Reverse Branching is not cool (A response to your deinterlining plans) | Mythbusters
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.ค. 2023
- Thanks to Jeffery Mui from STUA for helping with the information on reverse branching.
Sources/Further Reading
pedestrianobservations.com/20...
pedestrianobservations.com/20....
pedestrianobservations.com/20...
www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in...
I've heard of deinterlining as not so much about capacity but about reliability. By isolating every line, you also isolate the consequences of delays so every other line can continue running and people have other options to complete their trip, unlike today where a delay on one line (including for reasons not related to train operations and scheduling such as equipment failures, public disruptions, and emergencies) cascades onto many other lines.
I've been in support of deinterlining for this reason, but didn't consider how the mismatch of frequencies today scams people out of 5-9 TPH, so thanks for that. In a world where frequency influences ridership, where MTA right now is trying to recoup ridership (which has been declining for a few years even before the pandemic), and where it's more expensive to operate peaky service than to operate consistent service all day, this is another reason I'm in favor of having the same frequency on every line. But as you also mention, no need to worry about merges if every line is isolated, so if you want frequencies specifically suited for each line, deinterlining is the way to go.
As someone who lives off the E line at Jamaica, I am 100% in support of this deinterlining proposal. The other thing about losing one-seat rides is if you need to transfer, those trains will also run at max frequency in the city center so all wait times will be short. And that would make me happy. lol
Just saying, isn’t the E somewhat capped at 12 tph mainly due to Jamaica Center?
@@RBMapleLeaf It is!
@@samuelitooooo I mean it is no secret during Rush hours some trains go to Jamaica 179th St.
But that doesn't make any sense if TTA mentions the IND 8th Avenue Local tracks run at 23 tph. I know the C runs usually 5 tph but the E normally runs 12 tph or 17 tph on the 8th Avenue Local tracks
But during Rush hours what the E gets 6 extra tph totalling 18 with what 6 running the 179th St on Hillside Ave?
Look I ain't an American myself I live in Australia though my parents have been to the states before
I think there's only one argument for interlining, and that's if your transfer station between two lines is inadequate. This is something like Camden Town in London, where two reverse branches meet two branches. By mixing it between the branches/reverse branches, fewer passengers will change trains in Camden Town, which lowers the load of the platforms.
However, this is mostly only the case in situations where a branch and a reverse branch meet.
Another interesting case is Rotterdam, which has a small, but odd network. All lines in Rotterdam interline with another line, though most branches are regular ones. The only reverse one ends in De Akkers. However, there it sort of makes sense, because both reverse branches join up with regular branches slightly later in their pattern.
One of the two reverse branches is also quite interesting, because it branches without doing branching. They do this by having none of the trains go the whole line, instead having the following pattern:
Line D goes De Akkers -> Slinge -> Central Station
Line E goes Slinge -> Central Station -> The Hague Central Station (which is around 20 km from Rotterdam Central).
It's an interesting network in my opinion, because even though they have some odd branching, it's all very effectively set up. Also, since the branches have a more suburban task (some even running with overhead wire electrification), the setup really optimizes filling up the core without having silly frequencies at the branches.
There's another valid reason - seen on the other side of London's Northern line - to throw more trains at a section of line that needs more trains. There has always been West End trains to Morden, despite there never having been a physical need (despite supposed transit experts saying of the Battersea extension 'ah, now it can be deinterlined') to send trains that way - Kennington (and now Battersea) could terminate the lot of them without the need for them to interact with the City branch. Dwell times at platforms on the City branch, as well as other issues have meant that the maximum capacity northbound through the City branch in the am peak has been 28tph (despite Camden being deinterlined in that direction at that time). But the line through Clapham (from the dumping-on interchange at Balham to the taking off interchange at Streatham) needs more trains than that and so peak trains run between Morden and the West End, giving 32tph (still not enough) on the busiest section of the line at peak times.
It's also seen on the Elizabeth line, where Gidea Park - Liverpool Street sees peak only trains not going into the new tunnel to boost capacity on the branched-too-early section between Stratford and Ilford. Only 2tph, when it was due to be more, but still viewed as a necessary thing.
Can you please raise the volume of your videos? It seems like it is 50% quieter than other TH-cam videos.
Not for me
Is this a troll comment because he is so condescending we need to hear it louder or something?
Same for me. I had to raise the volume to 100% but still a bit hard to hear
My volume is pretty high and I can hear it mostly perfect
This is a fine deinterlining scheme. You really understand the concept.
One quick note: the curve at 30rock is completely redundant, as the 7 Ave station right next door has a *reverse cross platform interchange* between the 6 and 8 Ave lines. So even if the E and F were fully deinterlined, thereby consolidating Express services from Jackson Heights onto 53 St and severing the connection to Steinway, then there'd still be an option to transfer from QBE to 6 Ave right within Midtown.
Thank goodness they built it weird like that lol
@@samuelitooooo indeed. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, and anyone's welcome to prove me wrong, 7 Ave might be the first *reverse cross platform interchange* station ever built in the *WORLD.* London didn't do that with the Victoria-Northern lines at Euston until the 60's; Hong Kong and Montreal built theirs I think in the 70-80's; but no other system I can think of built theirs as early as the 30's. What genius of forethought!
I'd like to propose a solution to the perceived inadequacy of 149 St as a transfer station. Right now the middle mezzanine has four stairs to each of the lower platforms, so eight in total, but only *two* stairs to each of the upper platforms, so four in total. The problem is that riders are confined to one set of those two upper stairs depending on which direction they're transferring in, which produces congestion.
However, we can effectively double the stair capacity by *filling in* the upper middle track, thereby creating a single large island platform. Not only would the increased surface area allow more riders on the platform and improve safety, but it would also more evenly distribute riders between the stairs, thereby reducing congestion.
In the short term, the middle track could be filled with temporary platform cars, while keeping the trackway intact. Long-term, the stairs could be widened, and two sets of double escalators could be installed within the middle track footprint, that bypass the middle mezzanine to directly connect the upper and lower platforms.
This is only possible if we deinterline, because as it stands currently, the 4 *must* use the middle track during rush hour so as to avoid merging with the 5 through the slow curve. So in this case, deinterlining actually presents an *opportunity* to expand capacity within the station with minimal cost.
Future video suggestions:
The feasibility of:
1. Extending the G from Court Sq. back to its original terminus at 71st Street (or running as a local to 179th Street with the F running express there). When the G ran to 71st Street, it provided a one seat ride to Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave. and I didn't have to navigate Court Sq to exclusively connect to the 7.
2. Since the 5 is taken out of service at Nereid Av to be sent into the 239th Street Yard, they should build a switch track for the 2/5 lines between 233rd Street and Nereid Avenue to return 5 express service past 180th Street.
