, and get there via West End to not interfere with the express. Under this plan, the (B) runs to 207 St and uses the yard by there, so it doesn’t matter.
@@josephrosner905 the 207th St yard stores trains that end at 168th St so let’s give the B Coney Island yard and with that the B takes over the Current N Line in Brooklyn, Under my plan the B would be a 24/7 route and during late nights the D is not needed north of 36th St as that would be the Bay Ridge Shuttle. CPW local service would be entirely served by the A, and as far as Concourse yard goes I have the A utilizing that yard as that is needed and it fills CPW local, and Concourse services at 21tph, making it much better then what riders have today. In terms we have this for late nights on CPW CPW Late nights A: All Times (CPW Local) B: All Times (CPW Local) D: No Service (Use B) 4th Ave Line B: 4th Ave Local D: 36th St to Bay Ridge 95th St (Shuttle) R: 4th Ave Local If you’re wondering what happened to the C, I proposed it running on QBL to 179th St and taking over service for the R in Queens and the A east of Euclid Ave as I have Pitkin Yard being used to store the terminating E Trains. QBL New Patterns C: Queens Blvd Express E: Queens Blvd Express F: Queens Blvd Local M: Queens Blvd Local Fulton St Line C: Fulton St Express E: Fulton St Local Also the C would handle the service both on Lefferts and the Rockaways way better then the A does now, as it would have the most capacity, and give riders a train every 7.5 minutes roughly on all 3 branches that the C is handling under this plan rather than 20 minutes for an A.
What you propose here is the ideal scenario for deinterlining South Brooklyn. The *only* change I would make is to reduce and consolidate the route bullets for sake of clarity: *(D) 6 Ave Exp, Sea Beach Lcl* 205 St-Norwood to 95 St-Bay Ridge, Coney Island Concourse Exp. Rush Hour *(N) Broadway, West End Lcl* Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island *(Q) Broadway Exp, Brighton Lcl* 96 St to Coney Island Brighton Exp. Day *(B/R/W) Eliminated*
Mfw I gotta wait more time at coney island because some D trains went to a bad terminal that messes with capacity But you do know that giving a single line multiple terminals/branches can actually halve its capacity? Instead you put BD/NQ on 4 av while NQ/BD take on Brighton as in terms of things you would only need to eliminate the W, also you don't need to eliminate lines just for clarity as having a different line take on a different service pattern can make it easier for things like trying to identify which trains are which
@@carlbro1 branching a single service only halves capacity *on the branches,* the core route would still operate at 30 TPH. I don't see any need to add a separate, redundant route bullet for each branch, when the two branches in question share track for 90+% of their services' run time. Riders are plenty capable of reading the destination boards on the front and sides of their train, they don't need an extra route bullet to convey that information. B/D is *operationally* identical to "D with two branches," but the latter reduces clutter on the Map and on wayfinding signs. This distinction would be even more important for a deinterlined Brighton line. N/Q originating from 96 St is redundant nomenclature, since riders would have to be *told* that one of them is the Brighton Express and only operates during the Day. Designating said service automatically conveys that information at a glance. I realize this is an argument over semantics, but I think it's important for making the deinterlined system less confusing to navigate, and for reducing signage bloat.
@@carlbro1 not necessarily. The particular deinterlined terminal pairings through DeKalb are not agnostic, due to Bay Ridge lacking direct yard access. N/Q via 4 Ave Express would pair Bay Ridge with Astoria or 96 St, meaning Bay Ridge wouldn't have a yard and trains would still have to deadhead to Coney via Sea Beach, or continue operating the R over QBL. B/D (or just "D with two branches") via 4 Ave Express instead pairs Bay Ridge with Grand Concourse, thereby giving Bay Ridge direct yard access. One arrangement is *operationally* superior to the other.
Fun fact: Coney Island Terminal has limited capacity with a maximum turnaround rate of 9 trains per hour per platform. That's why some rush hour (F) trains terminate at Kings Highway. Something else worth mentioning: Swapping the B and N require changes to the infrastructure, which take time and money. Government officials have no interest in that.
@@gururaj6594 the plans TTA mentions don't mention another tunnel or bridge. Why would you need a new tunnel to fix Dekalb when it can be fixed with deinterlining?
@@gururaj6594 those track connections already exist, otherwise the D and Q wouldn't be on their current alignment. All that deinterlining does is confine the 6 and 8 Ave trunk lines to isolated track pairings through DeKalb and onto their respective branches, rather than using the existing switches at DeKalb to scramble them. Deinterlining DeKalb is purely an operations matter.
Other than the "Q" the "D" is the most important line in south Brooklyn. It deserves more service, but it service is hampered by the 3 "A" lines via Central Park. So it can't run any more trains for this reason. If they can somehow build out Queens Link, than they can dedicate the "A" to Lefferts Blvd. And the "R" should be paired with another local out of Nassau Street. Maybe a "K" out of Broadway East New York Junction, which would be a peak express. It would go to 95th Street like the "R".
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan All I asked was adding one line from Nassau Street into 4th Avenue and you proposing an entire system overhaul 🙄 creating endless unnecessary confusion for everyone currently using the system. At this point you whole discussion is not taken seriously.
Hi, I really like your video, can I translate your video, adding subtitle and put it on Bilibili (Video website in China)? I'll make sure I state clearly this video is made by you.
This Brighton Line rider prefers 6th Avenue to Broadway. Even though the stations are near each other, the transfer opportunities are different. To get to Penn Station or the Port Authority, it is easier to transfer at W 4th St to the 8th Avenue Line than to walk an extra long block or two from the Broadway line stations.
The walk between the Broadway line station and to Penn Station or Port Authority isn’t that bad, so you won’t be negatively affected with all Brighton service going to Broadway. Not to mention that an easier and faster alternative for you under this case would be to transfer to the 2 or 3 at Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center.
TTA, you are half correct. That video actually mentioned how interlining can cause delays, but it didnt mention how they run trains less frequently to prevent delays.
@@josephrosner905or that they could run a bit more frequently if they planned frequencies in relation to other services beyond 'is this total number less than the capacity of the line here'. The most bonkers is that, for every ten 4 trains, there are nine 9 five trains, which - even if it was a regular branching line, leads to capacity-sapping conflicts where two trains want to merge into one another (or delay-causing uneven-headways which then become capacity-sapping conflicts as trains with large gaps before them run later due to being busier).
@silohett Saying to time trains better isn’t as easy as it seems. If we lived in a perfect all trains would run the exact same frequency (15 trains per hour max), and trains would never get delayed. But unfortunately, not all lines are treated equally, and some need more capacity than others. Check out TTA’s reverse branching videos to learn more about this.
