The Montague Connection | De-Interlining Chronicles
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 06. 2024
- DeKalb Junction is one of the main sources of delays in the B-Division, and today, continuing the De-Interlining plans I spoke about last time, I propose a fix for that issue.
Timestamps:
0:00 - Intro
0:52 - (E) & (K) to Brooklyn?
1:58 - Cutting back the (R) Line
3:59 - South Brooklyn Changes
8:20 - Outro
Vanshnookenragen Track Map: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in...
TMC: / @tmc_bc
My Gaming Channel: / mysticzeenoz
Join My Discord Server: / discord
Follow Me On Instagram: / mztransit
My Twitter: / realzeenoz
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @mystictransit
I make cool Transportation Videos, mostly revolving around Railfanning/Trainspotting, Station Tours, and Informational-Type videos. This is an overall chill channel, so if you like Transportation, Consider Subscribing!
#DeInterliningChronicles #DeKalbJunction #NYCSubway - Auta a dopravní prostředky
Getting the entire system to run better but loosing one seat rides is a small price to pay if you ask me.
I’m hearing most people are not working in Manhattan but from a different borough and living in another and the interborough express would do just that
It’s a very tiny price
The problem is transfers are painful with strollers or wheelchairs
@@subwaywiz445 that’s a whole different matter, one that would involve a lot of work within the stations themselves.
This is actually better than most de-interlining plans I’ve seen. Keep up the good work Mystic!
Bergen St. station on the lower level must be recovered restored and rebuild and it is to help a lot congestions reduce too!
Idk why MTA hasn't done that yet. This should happen so that F can run express all the time on the Culver Line
@@coolboss999 More than half of the F train's Brooklyn ridership is between Bergen Street and Church Avenue, which the MTA has known for decades. In addition the politically connected affluent folk live in the Park Slope area, and they are the ones that protested to the MTA to eliminate the Brooklyn F rush hour express trains in the 1970's, when the MTA tried such a scheme as proposed. Transit fans have screamed, cried and dreamed for decades about such Brooklyn F train service - with a "screw the riders point of view" under the idea that their exists a set of express tracks somewhere that those tracks have to used. The majority of the time these dreamers have never satisfactorily explained how or why any community that has train service direct to Manhattan at 4 minutes between trains would ever give that up. The alternatives of using the G train or somehow "backtracking a few stops", or the idea just "suck it up" will not fly with these folks. The MTA knows this, and has known it for decades. All of these transit dreamers offer is less service, why what community really wants less service?
@@michaelsherrell6389 how about eliminating the M and having 6Ave- 96 st/2Ave local train to Church Ave and have the F split there services in Brooklyn with Express and local trains. Boom
@@williamerazo3921 That would ultimately disturb service between Midtown and Northern Brooklyn, a service pattern that has grown faster than lower Culver ridership (I’ve seen my fair share of crowded M trains).
Ultimately, new tunneling in the form of a Nassau Street-8th Avenue connection can help free up 6th Avenue capacity for the express service while retaining the connection.
By the time the F train gets to Bergen Street (23 stops) from Coney Island you can't get on unless you enter between the cars :-( or wait for either the next train or the train after
I live in Park Slope, and I've been saying reopen lower Bergen and run the F as express for years now.
This would improve service so much.
Indeed, the best option to improve culver service
In order for this plan to be implemented, the interlockings at Bay Parkway have to be put in place as well as the opening of the Astoria yard. Other than that, your plan is very fresh. I haven't rode the D on the Brighton Line since 02. It would bring back nostalgia. The BMT would get some fresh patterns and new options to travel around the city.
the only major flaw with this plan is the lack of a cross-platform transfer at dekalb to the broadway line, otherwise, amazing idea!
@Weirddude888, I posted a comment on having the (E) & (K) trains stop at Canal St, and then proceeding to City Hall, and the (R) terminating on City Hall lower level. This would help with your issue a little bit. Before you dislike this comment, I explained in that comment why this can be useful.
1:18 took me by surprise. But seems feasible after thinking about it for a bit. And we get to eliminate a slow S-curve in the process. Awesome!!
The lower level of City Hall could be a set up for an extension… 🤔
WTC station directly abuts the path station oculus and more importantly, the WTC bath tub (which is already filled in).The station is also adjacent to the broadway line @ courtland street.
You would basically have to have a tunnel connecting to the broadway tracks north of the current station. That said, if it could ever be done politically, it would be very useful.
Political nightmare
I definitely agree with the D interlining especially involving Dekalb Junction. Having to use that specific route for a long time. It takes from 25 to 50 minutes to go from Grand St/Canal St to Dekalb Ave and/or Vice Versa. All 4 are fighting to go first to switch tracks. It's bad enough when you have 2 but 4 is a nightmare for commuters.
