Considering how the V was unpopular during its run. And just because more people will identify the F. I say have the F run express And V run local. Because the main reason for the swap is so the E & F can stay on the same track. Also I feel just having the F run via 63rd st Late Nights and Weekends would be more feasible than re introducing the V
They could reintroduce the V and have it run Culver Local in Brooklyn to give way to the F to run express service. This gives the V an actual purpose rather than it just being a short turning version of the orange M
If the "F" runs Express, the park slope people would scream, because they know that is a reduction in service. And the proposal would have to be the "G" running Express, because no one hardly use that train anyway.
@@qolspony It wouldn't be a reduction in service if the (G) was extended to Kings Highway or if the (G) was the sole local to Church Avenue. It would add more tph to the (F) which desperately needs it as a rider who barely uses the (F) myself. The frequencies are a horror show.
Take the V. If you read in between the lines of the 1989 EIS, that was exactly what the MTA planned to do, before they settled on the current route that we have today.
@@jointransitassociationthe F and M has been around much longer than the V so it's only fair the that they should be kept 24/7 and the V should only serve weekdays only
Sounds like a good idea, especially bringing the V Train back, but for this to work, the MTA will need to purchase extra new trains, because they are terrible at preparation (like the Grand Central Madison opening and not having enough trains because they retired a lot of their M3's without getting all of their new M9's for the LIRR).
@@samuelitooooo They are going to need more than just the Order 2 R211s for this to work unless they up the order on the R268s they are planning, because they want to retire all SMEE by 2030-2035 because they want all trains to be NTT (for CBTC).
@@RocketTrain-0 Last I checked, Coney is underutilizing about half of their storage space. According to a site I can't even mention because TH-cam will auto-remove my comment without notifying me, “the three storage yards have the capacity for storing nearly 1,800 subway cars”. And according to a fan-made roster, there are 782 75-footers there now (not counting the 9 Franklin Ave shuttle cars), equal to about 977 cars if they were all 60-footers.
@@samuelitooooo An alternative solution instead of expanding CI Yard is utilizing the 38th Street Yard which has the capacity for the (D) (N) & (R) Trains. 60 footers reduce capacity because the cars aren't long enough to handle passengers. Hence why they are used in parts of the system with clearances like the BMT Eastern Division.
I do somewhat worry about the split and recombine of the V and F on culiver, especially since G trains will also have to be accounted for. i feel that a scheme like the B/D in the bronx could be better here, where the F and V run together to jay st, then one (lets say the V) splits off and runs express, but unlike todays service, it stays on the middle express track (this would only be done in the peak, reverse peak all trains would be local). The express trains would end on kings highway, which i know isn't ideal, but i think removing the merge conflicts could be very helpful.
The V should be given more of a purpose than just turning at 2nd Avenue. It should go to Brooklyn and run via Culver Local, which gives Manhattan bound service to the Culver Local line while the F runs full time express service on Culver.
Yes but Express on Culver sees low ridership. It’s better to give that to the V which would run to Coney Island since it’s a garbage terminal. The V would run 8 tph while the F gets 12. This would allow we have this F: Jamaica 179 St - Kings Hwy V: Forest Hills 71st Ave - Coney Island The M would then join the V on 63rd St as the M is a key line that transport Willamsburg Riders to the city center.
@@qjtvaddict the purpose of the V is to help out the M on 63rd St. On Late Nights we have this F: No Service (Use V) M: Myrtle Ave - Metropolitan Ave R: Whitehall St - Bay Ridge 95 St V: Jamaica 179 St - Coney Island Weekends F: No Service (Use V) M: Essex St - Metropolitan Ave R: Forest Hills - Bay Ridge 95 St V: Jamaica 179 St - Coney Island
The should run from Stuyvesant Heights-Bainbridge Street via Malcolm X Boulevard local, 6th Avenue local, 53rd Street, Queens Boulevard local, & Van Wyck Boulevard express, while the (V) should run via Van Wyck Boulevard local.
The idea of trains being local in one outlying borough and express in another, with them having the local/express on the opposite sides of Manhattan, is what the B and D already do. The D is mostly the West End local except for Atl/Barc to 36/4 in Brooklyn while the B is the Brighton express. The D is the Concourse express while the B is the local. Running the V local in Queens with the F as express and swap that pattern in Brooklyn wouldn't seem TOO confusing-- why the hell would Brooklyn riders care what the stopping pattern is in Queens and vice versa?
Well put, although the D is express in Brooklyn (4th Avenue Express). Why should anyone care what the stopping pattern of their line in a place where they are unlikely to frequently ride the train to?
Exactly 💯 present right. Leave the D trains the way it is in Brooklyn on west END to coney island including the concourse. The B trains does not need to run on fourth Ave sea beach ⛱️ because the B only runs on week days and they know that.
Not only that you definitely gotta have trains running on fourth Ave Sea Beach line 24 7 in Brooklyn. They just can not put the N trains on the Brighton lines where the Q and B trains is good enough. Let the W trains run to Brooklyn at late nights or the V trains.
@@leecornwell5632or you can send the D on Brighton solving DeKalb and increasing West End Service using the Q, so that the N and Q can run 30tph combined. But also the 6th Ave Line has more key corridors that don’t interfere with service. Hence why we need the R to serve Astoria. This is the end result B: 168 St - Bay Ridge 95 (CPW Lcl) D: Bedford Pk Blvd - Coney Island (Sea Beach) The A and C would now run express together on both 8th Ave and CPW.
First of all the Concourse Express is only in the peak direction, and only when the B serves the Bronx. Which means it doesn’t see that much service throught the day. (In this case, I assume the V will be running express on Culver in both directions.) Second, the problem with full time Culver/QBL Express service on either line is 1: People lose an opportunity to transfer before express service starts at Bergen Street, and 2. Ridership is heavily concentrated on Upper Culver and QBL Express, and having the F serve that preference is better, as it has more capacity.
so Joint uhh what are your thoughts to de interline the system bcuz ur older videos have different destinations for trains like in a past video the R via West End and Astoria but in this video the R remains the same
Many years ago, the F ran on 53rd Street. In 2001 when the V debuted, the F was rerouted to 63rd Street. MANY F riders were pissed off. The F no longer stopped at Lexington/53rd, which is a major transfer point, and Court Square. F ridership dropped and E trains became jam packed. Ridership along 63rd Street has increased over the years. This was due to the new transfer to the Second Avenue Q train, a new entrance at Lexington/63rd, and the opening of Cornell Tech on Roosevelt Island. Still, I’m sure that the vast majority of F riders will prefer that it operate on 53rd. Even with CBTC, there isn’t enough tracks space on the 6th Avenue for the F, M, and V. Plus, the G terminates at Church Avenue. That creates a choke point. And even if these ideas were feasible, it would cause too many route variations. This would be confusing for riders. As far as Myrtle Avenue, you can’t just knock down buildings to increase M service.
I prefer to have the {} & {(MJ)} run via the BMT Myrtle Avenue Elevated Line. The (M) should no longer go onto that line. The & (M) should instead run to JFK Airport-Federal Circle via Rockaway Boulevard Elevated local & Van Wyck Boulevard Elevated local.
I definitely can see a revival of the V, but your proposal would make the F much more like the B and W, both lines that doesn’t run on weekends or late nights. My proposal would be to have the V run local through the entirety of QBL, and run with the E to Jamaica Center. The R will run local to Jamaica-179th Street while the F runs express, skipping 75th Avenue, Briarwood, Sutphin Boulevard, and 169th Street. The M will remain as is, terminating at Forest Hills-71st Avenue. The V will run with the M along 63rd Street while the F runs with the E on 53rd. The V will run with the F to Brooklyn, but after Jay Street-MetroTech, the V will replace the C to Euclid Avenue, and the C will split from the A and run local with the G via the Crosstown viaduct, while the F runs express. Although this could potentially cause merging conflicts between Jay Street-MetroTech and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, this would offer a one-seat ride for V train riders heading from Lower Manhattan to East New York, or vice versa. A small solution would be to build new switches before Hoyt-Schermerhorn, where the V can switch to using the unused platform, giving it a new purpose. During the weekends, no V trains will run. F trains will make all stops with the G on the Crosstown viaduct. Since M trains won’t be running to QBL, F trains will use the 63rd Street branch, and the E will be on its own on 53rd. The G will replace the V to Jamaica Center, and the R will remain unchanged. During late nights, the M and R will not run to QBL, and the V will not run at all. The F will run via 63rd, and make all stops along QBL to 179th. The E will skip all stops on QBL towards Jamaica Center, and the G will terminate at Court Square. With the C rerouted to Church Avenue, it can share its fleet with the G, and use full 10-car R160’s from Jamaica Yard. As such, all 8-car R179’s on the C will be transferred to East NY yard for extra fleet on the J/Z and perhaps even the M, while the A will share its R179’s and R211’s with the V. I know that QBL is doing very well with R160’s thanks to CBTC, but it wouldn’t hurt to have some variety of NTT’s. Besides, 8th Avenue/CPW are expected to get CBTC anyway, and Jamaica yard has more than enough R160’s it can handle.
This makes some sense. It is a good idea to send some extra trains to 179 St during rush hours to increase capacity and get around Forest Hills to run more trains. However it is a terrible idea to swap the V and C. It would cause too many merging conflicts just for a stupid one seat ride for a couple people.
Okay, I need to preface this with I work on the M line... we are not looking at this right now. For a lot of reasons. One of the big ones is there are lot of details which you can look at on paper and see "oh, this will work great..." but then when actually put into practice in reality... well... the 8 and a half million experiments in chaos theory that call this city home have a different idea... Most annoying thing is the recurring issue of someone running down the stairs, throwing themselves into the doors as we close down... only to suddenly jump back out again when they realize it's the wrong train. This happens a dozen times a trip for me. Or they'll stand there, one foot on the platform and one in the car, looking up at the FIND and debating if this is the right train or not. And don't even get me started on how they behave when something goes wrong... Which is an issue I also have with a lot of plans such as this. No wiggle room. The system needs leeway to allow service to try to operate when all hell breaks loose. Back in July, my train was at 5th and 53rd when an AC transformer failed at Essex Street, shutting down the sixth avenue corridor and the Nassau Street line, including over the Bridges. You had the entire mainline IND division trying to squeeze down 8th avenue. I kept making manual announcements "This train is running via the E to the World Trade Center"... and that flew right over everyone's heads. "Are you going to Flushing Avenue?" No, we're going to the World Trade Center "But you're still going to Brooklyn, right?" Something else was a lot of the presented data is, not wrong, but... lacking... I guess you can say. Like pinning delay issues on the QBL local to trains being discharged at Forest Hills (we little worker bees don't actually call it "Fumigating"), but that's not really the reason for the delays... the reasons, well, can actually be quite numerous, and can literally be a different reason for every train. We only actually regularly spend the time to chase people when the train is a layup. We tell them to get off because the trains can actually sit down below for 10 to 15 minutes. Service can be delayed because we're shorthanded on switching train operators. Or it can be delayed because the arriving train operator who should be doing their relay needs to "take a comfort" (our euphemism for using the restroom) and someone else has to be called on to run down to the other end and operate it down into the relay. Or because a person reported to work but drew a random drug and alcohol test they have to report to, and they need to quickly find someone to take their place. Another issue is we don't have a CBTC enabled work motors to pull our trash train. So we have to make do with SMEE equipment. Another issue is the actual merger choke point is NOT the Queens Plaza area. It's Fifth avenue. Every time I am going northbound leaving 47-50th, my train has to hold for an E and about 75% to 80% of the time southbound, I am holding for an F. and remember, this my 'train every 8 minutes" M that's doing the waiting. Fifth avenue is a low speed merge. 36th street/Northern is actually a high speed merge. it is designed to separate the two expresses. That is one of the reasons the service plan was implemented as it was 23 years ago now... From an operational, physical, working standpoint, it just does it's job better.