(Reason: On the 7 Flushing line, there used to be switch tracks between 69th Street and 61st Street. They rebuilt that section and moved the switch tracks to before and after 74th Street station (as it is a major transit hub transfer point) permitting 74th to be utilized even when the train needs to switch to/from the express track.)
Sorry. The G train will not extended back to 71st avenue Forest Hills.
@@durece100 My disappointment is immeasurable. But I'm curious about your reasons why it shouldn't.
@@ron234haltQBL is already heavily interlined with the M and R trains so adding a G into would eat up capacity further
@@ron234haltBut, if let's say Broadway service is booted out of Queens Boulevard, along with 6th Avenue service being local with a new Queens Plaza platform for the 63rd Street Line, we can extend the (G) to Queens Plaza in QBL. This is because when the first three changes happens, it would leave the local tracks at Queens Plaza completely empty. We can add a cross switch between Queens Plaza and Court Square, and that can be the new northern terminus for the (G) train.
Hence, here would be what it looks like:
(A) QBL Express to 179th Street
(E) QBL Express to Jamaica Center
(F)(M) QBL Local to 179th Street
(G) Crosstown to Queens Plaza at QBL Local
Bonus [for CPW and Broadway since I move the A to QBL and removed the R for a future designation]:
(B) CPW/4th Avenue Express to Washington Heights
(C) CPW Local to Norwood/BPB
(D) CPW Express to Inwood
(N) Broadway/Brighton Express
(Q) Broadway Express//Brighton Local
(W) Broadway Local to Astoria/West End
@@ron234haltOnly thing the (G) needs is that Church Avenue Yard should be an actual yard, and not just a turning point for trains.
I can't tell you how elated I was to read construction on Phase 2 of the SAS is starting soon. If only the MTA could be persuaded to include the crosstown extension under 125th Street.
What is the reason for the cross town extension just serious
Curious*
@@AcezFTW Faster trips on 125th, and so many good transfers to help people get to the east side (the buses are overcrowded, ex: M101). This crosstown would be really important for for basically anyone in the Bronx and Northern Manhattan trying to transfer routes. Think of how the shuttle helps a lot of people get to different sides of Manhattan.
@@peskypigeonxI think that the 125th Street Crosstown branch of the SAS should be part of the 2nd Phase with the rest of it, along with one more possible. I would add another set of lower platforms at 125th Street between 2nd and 3rd Avenues, which would allow the future T trains to either stop there by themselves without conflicting too much with the Q (and N), or have future extensions to the Bronx. Obviously, this plan would work if all stations in Phase 2 have more tracks than just 2 (minimum 4 of course).
The one example I can think of where reverse branching is done reasonably well, is the Amsterdam metro at Van de Madeweg. (though arguably given the demand I've seen there, they could adjust it)
In short, Two lines (50 & 54) heading from the south towards the city split, one goes straight (54), and the other goes around the city (50) . This would mean only half the trains head direct into the city. However a third line (53) mets the others here. As this small section is 4 tracked, this allows them to offer a cross platform interchange between the 53 & 50. Effectively, you lose no frequency towards the city.
The only riders that loose out are those who want to go around the city on the 50. Though even then its possible to ride one station further and catch the 51. Unfortunately though, this isn't a cross platform interchange, and the timetabling doesn't usually make it worth it.
Funnily enough, during construction works, they sometimes end up offering a better service for everyone but the line 53 users, as they remove line 50, and send 53 around the city instead.
Ultimately though, the metro isn't in a vacuum, and exist amongst a well connected train network too, which will frequently be the faster option if you don't have to wait too long.
that example more of a triangular branch rather than a reverse branch. The main trunk from Amsterdam central is the core which then has three normal branches. M50 then slots in between the slack of two of the branches
For the QBL, if you suggest the Northern Boulevard station in the 63rd Street Line, I would also push the (G) train northern terminus to Queens Plaza. The local tracks in Queens Plaza will be empty once 6th Avenue and Broadway service are pushed out of it. With a cross switch between Court Square and Queens Plaza, (G) trains would have a cross-platform transfer with the (E) trains, as well as a transfer to the (F) and (M) trains from Northern Boulevard, as well as potentially the Broadway Local in Queensboro Plaza.
11:30 As an alternative to a new in-fill station, maybe the 63rd Street Line could be connected to the 11th Street Cut (aka the 60th Street Tunnel Connection)? With the R line removed from the QBL, the F/M could be rerouted south after 21st St-Queensbridge via new construction, and then route into the existing Queens Plaza station's local tracks, and then on to the QBL Local.
Sure, piss off Queens Boulevard Express riders.
That is going to be more expensive than it needs to be.
@@the-renegadeHonestly, there could be a better short term solution and this unfortunately means creating more interlining there. Here, concurrent with deinterlning on the 8th Avenue Line, we can keep both the E and F on the express tracks but local service will be changed. What this means is that M service will travel via 63rd Street with the F. The R route on Queens Blvd will be converted to a brand new route, the K, which will run from 71st Avenue via Queens Blvd Local and the 53rd Street Tunnel, and then replace C train service on the local tracks to World Trade Center. To make room and accommodate increasing ridership, the C would be rerouted to the express tracks with the A all the way up to 145th Street, requiring the C and D to switch routes. Here, the C would again travel on the Concourse Line to Norwood-205th Street, while the D would then make local stops between 59th Street and 168th Street. This not only improves services to Queens with very few negative effects on current subway ridership, this also allows for a service boost on the 8th Avenue Line for A and C riders, who, goodness knows, really needs those service improvements. For Bedford-Stuyvesant, it and much of Central Brooklyn has changed in much of the last 2 decades, yet has the same pattern it has had since 1999. The interline-deinterline hybrid plan here really helps these folks out there, even though the Fulton Street Line will continue to operate at half capacity compared to Eastern Pkwy Line nearby.
Is Williamsburg bridge truly limited to 22tph?
@@TheRailLeaguerbuild a tunnel linking Fulton local tracks to BMT broadway easy
Without a new line in queens complete elimination of reverse branching is just not possible
I literally outlined how to deinterline QBL for the time being without any reverse branching. It is in the beginning of the video.
Interlining is not a problem in general, if the train frequencies are equal. You need to know the maximum base frequency and that has to be calculated at the bottle necks. For example every 2, 2.5 or 3 mins (equals 30, 24 or 20 tph). Based on that you define the interlining and the branches. But interlining 4 and 6min-intervals can not work. Simple maths. Every 12mins will be delay. And that's the main problem I think.
I honestly would love the White Plains line deinterlined since the line is very unreliable during weekends and rush hour or another plan is having an express stop between 180 st and 3rd ave 149 st but i know that wont happen.
This is a good explanation that I kind of needed why what seems like such a good idea on a paper isn't actually that suited for most of the NYC system - even while a more renowned system like Tokyo might rely extremely heavily on it. Nice video!
So you’re saying that deinterlining is good, when done correctly?