Another benefit of all day F express service is the ramps between Jay Street and Bergen Street. After Jay Street, the tracks ramp down to the lower level to cross under the transit museum tracks. For local service, trains have to climb up another ramp to get to the upper level, where the G merge occurs. This connection was never intended to be used full time, and trains have to slow to a crawl as they pass through multiple switches. The line is designed for all trains coming from Jay Street to run express, and crosstown trains to run local. It is most efficient when operated in this manner.
Exactly. You need to open Bergen lower level. If community wants to bitch about not getting a local F then we should give them 4 locals per hour
Holy i love this entire plan keep up the good work guys
I love the completeness of the track map shown, with historical details like the unused ramps from Chambers St. turning towards the Brooklyn Bridge.
i’m all for this plan… wonderful video. excellent points brought up.
I’m glad you agree, though unfortunately there are other people who outright oppose any form of deinterlining, no matter how beneficial it is.
Personally, I'd like to see this once we build out into Staten Island:
(E) (K) via West End, (E) to Bay Pkwy, (K) to Coney Island via 4th Ave Local
(N) via Sea Beach/4th Ave Exp
(Q) To South Avenue - Arlington (Grasmere-95th Street Tunnel) via 4th Avenue Exp
This would require 2 switches in between 36th Street and 45th Street, allowing West End trains to run local along 4th Avenue, and expresses to split south of 36th Street, with Staten Island bound trains running local south of 36th Street, and Sea Beach trains running express to 59th Street and along their normal route.
Woah, SI Plans? Thinking kinda far in the future there eh? Lol, I like the plans.
Imagine if the Q also goes to Tottenville with the SIR, but as soon as you go to Grassmere, you have to decouple, but to make up for it, the Q will run express
the New Jersey Governor rejected it years ago
Wasn't the Verrezzano designed and built with a train connection in mind? If I remember correctly the design allowed for tracks to run on the lower level of the bridge.
@Amir the Cultivated Commuter The B and D, with the B running local to Coney Island, and the D running express to Brighton Beach.
I think building a link after WTC to the Broadway line would be great. However, this means eliminating Cortlandt Street which I think MTA will not do after they spent a lot of money remodeling and connecting train lines and platforms for the WTC Complex station
Yup impossible with Oculus now built
I think that the (E) and (K) trains should stop at Canal St and then make their next stop at City Hall. This is possible because there are provisions south of Canal St that come off the local tracks and go southeast. The (R) train would terminate on the lower level of City hall. From City hall, the (E) and (K) would continue south to their terminuses. This allows for a connection from the 8 Av line to the Broadway line or vice versa. You might bring up the point of eliminating WTC and all that, but with the oculus now built, it’s near impossible for the (E) and (K) trains to stop at WTC and then continue south to the broadway line. That would cost more than a ton of money (probably more than phase 2 of the 2nd Av Subway). Everything else in the de-interlining plans would stay the same. Before you start yelling at me for putting this comment, the positives greatly out way the negatives in this instance.
They could remove WTC instead of Cortlandt.
@@samuelitooooothat big ass mall at wtc that 4 billion was spent is not going to be torn down for E trains to Lower Manhattan. That’s was issue. E. k train local and A. C express was my deinterlining and D local on CPW and switch in the Bronx was my go too
@@williamerazo3921 It doesn't have to be torn down.
I kno I’m late but 😅 my opinion we should leave to Q on the Brighton and put the D back on as local, B back on the west end and the E joins that as a rush hour train, leave the R going to bay ridge and add the K with it. The Brighton line goes via bridge at dekalb av station which D and Q trains can branch off there, B and N can b 4 av express which can goes to the via middle bridge track which skips dekalb and then they branch off there then the traffic will definitely flow
This is a great presentation and I definitely agree with sacrificing one-seat rides to gain better service. An idea I had was sending the E to Church Av., splitting off from 8th Av. at W 4 St and sending it via the F from there. Ignoring the G train on Culver for now, would this even be feasible with current trains per hour on 6th Av. local?
Nice content! Channel looks to be growing nicely. Just a little feedback to slightly improve production When you talk about a certain thing i.e. a station, if you have video, show video of what your talking about. It was a little off to see the video zoomed in on Bay Parkway when you talking about Bergen Street. If you don't have the video, go with something more generic. Again nice work and I see a lot of work goes into it 👍 keep it up!
Another great video... thank you
Glad you enjoyed it
Shit....I fully support the reopening of Lower Bergen.
I agree
BMT Brighton Main line service pattern ends up resembling what it had in the 90s B local Orange Q train Express. For the Astoria yard it can also be shared by N & W trains just like the R train if extended to LaGuardia Airport. ConEd substation also supplies power to BMT Astoria and Northeast Corridor New York New Haven. reopen Bergen Avenue lower level expect that to resemble 86th street IRT East Side Ind Fulton Nostrand Avenue Station in which free transfers between different directions is not allowed
Montague Street: Two new switches south of 36th Street installed. Here's what should be done.