First of all, thank you for your service! But second of all, I would like to respond to some of your points. "Okay, I need to preface this with I work on the M line... we are not looking at this right now." This was according to a report from one of my friends, who overheard Lieber saying they are looking into swapping the F and M at an open house. I am not sure if that is credible, but I still included it. "Which is an issue I also have with a lot of plans such as this. No wiggle room. The system needs leeway to allow service to try to operate when all hell breaks loose. Back in July, my train was at 5th and 53rd when an AC transformer failed at Essex Street, shutting down the sixth avenue corridor and the Nassau Street line, including over the Bridges." Sorry to hear that. But deinterlining makes sure that the ripple effect doesn't happen. That means one delay on one line is contained to that specific line. This means that if there is a delay on 6th Ave, it won't affect trains from 8th Ave. "Most annoying thing is the recurring issue of someone running down the stairs, throwing themselves into the doors as we close down... only to suddenly jump back out again when they realize it's the wrong train. This happens a dozen times a trip for me. Or they'll stand there, one foot on the platform and one in the car, looking up at the FIND and debating if this is the right train or not" Again, I am very sorry to hear that. But under the current setup, it is still the same thing. Because the system is interlined, there are two or sometimes three services on each track. This means riders will still have that debate of wondering whether that train is the train they are going get on. Also, regarding your points on Forest Hills, are there ways to fix it? Because clearly other systems who copied our terminal designs like Moscow, Beijing, and London can turn more than 30 tph using the same terminal layout. "Another issue is the actual merger choke point is NOT the Queens Plaza area. It's Fifth avenue. Every time I am going northbound leaving 47-50th, my train has to hold for an E and about 75% to 80% of the time southbound, I am holding for an F. and remember, this my 'train every 8 minutes" M that's doing the waiting." I disagree with you. According to many reliability graphs, done with MTA GTFS data, the real delay generator is Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Ave, and Roosevelt Ave to Forest Hills. Between Queens Plaza to Roosevelt is the Queens Plaza merge, between Roosevelt to Forest Hills is the sheer amount of people transferring from express to local.
@@metropod To add to the above, today's M trains get to have their own waiting spot in between the 6th Ave tracks and the 53rd St tracks. This may not solve the consistency/reliability issue, but it avoids holding up E or F trains behind them. There is no such thing at Queens Plaza. M trains have to switch between express and local tracks in one shot, and if they must wait, they *will* be delaying trains behind them.
What about this? (F) From Jamaica-179 to Coney Island (Unchanged, but via Hillside and upper Culver Express [AND VIA 53 I FORGOT]) (V) From Jamaica-179 to Church Av via QBL, 63rd Street, 6th Av Local, and Upper Culver Local (M) trains are rerouted via 63rd Street and Queenslink (R) trains are extended to Jamaica-179
@jointransitassociation honestly either Forest Hills or 179th could work as long as the M is diverted along queenslink (Except the F having to serve hillside local)
@@jointransitassociationyes that’s true but if they do come to an agreement on that then sending locals along with expresses to 179 St can really make things better for QBL in the end, the main reason is that Forest Hills is such a garbage terminal. The V train would be useful if being a Culver Express since it would only run 8 tph while the F gets 12 and runs on the Local with the G.
@@jointransitassociationextension of the QBL past 179 to Springfield Blvd and if you construct the new terminal with four tracks and two island platforms with lay up tracks past the terminal, I think the E and the F should serve this new terminal while the M can take Jamaica Center, the V would serve 179 as the M and V should operate with a combine total of 16 tph which gives the two 8 tph and both can occupy the 63rd while the F returns to 53rd, the E can serve the new terminal at Springfield Blvd at all times with the F. The R can take the Queens link giving the opportunity to operate 24/7 and the M which can retain local while the E and F can maintain express with the night time between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills
@@jointransitassociation And most importantly between Jamaica 179th Street and Forest Hills 71st Avenue most people on the R or V trains probably would’ve just transferred straight to the E or F trains anyways due to the high demand and preference for faster express service by Kew Gardens Union Turnpike the R and V train would just be near empty carrying more air than actual people. It’s the prime reason why the R train extension to jamaica 179th street between December 1988 - October 1992 failed due to the huge load imbalances and large amount of people transferring from the R train to the F train. So realistically the Queens Blvd Locals being extended all the way to Jamaica 179th street would be pointless.
Sounds like an excellent idea! The crowded F trains get to go express to Manhattan and the M & V trains provide additional services to Roosevelt Island. A win-win! 😊
@@metropodThe transfer demand between the Crosstown Line and the QBL is actually pretty low, since hardly anyone is going between these two points. In fact, nearly all QBL traffic is going in its natural direction: Manhattan.
@@TheRailLeaguer This is the same reason why the G to Forest Hills is a bad idea, and the same reason why 21st Street on the G is one of the least used stations in the system. Traffic is Manhattan-centric everywhere in the city.
@ Nearly all of them are those starting their train trip in the LIC neighborhood, and heading further east to where they need to go. In fact what my experience, some of them shouldn’t be on the subway the entire way. Perhaps integrating the CitiBike system into the OMNY fare payment system can get some people out of there and encourage biking to the more popular Queens Plaza station. Another potential reliever would be to convert Woodhaven Blvd into an express station, which should take some strain off the M and R routes at Court Square and Queens Plaza respectively.
@@DistrosProjects Exactly. The Queens Blvd route has always been a Manhattan-bound radial straight from the get go. Having Crosstown G trains go via Queens Blvd will always be a terrible combination. Honestly what can be done for the G route is to route the line northward via 21st Street or something, creating a true crosstown route, and preserving QBL capacity for Manhattan-centric service.
@@metropod I can't speak anecdotally to your example, but as a G train rider, I never used the M to get my QBL local station. Instead, I took the G to the E to the M. And I go as to say the majority of G train riders don't do that because they like their express trains, even if the M is the first thing that shows up. Same thing with Lexington and 53rd. In fact, multiple analyses show that people avoid the M in favor of the E, which is why the E is extremely crowded and the M isn't.
@@metropod I recommend you watch the video again, the reason why the F / M swap is being petitioned is because it would remove a merging conflict that often causes delays along QBL. Plus bringing back the V train is just an additional proposal that was just an idea that he floated around to further improve QBL and Culver service.
@@metropod "This is a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist." According to many reliability graphs done using MTA GTFS data, the problem is at Queens Plaza, not 5th Ave-53rd.
So with the whole weekend shebang with no M trains as of now, if the whole Queenslink project is accepted, would we have your proposed weekday service on weekends as well with the M being local going to the Rockaways while the V on local goes to Jamaica? Or would you make a short followup video with your own solutions to how Queenslink affecte the V Train Proposal when the M & G come to the picture
Before y’all comment that “6th Avenue and Queens Blvd can’t handle three services on one track” remember from December 1988-July 2001 during the southern side manhattan bridge closure reconstruction the 6th Avenue express tracks was used by three services in one sitting B D and Q trains note the Q train at the time operated on 6th Avenue as they all used the north side manhattan bridge and from December 2001 until April 2010 they was a brief moment when Queens Blvd Local had theee services during evenings the G R and V trains. Off topic but semi related during the northern side manhattan bridge closure reconstruction April 1986 - December 1988 the B D and Q all operated on the Broadway express tracks and used the south side and then again July 2001 - February 2004 the Broadway express also had three services on it the Q train the W train which at the time operated express and the Brighton express train since the despite being the de facto express variant of the Q train was “technically” considered its own route. Just wait for 6th Avenue CBTC since CBTC should allow for around 30TPH and it might be possible although this is what I recommend. Queenslink proposal and F/M swap but instead of the G train revive the V train starting at Forest Hills via queens Blvd local and 6th Avenue local but go 63rd Street instead and extended to Church Avenue via Culver Local while the F train operates via Culver Express. The V train would start off as a Rush Hour only route to serve as a “pilot demo program” to test out the potential of this new routing to see if its effective and if proven popular the V train would become a weekday only service operating from 6:30 AM-9:30 PM. The F train would run local in Brooklyn during late nights and weekends and the M train would be expanded to operate during daytime weekend hours on queens Blvd and 63rd Street. Late nights the F train goes via 63rd Street, M train would be extend chambers street during the late nights and a “shuttle route” would serve the Queenslink section when the M train isn’t operating.
Three services on one track mostly cuts capacity, the 59th Street tube is an example of this. The (N) screws over capacity on the (R) & the (W). The reason why that happens is because the (N) is given priority and serves stops independently on Broadway. The (R) & (W) are dependent on interlining.
Just curious, I like the addition of the V on QBL local and via 63rd Street to support the M. With the Myrtle Junction grade separation likely not happening given the NIMBYs. You could have run the F fully express on Culver and have the V run local with the G and have both of them end at Chruch Ave. Would that be better than Kings Hwy since the V and F create another merge conflict again just south of Chruch Ave or is Church Ave a garbage terminal like Forrest Hills or is the G not that frequent that it could work? The tail track layout at Chruch Ave looks similar to the track layout at Forrest Hills minus the leads to a yard.
Now we’re talking with the V if we were to have the V come back it should also consider using the QueensLink Corridor solving the A Train Problem. This would also allow the M to be serving Rockaway Park and the V going to Far Rockaway. At the end we have this result F: Jamaica 179 St - Kings Hwy M: Rockaway Pk - Metropolitan Ave V: Far Rockaway - Coney Island Now there is discussion of even sending the R to Jamaica 179 St to help out the F, instead this is what we do we can have the R go express to 179 St after Forest Hills while the F goes fully local. If the F is not in operation and the V is handing the Rockaways, then we can perhaps have the E keep its service pattern while the R goes to 179 St completely. If Myrtle Junction gets figured out then we can run just the M on the Rockaways leaving the F unaffected on 53rd St, not needing the V at all. This would allow the A to serve Rockaway Pk while the higher frequency M can go to Far Rockaway and this is only if you factor in Myrtle and QueensLink.
One step at a time, dude. This video is about a short-term, quick-implementation fix. QueensLink won't be here for another few years even if it is green-lit today.
I do have another question. I remember in your previous videos, you did mention that the MTA has planned to swap the F and M in 2020 until the pandemic came. I have tried my best to look for it online but couldn’t find it anywhere. Please show me the link of where I can find this information.
Hey man, I did some research and I think you should be aware that the MTA had NOT PLANNED to swap the F and M Trains. That was ONLY TEMPORARY so that improvements can be done to replace tracks and make repairs in the 63rd Street Tunnel. So I think they are trying to improve train service between Manhattan and Queens for the F and M Trains
Maybe the "V" via Second Avenue with the "Q". Than it would become the Nassau Street via 4th Avenue Brooklyn to 95th Street? But do we really need three local services on 6th Avenue? But this is the only way i see the "V". Once Second Avenue is extended south of 72nd Street, the "V" would operate with the "T" to Brooklyn. The "T" operating along with the "C" to Euclid Ave using Court Street as an entry point.
I disagree with the (V) running to Coney Island. It's a local service like it was intended to be. The (F) is unreliable due to the amount of stops it has to make. The (G) is basically the (F) Train with untapped extra capacity. A simplified option is the (V) cut back to Church Avenue and the (G) extended to Kings Highway to make up for the short turned (F) Trains as someone who's ridden both the (F) & (G) to see the inconsistencies and unreliability.