It's possible to operate a service between Astoria and Bay Ridge despite there being no yard in the vicinity, thanks to the third track along Sea Beach starting at 59 St. I propose that the Express services on 4 Ave (regardless whether they go via 6 Ave or Broadway in Manhattan) branch at 39 St to serve West End and Sea Beach respectively, for 15+ tph on each, while the Local, which is constrained to ~20 tph by the City Hall Curve, simply terminates at Bay Ridge. This would eliminate the need for any daytime shortstops or track realignments, as the bumper blocks at Coney can handle 15 tph, and the services wouldn't have to merge/diverge at a new junction south of 36 St. Any 4 Ave Local trains that need to deadhead to Coney Island Yards would shortstop at 59 St then merge onto the Sea Beach third track. Because Sea Beach would only have half a service, there'd be enough open slots for deadheading 4 Ave Locals to merge onto the two track curve south of 59 St without causing conflicts. Trains could still be pulled off the line for midday flagging along the Astoria elevated structure, but a majority of the route is in tunnels, so in general most maintenance could be done at night. This would allow the Astoria-to-Bay Ridge service to operate at consistent headways throughout the day with far fewer midday layups, just like many other metro systems around the world.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan indeed. This is why, I believe it was Alon Levy or Vanshnook who proposed adding the switch at 36 St so that Bay Ridge could be served by the 6 Ave Express, thereby providing yard access from the north via Grand Concourse.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan I mostly agree with Vanshnook's deinterlining plans, but I take issue with some of his alignments: *Grand Concourse via CPW Express:* I would instead route the Inwood branch via CPW Express, for a number of reasons: 1) the upper level Express tracks at 145 St diverge at a set of switches north and south of the platforms, from which the CPW Express could then branch to serve both the Local and Express tracks through Amsterdam Ave and thereby use the short stop and trail tracks at Washington Heights; whereas Grand Concourse has no rush hour short stop capacity except at the yard leads. Routing this way would shorten end to end journeys for services on Fulton St Express, with two service "branches" routed as: Lefferts --> Inwood; Far Rockaway --> Washington Heights. I also propose that FSL be converted into a shuttle that terminates at Hoyt so as to make this routing possible, and to maximize capacity across the system. Should that prove infeasible, then the branches could be coupled as: Euclid Ave (Local) --> Inwood; Lefferts / FR (Express) --> WH. 2) Routing Inwood via CPW Local and thus 8 Ave Local would thereby force the 53 St service to be routed via 8 Ave Express and Fulton St, due to the lack of provisions for switches between 59 St and 50 St. CPW Local would then have to either terminate at WTC, or be routed via Rutgers and Culver, neither of which are ideal. *Bay Ridge and Sea Beach via 4 Ave Express and 6 Ave Express:* this is honestly a stroke of brilliance on Vansh's part. With a single switch, every line pairing could be given direct yard access: Coney Island Yard --> Astoria and 2 Ave; Concourse Yard --> Bay Ridge. No longer would Broadway have to cannibalize capacity out to Jamaica Yard. The *only* problem I foresee is: what about City Hall? If West End were routed via 4 Ave Local (which I wholeheartedly agree with), then it would also have to be routed via Montague, as the only other alternative would be reducing capacity on Brighton Beach, and perhaps eliminating Express service altogether, as a result of the City Hall Curve and the bumper blocks at Astoria, which cap the corresponding service at 15-20TPH. A case could be made that some Manhattan-bound trains via either BB or West End could terminate at Whitehall, but that then runs into the problem of limited short stop capacity from the single middle track, so I don't believe that 30TPH could be routed via Montague, regardless of origin. Consider also that West End terminates at bumper blocks at Coney, so anything over 15 tph would have to reverse at Kings Hwy. Either way, West End gets the short end of the stick, and there'd be no possibility for rush hour Express service. *QBE via 63 St, QBL via 53 St:* I would swap these routings due to the availability of cross platform transfers: according to Vansh, QBE riders seeking 8 Ave would have to transfer at Jackson Heights to the Local, as there's no transfer available further west. Alternatively, QBE riders on 53 St would have a direct route to 8 Ave, but also have a *reverse* cross platform transfer available at 7 Ave for access to 6 Ave, meaning those transferring riders *wouldn't* have to ride the Local all the way from JH. There's also the balance of services to consider. There is a choice of 3 lines which would have to terminate at WTC depending on routing: CPW Local via 8 Ave Local (CPW Express could be routed via either 6 Ave Express --> Manhattan Bridge, or 8 Ave Express --> Fulton St), or QBE / QBL via either 6 or 8 Ave Local. I propose the following routes so as to "bypass" the capacity constraints at WTC: - Inwood / WH --> CPW Express --> 8 Ave Express --> Fulton St Express --> Lefferts / Far Rockaway (30TPH) - Grand Concourse --> CPW Local --> 6 Ave Express --> 4 Ave Express --> Bay Ridge / Sea Beach (30TPH) - Archer Ave / Hillside Ave Express --> QBE --> 53 St --> 8 Ave Local --> Rutgers --> Culver Express --> Kings Hwy / Coney Island (30TPH) - Hillside Ave Local --> QBL --> 63 St --> 6 Ave Local --> WTC (20TPH) Note that WTC limits its corresponding service route to ~20TPH (give or take depending on terminal operations). This would mean a service *reduction* were it routed via QBE. The only viable choice is between QBL or CPW Local. I've chosen the former to terminate at WTC, because the latter is more comparable in ridership to Lex Ave Local, which itself receives 30TPH. Food for thought?