N: 96th Street-2nd avenue to Coney Island via Broadway Express, Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local
Q: 96th street-2nd aveune to Brighton Beach via Broadway Express, Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Express
B: Bedford Park Blvd to Coney Island via Concourse-8th avenue Local, 6th Avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge, 4th avenue express-West End
D: 168th street to Coney Island via 8th avenue Local, 6th avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge, 4th avenue express-Sea Beach
R/W: consolidated into R route.
Astoria-Ditmars to Bay Ridge-95th Street or City Hall Lower level via Broadway Local, 4th Avenue Local
Honestly, I think the Astoria yard should be built before the LaGuardia connection. Also, I'd rather make the dekalb junction deinterline like this
(N)(Q) along Brighton
(B)(D) along 4th Av express
(B) along sea beach
(D) along west end
The rest stays the same
Edit: also something to add on, with the (R) being extended to LaGuardia, we could have some Astoria express service
Tbh, Brighton and the other branches can go either way. This isn't bad either.
I also agree that it should be built before the LaGuardia Connection. This way, if we just move the (R) to Astoria, and the LGA Extension takes ages to construct, the line will have a yard available.
And yes, Astoria Exp service. A great addition that will speed up (R) Service. It can definitely work with the 21 tph that the (R) would run on Astoria.
As much as I hate having both sixth Avenue trains on Brighton it makes more sense for the service patterns. Not having weekend or late night service on sea beach is problematic.
@@tarenrome3740 Who said the B will still be weekdays only? In fact if N and Q go on Brighton then the N will be weekdays only since it’s just an express Q train
@@TG4164 fax machine spittin
You know what we could also do, we could make the (E) run on west end during weekends, and fully take over the line during nights, during this time the (D) would be suspended and the (C) would take over in the Bronx.
Just rebuild the 38 Street Yard in Brooklyn, with new layup tracks, and a new maintenance facility to relieve the existing Coney Island Yard, and the Jamaica Yard's that are suffering from the straining of overcapacity that many trains are layed-up on the Queens Blvd express tracks as well as the 4th Avenue Lines express tracks in Brooklyn.
Bergen St. lower should've reopened YEARS ago! However, services can be improved without new construction, and without de-interlining. Here's what this transit insider would do:
A-Inwood to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park all times except late nights. Late night, round robin shuttles from Euclid Avenue.
B-would run 7 days a week except late nights.
C-All times from 168th Street to Richmond Hill-Lefferts Blvd. Late night C trains would be extended to 207th Street-Inwood.
D-no changes.
E-no changes.
F-Weekdays express from Bergen Street to Church Avenue. Rush hour express from Church Avenue to Kings Highway in the peak direction.
G-Extended to Kings Highway during rush hours.
J-Peak direction express from Broadway Junction to Marcy Avenue all day weekdays. Skip stop would be eliminated
Z-Weekday local from Broadway Junction (Rockaway Parkway during rush hours) to Chambers Street
L-no changes
M-All times except late nights 71st Avenue to Metropolitan Avenue. Late night shuttles would not change.
N-96th Street to Coney Island, express* in Manhattan and Brooklyn all times via the bridge. *Late nights local.
Q-Ditmars Blvd-Astoria to Coney Island via Brighton, local via tunnel.
R-71st Avenue to Bay Ridge weekdays. Weekends 96th Street to Bay Ridge. Late night service would not change.
On the IRT, the only changes would be the 5 and would run all day express in the direction of traffic like the does currently. Rush hour trains to/from Neried Avenue would run express from Gun Hill Road to E.180th Street as well.
Interlining the A and C in Queens would result in much slower and more confusing service for all riders. There was a reason why the services were changed in 1992, and we should be building on top of it, not undoing it (my plan for a Broadway-Fulton Tunnel basically builds on the 1992 changes). If anything, just keep the A and C train patterns as is.
As for the changes in Manhattan, have the A and C express all the way down and have the B and D go local on the 8th Avenue. North of 145th Street, the A and B would remain unchanged and the C and D would be swapping with the C going to the Bronx and the D going to 168th Street.
For the IRT, one change would be to install two new switches between the junction and the Nostrand Avenue platform. The 2 and 3 would take over Flatbush and the 4 and 5 would take over New Lots and Utica respectively. For 149th Street Junction, some new tunnels will be needed to allow for the 5 to bypass 149th Street-Grand Concourse, a station nobody on that line uses, and allow trains to travel at high speeds between 3rd Avenue-149th Street and 138th Street-Grand Concourse, with a no loss of flexibility.
Deinterlining will be necessary at a number of points to improve service.
I would also say the D could do all day express in peak direction with theB being extended to Bedford Park always
C TO LEFFERTS FOREVER
@@tysonstransitcam2190 On existing trackage no, but with some new construction, why not.
The other day, I saw rows of 6 trains sitting on the EXP track. When I when to school the next day, the trains were lined up all the way to E 149 Street.