I'd love F express in Brooklyn as much as everyone else but I question how feasible can that be with the interlining bottlenecks at Church and Bergen/Jay Street.. The only way to run both rush hour services is by tremendously cutting local service to Manhattan, which Park Slope and Carroll residents will start whining, which is the main reason F express only runs four trains per day. The only way we can run a proper service without cutting tph is if the G ran local and F express with a reopened Bergen Lower Level but again good luck trying to explain to Park Slope/Carroll residents they're losing their OSR to Manhattan.
I doubt this. This isn't DeKalb Junction. Say the F runs 12-15 TPH, the M runs 8 TPH, and the V runs 10 TPH. We have a theoretical maximum capacity of 30 TPH per track, and 35 with CBTC, you are only running 22-25 TPH into Manhattan through the F train tunnel, which wouldn't cause too many delays. With the aspects that he talked about in this video (Forest Hills turning 30 TPH), the R could still run 12 TPH. I, personally, think that the V should be the main line and the F and V should both run 15 TPH, with the M turning at Chambers Street again, but that's me.
with the capacity 179th provides, would it be worth it to look into having the V run there on weekdays, making local stops, while F trains make either express or local depending on demand?
This is trashing weekend service. Just run the M to 21st-Queensbridge weekends/late nights and call it a day. When CBTC is complete the M (or maybe G) can be a second QB Local on weekends.
That is because those are the rules. 15 tph max across all four tracks, which means only a maximum of 3 train routes allowed on QBL. That is why I have the E, R, and V on the line. However, if the MTA does reform weekend service, which they might, then I would have the F back. I mentioned that in the video.
Well for starters the 4 is extended to New Lots & N trains run thru Montague Tunnel late nights so service change wouldn't be a problem. Next, on Weekends the N runs local in Manhattan but express in Bk, but the Q runs express in Manhattan & local in Bk. Ppl need to READ & PAY ATTENTION to where they're going!!
Interesting proposal, but I don't think there's enough CBTC train cars in the system to handle adding back the V train, even when the R211 order is fulfilled. Plus, you still have the N/R interlining problem at 60th St.
Ik everyone says CI is a bad terminal but (I assume because of the sharp curves and slow speed limits) but could you do a video about it? & how to improve it?
They would need to reconstruct it to make it somewhat like Jamaica 179th street and Euclid where it can go to the yard after the station and layup tracks so that a terminating train doesn’t hold up the train behind it
I think they can do the fumigation reform if they don’t mind people staying on the train during the relay. Or they can have station staff help out with the process? The operator can tell the staff which car still has passengers using the cameras on the train.
Clearly they do mind-and there will be members of the public who will complain if they don't. A lot of the public complains about homeless people and crime. Even if that's not the reality, it is the perception they will not let go of. So add to that a few golden minutes of being absolutely alone underground on the train as it turns around.
IIRC, fumigation is about operator safety - the operator cannot walk to the other end of the train when there's passengers in it due to the risk of crimes/vandalism being committed by passengers with no bystanders or easy escape. An operator was stabbed by a passenger at Crown Heights - Utica after the operator asked them to get off the train recently. Operators rarely fumigate 6 trains going around the Brooklyn Bridge loop, even off-peak, because the operator does not have to walk to the other end of the train.
@@jointransitassociation What do you mean? Operators have to walk the length of the train at every terminal (except for Bowling Green and Brooklyn Bridge, because those are loops) in order to change the operational direction of the train. At back-out terminals the operator walks the length of the train via the platform (in public). On the other hand, at a terminal like Forest Hills, trains are turned around on the non-revenue yard leads between it and 75th Avenue. The operator needs to walk the length of the train in a private place far from any security or access to help, which is considered dangerous for the operator.
I’ve always loved the idea of the V running on culver to allow for culver express, however it seems a little unnecessary to have the V and M both run on 6 Av and 63rd St (6th Av would have five trains!) Instead, the V reintroduction seems like a perfect way to allow for the brown M to come back, except this time to Bay Parkway at all times on weekdays. You’d be both increasing 4th Av local service as well as allowing for West End peak express, and the V could run at all times except late nights to keep service on 63rd without the confusion of F on 53rd weekdays and on 63rd weekends.
The orange M is one of the handful of interlining I defend. That is because the M gets more ridership that way and acts a parallel relief route to the L. The pre-2010 M wasn't all too useful and will introduce a nasty merge after 36th St, like the one seen at 59th St.
I'd say F via 53rd, V local Church to Continental via 63rd. M Metropolitan to 96th st. G Church to Continental all times, E local on Queens Blvd after 1am. R later service to Continental to 1am.
the m train shold be made into a loop service as both the queens terminal are quite close to eachother and a circle line in more effcient as you do not have to reverse tains at the terminals. what would you call the m trains that go the oposite way around the newly made loop.
Here Are My Plans E And M Via 53rd St M Via Queens Bvld Express F Via Queens Bvld Local 6th Ave Local And Culver Express V To Coney Island Local E Unchanged Those Are My Plans
The (F)/(M) Swap should be permanently for the (M) should run via 63rd Street Tunnel at all times when Queens Link for the (M) Train should be a full time line. The (F) Train should run via 53rd Street Tunnel with the (E) Train at all times. The (V) Train is a useless line which I hate to say this. I miss the (V) Train anyways. If the (V) Train returns in service for 6th Avenue Local Line, the (V) Train should be a 3 borough Local, via 63rd Street Tunnel with the (F) Train. In Brooklyn the (F) Train should run Culver Express Line to Coney Island Stillwell Surf Avenue's Station in Brooklyn and the (V) Train should run via Culver Local Line to Kings Highway Station. The (V) Train be a weekday service like the (W) Train. Since people prefer the (M) Train over the (V) Train for the 6th Avenue Local Line. My opinion I prefer the (V) Train over the (M) Train for the 6th Avenue Local Line. But I'm sorry to say that the (V) Train will never return to the 6th Avenue Local Line service.
(E) 8th Av Local/Queens Blvd Express via 53 St (18 TPH- 20 without 6th Av CBTC) Jamacia Center to World Trade Center (F) Queens Blvd/Culver Express via 6th Av/53 St (18 TPH- 15 without 6th Av CBTC) Jamacia-179 St to Coney Island (M) Queens Blvd/6th Av Local via 63 St (9 TPH) Forest Hills-71 Av to Middle Village-Metropolitan Av (V) Queens Blvd/6th Av/Culver Local via 63 St (10 TPH) Forest Hills-71 Av to Church Av
@@metropod The 7 is designed to be interlined. But the city removed that in 1949, and today, the 7 is one of the best lines in the system, according to both riders and system analytics. Deinterlining does not destroy the subway, it makes it better.
Probably not. You also need a 6th Ave local service, as Upper Culver rider are the majority. The current F express skips 53 percent of all Culver riders.
@@jointransitassociation I know. I meant to say under this plan, the G wouldn’t be changed and would continue to run local on culver, regardless if the F or V is express.
Trains at Forest Hill type last stops should not waste time kicking people off. Let those idiots stay on the train and Only kick them off if the train has to go to the yard
Isn’t this kinda ignoring that the F and V would have to merge at Jay Street? This plan partially makes sense but you’re making it too complicated. Just do all of this but keep the late night/weekend F and have the V end at 2nd Ave
@@mmrw Well no because both the F and V train run local in 6th Avenue so the merge is minimalistic and it allows for a full fledged express service on Culver
@ culver doesn’t need express service. Maybe let the few F expresses keep being express past Church but nothing beyond that. “Just upzone it” isn’t really an answer when a line is that underutilized, like you could upzone that whole corridor and the F wouldn’t even be close to at capacity
Or they could do this instead of having the V train to coney island why not create a transfer point for the f and v service at kings highway and create a shuttle from kings hey to coney island
Objection. From Queens Boulevard, you get an express ride to 53rd Street with the E train, an express ride to 63rd Street with the F train, and a local ride to 53rd Street with the M train.
Counterpoint, a preliminary look at employment data shows that E/F riders prefer 53rd St, not 63rd St. 63rd St doesn't even register as a top 50 destination. Also, the vast majority of M train riders don't care about one seat rides, they usually transfer at the first express station.
@@jadenmuniz8817 Because they wanted to "maximize" the amount of people traveling through 63rd St in order to have a lower cost per rider. And the way to do it is to send a packed express train, not a local. Also they wanted to justify their decision of making the 63rd St Connector tracks connect to both the express and local tracks.
@@jointransitassociation Wait really? Wasn’t it done because the MTA wanted to make 63rd Street “more consistent and minimize off weekday reroutes” because if I’m not mistaken the F train was initially going to remain on 53rd Street on weekdays and the V train was meant to be on 63rd Street with the F train replacing it on weekends and late nights respectively.
V line wont comeback. all delete. if you want R211 option 2 order 437 go to East New York yard. mostly 4 car unit. V line still discontinued wont come back
how I would improve this: 1. With the F and V thing to Coney, how about making the F express and the V local in Brooklyn, splice up service frequencies so there's less F trains (maybe, like, 10tph or something), and the V ends at Church Avenue (limited rush hour through service to Kings Highway) (2nd Avenue on Weekends/Overnights) 2. Taking that into consideration, we should keep BOTH the F and V on QBL during Weekends (written before you pointed that out). F trains, weekend service should be Jamaica-Coney via 53rd *and Culver Local* like usual (or 96th Street-Coney via Culver Local), but during overnights, they would just run between Coney Island and (something between 2nd Avenue and Queens Plaza, maybe 96th Street or something), and V trains would be extended to Jamaica-179th during OVERNIGHTS ONLY (since the F would run to Jamaica-179th during weekends). E and R trains would be unaffected, and... well, it's not like the M runs to QBL during off-weekends. Maybe send it to 96th to boost 6th Avenue Service? 3. To implement, starting small, like diverting a couple rush-hour F services via 53rd and some rush-hour Ms to 96th, would be a good starting point. The V shouldn't come for a while... 4. Won't 6th Avenue Local get overloaded with like 25 trains an hour? I don't think 6th Avenue was supposed to hold more than (or even) 30 trains an hour in emergencies, LET ALONE REGULAR SERVICE 5. what about just getting rid of M service on QBL altogether outside of rush hours and rerouting it somewhere more useful, like 2nd Avenue (at least until the T begins existing) 6. To Combat Point 4, Reroute F trains to the express tracks on 6th Avenue between 6 AM and 7 PM. Lots of riders, especially from Brooklyn, will thank you. 7. You confuse me to hell Basically what I'm saying about Steps 1 and 2: F Weekdays-Jamaica 179th to Coney Island, via Hillside Local, QBL Express, 53rd Street, 6th Avenue Express, Rutgers Street, and Culver Express (Jay Street-Church Avenue, local the rest of the way) M Weekdays-71st or 96th to Brooklyn, via QBL Local/2nd Avenue, 63rd Street, 6th Avenue Local, etc etc V Weekdays-71st to Church Avenue, via QBL Local, 63rd Street, 6th Avenue Local, Rutgers Street, and Culver Local F Weekends-Jamaica 179th to Coney Island, via Hillside Local, QBL Express, 53rd Street, 6th Avenue Local, Rutgers Street, and Culver Local V Weekends-71st to 2nd Avenue or Church Avenue/Smith-9th Street, via QBL Local, 63rd Street, and 6th Avenue Local (+Rutgers Street/Culver Local for Brooklyn) F Overnights-96th to Coney Island, via 2nd Avenue, 6th Avenue local, Rutgers Street, and Culver Local V Overnights-Jamaica 179th to 2nd Avenue, via Hillside Local, QBL Local, 63rd Street, and 6th Avenue Local chng.it/CxKW2W9KMZ chng.it/CxKW2W9KMZ chng.it/CxKW2W9KMZ
6:04 If you are going to add more service on 63rd. One of the lines has to be axed, In this case it is the (M) because of the amount of interlining the (M) has with the (E) (F) (J) (R) & (Z) trains which severely reduces capacity. The (V) is a better option because service impacts will be minimal.