@@TheRailLeaguer It's good when done in the right circumstances - _and_ correctly
Like the Fukotoshin line and the Yurakucho line on the Ikebukuro-Wakoshi corridor?
Tokyo doesnt interline most of their metro lines with each other.
(They do have suburban lines that provide through service on metro lines, but those are two different modes)
72nd when phase three of the second avenue subway is undergoing more precise track planning and the t train should be on the lower level of the stations, even if the station is remaining single level and the q train will have to wait for the t train to leave the station in both directions and cbtc does help with the situation.
You could say that to the Tokyo rail system. Suburban railways have junction stations towards the city center to branch off to integrate with the subway or the main line to the railway terminus. Keisei towards Tokyo terminates to Ueno or branch to Oshiage to enter the Asakusa subway.
Dang I may need to rethink on my decision on sending the F via 53rd.
Would you consider the Broad Street Line in Philly to be reverse branching?
It runs 3 services, a local train that runs the whole length of the city, an express service that terminates in center city (It sometimes continues to the stadiums on certain days), and a "spur" service that branches out to serve chinatown and the eastern part of center city. It is quad tracked and the spur trains only run on the express tracks.
Only the express trains branch but the Roosevelt line will add reverse branches
I think that BSL's interlining problem is less severe than NYC's since it's mostly the express that tends to suffer from skip-stop issues such as North Philadelphia and Fairmount being BRS only stations when it should serve all express trains whether it's from the main line or the spur
And the NRG-Special pulling a cranberry + Z combo and messing up the local after Walnut-Locust so my solution is just to get rid of the NRG-Special and make North Philadelphia and Fairmount support BSL-Express trains
MFL though also tends to suffer from Skip-stop because of it's A/B service so best solution for MFL eliminating skip stop
The Northeen line in London?
That has two branches in rhe suburbs and two reverse bramches in the centre.
But in the peak they limit it so that each branch only goes to one reverse branch - some people only get one seat services in off-peak but they still have cross-platform interchanges at Camden and Euston.
The deinterlining is only counter-peak at peak-times. There's also no cross-platform interchange between branches at either Camden or Euston. There is same-level interchange in one direction, and nearly the case in the other, at Camden - but the interchange passages are constrained, the station suffers overcrowding to the point of being exit-only at weekends (the busy time) in the 2010s. The key reason why the Northern line is not deinterlined is because Camden is unsuitable for interchanges without major works - which have been blocked by the local council and residents at least once.
There's also interlining south of Kennington (which is a cross-platform interchange, and has had the loop to turn trains from Charing Cross without interfering with Bank-Morden services since day 1) due to traffic south of Kennington (especially Stockwell-Balham) is higher than north of there, and the City branch is unable to deal with a high enough frequency to meet that demand due to passenger flow issues at its stations (this might have been fixed enough with the new platform and track at Bank, and now the problem is probably not enough trains).
I mean it isn’t de interlining but my plan for the irt is to have the 3 run to Eastchester drye ave, which in turn gives me and excuse to quad track the white plains road line and the bit up the nereid ave on 2 so the 5 can just run express all times to nereid (even though is can’t technically do that as past e 180 st there is no peak time directional express stop we just won’t talk about that) but something’s need to change if the 5 were to run express to nereid like the e 180 st yard and I guess Union port yard with them losing tracks to support the station being doubled (oh yeah forgot to say there are two double stacked stations now a new station to replace the grand concourse stations so no delays for the 4 and 2 and this one e 180 st for you know the 3 to run to eastchester because it looks cool) now the new station to replace the grand concourse stations would be just some streets down at like 145 st and unsurprisingly would be called 145 st grand concourse and like I said before it would be double stacked with the 4 being on the second level and the 2,3,5 would be on the first level ( also it is under ground and the 2,3,5 platforms would be two island platforms for you now cross platform transfers with the express/local. Heck I even have night time and rush hour service changes as the 3 would run to its current terminal for late night service but it would local and run to eastchester of course with the 2 running express on 7th avelate nights, the 5 going to flatbrush like the 2 on the Lexington ave and 7th ave perspectively. And we can leave out he 4 all I want done is the 4 express and to make people happy it stops at 161 st Yankees
I actually got good idea , what’s the best way to reach out to talk about my idea for a video
techtransitassociation@gmail.com
Great video. People really like to push the one seat line argument even though the negatives outweigh the positives.
The Nassau Street line is cbtc ready and the ntts from East New York yard only have canarsise line cbtc r160.
Since when have they been working on putting CBTC tracks on Nassau Street?
To be fair, I believe the entire section between Essex St and Myrtle Ave-Bway should have CBTC - but if the condition of the Williamsburg Bridge restricts capacity to 24 TPH anyway then it's probably more reasonable to shift short-term CBTC efforts elsewhere. Either way, I haven't heard of CBTC going to any part of the J line. Only the M (because of 6 Ave and Queens Blvd).
It doesn't matter that Nassau St is CBTC ready. The real thing you need to fix is the Williamsburg Bridge and that is extremely expensive and time consuming because the bridge has suffered decades of deferred maintenance and corrosion. And for an extra 6 tph? I will pass.
That’s forest Hills in your footage! That’s right where I live!
Also, for riders who want to go on the East Side on WPR, they could eventually transfer to a possible 125th crosstown to an SAS local.
There isn't a massive demand for a crosstown subway as the current corridor is sufficient.
@@the-renegade Yes there is. For starters, this would connect to every line going north. That is probably 1-2 million people above there, and lots of us need to get to the east side. Unfortunately, there may be 3 different transfers just to get to the east side at all, and on crowded buses. The M100 and M101 (before the redesign) had 35,000k riders in 2019. Most of their riders were people in areas like Inwood who need to get there. With this extension, you could connect so many line over to an area which only has one line going to it, and is overcrowded.
Also, 125th is not sufficient if you’ve ever been there. It’s crowded, unreliable, and in need of change.
What I propose is turning 125th into 14th Street, completely removing cars and having a subway line run under it.
Okay, so I’ve come up with an idea to improve the B Division:
To improve Queens Boulevard and keep the R on there, and that would be connecting the G from Court Square to the Astoria branch with the N, displacing the W to QBL Local.
The K will run via a connection between 7th Avenue-53rd Street and 57th Street-6th Avenue to run with the M along 63rd Street, while the F runs along 53rd with the E.
The 63rd Street branch will be cut off from the QBL to connect with the Northern Boulevard line, which will be served by the K and M.
Now, that does sound like reverse branching, so an alternative would be sending the K to replace the M along 53rd Street with the E, while the M runs along 63rd Street with the F and along Northern Boulevard, and the E and K run along QBL Express, and split off after Kew Gardens-Union Turnpike, with the E running to Jamaica Center while the K runs to Jamaica-179th Street.