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan We need to abandon the notion that interlining serves any purpose other than providing one seat rides. The losses to capacity and reliability, in my opinion, are not worth the effort, whereas the loss of one seat rides can be mitigated with cross platform transfers. We would not be able to carry 60TPH on CPW if we reverse branch the services into each other. For every instance of reverse branching, one quarter of the line's capacity is lost, as there need to be empty slots among the Locals to absorb any merging conflicts. This is why the A and D maximally operate at ~15TPH each, whereas the B and C are constrained to ~7-8TPH each. We would be perpetuating this dynamic were we to interline the services north of 145 St. The only way to reach the physical maximum capacity is to fully deinterline. With this in mind, we are left with only four choices, given the geometry of the junctions at 145 St and 59 St: 1) Inwood --> CPW E --> 8 Ave E; Norwood --> CPW L --> 6 Ave E 2) Inwood --> CPW L --> 8 Ave L; Norwood --> CPW E --> 6 Ave E 3) Inwood --> CPW E --> 6 Ave E; Norwood --> CPW L --> 8 Ave L 4) Inwood --> CPW L --> 6 Ave E; Norwood --> CPW E --> 8 Ave E I've chosen number 1) for the reasons I've stated previously, i.e. short stops and track utilization, as well as the fact that routings 3) and 4) would eliminate Inwood's direct access to Lower Manhattan, while 2) would increase journey times into LM without any useful cross platform transfers, while also limiting capacity on CPW L due to the bumper blocks at WTC, *and* forcing the E into an elongated horseshoe. Would Concourse riders enjoy a direct trip to LM? Certainly, without a doubt. But the constraint is then that trains from Fulton St have longer journeys and no shortstops. So what's more important: operations, or riders' preferences? ......................... It helps to visualize the Subway as a series of isolated track pairings with fixed geometries, rather than as overlapping service routes with variable alignments. With this mindset, the particular designation given to any route is irrelevant, because the route and the line are one in the same. Anytime there's a simple branch, we can simply treat that as half of a full service, like the branches of the A east of Rockaway Blvd. As such, I propose the following B Division service routes (commas between destinations denote branching services): A) Inwood, WH 168 St to Lefferts Blvd, Far Rockaway via 8 Ave, CPW, Fulton St Express B) Norwood to Bay Ridge, Coney Island via 6 Ave, 4 Ave Express; Grand Concourse, CPW, Sea Beach Local (Rush Hour Express on Grand Concourse) C) Euclid Ave to Hoyt-Schermerhorn via Fulton St Local D) Discontinued E) Jamaica 179 St, Archer Ave to Coney Island via 8 Ave Local; Queens Blvd, Hillside Ave, Culver Express (Rush Hour Express on Culver, Shortstop at Kings Hwy) F) Jamaica 179 St to WTC via 6 Ave, Queens Blvd, Hillside Ave Local G) Court Sq to Church Ave via Crosstown, Culver Local M) Rerouted to Broad St N) Astoria to Coney Island via Broadway, 4 Ave, West End Local Q) 96 St to Coney Island via Broadway Express; Brighton Beach Local (All-day Bidirectional Express on Brighton Beach) R) Discontinued W) Discontinued Basically a variation of Vansh, but with fewer route bullets and *ZERO* interlining. This way, the entire B Division is fully deinterlined and capable of operating at the maximum physical capacity: 60TPH on 8 Ave, 50TPH each on 6 Ave and Broadway; the latter trunks being constrained by the bumper blocks at WTC and Astoria, respectively. ..................... Although I respect your initiative in proposing extensions through the Bronx and to Staten Island, I do not believe that they are prerequisites for deinterlining, so all I will say is this: yes, a Bronx Crosstown would be awesome. Inwood to Co-op City via Fordham Rd and Pelham Pkwy would be absolutely transformative.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan I agree that Bay Ridge needs a service, which is why I made it a branch of the (B) [or (D), whichever], much like how the current (A) branches at its eastern end. I like this methodology, as it emphasises that Sea Beach and Bay Ridge are branches of the same service, with identical service timings (All Times vs Day only, etc), identical pathing through a common central corridor, and identical 1:1 headways. I believe that having so many route bullets, at least one for each branch, is a relic of interlining, where most riders have to track a bullet through a maze of switches and overlapping routes, and every service has a wildly different headway than its peers. A deinterlined system doesn't require such conceits, as the route paths are simple and easily tracked, and headways are much more rational. In fact, each deinterlined service could get its own color (magenta, gold, teal, etc) and still the boroughs wouldn't turn into rainbow spaghetti like the old Vignelli maps; just clean, bold lines from end to end. I disagree with your routing of the (E). I once advocated for the "Horseshoe (E)" as well, but I've since soured on the idea. The reason the (A) goes to Inwood via Express today is because that is the shortest path available for Fulton St trains. Any route with more stops would run into the problem of staffing operators for longer than their shift allows, as was pointed out to me by an IRL subway operator. That's not the only problem, but I'll leave it there for now. It all boils down to: which line will WTC hurt? I vote QBL, as QB is four-tracked from end to end, unlike CPW which has two northern branches. If the (E) branched near Briarwood and also went to 179 St via Hillside Ave Express, then QBL (F) riders would have opportunities to transfer to the Express for their entire runtime. For this reason, QBL simply does not need as many trains as, say, Concourse, which doesn't meet another service until 145 St.
If i cross the Manhattan bridge on the B and see a N train across the way I feel like it'll be smooth sailing. Same if I'm on the Q and there's a D train crossing at the same time.
@@jointransitassociationAre you familiar with the #6MinuteService campaign that Riders Alliance is spearheading (and Alon Levy is extremely enthusiastic about, even disregarding full deinterlining)? I did some math for the A, B, C, D, E, F, G, R, N, Q, and W services and we will have enough trains for 6-minute service on every named service *only if* the second option order is accepted for R211s (I don't think MTA has gone through with it yet but they almost always go through with option orders, so my glass is half full). In zero cases will we have enough trains for 5-minute service, which makes me doubt the feasibility of other proposals, such as running the E and K to Brooklyn that would allow a beautiful 36 TPH on some of the longest lines in the system. This is an imperfect calculation because it doesn't account for layover time at terminals (I don't know how to calculate those so I just added 2 trains for each round trip). And still, in most cases spare factor would be extremely thin for 5-minute service, let alone anything better than that, and there wouldn't be enough non-CBTC trains for the N, Q, and W when CBTC on 6th and 8th Aves are said and done. For reference, there are 292 trains (again, assuming the second option order is accepted) to spread among today's A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and R trains - that's 1290 R160s, 1505 R211s, & 130 R179s, not counting the 4-car sets - and 77 non-CBTC trains for the N, Q, and W, a situation MTA will address in about a decade from now with a separate order of new trains to replace the R68[A]s. TL'DR Even with the additional trains MTA is [likely] adding to the system with R211s, there won't be enough for many if not all individual lines to run at 10 TPH or better. Deinterlining would still be beneficial for reliability though. One delay wouldn't ripple through the entire system.
I'd just like to say we are forgetting that we could extend the J train to current R train terminus which allows R trains to go via sea beach and maybe rush hour via west end which would allow R trains to utilize coney island depot
In a principled plan, store Q trains. In a realistic plan, store N trains. Also, if it was up to me, I won't call two storage tracks a yard. A yard should be much bigger than two tracks, at least 4-5 tracks that can store 8-10 trains.
If you run the R to 95th, the R doesn't have a yard without kneecapping other lines. The B already has a yard at 207th St under this plan, so it running to Bay Ridge doesn't matter.
Fourth Avenue was designed to run the way it does. By putting B and D on fourth deprives riders of a Broadway Line. Putting Q and N on the Brighton deprives riders of Sixth avenue service.
Well, the W would just be a QBL local. The W is a weekday-only line anyway. As for the M, I have no idea what would the best way to go about it. I initially thought of what most might think of, which is M to 63rd Street all times, but that could cause imbalance between 53rd Street and 63rd Street. The only other way I could see this work would be the M being QBL Express to 53rd Street, while the G can be the QBL Local all times.