This is too much work. Just swap the F and M and just make the F run via 63rd on light nights and weekends. People will get used to it as they always do. Plus the MTA is not going to ever put 3 train lines on one track ever. The NRW are only a brief exception because the W is just an additions local N/R train
7:24 How many people ride all the way between Queens and south of Church Ave? If the number isn't that big, then I don't think the local/express inconsistency would be a huge deal. As @guyfaux3978 says in their comment, the B and D already have something like this. 3:41 I'm glad you discussed the V continuing to Brooklyn. There seems to be substantial demand between 2 Ave and upper Culver-especially in downtown Brooklyn and LES. 4:11 How many trains can be turned around at Kings Highway? 4:06 I somewhat misunderstood the express/local span and had to revisit this. Because I was assuming this would work like the 6 does at Parkchester-but for that to happen, the V would have to stay express in the peak direction. If this happens, this would aid capacity during the PM rush because terminating F local trains get their own platform and don't hold back continuing V express trains.
@@samuelitooooo How would your proposed Canarsie Line extension work would yours go via Flatlands Avenue and Kings Hwy to connect with the Brighton Line or do you plan on backdooring the extension to Kings Plaza, How would your proposed Canarsie line extension work? I do have a question for you if you don't mind me asking does your proposed subway extensions take regulations and feasibility studies into account and whether your extensions should be elevated or underground in the most appropriate places on suitable streets (although modern elevated technology could help bring some of the costs down and it's cheaper rather than having to drill underground) regardless I think that your proposed routes would more than likely justify the costs simply because it parallels the busiest bus routes in Southern Brooklyn and where the stops along the busy corridors just about meet people's needs where they need it most.
5:14 If one line should be removed from QBL it is the (M) because of the timers and unreliability. This is why the locals remain mostly empty because people want to transfer to the express instead.
You are ridiculous! The way the system is designed is to balance out the crowd. The problem in the past was local passengers had to get off the next express stop. Now they can stay on the "M". This is sound planning. Meanwhile, the "F" train crowding is reduced considerably. This is good, because the "F" has a lot more stops by itself. So people rely on it. The "E" can continue to survive as the only express via 53rd Street. There's no need for a "V". The ridership is not there to justify it. Plus we got the "M", which replace the "V". If the "V" does return, which it won't, the "M" should go back to Brooklyn. And the "V" to Second Avenue. Sending the "V" any further would compete with the capacity of the "F". The "F goes to 179th Street and needs clear frequency. Some "Fs" can be express via Brooklyn. Maybe 1/3rd. But only until Church Street. The ridership really drops off via McDonald Avenue.
I live at Greenpoint avenue on the g train . I used to have a one seat ride to queens center mall in 20 min and a 10 min ride to Steinway street.. it can now take me 20-30 min with that transfers. On weekends I have to transfer twice once at court square and again to the local at either queens plaza or Jackson heights
The G could have given you direct transfer to Queens Plaza had the MTA not screw up the 63rd connection which could have been better execution with the converging and diverging point connecting the line to QBL under 36 and proper turn off for the two track super express. 21st Street Queens bridge should have been built as a transfer point to Queens Plaza using the east end of the station since the station was recently use as a terminal in the 80s and 90s
You seem not to understand the E train is already heavily delayed because it shares track with the F train. This plan will now make the E train way more delayed. All thanks to people wanting “their” train to move faster!🙄😒
You seem to not understand the reason why the E is delayed is because the merging operation seem at 36th St. According to many reliability graphs using MTA GTFS data, the amount of delays seen there dwarfs the ones seen elsewhere, including 5th-53rd. Removing that via the F/M swap will make trains run way smoother.
@ you still don’t get it! Another track is needed to run the E and either the F or M. All can not run express because it currently causes massive delays along the entire route! Not just in Manhattan. The largest rider share of those lines come from Queens! So making it better for Manhattan riders (what your plan will do) does not benefit Queens riders! They will have more delayed trains. Just to make it less delayed as it passes into Manhattan! Hope you get it now!
@ You seem to not understand two crucial things. 1. Queens Plaza is the most problematic merge, according to MTA GTFS data. It makes other merges that the E/F have seem puny in comparison. This includes the one seen at 5th-53rd. 2. When the MTA used to run F trains via 53rd St, it did so super well. They did it with such precision that they wrote the schedules to reflect an 18/12 split, not an even 15/15 split. Why were they able to do that? Because 5th Ave - 53rd St wasn’t on the same level of bad as compared to Queens Plaza, the MTA are timing the equivalent of three trains there, while at Queens Plaza, they were timing the equivalent of four. Timing three is stretching it, but can be done without much delays, timing four is impossible.
And also, I want the system to be as close to fully deinterlined as possible. But with our current system, espiceally on QBL, it isn’t possible. So that is why the F/M Swap exists. It targets the worst merge in Queens, the one seen at Queens Plaza, and moves the E/F merge to somewhere a lot more manageable. That place being 5th Ave - 53rd.
@@jointransitassociation the E and F serve mostly Queens riders! Again, everything you stated ONLY benefits Manhattan riders! Brooklyn riders as well as the F train terminates there. Definitely not Queens riders who will still have extremely packed trains. Service will become much slower than it already is! Worst part is the days of E train riders sitting in the middle of a tunnel waiting for F trains to move ahead will return. That was a major issue as we spent large portions of our ride sitting in tunnels between stations. All due to slow F trains. You also came up with this plan without giving account for accidents, police activity, and breakdowns! Those simply things already create hours of delays for E train riders. Insert your plan and now those issues will increase the delay time exponentially! See I actually use this service many times to get around the city! You are not a usual rider so all you see are the statistics! This is why the MTA won’t use your idea. They actually study stuff before implementing them. They don’t just use the stats written on paper! Real world experience will always be better than what you see on paper!
Here's my POV on this, 1. HELLLLLL NO. NO F ON LATE NIGHTS & WEEKENDS PLUS ONLY TERMINATING AT KINGS HIGHWAY???? I'm sorry but that's a really bad idea. Just because in order for that to work, Kings Highway will need to be remade to be a 4 track station, right now its a 3 track station with the middle being used for terminating. Now keep in mind, 179 Street is a 4 track station with island platforms, plus 8 tracks for storing trains when not in use. (could be more), Kings Highway only has that one track, with the yard being 2 stations away. Besides that if your making a train go into the yard for a layover, your gonna have to cross the Coney Island bound track, which blocks traffic, and lemme tell you, the trains go slow entering and sometimes has to wait for 2 minutes just for the train to pass and the signal to turn green. With that in mind, that's just a bad idea in general and will not work out. 2. The F may be slow but its fucking useful, as someone who uses the F past Kings Highway and commutes using it, so just cutting service in general and turning it into a B train type line is just not gonna be good for the riders. 3. Now returning the V might sound good on paper, but that's 5 trains on 6th avenue, 3 on the local track. Plus, how is Rush hour gonna work out? The V can't go on the express track 24/7 in both directions after Church Avenue as it switches from a 4 track to a 3 track operation. Plus the F Express operates local during the elevated section of Culver and express after Church Avenue.
1. Take the V. The V is literally a rebranded F under this proposal. As for Kings Hwy, no it won't. A single track terminal can handle 12 tph. Therefore I scheduled 12 tph on the F. Also, new tech trains are maintained at Jamaica Yard, not Coney Island. 2. Once again, take the V. In fact, your default under the first proposal is an express to Manhattan. 3. Okay, and? Did you listen at all on how much capacity I am giving to each? F: 12 tph M: 8 tph (maximum capacity given Myrtle Jct) V: 10 tph And yes the V can switch right back to the local after Church Ave. It will use the same switch that the F express uses.
@@jointransitassociation Do you not realize that you are severely reducing capacity on the (F). As for the (M)'s proposed tph that should go to the (G) & the (R) or split between the (F) & the (V) for frequent service. You are going to run up against capacity on Culver as well. As a matter of fact the locals should end early since they are the longer routes while the expresses can continue without interruption. This is due to the locals often getting delayed and not the expresses. The (F) running express on Culver speeds up the runtime with minimal issues.
Then there is going to be: "Back in my day the F went to Roosevelt Island." And your voice got so much deeper
before the B and Q went to Roosevelt Island terminating at Queensbridge
His voice isn’t deeper btw he’s just speaking in a less serious voice
just like how my parents talk about the C going to yankees stadium...
@ BaCk In My DaY tHe Q tRaIn DiD nOt RuN tO 96sT
Me remember the r62A 7 trains and the r42 R train already makes me feel old
Considering how the V was unpopular during its run. And just because more people will identify the F.
I say have the F run express
And V run local.
Because the main reason for the swap is so the E & F can stay on the same track. Also I feel just having the F run via 63rd st Late Nights and Weekends would be more feasible than re introducing the V
They could reintroduce the V and have it run Culver Local in Brooklyn to give way to the F to run express service. This gives the V an actual purpose rather than it just being a short turning version of the orange M
@@empanadaman3506 That's exactly what the MTA should do. Interlining on 6th Avenue is horrendous. The (M) siphons capacity from the (F).
If the "F" runs Express, the park slope people would scream, because they know that is a reduction in service.
And the proposal would have to be the "G" running Express, because no one hardly use that train anyway.
@@qolspony It wouldn't be a reduction in service if the (G) was extended to Kings Highway or if the (G) was the sole local to Church Avenue. It would add more tph to the (F) which desperately needs it as a rider who barely uses the (F) myself. The frequencies are a horror show.
@RocketTrain-0 The "G" is pretty useless for most people. And people want their one seat ride even if they have to wait longer.
Idk how everyone’s gonna feel about no F train service late nights and weekends
Take the V. If you read in between the lines of the 1989 EIS, that was exactly what the MTA planned to do, before they settled on the current route that we have today.
@@jointransitassociationthe F and M has been around much longer than the V so it's only fair the that they should be kept 24/7 and the V should only serve weekdays only
5:13 "68 trains per hour" 😂
sounds reasonable yk casual train every 53 seconds (obv he meant 6 to 8)
That made me do a double-take at the captions lmao
I was about to say that with CBTC a four track subway can accommodate 68 trains per hour... but if it's one line out of four then yes it's a slip up.
I wish!
Sounds like a good idea, especially bringing the V Train back, but for this to work, the MTA will need to purchase extra new trains, because they are terrible at preparation (like the Grand Central Madison opening and not having enough trains because they retired a lot of their M3's without getting all of their new M9's for the LIRR).
The good news is the R211 order will achieve some of this-if they go for Option Order 2 and don't retire any R68s in the process.
@@samuelitooooo They are going to need more than just the Order 2 R211s for this to work unless they up the order on the R268s they are planning, because they want to retire all SMEE by 2030-2035 because they want all trains to be NTT (for CBTC).
@@samuelitooooo Not really since Jamaica & CI Yards would have to be expanded to accommodate more service.