In order to keep the W from being engulfed by the R, I suggest building a new tunnel under the East River connecting from Whitehall Street to Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, where the R can run via Fulton Street Local to Euclid Avenue, while the C runs express, and replaces the A to Lefferts Boulevard. The W will replace the R along 4th Avenue local, and the N along Sea Beach, and the J replaces the R to Bay Ridge-95th Street, also via 4th Avenue local. The Z will be discontinued as a result.
The B and D handle 4th Avenue Express and West End, while the N and Q cover Brighton.
As for CPW, we can have the A/C and B/D swap branches. The A and C will both run express along 8th Avenue and local along CPW, while the B and D run express, however the A and B will run along Grand Concourse while the C continues running to 168th Street, and the D replaces the A to Inwood-207th Street. The A will terminate at Bedford Park Boulevard while the B runs to Norwood-205th Street, but during late nights when the B doesn’t run, the A will run to Norwood.
Your plan sounds interesting but my plan to prevent the W from being absorbed into the R involves sending all B/D trains via Brighton and all N/Q trains via 4th Avenue Express (with the N remaining unchanged and the Q running via a new line either across or paralleling the Verrazano Narrows Bridge). The R to 95th Street would remain unchanged while the W would run via West End.
The issue is that your plan makes reverse-branching much worse than it is already, as now the 63rd Street Tunnel is reverse-branched. Astoria also loses access to Manhattan, which is not good for both Crosstown and Astoria.
@@KingofGamingAndTrains456That's not conducive.
". . . MTA officials said they’ve looked into rerouting trains on the lines leading in and out of Brooklyn via the DeKalb Interlocking. Still, they pointed to a survey from the early 2000s that found riders preferred the current map because changes might require some to make an extra transfer." - NY Daily News
@@the-renegade You do realize that the BMT Broadway Line and the IND Sixth Ave Line run like a block apart in the city center, right?
I've read your former plans regarding IND 53RD Street Line and the 63RD Street Connector, and they are confusing when analyzing it. If the entire purpose is to relieve crowding issues on the existing Queens Boulevard Line, you don't need to engage in an analysis-paralysis about this. The current plans are working fine. Furthermore, the Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC), according to the MTA, ". . . means that the E, F, and FX services will be able to run three more trains during peak hours, up from 30 tph, and the local tracks' capacity would also be increased." Therefore, re-routing services, especially the M, is unnecessary.
_". . . In order to keep the W from being engulfed by the R, I suggest building a new tunnel under the East River connecting from Whitehall Street to Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, where the R can run via Fulton Street Local to Euclid Avenue, while the C runs express, and replaces the A to Lefferts Boulevard. The W will replace the R along 4th Avenue local, and the N along Sea Beach, and the J replaces the R to Bay Ridge-95th Street, also via 4th Avenue local. The Z will be discontinued as a result."_
This is counterintuitive on many parts:
The R currently runs between Forest Hills, Queens, and Bay Ridge-95TH Street, via Queens Boulevard, Queens, Broadway, Manhattan, and Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, as a local service. Why remove the service in exchange for the J service? When the M ran via BMT Fourth Avenue, the R was preferred as the demand for the Nassau Street loop wasn't there. Secondly, Bay Ridge commuters are coming from Midtown, not Williamsburg. If you propose to these potential commuters to make an extra transfer, you'll be mistaken. Commuters aren't going to relinquish their convenient one-seat ride by making unnecessary transfers.
Based on NY Daily News and the Brooklyn Paper, recently as February 2019, ". . . Amid a transit crisis, several Bay Ridge politicians proposed splitting the (R) route in half, similar to the pattern enacted during the Montague Street Tunnel closures in 2013 and 2014, citing the route's length and unreliability. *This proposal has been met with criticism from local riders, mostly because it would eliminate a one-seat ride into Manhattan."*
It's a solution looking for a problem.
The W operated in Astoria, Queens, in conjunction with the N service and served as a local service to Whitehall Street-South Ferry, Manhattan. It's a supplemental local service on Broadway, Manhattan, and Astoria, Queens-that's the mandate, nothing more. If the W operates to Fourth Avenue, Brooklyn, what happens with Manhattan and Queens? You're taking an Express service away from Sea Beach and replacing it with a more local service? That's not conducive.
The C exists as a means of providing local services between areas where the A runs express. Having the C running express in Fulton would be problematic due to how trains are prioritized on IND Eighth Avenue. 50TH Street is a bottleneck for both C and E trains due to how the station is bi-level and how the E takes priority, and Canal Street being an excruciating bottleneck when the subway shuffle is in effect for both A/C trains. That would annoy many Lefferts riders due to the aforementioned concerns and lack of continuous express service. So, having the R operating in Fulton Street isn't necessary.
You're extending the J service by using the Montague Street tubes-effectively making it the third or fourth longest route in the city, especially when you're removing the skip-stop service on that line. Again, no one yearns for the Nassau Street loop to be the subway service in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. The skip-stop service on that line is actually beneficial for commuters in Williamsburg and past Broadway, Brooklyn. According to the Operations Planning Department (MTA), ". . . the running time for skip-stop service from Parsons Boulevard to Broad Street was 48 minutes, compared to 54+1⁄2 minutes for all-local service and 52 for the E." By removing the skip-stop pattern, you're encouraging more riders NOT to use the BMT Jamaica line and preferring the Queens Boulevard at peak hours.
I've seen this narrative about eliminating the Z before from others, and it is predicated on this stupid belief that it isn't reliable when it is. If it were meaningless, the Z would've been eliminated 13 years ago.
_"The B and D handle 4th Avenue Express and West End, while the N and Q cover Brighton."_
No, that would require an extra transfer, which riders do not want. Secondly, by having two of the same services operating in tandem, one of them will be part-time.
_"As for CPW, we can have the A/C and B/D swap branches. The A and C will both run express along 8th Avenue and local along CPW, while the B and D run express, however the A and B will run along Grand Concourse while the C continues running to 168th Street, and the D replaces the A to Inwood-207th Street. The A will terminate at Bedford Park Boulevard while the B runs to Norwood-205th Street, but during late nights when the B doesn’t run, the A will run to Norwood."_
Too much switching or unnecessary switching. The A/C runs locally on Central Park West, but switching over to the express tracks on IND Eighth Avenue is too much, especially when no trails south of 59TH Street-Columbus Circle don't connect; they operate south on the designated routes to Eighth Avenue or haul through the 53RD Street connection-same thing with the B/D services. Having the B take over Concourse is foolish as it's 19/5, not 24/7. This is so convoluted that I don't understand why you even bother to do this.