Honestly if you're going to build a new fly over after Ocean Parkway you might as well just remodify and rebuilt the stub tracks in between Ocean Pkwy and Brighton Beach to have local trains turn around that way. It can rise a bit before Brighton 3rd St and a crossover can even be built to extend the new tail tracks to as far as Ocean Parkway. That's only if it's a priority but I wouldn't mind the express N just terminate at Brighton at all times
Reverse branching is the core of the issue. I don't care if they have to construct an underground tunnel or create a completely new alignment for certain services, but the core of the issue is too many services moving in and out of a core section of mainline. There should be no branches in Manhattan, only trunks - and the branches should start at junctions like DeKalb and move into the outer boroughs as independently as possible so that frequency can be increased.
4:03 To be Completely fair, you could modify the entirety of the subway that passes through the Financial District area. First of all, you could have R/W trains continue onto Broadway through the Financial District and then merge back into the Montague Street Tunnel, with stops at Fulton Street and Wall Street before going back to Whitehall Street. Meanwhile, you could have 4/5 trains take over Nassau Street until merging back onto the Joralemon Street tunnel, making stops at Fulton Street and Broad Street before going back to Bowling Green. As for the J train, you can have it take over William Street, making stops at Fulton Street and Wall Street (Which would be the J's new Terminus) Meanwhile, you can have the E train be extended beyond World Trade Center and take over Trinity Place, making stops at Cortlandt Street, Rector Street, and Battery Park (Which would be the E's new Terminus) As far as the 2/3 trains go, you could reroute them under the 1 line via Greenwich Street, making stops at a lower-level WTC Cortlandt and a lower-level Rector Street before going into Brooklyn. So that's how I would fix up the entirety of the Financial District. I'm not saying that this is recommended but if you want more capacity and if ridership reaches pre-2015 levels, you could do this, unless if costs are too high to renovate the stations.
I have a proposal (still in the works btw): B/D skip DeKalb and go express on 4th Ave. B goes back to Coney Island via West End while the D goes to Coney Island via Sea Beach. No switches required at all since the B/D tracks since skipping DeKalb would go straight to the 4th Ave Express tracks. N/Q on Brighton, with the N going to Coney Island via Brighton Local and the Q going to Brighton Beach via Brighton Express. R ends up unchanged, still going down to Bay Ridge, via 4th Avenue Local. The W could still have a couple trains going down Sea Beach due to the increased demand for trains on Sea Beach. For late night service, this would mean R trains to cut short at 36th Street, while B/D trains take over the 4th Ave local service and go over the bridge, and then N/Q trains can go via the tunnel. If there’s too many trains, the Q can short turn at Prospect Park on late nights and weekends. Alternatively, you can have the B terminate at 36th and have the D and R take over on 4th Ave and then the D/N/R all meet at DeKalb, with the R going via the Montague Tunnel and the D/N going via the Bridge. Then on weekends, you have either the N or Q run local via the Montague Tunnel so that the B and D can both go on the Bridge. With the problem on Broadway, I would send the N and Q down to 96th St while the R keeps its line at Forest Hills and the W keeps its line on Astoria, and I don’t think this should be an issue with yards and all that since the N Q and W all have access to Coney Island Yard and the R still has access to Jamaica. I would then for 8th Avenue put the A and C on the express and the E and K on the local, so that the E and K can both go to WTC. Then that would be made so the E/K go onto QBL together via 53rd St and the A/C go express on CPW. The B/D would go local and the switch going into 145th would see the A/B on the top and the C/D on the bottom. The A would be unchanged and still go to 207th St. The C and D will go to 205th St together and not have the thing where one line short turns. This means the B will go up with the A to 168th. On QBL, the E and K will run express together while the F and R run local, with the F and R terminating at Forest Hills, the E going to Jamaica-179th, and the K going to Jamaica Center.
That’s not going to solve anything you’re replacing a 6th Ave service on West End with another and that’s not going to fix anything, the point is the B and D taking 4th Ave and the N and Q taking Brighton. The best way to do this is to send the B down on Sea Beach so that way it has access to Coney Island yard. Then you have the D taking over service to Bay Ridge 95th St, that way you keep the D at Concourse. For the R we are sending it on West End to give it access to Coney Island yard and from there replace the N in Queens. This means that we will send the R to Astoria and the N and Q get 96th St. On 8th Ave you’re better off sending CPW Local trains ending at WTC, This means that we will kick the C off CPW and place it on QBL instead, when done the A would end at WTC and then go to 168th St with the B going to Inwood. Fulton St riders would get huge boosts in services from a line that comes from QBL by having (C) Express and (E) Local, and with that pattern you retain most of their patterns, and the (E) would run only to Euclid Ave while the (C) takes over the service to Lefferts Blvd and Far Rockaway.
The express and local should start and end at the same place. Since some might only work a few stop up the line so that mean that they well have transfer. The directional express is still not ideal. A 4 track line is always better so for those people who don’t work in the city can still use the service.
The MTA just announced in a recent committee meeting that they plan to address the bottlenecks at both Rodgers and DeKalb junctions. This could mean deinterlining these areas.
Wdym no bay ridge service? The (B) would run local south of 36 St and to bay ridge. There would be switches installed between 36-45 Sts so the (B) could switch from the express to the local.
Two things….1-you want all 6th Avenue trains going to 4th Av and all Brighton trains going to Bway (the R the exception down 4th Av). I feel bad for the Brighton riders who just might want 6th Av and have to walk that long corridor from the Atlantic platform to the Pacific platform. And vice versa on the way home. 2-I’d love to know what you might do without all the infrastructure modifications suggested. You may advocate for the modifications, but I’d love to see the realism.
Number 1: 6th Ave and Broadway run extremely close to one another, so the effects are mitigated. Number 2: I already did. It is called the Vanshookenraggen-Uday Schultz plan, minus peak direction express service.
@@jointransitassociationplus, even if you couldn't or didn't want to walk the extra bit or something like that, there's still plenty of transfer points between the broadway trunk and the 6 av trunk lines.