@@RocketTrain-0 Last I checked, Coney is underutilizing about half of their storage space.
According to a site I can't even mention because TH-cam will auto-remove my comment without notifying me, “the three storage yards have the capacity for storing nearly 1,800 subway cars”.
And according to a fan-made roster, there are 782 75-footers there now (not counting the 9 Franklin Ave shuttle cars), equal to about 977 cars if they were all 60-footers.
@@samuelitooooo An alternative solution instead of expanding CI Yard is utilizing the 38th Street Yard which has the capacity for the (D) (N) & (R) Trains. 60 footers reduce capacity because the cars aren't long enough to handle passengers. Hence why they are used in parts of the system with clearances like the BMT Eastern Division.
Interesting proposal to say the least, though not a bad one.
Also, great to here that the f and m swap may atleast be being discussed within the mta.
have to say, I have been enjoying the increased production on the visuals of your videos
I do somewhat worry about the split and recombine of the V and F on culiver, especially since G trains will also have to be accounted for. i feel that a scheme like the B/D in the bronx could be better here, where the F and V run together to jay st, then one (lets say the V) splits off and runs express, but unlike todays service, it stays on the middle express track (this would only be done in the peak, reverse peak all trains would be local). The express trains would end on kings highway, which i know isn't ideal, but i think removing the merge conflicts could be very helpful.
The V should be given more of a purpose than just turning at 2nd Avenue. It should go to Brooklyn and run via Culver Local, which gives Manhattan bound service to the Culver Local line while the F runs full time express service on Culver.
Yes but Express on Culver sees low ridership. It’s better to give that to the V which would run to Coney Island since it’s a garbage terminal. The V would run 8 tph while the F gets 12. This would allow we have this
F: Jamaica 179 St - Kings Hwy
V: Forest Hills 71st Ave - Coney Island
The M would then join the V on 63rd St as the M is a key line that transport Willamsburg Riders to the city center.
Why even bother just run more F/ M and R trains
@@qjtvaddict the purpose of the V is to help out the M on 63rd St.
On Late Nights we have this
F: No Service (Use V)
M: Myrtle Ave - Metropolitan Ave
R: Whitehall St - Bay Ridge 95 St
V: Jamaica 179 St - Coney Island
Weekends
F: No Service (Use V)
M: Essex St - Metropolitan Ave
R: Forest Hills - Bay Ridge 95 St
V: Jamaica 179 St - Coney Island
The should run from Stuyvesant Heights-Bainbridge Street via Malcolm X Boulevard local, 6th Avenue local, 53rd Street, Queens Boulevard local, & Van Wyck Boulevard express, while the (V) should run via Van Wyck Boulevard local.
Please DO NOT make the F train behave like the B🤦🏻♂️ in terms of not running the F on nights & weekends.
It will be the V train.
@@jointransitassociation Aint nobody want that. F that
@@NorthKoreanComedian Nobody wants rotating service either. Take your pick.
@@jointransitassociation Why not just do the F/M swap then reroute the F on weekends? Much simpler.
@@NorthKoreanComedian I'm fine with it. Not sure about the MTA, hence why I developed this plan.
No F train in Brooklyn on weekends? The people are used to that already 😂
They will have the more frequent V instead
The idea of trains being local in one outlying borough and express in another, with them having the local/express on the opposite sides of Manhattan, is what the B and D already do. The D is mostly the West End local except for Atl/Barc to 36/4 in Brooklyn while the B is the Brighton express. The D is the Concourse express while the B is the local. Running the V local in Queens with the F as express and swap that pattern in Brooklyn wouldn't seem TOO confusing-- why the hell would Brooklyn riders care what the stopping pattern is in Queens and vice versa?
Well put, although the D is express in Brooklyn (4th Avenue Express). Why should anyone care what the stopping pattern of their line in a place where they are unlikely to frequently ride the train to?
Exactly 💯 present right. Leave the D trains the way it is in Brooklyn on west END to coney island including the concourse. The B trains does not need to run on fourth Ave sea beach ⛱️ because the B only runs on week days and they know that.
Not only that you definitely gotta have trains running on fourth Ave Sea Beach line 24 7 in Brooklyn. They just can not put the N trains on the Brighton lines where the Q and B trains is good enough. Let the W trains run to Brooklyn at late nights or the V trains.
@@leecornwell5632or you can send the D on Brighton solving DeKalb and increasing West End Service using the Q, so that the N and Q can run 30tph combined. But also the 6th Ave Line has more key corridors that don’t interfere with service. Hence why we need the R to serve Astoria.
This is the end result
B: 168 St - Bay Ridge 95 (CPW Lcl)
D: Bedford Pk Blvd - Coney Island (Sea Beach)
The A and C would now run express together on both 8th Ave and CPW.
First of all the Concourse Express is only in the peak direction, and only when the B serves the Bronx. Which means it doesn’t see that much service throught the day. (In this case, I assume the V will be running express on Culver in both directions.)
Second, the problem with full time Culver/QBL Express service on either line is 1: People lose an opportunity to transfer before express service starts at Bergen Street, and 2. Ridership is heavily concentrated on Upper Culver and QBL Express, and having the F serve that preference is better, as it has more capacity.
so Joint uhh what are your thoughts to de interline the system bcuz ur older videos have different destinations for trains like in a past video the R via West End and Astoria but in this video the R remains the same
Many years ago, the F ran on 53rd Street. In 2001 when the V debuted, the F was rerouted to 63rd Street. MANY F riders were pissed off. The F no longer stopped at Lexington/53rd, which is a major transfer point, and Court Square. F ridership dropped and E trains became jam packed.
Ridership along 63rd Street has increased over the years. This was due to the new transfer to the Second Avenue Q train, a new entrance at Lexington/63rd, and the opening of Cornell Tech on Roosevelt Island. Still, I’m sure that the vast majority of F riders will prefer that it operate on 53rd.
Even with CBTC, there isn’t enough tracks space on the 6th Avenue for the F, M, and V. Plus, the G terminates at Church Avenue. That creates a choke point.
And even if these ideas were feasible, it would cause too many route variations. This would be confusing for riders.
As far as Myrtle Avenue, you can’t just knock down buildings to increase M service.
I prefer to have the {} & {(MJ)} run via the BMT Myrtle Avenue Elevated Line. The (M) should no longer go onto that line. The & (M) should instead run to JFK Airport-Federal Circle via Rockaway Boulevard Elevated local & Van Wyck Boulevard Elevated local.
I definitely can see a revival of the V, but your proposal would make the F much more like the B and W, both lines that doesn’t run on weekends or late nights.
My proposal would be to have the V run local through the entirety of QBL, and run with the E to Jamaica Center. The R will run local to Jamaica-179th Street while the F runs express, skipping 75th Avenue, Briarwood, Sutphin Boulevard, and 169th Street. The M will remain as is, terminating at Forest Hills-71st Avenue.
The V will run with the M along 63rd Street while the F runs with the E on 53rd. The V will run with the F to Brooklyn, but after Jay Street-MetroTech, the V will replace the C to Euclid Avenue, and the C will split from the A and run local with the G via the Crosstown viaduct, while the F runs express.
Although this could potentially cause merging conflicts between Jay Street-MetroTech and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, this would offer a one-seat ride for V train riders heading from Lower Manhattan to East New York, or vice versa. A small solution would be to build new switches before Hoyt-Schermerhorn, where the V can switch to using the unused platform, giving it a new purpose.
During the weekends, no V trains will run. F trains will make all stops with the G on the Crosstown viaduct. Since M trains won’t be running to QBL, F trains will use the 63rd Street branch, and the E will be on its own on 53rd. The G will replace the V to Jamaica Center, and the R will remain unchanged.
During late nights, the M and R will not run to QBL, and the V will not run at all. The F will run via 63rd, and make all stops along QBL to 179th. The E will skip all stops on QBL towards Jamaica Center, and the G will terminate at Court Square.
With the C rerouted to Church Avenue, it can share its fleet with the G, and use full 10-car R160’s from Jamaica Yard. As such, all 8-car R179’s on the C will be transferred to East NY yard for extra fleet on the J/Z and perhaps even the M, while the A will share its R179’s and R211’s with the V. I know that QBL is doing very well with R160’s thanks to CBTC, but it wouldn’t hurt to have some variety of NTT’s. Besides, 8th Avenue/CPW are expected to get CBTC anyway, and Jamaica yard has more than enough R160’s it can handle.
This makes some sense. It is a good idea to send some extra trains to 179 St during rush hours to increase capacity and get around Forest Hills to run more trains. However it is a terrible idea to swap the V and C. It would cause too many merging conflicts just for a stupid one seat ride for a couple people.
Much better because the M will actually will give service to sunny side and Jackson Heights from
Queenbridge instead of skipping those neighborhoods
Okay, I need to preface this with I work on the M line... we are not looking at this right now. For a lot of reasons. One of the big ones is there are lot of details which you can look at on paper and see "oh, this will work great..." but then when actually put into practice in reality... well... the 8 and a half million experiments in chaos theory that call this city home have a different idea...
Most annoying thing is the recurring issue of someone running down the stairs, throwing themselves into the doors as we close down... only to suddenly jump back out again when they realize it's the wrong train. This happens a dozen times a trip for me. Or they'll stand there, one foot on the platform and one in the car, looking up at the FIND and debating if this is the right train or not.
And don't even get me started on how they behave when something goes wrong...
Which is an issue I also have with a lot of plans such as this. No wiggle room. The system needs leeway to allow service to try to operate when all hell breaks loose. Back in July, my train was at 5th and 53rd when an AC transformer failed at Essex Street, shutting down the sixth avenue corridor and the Nassau Street line, including over the Bridges.
You had the entire mainline IND division trying to squeeze down 8th avenue. I kept making manual announcements "This train is running via the E to the World Trade Center"... and that flew right over everyone's heads. "Are you going to Flushing Avenue?" No, we're going to the World Trade Center "But you're still going to Brooklyn, right?"
Something else was a lot of the presented data is, not wrong, but... lacking... I guess you can say.
Like pinning delay issues on the QBL local to trains being discharged at Forest Hills (we little worker bees don't actually call it "Fumigating"), but that's not really the reason for the delays... the reasons, well, can actually be quite numerous, and can literally be a different reason for every train.
We only actually regularly spend the time to chase people when the train is a layup. We tell them to get off because the trains can actually sit down below for 10 to 15 minutes.
Service can be delayed because we're shorthanded on switching train operators.
Or it can be delayed because the arriving train operator who should be doing their relay needs to "take a comfort" (our euphemism for using the restroom) and someone else has to be called on to run down to the other end and operate it down into the relay.
Or because a person reported to work but drew a random drug and alcohol test they have to report to, and they need to quickly find someone to take their place.
Another issue is we don't have a CBTC enabled work motors to pull our trash train. So we have to make do with SMEE equipment.
Another issue is the actual merger choke point is NOT the Queens Plaza area. It's Fifth avenue. Every time I am going northbound leaving 47-50th, my train has to hold for an E and about 75% to 80% of the time southbound, I am holding for an F. and remember, this my 'train every 8 minutes" M that's doing the waiting.
Fifth avenue is a low speed merge.
36th street/Northern is actually a high speed merge. it is designed to separate the two expresses. That is one of the reasons the service plan was implemented as it was 23 years ago now... From an operational, physical, working standpoint, it just does it's job better.
First of all, thank you for your service!
But second of all, I would like to respond to some of your points.
"Okay, I need to preface this with I work on the M line... we are not looking at this right now."