The queenslink can be built without reverse branching by taking over the LIRR port Washington line and linking queenslink to it at Winfield jct then link to 63rd Street line . You get your queenslink AND you can deinterline 6th ave and 8th ave completely while bringing G back to QBL. A new tunnel linking Fulton street local to the BMT broadway amplifies this all. F to port Washington and M to rockaway unless you’re deinterlining 6th ave locals too. QBL express 53rd ,local crosstown, 63rd queenslink and port Washington plus super express
That is going to make the project even more expensive than it needs to be. Now the most expensive portion is not going to be reactivating RBB, but rather the new tunnels feeding into RBB, which is even more of a hard ask from politicians. The entire point of Queenslink is that it is a cheap, shovel ready project that can be done within 5 years, but that gets thrown out the window when you add more tunneling.
@@techtransitassociationrue but it’s more effective and provides more benefits as it increases capacity on all lines involved. Don’t you love deinterlining? Passing loops can be added to the port Washington line to retain the super express runs. Also the benefits go beyond the subway as well due to service increases on other LIRR Lines due to LIRR no longer needing to operate the port Washington line. Less tunnels needed you upgrade the existing port Washington line link it with the 63rd Street line via a tunnel in the sunnyside yards area and link the reactivated queenslink with it unless you also want the queenslink to be a partial super express you may even gain more support as eastern queens gets a new frequent service and 7 won’t need to serve bayside it can instead go elsewhere like Whitestone or the Bronx. You reduce delays on several lines and the G can get even more frequent and the rockaway queenslink would run a more frequent and yes faster service.
2) HOWEVER if you want a cheaper faster way to get this running build an El over union tpk and skip the NIMBY completely this El would link the existing queenslink ROW with tracks at Jamaica yard allowing a literal extension of the M or R or G if you choose from forest hills to the rockaways at forest hills cross platform transfers to express trains will be available no need to modify woodhaven blvd under either plan. This 2nd plan can act as a temporary line until more lines can be built to make better use of the rockaway line while bypassing the NIMBY problem and having to capture a LIRR line. The first plan adds an extreme amount of extra capacity due to deinterlining the QBL and adding service on several lines in LI and boosting the port Washington line giving it a frequent service the 2nd plan however just gets the queenslink running faster without having to add more reverse branching. The 2nd plan is cheaper and can act as a catalyst for building the union tpk line out along a guideway obviously. And setting the stage for a new crosstown line in queens that can go to the Bronx. In other words you still need to build a tunnel in your plan and my first plan the 2nd plan doesn’t need ANY tunnels at all.
@@qjtvaddict Oh boy, where do I begin with this?
"but it’s more effective and provides more benefits as it increases capacity on all lines involved."
Let me ask you a question, are we building Queenslink or another project? Because if you want to propose a whole Grand Paris Express type system, tell me. But don't call it Queenslink as that is not Queenslink anymore. The reason why I am picking apart this proposal is because of how politics work in NYC. WE ARE NOT THE ONLY INTEREST HERE AS THERE ARE OTHER SECTORS THAT THE GOVERNMENT POURS MONEY INTO, which means that any project that we propose must be high in the priority list. The super express would be great, but that is certainly not needed, not until Phase 3 of Second Ave subway debuts in 2186.
When I put forth my proposals in the Lines That Never Were series, I do in a way that can be reasonably advocated. This is why I never ever propose some large subway project in those videos. There are two maps that I work in Brand New Subway. The first one is my fantasy map, and I am up to Line 70. The second one is my realism map, and that is a lot less cluttered because you need to understand that NYC is not some Minecraft world where you can ALT-F4 your way through 10 villages. Politics exist. Mix that in and you will see a lot of your proposals shrink.
"Don’t you love deinterlining? "
I am probably one of the biggest proponents of deinterlining that posts videos regularly. But I understand the drawbacks on deinterlining, and sometimes the drawbacks are so bad that I don't advocate it at all. There are a handful of places that I don't advocate interlining. Queenslink is one of them. Find out why in the video.
"Passing loops can be added to the port Washington line to retain the super express runs."
Just because something is in a RM Transit video doesn't mean that it is good. With passing loops, you are timing a ton of merges, which you don't do when you deinterline. That would decrease capacity, which is apparently something that you are advocating for. Also, the express barely saves you any time. The super express on PW saves like 6 minutes from Port Washington, and congratulations, you lengthened everyone else's waiting times by 4 minutes. And oh, since you are retaining the super express, you cutting service to the bigger, denser stations, like Flushing. That would be great, right? I generally approve of what most of RM is saying, as I think that he has some great ideas, but passing loops are not one of them.
Also, by proposing a branch to Port Washington, congratulations, you nerfed Rockaway frequencies to 8 minutes because the Rockaways has two branches. That is better than what they have now, but that is still not acceptable.
"Less tunnels needed you upgrade the existing port Washington line link it with the 63rd Street line"
Have fun trying to convince the majority of riders on QBL that they won't get a direct Manhattan train. Unless you want to build a new tunnel, which is the option I like, but that is more $$$.
"7 won’t need to serve bayside it can instead go elsewhere like Whitestone or the Bronx."
I partnered with Vanshookenraggen to explain the 7 Train Project, a project that TTA is currently advocating for. Search it up.
Before I go on any further, there is a reason why Queenslink is perfectly fine as is.
1. Adding Queenslink can allow for more capacity to be run on QBL's local tracks. I explained the Forest Hills problem multiple times already.
2. Deinterlining on QBL can still work in tandem with Queenslink. (E)/(K) on the express and (F)/(M) on the local, and the (M) can be sent down Queenslink. In fact, Queenslink would compliment this service pattern better because Forest Hills is a terrible terminal, and you can get 12 tph out of Forest Hills and onto Queenslink. The (F) would only need to run 18 tph, which is its current service.
3. The entire point of Queenslink is that it is a cheap shovel ready project. We are currently using a former transit right of way, hello? Do you remember why Queenslink exists in the first place? Because there exists an abandoned rail line, and ti would much easier to do cut and cover construction on an existing transit right of way rather digging up an entire street. But by adding new tunnels to other places, you forgo that option and make it harder to sell to politicians and voters. People already gasped at the $3 billion price tag of Queenslink. So what makes you think any politician would touch a project costing so much more than $3 billion?
"HOWEVER if you want a cheaper faster way to get this running build an El over union tpk"
That is such a horrible idea that I don't even want to give it more oxygen. But since I want to make you more educated in the transit field, I am going to explain why. Queenslink is supposed to be a fast way to get people to and from Manhattan/Queens. But if you have the Union Tpke alignment, congratulations, you added 8-10 extra minutes in running time, negating almost the entire 12 minute save of Queenslink. All the while, you skipped over Woodhaven Blvd, a road that you need parallel in order for Queenslink to make sense, to serve Forest Park? Finally, have fun with that horrendous sharp curve trying to get onto Union Tpke, unless you want to move it further east, which is going to drive up more running time, or add a lower level, which is going to make the project cost more. Your choice.
"no need to modify woodhaven blvd under either plan."