Although i do like the idea of swapping the d and q trains, to not get affected by a lot. Im not sure if sending the e or k to 95th street or west end as your losing capacity on the q meaning less k trains would run, like with the r via west end.
4:50 - A train every 5 minutes is 12 trains per hour. Twelve trains per hour would be good service.
2:05 my k train replacement for the sir train but I’ll extend the e to Whitehall street on weekdays only and the w on sea beach the entire schedule with rush hours opposite of peak express and the same for Astoria.
Leave the B trains the way it is between Bedford park and Brighton Beach on the weekdays. Then the weekends the B could terminate at 145 street and Brighton Beach and Let the W trains be extended to 86 street Brooklyn right along the N trains.
Mine is a little different:
- The (C) heads to Jamaica Center.
- The (E) heads to 179th St.
- At 8th Avenue, the (C) and (E) switch to Express, while the (A) switches to Local. Want 8th Ave to CPW Exp, transfer at 7th Ave-53rd St.
- The (A) heads to 95 St instead.
- For West End and Culver, some trains will serve the express in the reverse-peak direction to serve the local stations in the peak direction. I choose method as Culver and West End station's are more busy.
Lol, thought you never said "that letter" (D)..... Got him.
Great vid :D
Thanks! 😁
5:27 - Are any of these train-boarding-platforms connected by underground pedestrian concourses?
The reason for interlining is that the service level capacity for terminals that reverse direction is about half that for portion of the line between intermediate stations. The way to operate lines closer to their service level capacity is to have a trunk that branches at either end. This is what you refer to interlining. In order to maintain uniform headways, the branches should be balanced - half going one direction and half going the other. The service level capacity for intermediate stations depends on train length, speed, acceleration, braking rates and station dwell time. It's around 44 tph for most equipment.
One example of branching with reversing terminals is the old Third Ave El in NYC. The Board of Transportation operated 42 tph in the reverse direction. Half originated/terminated at South Ferry and half at City Hall. Service was cut in half, when the South Ferry Branch was eliminated to make way for new automobile ramps onto the Brooklyn Bridge.
Service level capacity is higher, when there are no stations between the branches. The BRT had two examples where bridge crossings were "interlined" without an intermediate station. The BRT operated 66 tph over the Brooklyn Bridge between Park Row and Sands St. Both stations were 4 tracks but the bride crossing was only two tracks. A more complicated arrangement was done on the Williamsburg Bridge between Marcy Av and Essex St before the 14th St Line was built. They operated 52 tph in the peak direction and 30 tph on the opposite direction.
This still retains some interlining, however “reverse branching” is what’s actually gone here. Most of the terminals in this proposal are only handling about 15 tph because of some of the interlining retained.
@@TMC_BC Terminal service level capacity depends the time from the approach to the crossover on entry to clearing it on exit. How the trains get there is immaterial.
The presence of overrun/tail tracks instead of a bumper means approach speeds can be greater. Neither the 14th St nor Flushing Lines are "interlined". Yet the service level capacity (actual service levels in the mid 1950's) for 8th Ave was 24 tph, while the Flushing Line was 36 tph. The difference was the overrun tracks at Times Sq. The absence of overrun tracks at Main St, meant that its capacity was only 24 tph, despite having three tracks. Half the locals were short turned at 111th St for 36 tph operation at Times Sq.
The crossover should be located as close as practical to the platform to reduce the total travel time. One conflict is that the crossover needs to be protected to prevent collisions. This protection requires that trippers be located sufficiently far away so that a tripped train will not enter the crossover. This distance was 60 ft plus the safe stopping distance, when the IND was designed. This permitted the first car to be cut out because of brake failure and operated from the second car. The use of permanently coupled cars and sharing the air compressor among multiple cars has forced increasing the extra distance to 300 ft. One result has been that the Jamaica Center terminal can handle only 12 tph, even with the presence of overrun tracks and the absence of interlining.
There are several other factors that have reduced stub terminal service level capacity. Interlining or its lack is not one of them.
@@stephenbauman9746 You do realize that interlining can also have an effect on how many train can be turned around and run on the line, right?
@@TheRailLeaguer Clearly there are switching geometries and routings for interlining that will reduce service level capacity. Two that come to mind are Rogers Jct with interlining the express and locals onto the Nostrand Ave Line and operating Dyre Ave trains on the express track south of E 180th St.
However, interlining only reduces speed at the merge/diverge point. The speed reduction is what causes the reduction in service level capacity. The effect on service level capacity would be the same, if the amount and duration of the speed reduction were due to grade, curve, or station approach.