This was according to a report from one of my friends, who overheard Lieber saying they are looking into swapping the F and M at an open house. I am not sure if that is credible, but I still included it.
"Which is an issue I also have with a lot of plans such as this. No wiggle room. The system needs leeway to allow service to try to operate when all hell breaks loose. Back in July, my train was at 5th and 53rd when an AC transformer failed at Essex Street, shutting down the sixth avenue corridor and the Nassau Street line, including over the Bridges."
Sorry to hear that. But deinterlining makes sure that the ripple effect doesn't happen. That means one delay on one line is contained to that specific line. This means that if there is a delay on 6th Ave, it won't affect trains from 8th Ave.
"Most annoying thing is the recurring issue of someone running down the stairs, throwing themselves into the doors as we close down... only to suddenly jump back out again when they realize it's the wrong train. This happens a dozen times a trip for me. Or they'll stand there, one foot on the platform and one in the car, looking up at the FIND and debating if this is the right train or not"
Again, I am very sorry to hear that. But under the current setup, it is still the same thing. Because the system is interlined, there are two or sometimes three services on each track. This means riders will still have that debate of wondering whether that train is the train they are going get on.
Also, regarding your points on Forest Hills, are there ways to fix it? Because clearly other systems who copied our terminal designs like Moscow, Beijing, and London can turn more than 30 tph using the same terminal layout.
"Another issue is the actual merger choke point is NOT the Queens Plaza area. It's Fifth avenue. Every time I am going northbound leaving 47-50th, my train has to hold for an E and about 75% to 80% of the time southbound, I am holding for an F. and remember, this my 'train every 8 minutes" M that's doing the waiting."
I disagree with you. According to many reliability graphs, done with MTA GTFS data, the real delay generator is Queens Plaza to Roosevelt Ave, and Roosevelt Ave to Forest Hills. Between Queens Plaza to Roosevelt is the Queens Plaza merge, between Roosevelt to Forest Hills is the sheer amount of people transferring from express to local.
@@metropod To add to the above, today's M trains get to have their own waiting spot in between the 6th Ave tracks and the 53rd St tracks. This may not solve the consistency/reliability issue, but it avoids holding up E or F trains behind them.
There is no such thing at Queens Plaza. M trains have to switch between express and local tracks in one shot, and if they must wait, they *will* be delaying trains behind them.
What about this?
(F) From Jamaica-179 to Coney Island (Unchanged, but via Hillside and upper Culver Express [AND VIA 53 I FORGOT])
(V) From Jamaica-179 to Church Av via QBL, 63rd Street, 6th Av Local, and Upper Culver Local
(M) trains are rerouted via 63rd Street and Queenslink
(R) trains are extended to Jamaica-179
That could happen, though extending local trains to Jamaica-179th St isn't politically feasible.
@jointransitassociation honestly either Forest Hills or 179th could work as long as the M is diverted along queenslink (Except the F having to serve hillside local)
@@jointransitassociationyes that’s true but if they do come to an agreement on that then sending locals along with expresses to 179 St can really make things better for QBL in the end, the main reason is that Forest Hills is such a garbage terminal. The V train would be useful if being a Culver Express since it would only run 8 tph while the F gets 12 and runs on the Local with the G.
@@jointransitassociationextension of the QBL past 179 to Springfield Blvd and if you construct the new terminal with four tracks and two island platforms with lay up tracks past the terminal, I think the E and the F should serve this new terminal while the M can take Jamaica Center, the V would serve 179 as the M and V should operate with a combine total of 16 tph which gives the two 8 tph and both can occupy the 63rd while the F returns to 53rd, the E can serve the new terminal at Springfield Blvd at all times with the F. The R can take the Queens link giving the opportunity to operate 24/7 and the M which can retain local while the E and F can maintain express with the night time between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills
@@jointransitassociation And most importantly between Jamaica 179th Street and Forest Hills 71st Avenue most people on the R or V trains probably would’ve just transferred straight to the E or F trains anyways due to the high demand and preference for faster express service by Kew Gardens Union Turnpike the R and V train would just be near empty carrying more air than actual people. It’s the prime reason why the R train extension to jamaica 179th street between December 1988 - October 1992 failed due to the huge load imbalances and large amount of people transferring from the R train to the F train. So realistically the Queens Blvd Locals being extended all the way to Jamaica 179th street would be pointless.
Sounds like an excellent idea! The crowded F trains get to go express to Manhattan and the M & V trains provide additional services to Roosevelt Island. A win-win! 😊
@@metropodThe transfer demand between the Crosstown Line and the QBL is actually pretty low, since hardly anyone is going between these two points. In fact, nearly all QBL traffic is going in its natural direction: Manhattan.
@@TheRailLeaguer This is the same reason why the G to Forest Hills is a bad idea, and the same reason why 21st Street on the G is one of the least used stations in the system. Traffic is Manhattan-centric everywhere in the city.
@ Nearly all of them are those starting their train trip in the LIC neighborhood, and heading further east to where they need to go. In fact what my experience, some of them shouldn’t be on the subway the entire way. Perhaps integrating the CitiBike system into the OMNY fare payment system can get some people out of there and encourage biking to the more popular Queens Plaza station.
Another potential reliever would be to convert Woodhaven Blvd into an express station, which should take some strain off the M and R routes at Court Square and Queens Plaza respectively.
@@DistrosProjects Exactly. The Queens Blvd route has always been a Manhattan-bound radial straight from the get go. Having Crosstown G trains go via Queens Blvd will always be a terrible combination.
Honestly what can be done for the G route is to route the line northward via 21st Street or something, creating a true crosstown route, and preserving QBL capacity for Manhattan-centric service.
@@metropod I can't speak anecdotally to your example, but as a G train rider, I never used the M to get my QBL local station. Instead, I took the G to the E to the M. And I go as to say the majority of G train riders don't do that because they like their express trains, even if the M is the first thing that shows up.
Same thing with Lexington and 53rd. In fact, multiple analyses show that people avoid the M in favor of the E, which is why the E is extremely crowded and the M isn't.
Looks like our efforts if they are to be believed, won’t all be in vein.
@@metropod I recommend you watch the video again, the reason why the F / M swap is being petitioned is because it would remove a merging conflict that often causes delays along QBL. Plus bringing back the V train is just an additional proposal that was just an idea that he floated around to further improve QBL and Culver service.
@@metropod "This is a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist."
According to many reliability graphs done using MTA GTFS data, the problem is at Queens Plaza, not 5th Ave-53rd.
So with the whole weekend shebang with no M trains as of now, if the whole Queenslink project is accepted, would we have your proposed weekday service on weekends as well with the M being local going to the Rockaways while the V on local goes to Jamaica?
Or would you make a short followup video with your own solutions to how Queenslink affecte the V Train Proposal when the M & G come to the picture
Back In My Day Son We Had E And F On 53rd
Exactly
Before y’all comment that “6th Avenue and Queens Blvd can’t handle three services on one track” remember from December 1988-July 2001 during the southern side manhattan bridge closure reconstruction the 6th Avenue express tracks was used by three services in one sitting B D and Q trains note the Q train at the time operated on 6th Avenue as they all used the north side manhattan bridge and from December 2001 until April 2010 they was a brief moment when Queens Blvd Local had theee services during evenings the G R and V trains. Off topic but semi related during the northern side manhattan bridge closure reconstruction April 1986 - December 1988 the B D and Q all operated on the Broadway express tracks and used the south side and then again July 2001 - February 2004 the Broadway express also had three services on it the Q train the W train which at the time operated express and the Brighton express train since the despite being the de facto express variant of the Q train was “technically” considered its own route. Just wait for 6th Avenue CBTC since CBTC should allow for around 30TPH and it might be possible although this is what I recommend.
Queenslink proposal and F/M swap but instead of the G train revive the V train starting at Forest Hills via queens Blvd local and 6th Avenue local but go 63rd Street instead and extended to Church Avenue via Culver Local while the F train operates via Culver Express. The V train would start off as a Rush Hour only route to serve as a “pilot demo program” to test out the potential of this new routing to see if its effective and if proven popular the V train would become a weekday only service operating from 6:30 AM-9:30 PM. The F train would run local in Brooklyn during late nights and weekends and the M train would be expanded to operate during daytime weekend hours on queens Blvd and 63rd Street. Late nights the F train goes via 63rd Street, M train would be extend chambers street during the late nights and a “shuttle route” would serve the Queenslink section when the M train isn’t operating.
There should never be 3 trains on one track and the examples you gave did not work out so well
Three services on one track mostly cuts capacity, the 59th Street tube is an example of this. The (N) screws over capacity on the (R) & the (W). The reason why that happens is because the (N) is given priority and serves stops independently on Broadway. The (R) & (W) are dependent on interlining.
You're also forgetting the M-line runs shorter trains than the F-line
When will you make part 2 to what can U.S. transit do with the military budget?
Just curious, I like the addition of the V on QBL local and via 63rd Street to support the M. With the Myrtle Junction grade separation likely not happening given the NIMBYs. You could have run the F fully express on Culver and have the V run local with the G and have both of them end at Chruch Ave. Would that be better than Kings Hwy since the V and F create another merge conflict again just south of Chruch Ave or is Church Ave a garbage terminal like Forrest Hills or is the G not that frequent that it could work? The tail track layout at Chruch Ave looks similar to the track layout at Forrest Hills minus the leads to a yard.
Now we’re talking with the V if we were to have the V come back it should also consider using the QueensLink Corridor solving the A Train Problem. This would also allow the M to be serving Rockaway Park and the V going to Far Rockaway. At the end we have this result
F: Jamaica 179 St - Kings Hwy
M: Rockaway Pk - Metropolitan Ave
V: Far Rockaway - Coney Island
Now there is discussion of even sending the R to Jamaica 179 St to help out the F, instead this is what we do we can have the R go express to 179 St after Forest Hills while the F goes fully local.
If the F is not in operation and the V is handing the Rockaways, then we can perhaps have the E keep its service pattern while the R goes to 179 St completely.
If Myrtle Junction gets figured out then we can run just the M on the Rockaways leaving the F unaffected on 53rd St, not needing the V at all. This would allow the A to serve Rockaway Pk while the higher frequency M can go to Far Rockaway and this is only if you factor in Myrtle and QueensLink.
One step at a time, dude.
This video is about a short-term, quick-implementation fix.
QueensLink won't be here for another few years even if it is green-lit today.
I do have another question. I remember in your previous videos, you did mention that the MTA has planned to swap the F and M in 2020 until the pandemic came. I have tried my best to look for it online but couldn’t find it anywhere. Please show me the link of where I can find this information.
I believe Uday had a few tweets from MTA insiders that say they plan doing the swap in April 2020.
F train should run at 63th street line as late nights and weekends when M train is not running on the weekends and late nights.
Hey man, I did some research and I think you should be aware that the MTA had NOT PLANNED to swap the F and M Trains. That was ONLY TEMPORARY so that improvements can be done to replace tracks and make repairs in the 63rd Street Tunnel. So I think they are trying to improve train service between Manhattan and Queens for the F and M Trains
This was according to someone who overheard Lieber say that the MTA is looking to switch the F and M soon. Again, it is just a rumor.
Should still happen though
@@EndIessProductions I don’t agree. I wish people could find better ways to address overcrowding issues instead of changing subway routes
@@rafaeldejesus4798 it’s to stop delays not overcrowding
@@rafaeldejesus4798 36st has a stupid merge with the E and the F
Maybe the "V" via Second Avenue with the "Q". Than it would become the Nassau Street via 4th Avenue Brooklyn to 95th Street? But do we really need three local services on 6th Avenue?