My solutions to De-interline DeKalb are probably the most unique. I don’t know if you’ll agree with them, but this is how I would do it: Solution 1: B/D via Brighton (B local to Brighton Beach or Ocean Parkway, D express to Coney Island) N/Q via 4th Avenue express (N via Sea Beach, Q via West End) J via 4th Avenue local to Bay Ridge-95th Street (Z discontinued) R via Fulton to Euclid Avenue (C runs express with the A, W discontinued) If we are to kick the R off of QBL and send it to Astoria, I don’t want to see it confined to just Broadway. I therefore came up with the solution to divert the R via a newly-constructed tunnel under the east river, connecting from Whitehall Street to Hoyt-Schermerhorn, with an extra stop at Atlantic Avenue-Court Street. As much as I hate having to kill off the W again, it seems like a necessary evil in order for this to work. Plus I would still have the N run to Astoria. And with that, we will have the J replace the R to Bay Ridge-95th Street, though some people may complain that it’ll make the line too long. However, I feel as though that Broad Street is just too awkward of a terminus, and that the J needs a proper terminal. For both the B and D to run along Brighton, CPW will have to be de-interlined as well. While the A and C run express along 8th Avenue (E and K run local, and QBL express with F and M running local), they will run local on CPW while the B and D run express. The B will run to Inwood-207th while the C runs to 168th, and the A will run with the D along Grand Concourse up to Bedford Park Boulevard, while the D continues on to Norwood-205th. Solution 2: B/D via 4th Avenue express and West End (B to Bay Parkway, D to Coney Island) N/Q via 4th Avenue local (N via Sea Beach, Q to Bay Ridge-95th Street) R/W via Brighton (R express to Ocean Parkway, W local to Coney Island) Technically, this is possible, but it does come with problems. I know you’re vehemently against the idea of express trains terminating before locals, but I just don’t see the R running to Coney Island. I could swap it around and have the W run express while the R handles local if you feel that is better. However, because the W still exists and the R is still reassigned to Astoria in this scenario, I would have the W run express with the E along QBL, while the F and M run local. Since most of us can agree that Forest Hills-71st Avenue isn’t that good of a northern terminal, we can have the E run with the F to Jamaica-179th Street, while the M and W run via Archer Avenue to Jamaica Center. Again, I know this is interlining, and that I have the W reverse-branching with the E, but it could still offer a one-seat ride from Jamaica Center to Coney Island. The only other downside is that only the E will handle 53rd Street while the F and M handle 63rd. Of course we could just have the F run via 53rd and QBL express with the E, and have the W run QBL local with the M (the M handles 63rd on its own) but that would be reverse branching. So to conclude, it seems as though solution 1 is better. While I’d hate to see the W die again, at least the Z is killed off with the J replacing the R to Bay Ridge. I could send the Z to Bay Parkway with the Q, but again, that would be interlining. I dunno, what are your thoughts?
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan Why kill off the C? Can't we just have it go to 168th Street? It may be a slow, unpopular line, but we still need it to exist. It has been part of the 8th Avenue line since its opening in 1932, and killing it off is really a no-go. Plus I prefer having the B and D running along Brighton, because I don't wanna have THREE 6th Avenue trains go to Coney Island, with only one Broadway line (N or Q) terminating there. I don't see how I'm limiting capacity with the J going to Bay Ridge-95th Street. Even if the J limits capacity, it'd be better to have it terminate at a station that has an island platform rather than one that has side platforms. I highly doubt Broad Street was even intended to be a terminal station when they were extending the BMT Nassau Street line in 1931, as they built that section for the line to connect with the Montague branch. Plus you get a one-seat ride from Bay Ridge to Jamaica Center that way.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan Again, don't kill off the C, just have it go to 168th Street. I only intend the A to run to Bedford Park Boulevard and that the D remain at Norwood-205th. And why send the D to Bay Ridge? If we really were to have the B and D run express on 4th Avenue, then it'd be more sufficient to have the B go to Bay Ridge and the D via Sea Beach to Coney Island. If we're having the A and C terminate at World Trade Center and have the E and K handle Fulton express, then perhaps we can have the Liberty Avenue line be converted into 4 tracks, with Rockaway Boulevard as an express station, where R or W trains can terminate at Lefferts Boulevard. The E can go to Far Rockaway while the K goes to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street, absorbing the shuttle.
Ngl, I think you’re missing the point of de interlining. Deinterlining advocates want to work with the current system and what can be achieved at the moment. Also sending the R via Brighton with new construction is not worth it, when you can have another line run through it without doing any construction.
I once paid to get in only to find out the steps to brooklyn was closed. Had to waste 15 min of my life. 10 to get over the bring to manhattan and 5 to catch a train back : (
I thought I left a comment here but can't find it. (TL'DR: This first paragraph matters most) Thank you for making me revisit my deinterlining plans with your videos. I've seen vanshnookenraggen's plans before and I liked a lot of it but wasn't quite warm to everything. Two of your videos (this one and the "Stretching Deinterlining to Its Absolute Limits" one where the E and K are sent via Fulton St) changed my mind by going into detail (+ some schedule examination for confirmation) and addressed some concerns for which my solutions involved new tunneling. Now I'm all in on this plan - not only because it makes sense in more ways than I imagined without new tunneling, but also because it lines the system up for extensions I want to see. For example, the B would be sent to Bay Ridge while also running to Inwood. That makes the line short enough in terms of runtime to justify an extension from 207 St all the way across Fordham Road - I've left a comment already on that Lines That Never Were video about existing Bx12 ridership west of Concourse; plus one fewer transfer from Washington Heights, including from the GWB bus terminal, would not only be a matter of convenience but also for avoiding double fares with subway-bus-bus transfers. (All those Bx12 SBS buses can then be repurposed towards other routes, such as the Bx38 to avoid a convoluted D train extension - and there's many other Gun Hill Depot routes that run infrequently as well.) And the A would be a shell of its former past, only running between 168th and WTC. So I'll plug this in to my M repurposing instead, extending this deinterlined local A from Canal St and connecting it with the Myrtle Ave el, either with a portal on Myrtle Ave around Steuben-Ryerson Sts, or using the Brooklyn Bridge and being elevated the entire way through Brooklyn (if that bridge can handle modern subway trains at all), though that would make transfers in Brooklyn more difficult, which goes against one of my goals of extending the M this way in the first place (increased post-COVID non-Manhattan-centric travel). This deinterlines the J in the process, so it can run short trains much more frequently (Williamsburg Bridge can structurally handle 24 TPH max apparently; also short trains don't have to slow down for tight curves as much as long trains), and it also deinterlines the F, which needs extra capacity through downtown Brooklyn and LES; running express between Bergen and Church full-time is now justified with capacity doubled on the F and the R211 order adding many more G trains, which would be fully deinterlined as well. (Without the M via 6th Ave, QueensLink trains can be labeled H or V or whatever and terminate at Kings Highway.) A re-extended G avoids the heavy desire line of Bushwick/Ridgewood and Elmhurst/Corona (as the Q58 hits top 2 in citywide bus ridership for the first time this year), which is why I think a further extension of the M beyond Metropolitan Ave, not copying the IBX, will be successful on its own. On top of all of that, it gives northern Queens riders a direct alternative to lower Manhattan, helping to relieve other Queens subways by not forcing riders all the way around through Manhattan. I still support the Utica Ave subway not as an extension of the deinterlined 4 but as a portion of the Second Avenue Subway. Even after my shifted deinterlining and extension plans, it still fulfills my goals of non-Manhattan-centric travel by going beyond Eastern Parkway to connect with the A/C (or rather E/K), G, J, new M, and L lines, while simultaneously absorbing riders that don't need Manhattan south of Houston St away from Crown Heights-Utica Ave (4/5 riders), Union Square (L/M riders), and Bleecker St (M riders), providing relief to all of the above.