Operating close to service level capacity does require more precise train supervision (adherence to schedule) the closer it is approached. Consider a section of track that requires a train 1 minute to clear. This section could be an active (interlining) or inactive switch. A train will be expected to approach this track section every 120 seconds for 30 tph operation. A sufficient condition to guarantee there are no delays is if both leader and follower are within 30 seconds of their arrival time. The leader could be 30 seconds late. Instead of clearing the track section at 1:00, the leader would clear it at 1:30. That still leaves a 30 second buffer for the follower, who could be up to 30 seconds earlier. If 40 tph or 90 second headways are contemplated, then trains would have to be within 15 seconds of their scheduled arrival.
Being within 15 seconds of a schedule is a non-starter for NYC subway because their schedules are precise to the closest 30 seconds. Interlining isn't preventing more frequent service; it's their operating procedures.
@@stephenbauman9746 So it looks like you’re making the case for deinterlining, and it can work in a lot of places. With the current infrastructure and a few new switches, one place where it would not work is at 149th-Concourse. Since the connection between Lexington and White Plains is popular, the best thing to do is to keep the service pattern as is, and instead building a new track junction set between the Jerome Avenue Line and the White Plains Road so that the merge with the White Plains Road line occurs between 3rd Avenue-149th Street and 149th Street-Grand Concourse. In other words, the 5 would no longer stop at 149th Street-Grand Concourse. This would allow for faster speeds on the 5 train for nearly everybody between Manhattan and the Bronx (given that almost nobody on the 5 is heading to 149th Street-Grand Concourse anyway). The few people who need to go there can take the 2 train or Bx19 bus.
For Rogers Junction, you can add two new switches and send all the locals to Flatbush and have the express trains to Utica and New Lots Avenues.
I have a suggestion for the culver line since people are saying have the F run express at all times and have the G run local I say the F about run local on culver at all times except rush hours in the peak direction just like how the 2 runs local on white plains and 5 runs local at all times except rush hours peak like the F should run express from Avenue X to Jay street
I agree 100% with the D and Q swap, D should be on the Brighton to tracks 3 and 4 at Coney Island, Q should be on the West End to tracks 7 and 8 at Coney Island, yesssss!!!
Good Topic.
Thanks!
Appreciate the vids. If I'm not mistaken about your DeKalb Junction proposal, didn't the D train go thru DeKalb before the changes in 2001? I remember taking the D to Coney Island from Flatbush as a kid.
Tbh, I don’t really know. I wasn’t taking the trains in 2001.
The D train used to be the Brighton Local while the B went local via down West End, and they switched in like I believe 2004ish
back then in 2001 the D was a Brightion Local service while the Q was orange and went weekdays only between 21st st queens bridge and brighton beach. B trains skipped dekalb as the west end express at all times except late nights, where it was shut down to shuttle at 36 st then, the South tracks of the Manhattan bridge were closed for repairs and there was Zero Broadway express service until July 22, 2021, after that date the B and D were cut down to Herald Square as the Q returned to broadway, serving all times with a diamond variant serving Brightion express and the W train started operating from Astoria to Coney Island via west end
@@justinisaac7570 I mean they did switch but the D Brightion Local and B West end ended at July 2001 when the north side of Manhattan bridge tracks closed and West end was taken over by the W and brighton express has a Diamond Q variant until 2004, when the tracks reopened and B became Brightion express, D became West end service
@@MysticTransit 🤣 okay youngn, before 2001 was an MTA alternate universe.
I think B and D via Brighton and B terminates at Brigton beach like it does so it doesn’t cause delays and N Q R and K. The R could still run to bay ridge The Q via west end and abs N and K could go Via sea beach to Coney Island bc theirs 4 tracks and the exp tracks can be used for the N all times and the local K and maybe sometimes the K could run to bay ridge if it’s to full in sea beach line. And the 4 ave line were I suggest N R Q and K. N and Q or exp or N and K so they don’t need to switch a lot and at 36 a Q can pass instead of traffic.
I don’t mind these changes
Hi I’m new here.
What program do you use to do the map configurations?
It brand new subway,I’ve done it before and I lost my saves because I accidentally deleted them or someone else did that
On these trains, the brown stripe on the side shows where a driver's cab is?
Honestly I think the Culver Express in both directions is good idea, but like you said people would lose that one seat ride to Manhattan, maybe run two or three trains on the local track I don’t know it’ll probably still cause some delays for the G line.
That's the issue, I'm not completely sure if we would be able to fit in a few (F) Trains on the Lcl Track. With 5-8 min headways on Culver North, it might be possible though.
@@m34tgaming16 yupp the V would work well for 2nd ave
Or maybe make a new line that goes from the Second Av Subway to Church Av going local with the G by starting from 96 st on the Q, joining in the F at 63rd st and then follows the F all the way to Church Av but stops at all stops between Jay and Church Av so less people have to complain about one seat ride losses as if u don't get the F at local stations u have the new line almost doing the same thing
@@alexharris2495 Yea the V would be really useful not only for 2nd av subway but to cover the stations that the F skips in Brooklyn from Jay to Church Av as well, or if possible, the V can even go as far as Kings Highway
@@m34tgaming16 wouldn't that cause crowding on culver though? Or are we keeping the G @ church?