But this is the only way i see the "V".
Once Second Avenue is extended south of 72nd Street, the "V" would operate with the "T" to Brooklyn.
The "T" operating along with the "C" to Euclid Ave using Court Street as an entry point.
I disagree with the (V) running to Coney Island. It's a local service like it was intended to be. The (F) is unreliable due to the amount of stops it has to make. The (G) is basically the (F) Train with untapped extra capacity. A simplified option is the (V) cut back to Church Avenue and the (G) extended to Kings Highway to make up for the short turned (F) Trains as someone who's ridden both the (F) & (G) to see the inconsistencies and unreliability.
I'd love F express in Brooklyn as much as everyone else but I question how feasible can that be with the interlining bottlenecks at Church and Bergen/Jay Street.. The only way to run both rush hour services is by tremendously cutting local service to Manhattan, which Park Slope and Carroll residents will start whining, which is the main reason F express only runs four trains per day.
The only way we can run a proper service without cutting tph is if the G ran local and F express with a reopened Bergen Lower Level but again good luck trying to explain to Park Slope/Carroll residents they're losing their OSR to Manhattan.
I doubt this. This isn't DeKalb Junction. Say the F runs 12-15 TPH, the M runs 8 TPH, and the V runs 10 TPH. We have a theoretical maximum capacity of 30 TPH per track, and 35 with CBTC, you are only running 22-25 TPH into Manhattan through the F train tunnel, which wouldn't cause too many delays. With the aspects that he talked about in this video (Forest Hills turning 30 TPH), the R could still run 12 TPH. I, personally, think that the V should be the main line and the F and V should both run 15 TPH, with the M turning at Chambers Street again, but that's me.
with the capacity 179th provides, would it be worth it to look into having the V run there on weekdays, making local stops, while F trains make either express or local depending on demand?
This is trashing weekend service. Just run the M to 21st-Queensbridge weekends/late nights and call it a day. When CBTC is complete the M (or maybe G) can be a second QB Local on weekends.
That is because those are the rules. 15 tph max across all four tracks, which means only a maximum of 3 train routes allowed on QBL. That is why I have the E, R, and V on the line.
However, if the MTA does reform weekend service, which they might, then I would have the F back. I mentioned that in the video.
Well for starters the 4 is extended to New Lots & N trains run thru Montague Tunnel late nights so service change wouldn't be a problem. Next, on Weekends the N runs local in Manhattan but express in Bk, but the Q runs express in Manhattan & local in Bk. Ppl need to READ & PAY ATTENTION to where they're going!!
Ok I like it and all but what about the G train that’s on the culver line
You never mentioned the G train
Interesting proposal, but I don't think there's enough CBTC train cars in the system to handle adding back the V train, even when the R211 order is fulfilled. Plus, you still have the N/R interlining problem at 60th St.
Does it make sense to just swap thr letter assignments for V and F in your proposal to keep things simple? Basically the F just becomes local.
Ik everyone says CI is a bad terminal but (I assume because of the sharp curves and slow speed limits) but could you do a video about it? & how to improve it?
They would need to reconstruct it to make it somewhat like Jamaica 179th street and Euclid where it can go to the yard after the station and layup tracks so that a terminating train doesn’t hold up the train behind it
I think they can do the fumigation reform if they don’t mind people staying on the train during the relay. Or they can have station staff help out with the process? The operator can tell the staff which car still has passengers using the cameras on the train.
Clearly they do mind-and there will be members of the public who will complain if they don't. A lot of the public complains about homeless people and crime. Even if that's not the reality, it is the perception they will not let go of.
So add to that a few golden minutes of being absolutely alone underground on the train as it turns around.
IIRC, fumigation is about operator safety - the operator cannot walk to the other end of the train when there's passengers in it due to the risk of crimes/vandalism being committed by passengers with no bystanders or easy escape. An operator was stabbed by a passenger at Crown Heights - Utica after the operator asked them to get off the train recently. Operators rarely fumigate 6 trains going around the Brooklyn Bridge loop, even off-peak, because the operator does not have to walk to the other end of the train.
We're not allowed to look at the cameras on the R211s and we can't see the cameras on all the other cars at all.
@@DistrosProjects Isn't Forest Hills double ended, which means operators don't need to walk the length of the train?
@@jointransitassociation What do you mean? Operators have to walk the length of the train at every terminal (except for Bowling Green and Brooklyn Bridge, because those are loops) in order to change the operational direction of the train. At back-out terminals the operator walks the length of the train via the platform (in public). On the other hand, at a terminal like Forest Hills, trains are turned around on the non-revenue yard leads between it and 75th Avenue. The operator needs to walk the length of the train in a private place far from any security or access to help, which is considered dangerous for the operator.
I’ve always loved the idea of the V running on culver to allow for culver express, however it seems a little unnecessary to have the V and M both run on 6 Av and 63rd St (6th Av would have five trains!) Instead, the V reintroduction seems like a perfect way to allow for the brown M to come back, except this time to Bay Parkway at all times on weekdays. You’d be both increasing 4th Av local service as well as allowing for West End peak express, and the V could run at all times except late nights to keep service on 63rd without the confusion of F on 53rd weekdays and on 63rd weekends.
The orange M is one of the handful of interlining I defend. That is because the M gets more ridership that way and acts a parallel relief route to the L. The pre-2010 M wasn't all too useful and will introduce a nasty merge after 36th St, like the one seen at 59th St.
Now i gotta take the F before they do this of this happens
IF THE MTA WILL SWAP THE F AND M THEY WILL HAVE TO RUN THE M ALL TIMES TO 71 AVENUE IN QUEENS
Or do the V train proposal, which they don't have to do that.
But honestly, if they have to run M trains 24/7, then I would love it.
Can you make a video of your ideal NYC subway and regional rail?
It was so
Much easer to have the terminate at 21st St. Add the V local over 53
But i love that 21st-74th Street run thos 🥹
I'd say F via 53rd, V local Church to Continental via 63rd. M Metropolitan to 96th st. G Church to Continental all times, E local on Queens Blvd after 1am. R later service to Continental to 1am.
the m train shold be made into a loop service as both the queens terminal are quite close to eachother and a circle line in more effcient as you do not have to reverse tains at the terminals.
what would you call the m trains that go the oposite way around the newly made loop.
if anything, they lead to bunching. Transport for London didn't send the Circle Line to Hammersmith for shits and giggles, after all.
> 3:25
Idk about 6th Av getting 5 trains, that feels like a lot compared to 8th Avs 3 trains.
Honestly MTA should’ve just swap the F/M after the 63rd street project it would’ve made more sense?
What is Q-B-L ?
Queens Blvd Line
Here Are My Plans E And M Via 53rd St M Via Queens Bvld Express
F Via Queens Bvld Local 6th Ave Local And Culver Express
V To Coney Island Local
E Unchanged
Those Are My Plans
The (F)/(M) Swap should be permanently for the (M) should run via 63rd Street Tunnel at all times when Queens Link for the (M) Train should be a full time line. The (F) Train should run via 53rd Street Tunnel with the (E) Train at all times. The (V) Train is a useless line which I hate to say this. I miss the (V) Train anyways. If the (V) Train returns in service for 6th Avenue Local Line, the (V) Train should be a 3 borough Local, via 63rd Street Tunnel with the (F) Train. In Brooklyn the (F) Train should run Culver Express Line to Coney Island Stillwell Surf Avenue's Station in Brooklyn and the (V) Train should run via Culver Local Line to Kings Highway Station. The (V) Train be a weekday service like the (W) Train. Since people prefer the (M) Train over the (V) Train for the 6th Avenue Local Line. My opinion I prefer the (V) Train over the (M) Train for the 6th Avenue Local Line. But I'm sorry to say that the (V) Train will never return to the 6th Avenue Local Line service.
(E) 8th Av Local/Queens Blvd Express via 53 St (18 TPH- 20 without 6th Av CBTC)
Jamacia Center to World Trade Center
(F) Queens Blvd/Culver Express via 6th Av/53 St (18 TPH- 15 without 6th Av CBTC)
Jamacia-179 St to Coney Island
(M) Queens Blvd/6th Av Local via 63 St (9 TPH)
Forest Hills-71 Av to Middle Village-Metropolitan Av
(V) Queens Blvd/6th Av/Culver Local via 63 St (10 TPH)
Forest Hills-71 Av to Church Av
LETS GOO!!! We are a step closer to deinterlining!
So on Culver, regardless of either plan, the G would be a primary local?
“Step closer to destroying the subway” you mean. The system is designed to be interlined.
@ Certain types of interlining reduces capacity and causes delays.
@@metropod The 7 is designed to be interlined. But the city removed that in 1949, and today, the 7 is one of the best lines in the system, according to both riders and system analytics. Deinterlining does not destroy the subway, it makes it better.
Probably not. You also need a 6th Ave local service, as Upper Culver rider are the majority. The current F express skips 53 percent of all Culver riders.
@@jointransitassociation I know. I meant to say under this plan, the G wouldn’t be changed and would continue to run local on culver, regardless if the F or V is express.
They should have done this years ago.
Honestly I think this could work but people will be super confused
It’ll take a bit then people will understand
Like if this is confusing me I can’t imagine trying to have to explain this to my friends💀
@@scottydude456 this probably happened when the N and R trains swapped their northern terminals
Trains at Forest Hill type last stops should not waste time kicking people off. Let those idiots stay on the train and Only kick them off if the train has to go to the yard
I love this
🔥🔥🔥
V seems like a temporary fix
Where is the announcement
what
It is just a rumor. Someone overheard Lieber saying it.
@@jointransitassociation ah ok
I Love this video
Bring back the V
Isn’t this kinda ignoring that the F and V would have to merge at Jay Street? This plan partially makes sense but you’re making it too complicated. Just do all of this but keep the late night/weekend F and have the V end at 2nd Ave
@@mmrw Well no because both the F and V train run local in 6th Avenue so the merge is minimalistic and it allows for a full fledged express service on Culver
@ culver doesn’t need express service. Maybe let the few F expresses keep being express past Church but nothing beyond that. “Just upzone it” isn’t really an answer when a line is that underutilized, like you could upzone that whole corridor and the F wouldn’t even be close to at capacity
Or they could do this instead of having the V train to coney island why not create a transfer point for the f and v service at kings highway and create a shuttle from kings hey to coney island
Objection. From Queens Boulevard, you get an express ride to 53rd Street with the E train, an express ride to 63rd Street with the F train, and a local ride to 53rd Street with the M train.
Counterpoint, a preliminary look at employment data shows that E/F riders prefer 53rd St, not 63rd St. 63rd St doesn't even register as a top 50 destination. Also, the vast majority of M train riders don't care about one seat rides, they usually transfer at the first express station.
@ If it’s about employees, why did MTA send the F to 63rd Street in the first place?
@@jadenmuniz8817 Because they wanted to "maximize" the amount of people traveling through 63rd St in order to have a lower cost per rider. And the way to do it is to send a packed express train, not a local. Also they wanted to justify their decision of making the 63rd St Connector tracks connect to both the express and local tracks.
@@jointransitassociation Wait really? Wasn’t it done because the MTA wanted to make 63rd Street “more consistent and minimize off weekday reroutes” because if I’m not mistaken the F train was initially going to remain on 53rd Street on weekdays and the V train was meant to be on 63rd Street with the F train replacing it on weekends and late nights respectively.