If we send the B to Bay Ridge then it would lose access to Coney Island yard sending the D to Bay Ridge is better as it keeps Concourse Yard. Not to mention you have to make the B 8 cars Which is not enough cars to serve 6th Ave and 4th Ave. The D to Bay Ridge would still be a fast route because of 6th Ave and CPW, and having the B go across Fordham Road would be a good plus when demand grows as the B would still have a good run time. CBTC has of course would make express service on 6th Ave and CPW faster. As far as the A running only running between 168th St and WTC, the C would have to go on QBL to 179th St replacing the R in Queens and in Brooklyn it would replace the A. This would also mean that the E would have to terminate at Euclid Ave. This means that we get 24tph on the C while the E retains most of its pattern. That’s a possibility or you can have the K route take the 168th St to WTC route to help label the branches East of Euclid by having A to Far Rockaway and the C to Lefferts. I like the second option with the two branches having their own route bullets.
@@Reformperson Yeah, I wouldn't swap the B and D in Brooklyn until the Fordham Road extension is in place. The yard would go south of Bartow Ave where the big box shops are too, and thus both lines would have a yard in the Bronx. Meanwhile, 207 yard would serve the K. I also like the two branches having their own bullets. I just refer to them as presented so readers know what I'm talking about lol. Also the R wouldn't be replaced by the C, but by the F local. The A, C, and E (or the E and K) would share tracks between Forest Hills and Hoyt-Schermerhorn, via Queens Blvd express and 8 Ave express.
@@samuelitooooo true but until then the B needs Coney Island yard and as for the R we route that on West End as planned so that we even out the branches East of Euclid. With that yard it wouldn’t matter where the B and D go in Brooklyn but as of that plan we have D Trains going to Bay Ridge, and speaking of yards we can discuss that I would like extend the D to Staten Island up to Richmond Ave so that we add tail tracks that lead to a storage yard to further increase capacity for the D, and also the longest metro line in the world is 53.2 miles long meaning the D with that extension into Staten Island still manageable, CBTC, and Increased Speed Limits would make up for that. In Queens we should Extend the E to Rosedale Francis Lewis Blvd as we can make the nearby park there a yard for the Southeast Queens Trains, therefore decongesting Jamaica Yard.
@@samuelitooooo Line 11 in Shanghai at 53.2 miles long, the D would be at roughly 38 miles long with a Staten Island extension, starting from Norwood. Plus a deinterlined A would be almost that long too if you think about it but the speeds it would make at QBL 8th Ave and Fulton would make up for that along with CBTC
If you want that to parallel the Belt Pkwy where you send it and of course you can make it parallel the Brighton Line so that we can terminate all Coney Island trains at Manhattan Beach and I would leave provisions to extend those 4 lines further to the Rockaways to replace the (A) line there and have that merge with the (M) there and make Far Rockaway have 10 tracks with tail tracks to store trains along a new big yard near the Far Rockaway LIRR to store those trains too protecting them from Vandalism. And if demand grows then we can send the (M) to East Rockaway along. The (N) and (Q) would get extended to Lynbrook, while I send the (D) and (F) trains to Long Beach LIRR along shuttle buses that I proposed to go to Jones Beach and even Fire Island. With this plan the (Q) would be the only line stopping at West 8th Street while the (D) and (N) skip it. I can implement all those plans on Brand New Subway, as I put my long term extensions there. Also I propose to have express tracks on the Rockaway Line having the (D) and (F) skip up to Beach 67th Street where (M) service would be available. From there I diverted all (A) trains to Lefferts Blvd under the current plan, with plans to extend that to the border of Nassau County.
I missed the "M" on 4th Avenue. It was always reliable compare to the "R". But that is another story. I agree that the Express should go further. But the problem is the "B" is a part time service. And the "Q" runs a little better..
The solution is talked about in the video, where the (N) runs Brighton Express, and with being deinterlined, it runs at 15 tph. But if the MTA doesnt deinterline, the (B) should still run to Coney Island, and the (Q) turns at Ocean Pkwy, with new tracks for terminating trains there (as proposed in the video). The (B) should run during weekends, but isnt really needed during late nights, so during that time, or any other time the (B) isnt running, the (Q) should run to Coney Island.
@@qjtvaddict Maybe add weekends, but there really doesn't need to be 24/7 "B" service. That's because unlike the "C", it is covered by the C/D and Q lines. And the "C" is more important than the "B" because of how far the "A" travels. And even on the weekends, the "B" wouldn't see the same traffic as the "C"
@@josephrosner905Also in addition, doesn't the B only run on Weekdays? So who runs Bay Ridge 95th Street on weekends? If that I assume TTA would've made the B train and all week service rather than only Weekdays. Similar to how the C runs everyday except late nights or how the 5 doesn't run down Lexington or Brooklyn on late nights and the 4 runs down Lexington Avenue Local.
When it comes to which service should take either 4th Ave or Brighton, it really comes down to whether the (R)/(W) has a yard at Astoria or not, provided if there are no new tunnelings [I prefer having (A) trains from Inwood to 95th via a new connection from WTC to Cortlandt Street]. If the (R)/(W) has no yard, then Broadway Express should go to Brighton with the plan given by the TTA. If the (R)/(W) has one, then 6th Ave Express should go to Brighton, due to how different Brighton trains access Coney Island Yard compared to the other three lines. The other three lines [Culver, West End, and Sea Beach] have independent routes to Coney Island Yard that would not intersect with other lines. Brighton, on the other hand, has to intersect with the Sea Beach Line to gain access to Coney Island Yard. With (B) and (D) trains at Brighton, you can just assign them to Concourse Yard without the need of Coney Island, while the (N) and (Q) have full access to Coney Island Yard via Sea Beach and West End respectively. The (R)/(W) or the CPW Local would have their own yard without interlining with QBL to have full access to the 4th Avenue Local, even if 38th Street Yard cannot be converted to a revenue service yard.
There is a better than to what you are trying at achieve yes I agree with the D and Q swap as 4th Ave has 2 Broadway Services and it makes sense to just complete the puzzle by throwing the Q on Brighton. The R however would have to run to Astoria to Coney Island and the Q would take the route to Bay Ridge as we would also need to convert the 38th Sy yard to a maintenance facility. This requires the D to run on Brighton and Express service on Both Branches of CPW would still remain. For Brighton the D would go via Brighton Express to makes its Bronx run worthy, and fast. With yard acces for All lines by having the N and Q on Brighton we have the B and D Trains on 4th Ave with B Trains going via Sea Beach to Coney Island and the D Trains going down to Bay Ridge 95th St. Any line that ends at 95th St has to be a shuttle late nights and the D is a better line to serve Bay Ridge. The B would also have 207th St while the D gets 168th St this eliminates the CPW Express on Both Branches. This also requires the A Train to end at Norwood 205th St with Brighton Riders getting Broadway Service. The C leaves CPW to join QBL and would end at 179th St replacing the A in Brooklyn as well.