I am thinking more along the lines of having the V go through the Montague tunnell and run 4th ave to bay ridge with the (K) or 4th ave/ west end or sea beach. The thinking behind this is to provide the southwest Brooklyn lines with 6th Avenue access
Re no (E), (K), and (R) connection, couldn’t they build a transfer between WTC and City Hall?
where would this Astoria yard be ?
was thinking to extend astoria line 1 stop making 20th ave the terminus and then the yard would be partially in luyster creek via marsh and some of that parking lot to the left of luyster creek..
shocked to hear the coney island yard is a marsh
The Con-Ed yard north of 20th Avenue.
@@TheRailLeaguer yea i heard in video but its not like the con-ed yard is abandoned
@@Thelastairbendy they an purchase the plot, build a yard and add a wall to the yard.
However there’s an alternative to this while having the R go to Astoria:
-Two new switches added south of 36th Street.
-D and R trains swap south of 36th Street, while retaining routing north of 36th Street. R trains rerouted via West End to Coney Island-Stilwell Avenue. W train also extended along this path and absorbed into R train. N train moved to 96th Street as planned.
-D train switches to local tracks south of 36th Street, serving all stops to 95th Street.
With this, the R would be moved to the existing Coney Island Yard, with all D train operations now consolidated to the existing Concourse Yard. The new combined R/W train would now operate at 20 trains using the R designation.
Hey, I love your plan. The only problem is what will happen to WTC center station? Will the station become abandoned station? I do know that there’s connection to Westfield World Trade Center and I think the E train is in front of that connection.
We can probably rebuild the Westfield passage along with the new tunnel. My opinion is that Cortlandt Street should be abandoned because it has side platforms, unlike WTC. Island platforms are generally better for circulation, so we should keep stations with those.
Isn't there like a platform in front of the WTC on the E? They would have to get rid of that and extend it in order to connect it to Broadway
@@coolboss999 It wouldn’t be that big of a deal to demolish it.
@@TMC_BC Not after the MTA spent millions of dollars and over a decade to fix Cortlandt St on the Broadway line after 9/11.
@@TMC_BC this will affect the MTA economy. It will be too expensive.
What MTA-Subway trains do you propose go to Montague?
Can you do Bay Parkway for your Least used nyc subway stations series
I already did: czcams.com/video/u96hms-p9a4/video.html
It’s not that one seat rides are something you lose when you improve service, as there many other possibilities of improving services while keeping one seat rides. Anyways, I strongly agree on building the Astoria Yard if the MTA ever sends the R to Astoria/LaQuardia.
A simple solution is send the R to Coney Island via west end line and let J get bay ridge 95th but K to 95th is good too
@@qjtvaddict Bro sending the R to Coney via West End, is like the Yellow B except local
If bringing the R to Astoria replaces the N/W from going to Astoria, and the N goes to 96st-2nd Ave along with the Q, I would say keep the W and have it run along Queens Blvd to Forest Hills-71st Ave. We would be losing a crucial trunk line and although the W is a redundant train line, keeping it helps to fill in the R line gaps that occur.
Ridership between the Broadway Line stops and the Queens Blvd Line is pretty low to the point that all 20 trains per hour on the Broadway Local would be better off going to Ditmars.
@@TheRailLeaguer what source do you have for this? I would be interested in taking a look. If anything, I would say the Majority of riders on the local stops west of Roosevelt prefer the R, and they are certainly not switching over to the E at queens plaza.
I also do not see the need to send 21 trains to Astoria. It’s a short line, it does not need that much service. At least not until it gets extended, if ever. The Lexington Ave express connection the R provides to Queens Blvd is more important than sending 21 TPH to Astoria.
@@unknown1201 Nearly all Astoria riders are off the train by 34th Street, and given the crowdedness of the trains, 20 locals to Astoria would actually be enough, especially considering a potential LaGuardia connection.
In the meanwhile, we have R trains that aren’t heavily used compared to lines like the M, which carry more riders. However, there is a potential solution to this:
(E), (F): unchanged
(R:) Rerouted to Astoria, with (W) converted into additional (R) runs, and the (N) sent to 96th Street
(M): Rerouted via 63rd Street
(C): Express Canal to 145th Street, then via the Concourse Line to 205th Street
(D): Local 59th Street to 168th Street
(K): New route replacing (C), (M), (R) segments. 71st Avenue to World Trade Center, via Queens Blvd Local, 53rd Street, and 8th Avenue Local. This will prevent local riders from switching to the (E) at Queens Plaza for Manhattan service.
@@TheRailLeaguer the crowdedness of trains? I’ve lived in Astoria most of my life. The trains are crowded only when there’s a delay in service. Improving on time performance would help alleviate issues instead of added more trains.
Even then, I can probably count on one hand the number of times when walking to first car hasn’t alleviated the issue of overcrowding and I get on at the Broadway station.