V line wont comeback. all delete. if you want R211 option 2 order 437 go to East New York yard. mostly 4 car unit. V line still discontinued wont come back
how I would improve this:
1. With the F and V thing to Coney, how about making the F express and the V local in Brooklyn, splice up service frequencies so there's less F trains (maybe, like, 10tph or something), and the V ends at Church Avenue (limited rush hour through service to Kings Highway) (2nd Avenue on Weekends/Overnights)
2. Taking that into consideration, we should keep BOTH the F and V on QBL during Weekends (written before you pointed that out). F trains, weekend service should be Jamaica-Coney via 53rd *and Culver Local* like usual (or 96th Street-Coney via Culver Local), but during overnights, they would just run between Coney Island and (something between 2nd Avenue and Queens Plaza, maybe 96th Street or something), and V trains would be extended to Jamaica-179th during OVERNIGHTS ONLY (since the F would run to Jamaica-179th during weekends). E and R trains would be unaffected, and... well, it's not like the M runs to QBL during off-weekends. Maybe send it to 96th to boost 6th Avenue Service?
3. To implement, starting small, like diverting a couple rush-hour F services via 53rd and some rush-hour Ms to 96th, would be a good starting point. The V shouldn't come for a while...
4. Won't 6th Avenue Local get overloaded with like 25 trains an hour? I don't think 6th Avenue was supposed to hold more than (or even) 30 trains an hour in emergencies, LET ALONE REGULAR SERVICE
5. what about just getting rid of M service on QBL altogether outside of rush hours and rerouting it somewhere more useful, like 2nd Avenue (at least until the T begins existing)
6. To Combat Point 4, Reroute F trains to the express tracks on 6th Avenue between 6 AM and 7 PM. Lots of riders, especially from Brooklyn, will thank you.
7. You confuse me to hell
Basically what I'm saying about Steps 1 and 2:
F Weekdays-Jamaica 179th to Coney Island, via Hillside Local, QBL Express, 53rd Street, 6th Avenue Express, Rutgers Street, and Culver Express (Jay Street-Church Avenue, local the rest of the way)
M Weekdays-71st or 96th to Brooklyn, via QBL Local/2nd Avenue, 63rd Street, 6th Avenue Local, etc etc
V Weekdays-71st to Church Avenue, via QBL Local, 63rd Street, 6th Avenue Local, Rutgers Street, and Culver Local
F Weekends-Jamaica 179th to Coney Island, via Hillside Local, QBL Express, 53rd Street, 6th Avenue Local, Rutgers Street, and Culver Local
V Weekends-71st to 2nd Avenue or Church Avenue/Smith-9th Street, via QBL Local, 63rd Street, and 6th Avenue Local (+Rutgers Street/Culver Local for Brooklyn)
F Overnights-96th to Coney Island, via 2nd Avenue, 6th Avenue local, Rutgers Street, and Culver Local
V Overnights-Jamaica 179th to 2nd Avenue, via Hillside Local, QBL Local, 63rd Street, and 6th Avenue Local
chng.it/CxKW2W9KMZ
chng.it/CxKW2W9KMZ
chng.it/CxKW2W9KMZ
6:04 If you are going to add more service on 63rd. One of the lines has to be axed, In this case it is the (M) because of the amount of interlining the (M) has with the (E) (F) (J) (R) & (Z) trains which severely reduces capacity. The (V) is a better option because service impacts will be minimal.
This is too much work. Just swap the F and M and just make the F run via 63rd on light nights and weekends. People will get used to it as they always do. Plus the MTA is not going to ever put 3 train lines on one track ever. The NRW are only a brief exception because the W is just an additions local N/R train
7:24 How many people ride all the way between Queens and south of Church Ave? If the number isn't that big, then I don't think the local/express inconsistency would be a huge deal. As @guyfaux3978 says in their comment, the B and D already have something like this.
3:41 I'm glad you discussed the V continuing to Brooklyn. There seems to be substantial demand between 2 Ave and upper Culver-especially in downtown Brooklyn and LES.
4:11 How many trains can be turned around at Kings Highway?
4:06 I somewhat misunderstood the express/local span and had to revisit this. Because I was assuming this would work like the 6 does at Parkchester-but for that to happen, the V would have to stay express in the peak direction. If this happens, this would aid capacity during the PM rush because terminating F local trains get their own platform and don't hold back continuing V express trains.
@@samuelitooooo
How would your proposed Canarsie Line extension work would yours go via Flatlands Avenue and Kings Hwy to connect with the Brighton Line or do you plan on backdooring the extension to Kings Plaza, How would your proposed Canarsie line extension work?
I do have a question for you if you don't mind me asking does your proposed subway extensions take regulations and feasibility studies into account and whether your extensions should be elevated or underground in the most appropriate places on suitable streets (although modern elevated technology could help bring some of the costs down and it's cheaper rather than having to drill underground) regardless I think that your proposed routes would more than likely justify the costs simply because it parallels the busiest bus routes in Southern Brooklyn and where the stops along the busy corridors just about meet people's needs where they need it most.
Some M trains can go to 179
5:14 If one line should be removed from QBL it is the (M) because of the timers and unreliability. This is why the locals remain mostly empty because people want to transfer to the express instead.
0/10 Video No (M) to Rockaway Park B116th St
You are ridiculous! The way the system is designed is to balance out the crowd.
The problem in the past was local passengers had to get off the next express stop. Now they can stay on the "M".
This is sound planning.
Meanwhile, the "F" train crowding is reduced considerably. This is good, because the "F" has a lot more stops by itself. So people rely on it.
The "E" can continue to survive as the only express via 53rd Street.
There's no need for a "V". The ridership is not there to justify it. Plus we got the "M", which replace the "V".
If the "V" does return, which it won't, the "M" should go back to Brooklyn. And the "V" to Second Avenue. Sending the "V" any further would compete with the capacity of the "F". The "F goes to 179th Street and needs clear frequency.
Some "Fs" can be express via Brooklyn. Maybe 1/3rd. But only until Church Street. The ridership really drops off via McDonald Avenue.
NYC Subway is ultimately about coverage and flexibility...
I like to take the L for lisp
I live at Greenpoint avenue on the g train . I used to have a one seat ride to queens center mall in 20 min and a 10 min ride to Steinway street.. it can now take me 20-30 min with that transfers. On weekends I have to transfer twice once at court square and again to the local at either queens plaza or Jackson heights
The G could have given you direct transfer to Queens Plaza had the MTA not screw up the 63rd connection which could have been better execution with the converging and diverging point connecting the line to QBL under 36 and proper turn off for the two track super express. 21st Street Queens bridge should have been built as a transfer point to Queens Plaza using the east end of the station since the station was recently use as a terminal in the 80s and 90s
You seem not to understand the E train is already heavily delayed because it shares track with the F train. This plan will now make the E train way more delayed. All thanks to people wanting “their” train to move faster!🙄😒
You seem to not understand the reason why the E is delayed is because the merging operation seem at 36th St. According to many reliability graphs using MTA GTFS data, the amount of delays seen there dwarfs the ones seen elsewhere, including 5th-53rd. Removing that via the F/M swap will make trains run way smoother.
@ you still don’t get it! Another track is needed to run the E and either the F or M. All can not run express because it currently causes massive delays along the entire route! Not just in Manhattan. The largest rider share of those lines come from Queens! So making it better for Manhattan riders (what your plan will do) does not benefit Queens riders! They will have more delayed trains. Just to make it less delayed as it passes into Manhattan! Hope you get it now!
@ You seem to not understand two crucial things.
1. Queens Plaza is the most problematic merge, according to MTA GTFS data. It makes other merges that the E/F have seem puny in comparison. This includes the one seen at 5th-53rd.
2. When the MTA used to run F trains via 53rd St, it did so super well. They did it with such precision that they wrote the schedules to reflect an 18/12 split, not an even 15/15 split. Why were they able to do that? Because 5th Ave - 53rd St wasn’t on the same level of bad as compared to Queens Plaza, the MTA are timing the equivalent of three trains there, while at Queens Plaza, they were timing the equivalent of four. Timing three is stretching it, but can be done without much delays, timing four is impossible.
And also, I want the system to be as close to fully deinterlined as possible. But with our current system, espiceally on QBL, it isn’t possible. So that is why the F/M Swap exists. It targets the worst merge in Queens, the one seen at Queens Plaza, and moves the E/F merge to somewhere a lot more manageable. That place being 5th Ave - 53rd.
@@jointransitassociation the E and F serve mostly Queens riders! Again, everything you stated ONLY benefits Manhattan riders! Brooklyn riders as well as the F train terminates there. Definitely not Queens riders who will still have extremely packed trains. Service will become much slower than it already is! Worst part is the days of E train riders sitting in the middle of a tunnel waiting for F trains to move ahead will return. That was a major issue as we spent large portions of our ride sitting in tunnels between stations. All due to slow F trains. You also came up with this plan without giving account for accidents, police activity, and breakdowns! Those simply things already create hours of delays for E train riders. Insert your plan and now those issues will increase the delay time exponentially! See I actually use this service many times to get around the city! You are not a usual rider so all you see are the statistics! This is why the MTA won’t use your idea. They actually study stuff before implementing them. They don’t just use the stats written on paper! Real world experience will always be better than what you see on paper!
Here's my POV on this,
1. HELLLLLL NO. NO F ON LATE NIGHTS & WEEKENDS PLUS ONLY TERMINATING AT KINGS HIGHWAY???? I'm sorry but that's a really bad idea. Just because in order for that to work, Kings Highway will need to be remade to be a 4 track station, right now its a 3 track station with the middle being used for terminating. Now keep in mind, 179 Street is a 4 track station with island platforms, plus 8 tracks for storing trains when not in use. (could be more), Kings Highway only has that one track, with the yard being 2 stations away. Besides that if your making a train go into the yard for a layover, your gonna have to cross the Coney Island bound track, which blocks traffic, and lemme tell you, the trains go slow entering and sometimes has to wait for 2 minutes just for the train to pass and the signal to turn green. With that in mind, that's just a bad idea in general and will not work out.
2. The F may be slow but its fucking useful, as someone who uses the F past Kings Highway and commutes using it, so just cutting service in general and turning it into a B train type line is just not gonna be good for the riders.
3. Now returning the V might sound good on paper, but that's 5 trains on 6th avenue, 3 on the local track. Plus, how is Rush hour gonna work out? The V can't go on the express track 24/7 in both directions after Church Avenue as it switches from a 4 track to a 3 track operation. Plus the F Express operates local during the elevated section of Culver and express after Church Avenue.
1. Take the V. The V is literally a rebranded F under this proposal.
As for Kings Hwy, no it won't. A single track terminal can handle 12 tph. Therefore I scheduled 12 tph on the F.
Also, new tech trains are maintained at Jamaica Yard, not Coney Island.
2. Once again, take the V. In fact, your default under the first proposal is an express to Manhattan.
3. Okay, and? Did you listen at all on how much capacity I am giving to each?
F: 12 tph
M: 8 tph (maximum capacity given Myrtle Jct)
V: 10 tph
And yes the V can switch right back to the local after Church Ave. It will use the same switch that the F express uses.
@@jointransitassociation Do you not realize that you are severely reducing capacity on the (F). As for the (M)'s proposed tph that should go to the (G) & the (R) or split between the (F) & the (V) for frequent service. You are going to run up against capacity on Culver as well. As a matter of fact the locals should end early since they are the longer routes while the expresses can continue without interruption. This is due to the locals often getting delayed and not the expresses. The (F) running express on Culver speeds up the runtime with minimal issues.