@@Reformperson Again, for me, it depends on whether the (R) or (W) has a yard in Astoria. This is a more future-proof solution than converting 38th Street Yard to a revenue yard as it can justify an 8th Avenue Local service to take over service from Cortlandt Street to Bay Ridge. As for the CPW issue at 145th Street, I prefer (A) to Inwood, while the (B/D) to Concourse as it would allow the latter two services to have more control on the junction at 145th Street. Let me provide two scenarios, with (B) trains mainly going to Bedford Park Boulevard and (D) trains going to Norwood, to show how it would be done. Scenario 1: During non-rush hours, only the two side merges Q1 and Q2 would be used. However, if there is too many delays at Concourse and there needs to be a short-turn for (B) trains, they can use the middle merge Q3 to head to the middle track and terminate at 145th Street and head southbound with merge Q3. Scenario 2: During rush hours [I will use AM rush hours for this scenario], (B) trains at the peak-direction use the west side merge Q1, while (D) trains at that same direction use a separate merge Q3. At the reverse-peak direction, both (B) and (D) trains would just use the east side merge Q2 from the CPW Express track to the Concourse Local reverse-peak track. In both scenarios, the (B) and (D) would be able to make use of the junction more efficiently while having more service at Concourse, especially during non-rush hours. Besides, the (A) going to WTC ain't really the end of the world, plus with a possible extension to the Broadway Line south of City Hall could have (A) trains serving Brooklyn at higher capacities than the (R) or (W) [that nasty curve between City Hall and Cortlandt Street is the one that reduces capacities to a max of 21TPH for Broadway Locals while the 8th Avenue Local service taking it over can be 24TPH or higher, depending on CBTC].
@@shadowtoad95 ok so under your plan you have the A Trains going to 95th St for that to work then you would use the proposal made by Mystic Transit to have the A run local from 207th St to Bay Ridge 95th St we also retain the D Trains on West End and the B would have to be on Sea Beach. The only bright side to the A Train going to Bay Ridge would be yard access to 207th St and the Montague tubes handling more than 21tph as that total can be increased to 30tph. The other option would have the J Train ending at Essex St as the Willamsburg Bridge has a max of 24tph, and with that the M would be able to run up to 15tph and the Z would get cut to Myrtle Ave as we would use the upper level of Myrtle Ave to also increase M Frequency. The bad side to this however is the J has ENY yard and ending at Essex St allows it to use the Express tracks to deadhead to ENY Yard, and would not have enough space to store the extra trains.
@@Reformperson For the (A) route, yes. For the (B) and (D), I give them Brighton, while the (N) and (Q) get Sea Beach and West End, to give the latter two services uninterrupted access to Coney Island Yard. I would use the Nerdy Nel plan for the Brighton Line with (B) trains going Local to Ocean Parkway, and (D) trains going Express to Coney Island.
@@ReformpersonThen again, the biggest issue is whether Astoria would have a yard. I feel like this is the most future-proof decision to make. 38th Street Yard, while doable, would only net having (R) or (W) trains going to 4th Avenue, but the (A) would have to remain at WTC as the connection from WTC to Cortlandt Street would deter the (R) or (W) trains from accessing the yard without reverse-branching.
The point of deinterlining is to use the current system, not to build new tunnels, so there is no mention of using Pitkin, because that requires building new tunnels.
Your (R) to Astoria is my (W) to Bay Ridge with the (R) cut back to Whitehall Street from Forest Hills/Jamaica. I would just restore the (D) to the Brighton which would turn the (Q) into an EXPRESS, and have the (B) run West End. Remember the Brown (M)? This is why I am extending the (J) via West End to Bay Parkway so that the (B) can go Peak Direction EXPRESS. The (Z) I would extend to Gravesend via the Sea Beach line so that the (N) can go EXPRESS.
In the video, were talking about deinterlining Dekalb junction. In case you didnt know, deinterlining is when you prevent lines from merging together. But you are doing the exact opposite of that. By having the (D/Q) run on Brighton and the (B) to West end, all youre doing is switching the (B/D) in Brooklyn, which doesnt deinterline them. By extending the (J) to Bay Pkwy via West end, you create an exact replica of service at the 59 St Junction (assuming the (J) runs local on 4 Av) which is a horrible junction. Check out TTA’s video to find out why. And at Bay Pkwy, the (J) has to switch on the center track to turn around, while the has to switch from the express to the local, making the trains cross in front of each other, creating more interlining By throwing the (Z) on 4 Av as well, you again create more interlining. Also, by having it end at Gravesend 86 St, it has to switch on to the (N) train track, as south of 86 St, 4 tracks turn into 2. There is a crossover on the 2 track section where the (Z) would have to turn around, interfering with (N) service. All in all, the purpose of the video was to deinterline Dekalb junction, but you were doing the exact opposite, by creating more interlining than there currently is.
@techtransitassociation I meant to say the Z can run local to help the R so won't be no delays switching on Atlantic ave and it did before with the Brown M train
The "Z" exist only to counter the "J" offering riders a slightly faster experience to lower Manhattan. Any changes to this arraignment would cripple the service as now this "New" "Z" service will be extended to south Brooklyn. Anyway, the J/Z skip Stop arraignment is more about off loading some of those passengers from the "E" line. So any delay on this line (which happens often) would affect any skip Stop pattern, forcing the "J" to make all stops. So it is a non starter. A better idea is to create a new line ("K"). But instead of Jamaica Center, it would be Broadway East New York Junction. It would serve as a peak express via Broadway in Brooklyn. The J/Z will not change except it Brooklyn peak Express service. Or it would be the same as it is. Or at least the "Z" would cover as local with the "M".
It won't go through WTC Oculus. You can get the best idea of how this would work by walking on the passageway that connects the E train platform to the downtown R/W platform. I say this because I honestly don't know how to describe it in few words lol. Both are at the same elevation, which already works in favor of this idea.
He is talking about deinterlining the NYC subway system. Deinterlining is when you prevent lines from merging together. In most subway systems around the world, the train lines have the tracks mostly or all to themselves. But in New York, we merge our lines together much more often. This is why we have a lot of subway lines, and by having a lot of them, you often find multiple lines on the same color. But because we merge our lines a lot, delays can happen more often at these merge points. This is why the guy in the video was talking about deinterlining. I hope this answered your question.
I was thinking How about just run the N local both on 4 Av and Broadway. Have the R run from Astoria - Whitehall St like the W does Have Q & W trains run Brighton. And the B takes over Bay Ridge
@@TheLewistownTrainspotter8102That's fine. Besides, if Astoria finally have the foresight to build a yard, then the A can still head to Brooklyn via a different connection, the portion between Cortlant Street and Borough Hall.