If you want to improve Astoria, improve reliability. And if you are dead set on adding more service, add it during non rush hour. It can be torture waiting for the train on weekends or when the W is out of service.
Again, can you please point to sources you’re getting that say the M train Carries more riders than the R? I usually prefer the Broadway station to the Steinway St, but when I do get on at Steinway, it’s always the R that’s carrying more riders.
Nor do I see a massive transfers of riders from the R to the E at queens plaza, such as there at roosevelt Ave. Or such as there is from the 7 to the N at queensboro plaza. The majority of riders west of Roosevelt stay on the R. If I had to guess why, it would be the Lexington Ave express connection at 59th, since a lot of riders get off there
But again, this is my anecdotal evidence, so please direct me to any concrete data that shows local QBL prefer the M, that R riders are transferring in mass to the E at queens plaza.
@@unknown1201 So you’re making the case FOR deinterlining and added service overall?
Also don’t worry. The new K route is essentially an R train via 8th Avenue. This is prudent since historically M trains have always been busier, with the R following closely behind it.
As for Astoria, deinterlining will help with the service improvements since it turns 15 trains per hour with two service into 20 trains per hour with a single service (the R).
You could store off peak R trains on the city hall lower level
This is true, and I believe this already happens with the (W).
However, it does contribute to what I said with Trains being stored in tunnels. They are susceptible to vandalism.
They can’t terminate the R trains on the low level City Hall because the platforms are not long enough I used have a PM put in out of city hall back in 2000
@@motorman1993 no the R would terminate on the upper level and I said the not in use trains would be on the lower level, but this could potentially be changed as MysticTransit had said it contributes to vandalism like when trains are stored on express tracks
@@boiii3productions945 they already made the upper level tracks descend over the lower level’s tracks
It’s all about making short cuts to get where to get faster with more speed to avoid these heavy traffic congestion’s and can’t jump or fly too! Say to yourselves What do we suspect?
Where would the (W)’s northern terminus be? Still Astoria or a different station like 57 St?
It would be eliminated.
@@MysticTransitI love the W why it have to be Eliminated
Can you do a video of the problems in the rockaway line
I kinda already did. I talked about the Rockaway Beach Branch in this video, and the issues it would resolve in the Rockaways. czcams.com/video/SLhEMIAgAIs/video.html
What you propose would decrease reliability in the E, also, the K would become the new R, becoming an all local and unreliable.
The (K) would not be a full local. The (K) would run Exp in Queens, just like the (E).
How about the P train?
Hi with respect here, I rely on the r train from Brooklyn to Whitehall street so cutting back the r is not ideal. At the same time, I also enjoy riding the w train so extending the e to broadway to me personally is not ideal. (I am not fond of the idea)
You’d still get from Brooklyn to Whitehall Street, just taking the E or K. The 2nd reason is not even a real reason, more of an opinion, so I don’t have a response. This service plan would actually be better, because the E or K would run triple the service the R does on 4th Avenue, making your trip to Whitehall about 15 minutes quicker.
@@TMC_BCI see thank you for sharing
I just gotta ask, how do you come up with these plans. They’re pretty good not gonna lie.
You need a job on the NYCT routing and scheduling committee!
What I would do in Brooklyn is run N and Q on 4th Avenue Express, and have Q switch to local after 36th St and terminate in Bay Ridge while having N run on Sea Beach. I'd run E & K on 4th Ave Local up to 36th St and run on West End with K terminating at Bay Pkwy and E terminating at Coney Island.
There would be no yard for the Q then
The Q should remain doing west end and either the E or K can go to bay pkwy on rush
Doesn't the cross platform transfer from Culver line at Hoyt Schermerhorn bring riders deeper into Brooklyn instead of Manhattan?
It's still a short walk up the stairs and back down to get to Manhattan.
Oh wow, I totally forgot about that. Yikes. Well, there still is 7th Avenue on the (F).
Hopefully the elevators will actually happen, there and Bergen street those that need them.
What I did was
W to 86 street
E to Coney Island via Sea Beach
N to Bay Ridge
There is no yard for the N then. The E via Sea Beach is a waste because it has access to 2 yards now and the N has 0. There isn't enough demand for the W to 86th St but I think we should increase the AM and PM rush W service to 86th St
Maybe if I did this during rush hour we send some n trains to Coney Island to have a yard
5:30 Irt lines : Are you sure about thst
There are a lot of reasons why a WTC-Whitehall St. connection can't happen...PATH trains and the fact that there are so many lines close to each other that have to be dug under for that to happen.
Also, Broadway riders need Whitehall Street for the Staten Island Ferry and the WTC. Cutting the R to City Hall forces riders to transfer to the 1 at the ultra busy Times Square or the 4 or 5 at the busy Union Square.