I take particular issue with that statement. Woodhaven Blvd needs to be expanded into an express station, whether Queenslink gets built or not. Part of the reason why I never use QBL unless I have to is because how the terrible transfer known as Roosevelt Ave. There is a ton of people transferring, which actually delays trains. And it is not just M/R to E/F. 7 Train riders have to navigate a maze just to transfer too, adding congestion. Combined with plans to build the IBX, which would add more people transferring, I think it is abundantly clear that QBL needs a second transfer point at Woodhaven Blvd, because it is one of the most used local stations, features a ton of well used Northern and Southern Queens bus routes, and provisions exist to convert that station.
"This 2nd plan can act as a temporary line until more lines can be built to make better use of the rockaway line while bypassing the NIMBY problem and having to capture a LIRR line."
Oh, so this a temporary measure. I have a question for you, why don't you have Queenslink come in at 63rd Dr? After all, you are connecting it later at White pot Junction. So make it cheaper by using the right of way, and most of that right of way is still going to be used. Won't you get more bang for your buck?
Even so, I don't endorse connecting it with the LIRR mainline. Queenslink is advertised as a Queens link. So connecting it to Jackson Heights would be a great move as it is the center of Queens. And don't worry, even if the M train makes all local stops, we are going to still save 12 or so minutes. But by using the LIRR mainline, you don't have that option.
I think I made myself extremely clear on this channel that talking about whatever service to run down Queenslink is a waste of time. The question isn't what train to run down RBB, but rather if trains would run on RBB ever again. And so far, the question is being answered as no, no trains would ever be run down RBB because of a politically connected minoritarian group known as the Queensway. I much rather spend my time as a transit advocate convincing Queensway supporters to opt for Queenslink than to fight with Queenslink supporters on every petty, insignificant detail. (Which I did with you, which is an L on my part) If we keep dividing ourselves, that is how Queensway is going to win. Do not spend your time fighting with me or any Queenslink supporter. That is a huge waste of time. Spend whatever time you have convincing Queensway supporters. Spend some time helping out Queenslink. That would go a longer way than arguing with me online about an otherwise petty detail on Queenslink.
To close out, I will have Vanshnookenraggen, the Chief Design Officer of Queenslink, have the last word. "I think it is not that big of a deal and it's actually the one thing I'm most bored of talking about because it's a detail that you know this is sort of like the dark side of the railfanner community.
People like that tend to get obsessed over certain details and can't see the big picture and for me it's like it doesn't matter what train it's it matters that there is a train."
Thanks,
TTA
I skimmed through these walls of texts (and frankly one of them had poor grammar that made it hard to read through), but to add to the above:
1) QueensLink isn't reverse branching to me. It's not in the city center. 10-12 TPH would be more than enough capacity to start with for existing people along the corridor, both to go to Manhattan (as well as other parts of Queens; I anticipate this will be very popular with middle and high school students - by the way a new high school is getting built near the Northern Blvd stop) and for people to go to the beach during the summers.
2) Leave the railroads alone. If you really want to boost service, let's start by having LIRR not artificially reduce capacity into all of its three terminals by restricting the Atlantic Branch into a Jamaica-Brooklyn shuttle. Instead, the LIRR too can use some capacity-boosting deinterlining principles: have all Far Rockaway and Long Beach trains go to Atlantic Terminal (and nothing else), restoring cross-platform transfers at tracks 3 and 6, and in so doing, freeing up capacity on the Main Line to allow every other branch to run more frequently, including the Port Washington branch.
And that's just the beginning, but it's a long discussion for another day.
@@techtransitassociationphase one and phase 2 add extra trains via QBL phase one phase two branch of port Washington or use that and the truth is it’s 2 services with port Washington having super express and local. The goal is to summon as many groups against the queensway group as possible. LIRR has unused trackways and LIRR Is congested at sunnyside
So glad they decided to de-interline finally. Really hope this is permanent.
Not likely. Because it would be a service cut for 63rd Street riders.
There are a number of flaws in this analysis. First of all, years ago (during the sixties, for example), major trunk lines with two services successfully blended two 15TPH services and achieved 30TPH: the A/D, the E/F, the 4/5, etc. This was because train operators were permitted to key-by red signals, allowing greater capacity than today. The second problem is that when passengers were used to a train every 2 minutes (or more, on the AM E/F and #7), they allowed doors to close quickly because they knew the next train was right behind. Today that behavior is gone. Third, there is little need anymore for 30TPH during rush hours except on a small set of lines (E/F; 4/5) because a sea-change in work and lifestyle habits has flattened usage demand: few passengers during rush hours and more passengers midday and weekends. In addition, streamlining services would require a great deal more changing of trains by riders.
To your first point, I get it, operational decay killed capacity. But at the same time, it was a nightmare to run to the point where we had these restrictive policies in the first place. This is why the NYCTA swapped the 1 and 3 trains in 1959, ended joint operation, rebuilt DeKalb Junction, and redid multiple elevated lines approaches into yards, like on Pelham. On the surface level, it is very easy to say just run your trains better, but it was such a nightmare to do, where the NYCTA found it easier to spend hundred of millions of dollars to grade separate or deinterline.
And second, ridership in the outer boroughs is going back up. It is not just the E/F or the 4/5. It is the 2/3, portions of the N train in Queens, the 7 train, and so on. The point of this video is to discuss the demands in ten years. That is on me, I should have made that clearer.
And finally, interlining does not equal one seat ride utopia. DeKalb is the most egregious: where the interlining is between two trunk lines that run within one block in the city center. At that point, it would make much more sense to deinterline, right? As any rider would walk an extra block at most and have a one seat ride home. There is also the F and M swap, where despite 23 years of the F train on 63rd St, rider preference is still on 53rd St, meaning even more one seat rides will be created. And it is not my analysis, it is the MTA's and the Census'. I can go on and on, but that is the point of the deinterlining series, including the case studies, to examine deinterlining.
So that's what Elon Levy was talking about in his post on NYC subway deinterlining
I get emphasizing the capacity benefits, but they aren’t going to add trains. There isn’t the demand. There aren’t the trains. There isn’t the money. If there are lines consistently running at over 100% capacity and the MTA wants to add more trains, then it may make sense to deinterline/unbranch, but absent that there’s no benefit.
I have a question(or rather multiple): have you taken Lexington, especially Lexington express during rush hour? Or the 7th Ave line? Or QBL? Or CPW? Or Flushing? My point is that there are places where there is insane demand, so saying there isn't demand is simply wrong. A quick trip taking any East Side Line or any river crossing into Queens at rush hour disproves that statement very quickly.
Also, the MTA doesn't want to do anything. The MTA executive board is filled with questionable people (search up David Mack) and they contradict themselves all the time. A few years back, they said they didn't want PSDs. Now they want it. A few years ago, they didn't want Triboro. Now they embrace it. And the MTA made every questionable statements like saying Queenslink isn't needed. Essentially, the MTA is a transit commentator. I am sorry, but if an agency can get that many things wrong and flip flop on almost every issue, this isn't some esteemed institution, but rather a mishandled agency held together by duct tape and string.