This was not proposed in the video. In fact, what was actually proposed was to send the (N) via Brighton Exp, the (B) to Bay Ridge, the (R) via West End and the (D) to Coney Island. This was proposed as Brighton riders perfer Broadway, which gives the riders what they want. As for 4 Av, it doesnt really matter as they get both 6 Av and Broadway service.
RIGHT HERE THEY NEED TO PUT N.Y.P.D. POLICE TRANSIT 🚇 MASS TRANSIT 🚇🚇🚇 DISTRICT COPS 👮♀️ 👮♂️ 🚔 INSIDE THE SUBWAY TRAIN 🚇 STATION CAB CARS NOT AT THE TURNSTYLES WHERE YOU SCAN & $$$ PAY 2.90 CENTS WITH YOUR OMNY SCANNER CARD PASS.
Q: hey why am I with the n and running to ocean only N: wait why am I going on the b B: wait why am I running all times D wait why am I running to bay ridge R:new yard!!!
I don't mean this in a disrespectful way, but the other day, mta had a job fair. If you think you're right and smart about these ideas. Why not apply for a job and become an urban planner for mta? Versus wasting it over here on RU-vid for free, you could make lots of money and take away jobs from the rich and lobbyists Who barely even uses the service anyway, but they're in charge at the highest level & give back to everyday New Yorkers who uses the system daily
That's not how this works. Government has a lot more influence in which projects get built, and how they get funded. And even that is a battlefield where you have to fight against other influences. Even as an urban planner, I'm pretty sure MTA contracts urban planners rather than hiring for their own. In other words, planners compete against each other for the majority favor. By making videos now with tools that exist today, TTA is on the right track to accelerate any influence that would cause change in the MTA.
Dekalb is the subways professional shitshow, it does the exact opposite of what we want it to do, it causes massive problems, and it just exists to cause turmoil.
@@Amiri_Francis I respect you, but please, search up what the MTA wanted to do with QBL in 2020 before the pandemic happened. Or search up the changes that happened in 1959 with regards to the IRT 7th Ave line.
That move will do nothing to solve issues at DeKalb Avenue and will just make things worse for everyone else on the system, including Northern Brooklyn riders going to Midtown.
The orange M is literally an extended V train that people in Ridgewood and Bushwick enjoy. I would never even think about getting rid of the orange M until SAS is extended to Williamsburg, Bushwick, and Utica Ave.
Some very interesting stuff. I especially like your idea with building new tail tracks for the Brighton Beach terminal. There are some problems though: Astoria-Ditmars can only handle around 15tph. That will need to be solved before sending 21tph of R trains there. This could be solved with a new Astoria yard (as you mentioned) or extension to LGA. Or some trains could just be turned at Whitehall, but that's probably not the best. Coney Island terminal is also a huge barrier to frequency increases on West End, Sea Beach, and Brighton as @clbtransit4798 pointed out.
Thank you, but that is not my idea, it is Nerdy Nel’s idea. His blog is in the description, please go check it out. Second, last time I checked, Ditmars can handle 24 tph. It is a standard two track station with bumper blocks at the end and switches right before the station. Those stations are 24 tph. Coney Island is going to be tricky, but West End can short turn some trains at Bay Pkwy (25th and Bay 50th don’t see high use, so 12-15 tph there would be fine), while Culver would continue short turns at Kings Hwy. Sea Beach and Brighton would need some CBTC to support the influx, but that’s less complicated and expensive than building out a whole new subway from scratch.
@@jointransitassociationI see. Where did you find that Ditmars can run 24tph? I referenced this: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1zW5OcTK4Zkc1_vlH-8LQ73k6UdrhA8hV&ll=40.817898650688825%2C-73.91483622001404&z=12 I'm unsure of the methods used to get all the information in this. But if you look at Vanshnook's track map, the crossover is a bit long, so it might make sense that it is less than 24tph.
@@nickels4828 The longer the crossover, the faster the train will go, which decreases time that it takes. Though trains already have to slow down before Ditmars because of bumper blocks ahead, but still, it can easily handle 21 tph. Since Ditmars is a typical terminal station with bumper blocks, those stations can turn around 24 tph. Currently, the N/W combined run at 17 tph, which is higher than 15 tph. And it can probably handle more. Of course, I like the LGA extension, but that's not coming anytime soon, and deinterlining is working within the current system, so we are stuck with this.
@@jointransitassociation Look at the track layout though. In order to cross over, trains have to switch onto the middle track, and then onto the opposite track, a bit like Court Sq terminal on the crosstown line. So trains probably can't go as fast as a simple x crossover terminal with bumper blocks. Also, terminal procedures like cleaning trains and old signals should be considered as well. I talked with the creator of the map that I referenced on discord about how he determined it and he said the figures were based on general estimates based on timetables and personal experience, so probably not the most reliable. Do you know if Ditmars has turned more tph than it currently does?
So what if it gets pronounced a certain way? That doesnt matter, doesnt change anything about what they’re talking about and complaining about the way it’s pronounced shows that youre a karen.
@@josephrosner905On the flip side, the public is quick to judge "outsiders" who propose plans "in their backyard", and mispronunciations are a go-to sign that someone "doesn't know the area/community".
PRONOUNCE DEKALB CORRECTLY!! WHY DO YOU INSIST ON MISPRONOUNCING DEKALB AS "DE KOLB?" SAY IT LIKE----Dee-CAB. L is silent and the a is like the a in "cat", not like an o as in hot as you are mispronouncing it.
First of all, calm down. Second of all, in subway announcements, it is pronounced with an o. Third of all, even if I mispronounced DeKalb, it still doesn't undermine anything I say: DeKalb is a horrible junction.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831That study was about 20 years ago. Nowadays, the demand has changed quite a bit. Look up nerdy nel's article on deinterlining South Brooklyn. For me, it really depends on whether a yard in Astoria would be built, which is long overdue and necessary at this point. If the answer is no, then Brighton having Broadway makes more sense since you can do the changes suggested by TTA. If the answer is yes, however, then Brighton having 6th Avenue makes more sense. This is because of how Brighton accesses Coney Island Yard differently from its peers. The other three lines have independent branches to go to Coney Island Yard without crossing one another, while Brighton has to intersect with the Sea Beach Line north of Stilwell Avenue to get in. With 6th Avenue in Brighton, the only one that would access Coney Island Yard from Brighton would be the Franklin Avenue Shuttle, and shuttles do not really have to be close to a yard due to their small size, making delays less common compared to a main train doing the non-revenue transfer [this why the G is only 5 cars long as it needs to access Jamaica Yard, intersecting the QBL Local].
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831That study was 19 years old. In fact, recent trends suggest the spread is more even, so it would not matter as much. Plus, by sending Broadway service to Brighton, you would also cut off an overlooked one-seat ride. That is the (N) train from Canal St to 8 Av, because it connects to two Chinatowns. Plus, I believe that the yard access to Coney Island via Brighton is not as good as the other three lines, because it needs to cross over the tracks of another line.