Finally, about the money and trains. There is enough money to go around. The city runs on a $100 billion budget. Whenever the city wants something, it always gets it, no matter the cost. And about trains: if we built out new subway extensions, we need trains. And the MTA knows that with CBTC, which is why they are getting the R211s. Any service increase came with new fleets. The Program for Action came with the R44s, the IND came with the Arnines, and the Dual Contracts came with new IRT and BRT models.
The reverse branches do get people who live on thesame branch to difference parts of the city...
if done properly, you could have trains on a beat *(I will give example with random line names here), thus, with line A running at a peak section capacity of 30 trains per hour dividing into 3 ten-per-hour branches in the suburbs. A1 runs one side of Manhattan at 20 trains an hour, whilst service A2 runs down the other 10 trains an hour... meanwhile, A2 is also interlined with B2 (running 10 trains an hour) and C2 (with thesame frequency), same for A1, B1, C1.. this way you are providing all the areas along A B and C lines a with direct and fairly frequent access to all the offices along the corridors of A1 & A2
obviously, reverse branching works with interlining, and if you are de-interlining you need to get rid of reverse branching... but, is that not the opposite of providing a better service?
First of all, you need to have insane pinpoint precision to make sure trains don’t enter a junction at the wrong time. But with the uncertainty of junctions, with a ton of merging conflicts, there will be a time when a train enters a junction at the wrong time and destroys your “perfect” merging harmony. Just look at Lexington or QBL during rush hour, as express trains are notoriously slow. (Though QBL has somewhat improved because of a partial deinterline). This is why the MTA reduces service to accommodate delays. Second of all, your reverse branching options aren’t that good. I explained your options in the video, like choice between Broadway and 6th Ave, which run one block away. That is not choice, and meanwhile you have terrible service on the BMT Southern Division in exchange for that “choice.” Look, does interlining have its uses. Sure. But is interlining insanely overused in the NYC Subway. Of course.
@@techtransitassociation effectively, what I hear here is that NYC-Subway services run in a haphazard fashion not subject to scheduling or precision... and that the system is too unskilled/worn-out to allow harmonious operation....
having lived much of my life in the far-East/Orient, it is strange to hear for me, but, thinking, that is probably a true assessment of the state of transit in the city.
I have seen many systems a similar system does work with no issue
but they are all in generally much better running metropolises...
There are very few systems in the world that use interlining, and in the systems that do, capacity is reduced. Most Asian Metros are never interlined, like Beijing, Shanghai, and India. And even in the ones that do, like Tokyo, it is relegated to like a very small section, like the Namboku and Mira Lines in the SE corner of Tokyo. My point is that in all of the very good metro systems, rampant interlining doesn’t exist, which allows them to run better service.
By the nature of our junctions here, delays are always waiting to happen. DeKalb is a famous case, where trains always enter at wrong time and have to take a nap at that junction. Every delay equals capacity being deleted and in a time when the outer boroughs are seeing a rebound, we will have this deinterlining discussion again.
@@techtransitassociation specifically for Tokyo, the Tobu & Seibu lines entering Yurakucho-Keikyu & Fukutoshin Lines Respectively, also the Hanzomon & Hibiya lines from the SkyTree line (towards Nikko), also, the interlining between the multitude of branches on the Chuo line or the bunch of lines that run between Ikebukuro and Osaki as a single track-set, or the Odakyu line coming into the city (I know these are suburban lines, but in the city they act sort of like an EL)
by Memory, Hong-Kong and Seoul seemed to have some degree of interlining (though my memories are not clear enough to remember the geography of them)...
of course, historically the system in NY is more complex, but also probably less clockworky than it could be
Hong Kong has one with the Tung Chung Line and the AirPort Express But the rest of the system is deinterlined.
Seoul doesn’t have rampant interlining like NYC. Like Seoul Line 4 and Suin Bandang Line may be interlined but the rest of the system is separated each other. And maybe some suburban lines are reverse branched, but those reverse branches run short distances and doesn’t mix with other lines. In fact, Seoul spent money to deinterline Line 1 with another branch, which became the Jungang Line.
Tokyo has through running on suburban railways with metro lines, but again, you are mixing suburban railways with metros. Suburban railways are designed to bring a large swath of population to a particular central location. That requires interlining. On the other hand, metro systems are designed to move a ton of people per direction per hour quickly, and that means reverse branching and interlining should not be considered. Which is why I don’t get your statement the subways should run less clockworky, because if you do not run trains around the clock/not time anything, you either risk running trains slowly, which defeats the purpose of public transit, or delete capacity to such an extent that again, defeats the purpose of public transit. Though, I think I am misinterpreting what you are saying with clockworky?
6:12 Thanos agrees
I want to add that interlining also vastly increases the number of services and makes the system really hard to understand. I imagine a significant number of people, especially tourists, don't bother with the subway because the service patterns and map are overwhelming to understand. Simplifying the system is a good thing.
It isn’t hard to understand the map. You find your origin and destination and find the line that goes between them. Or just use your phone to put it in maps.
@@qwerty112311 It is hard to understand the official NYC map. Part of the problem is that we're looking at a very large city, part of the problem is that the system is rather complex (and front loads a lot of that onto the map), but the biggest one is the design of the official map is terrible for tourists. While there are other maps (deliberately differing in design principles, and being sold as making it easier to understand the network*), and apps, that make life easier, the overwhelmingly complexity that comes from the official map is not a great advert for the system, or an encouragement for tourists to use it.
However, it might be an easier sell to New Yorkers to simplify their trains than to simplify their map such is their irrational love for that cluttered and complicated mess!
*Other cities, like London, have many unofficial maps, but they mostly for fun/get around copyright and only tinker with implementation of the principles, rather than principles. The exceptions that depart from the fundamental principles of the tube map's design are either thought experiments with different types of topographical mapping, or a design language that comes from one of the NYCS map redesigns, as part of an attempted roll out of that industry to other cities.
naive question: isn't it simply political? Let's say you need to justify the existence of a suburban section of the network (either its construction or its maintenance), facing both conservatives who fear for their tax money, NIMBYs who dislike the infrastructure or the service, and people from other neighborhoods who want the money spent on their service instead.
If it's built normally, it's "just" the end of a random line and it can go away pretty quickly and easily. But if it's interlined, this outer section is now part of many lines, and what kind of monster would disrupt service for people using several train services all across the city? This section now gets support from many faraway neighborhoods because the interlined service connects them to there
Hi, thanks for your question. To address your point, subways and commuter rail are built for different purposes. When you build a subway line, you expect it to move a ton of people everyday, which is why they are built in the city center and out to the city limits. On the other hand, commuter rail lines are designed to bring as much coverage, mainly, bring a huge swath of land and its residents into the center of the city. This deinterlining plan has nothing to do with the commuter rail system, though we believe that a regional rail system would be better, which is a separate topic from deinterlining.
Also, in the NYC Subway, we use the most interlined system on Earth, yet it cannot provide people with one seat rides. Manhattan will be the prime destination for the overwhelming majority of NYC residents, which is why I use that metric. If you examine it, you will find very quickly that your one seat ride options are very limited. It is usually a choice between the Broadway and 6th Ave line, which run no more than a few blocks apart. At the point, end that reverse branch and have one pair of tunnels going to Broadway and one pair of tunnels going to 6th Ave.
Using a heavily interlined system also hurts people in the outer boroughs too because you are reducing their service too. Like, we are not talking about an extra minute or two wait here, but rather an extra wait for over 5 minutes. That is not good, especially when the NYC Subway is slowly regaining riders lost from the pandemic. We will get to pre pandemic ridership one day, so we need to start the conversation on how to increase service and capacity on the system. Thankfully, most reverse branches are not good in NYC, so ending interlining won't be the end of the world.
marge
continental my station
Same! But I’m in Oswego right now. 🥺
Let me tell you something. The "deinterlining" is only good on paper, but in reality, (A) customers to Inwood do not want to lose their Express service. They don't mind a (B) train, but the (A) is EXPRESS and the (C) is LOCAL. The (K) does not belong on the QBL, and you'll have to deal with what you have to deal with on the (E). No matter how crowded the (E) and (F) gets, do not expect 3 minute headways on each line, (best frequency will be every 4 minutes at Peak Hours).
Here's an answer. If you want to increase service to the (F), let the (R) extend to 179th Street and turn the (F) into an EXPRESS. This will put the 179th Street (E) trains back to Jamaica Center.
The Queens Blvd corridor is a mess anyway, no matter if it is local bus (Q60), EXPRESS Bus (several QM routes), Subway (the QBL) or the LIRR (nearby). What generally happens is if you are out of Jamaica, you would typically (J) or (Z) for Lower Manhattan, and you would Q44 SBS it for The Bronx. You may use the Q60 if you need QBL Local Stations because you hate to change trains. LIRR customers want their speed into Midtown Manhattan.
What typically happens is, when a person from Harlem, Washington Heights or Inwood is travelling along the QBL, chances are, they are not looking for (E) or (F) trains. They are mostly going for (M) or (R) trains because these stop closer to their jobs in the Woodside or Elmhurst/Rego Park area. This means, they are typically transferring at 42nd Street - Port Authority/Times Square. There may be a few Harlemites travelling to Jamaica Center or JFK Airport who would connect with (E) trains from their (D) EXPRESS. Bronx residents are scarce because they would rather the Q44 SBS than commute into Manhattan to go into Queens.
In all actuality, when done correctly, deinterlining maintains most existing ridership patterns, including express service to Inwood-207th Street. In addition, a K route can go pretty much anywhere, so saying that the K does not belong on Queens Blvd, especially along subway routes that desperately need extra service is just absurd.
@@TheRailLeaguer You can't do much with the QBL. What you need to do is build new Subway lines, and have them feed into Northern Blvd, as well as along the LIE.
@@ahmadfrw1 Technically you can do much with QBL as a short term alternative to new subway lines. My plans have the E and F unchanged, but local service will be dramatically altered. The simplest one will be moving the M from 53rd Street to 63rd Street. With this, R train service on QBL will be converted to new K trains that will operate from Forest Hills-71st Avenue via QBL and 53rd street to 50th Street, where it will replace C trains on the local tracks to World Trade Center. This will mean that the C will operate express from Canal Street to 145th Street, and then run along the Concourse Line to Norwood-205th Street, with the D making local stops from 59th Street to 168th Street. Oh and the R replaces N service to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd with the N going via the Second Avenue Subway. This will allow for increased service improvements on both QBL, 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, and Broadway while still maintaining ridership preferences. All without expensive and lengthy construction of new subway lines (a long term plan).
Maybe you should think outside the box and be more open minded.
@@TheRailLeaguer The (E) is not going to Brooklyn, so stop it.
The (K) is not touching the QBL unless it's interlined with the (G) Crosstown.
The (C) is not going Express
@@ahmadfrw1 I didn’t say anything about the E going to Brooklyn with this plan. And clearly there’s nothing wrong with a C express train in Manhattan providing much needed extra express service with a new K train providing replacement service.
Again, stop being so delusional and closed-minded.
I will say not likey
Delete. Due to 1990.. B line was sent to 21 QueensBoro Bridge as last stop. No such evidence . no tunnel connection to Queens Blvd line. No point. Until tunnel connection was built 21 street Boro bridge connection to QueensBoro plaza. If tunnel was not built via connector to Queens BLVD line. B line will still go to QueensBoro Bridge 21 street.
The problem is that all of these armchair "experts" view the system as purely a problem to solve scientifically when there are personal stakes in the transit game. People, especially in New York, HIGHLY value one-seat-rides and our system is by far the most complex. Transferring between four different trains to get somewhere simple is not it.
"People, especially in New York, HIGHLY value one-seat-rides and our system is by far the most complex."
When you actually look at a NYC Subway map, there is very little one seat ride value going on. For example, the entire BMT Southern Division is served by Broadway and 6th Ave, with both routes that run within one block of one another. Therefore deinterlining DeKalb is almost painless.
"Transferring between four different trains to get somewhere simple is not it."
That is hyperbolic pandering. Once again, if you look at a subway map, what one seat ride do you have? The majority of the system is served by one service, and unless you are heading to the area served by that one service, you have to transfer.
And unfortunately, interlining advocates don't get that at all. They continuously wail about their one seat rides when the majority of the one seat ride options are garbage. That hardly justifies the long waits, reduced capacity, and unreliable service.
I want to believe you are commenting in good faith, but that cannot be achieved when you straw man and try to exaggerate deinterlining arguments.
That’s not really true since with deinterlining, you’ll still get to your destination with no more than one subway transfer. Plus in Manhattan much of the lines operate within a block or two of each other (look at Midtown), so there’s always an alternative.
@@techtransitassociationI’m pretty sure Blake is either joking or spewing nonsense.
@@techtransitassociation Maybe we don't have a lot of one-seat rides but nobody wants to make more transfers than they already do. Look out how the system functioned in the 1930's: a good deal of interlining with headways of about a minute. The problem is the low speed limits and the timers which are largely unnecessary. Again, you're looking at from a map-based standpoint; what seems logical from a bird's eye view. People will want more route options like they once had.
Re-Add The K And Put It On 53
Please stop this nonsense. There are enough lines to spread around throughout the CBD.
I welcome you to take the Lexington Ave Subway or CPW during rush hour or the Queens Blvd Line.
I want to believe you are acting in good faith, but that cannot be achieved when you insult me, then have no response to what I say.