It's just between WTC and Cortlandt St, literally less than a city block away from each other. PATH is at the other side of the Oculus, under the 1 line, far away to not be impacted. The only existing rail line of concern is the A/C as it curves under to get to Fulton St.
@@samuelitooooo even if the building of the connection is feasible, the service disruptions would cause a lot of issues. One of them would be a heavy influx of more midtown riders transferring to the IRT at the heavily crowded Times Square and Union Square stations as the Broadway line would no longer bring them beyond City Hall.
@@charlesingleton1213 Maybe it would be wise to build this ASAP then given the lower ridership figures compared to before COVID lol
before congestion pricing begins, ideally 😅
honestly. mystic, u need to be the next MTA presedent. idgaf who says no, but ur ideas for the MTA actually make sence, unlike these foamers.
I'm glad you think so.
6 train to Brooklyn? Or 6 train from parkchester to queens “inter borough”
For Montague Street deinterlining, here’s my version of the plan:
Two new switches south of 36th Street installed. Here’s what should be done (note: also takes into account QBL and 8th Avenue Deinterlining):
(R)/(W): consolidated into one (R) route. Astoria-Ditmars to Coney Island. Broadway Local, 4th Avenue Local-West End. 20 trains per hour (full route).
(N)/(Q): Combined into one single (N) schedule (trains will still be designated as (N) or (Q)). 96th Street-2nd Avenue to Coney Island (N) or Brighton Beach (Q). Broadway Express, Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local (N) or Express (Q). 15 (N) tph, 15 (Q) tph
(B): Bedford Park Blvd to Bay Ridge-95th Street. Concourse-8th Avenue Local, 6th Avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge, 4th Avenue Express to 36th Street, then local to 95th Street. 12-15 tph
(D): 168th Street to Coney Island. 8th Avenue Local, 6th Avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge, 4th Avenue Express-Sea Beach. 12-15 tph.
This should help smooth service on the existing trackage, with no new tunnels constructed.
Now come at me @Renegade MS.
Interestingly, he still hasn't showed up.
@@TMC_BC He is appearing elsewhere trying to spread his false info.
@@TheRailLeaguer I find the idea of preferring different trunks hard to believe. The core of NYC is Midtown, so it really doesn’t matter. His argument always seems to cycle around demand, and the MTA already does this, except it is very inefficient. This wastes them more money readjusting schedules every 3 months, causing more delays. Micro-managing around demand is BAD.
@@TMC_BC You’re right about that.
@@the-renegade How is my plan idiotic?
Plus a lot of my plans and others as well are based on the market and don’t ignore concerns.
Should we call the (A) "Alstom" ?
The F would only count as express between 7 Avenue and Church Avenue only if the Bergen Street lower level was not open
Question? Are you a native NYer? I ask due to the manner in which you pronounce certain street names. Example "Montague" and "DeKalb junction". I was only listening to the video, not viewing, and when you pronounced "Montague" and I was think, "where is that?"
Yes, I am a native NYer. Born in Harlem.
@@MysticTransit Cool. So why did you pronounce "Montague" as "mon-thaug" not "Mont-a-Hue"? and DeKalb not as "Dee-Caalb"? Asking as this is a "learning" channel and this could help someone else especially those that are not in NYC or familiar with NYC.
Purely because that’s the way I’ve been saying it for years, and it would sound off if I tried to change it in the video.
I’m not used to saying those Street names lol.
I’ve been having trouble with Houston St for the longest 😂
@@MysticTransit Oh lawd! LOL You may find this amusing: czcams.com/video/RQ16pfVwYc0/video.html
@@KENNECTED1 yup it’s French. I’m a Born Brooklynite so I know
You ☝️. Me 👈. Yeah, we're on the same brainwave
No cap you can like make a Minecraft world and have all those changes if you want or you can download trainz 2019 as well if you want to though
delta with the bravoo lmfao
cool
In my opinion, they should send the W to 95 St, R to 9 Avenue and D via N and N via D
Lol, i swear the D has run on every single line in south Brooklyn at some point in it's history
@@alexharris2495 I KNOW RIGHT
I'm not sure how that fixes the problems addressed here
@@TMC_BC its mainly in my opinion but i agree that this can cause delays
E train to montague make no sense. Astoria yards is regulatory nightmare that the state don’t want to touch. Dekalb is fine how it is. Main issue is getting a midtown train to run local on the 4ave in Brooklyn all the way to bay ridge
the E to montage will definitely make things a bit chaotic
@@m34tgaming16 how? WTC is a terminus station where tracks level with the oculus mezzanine and the AC trains dip under them after chambers st
@William Erazo I just said if the WTC Terminating tracks get extended it will take a lot of time to do, deeming it not nessecary, the mta will not only have demolish the current transfer path between the E and R/W to make room for tracks to connect both lines, but it will require a new walking path for access between the oculus and the station. It will be unnecessary and expensive, and both stops are too close, that's exactly what my point is when I said the E to Montauge is chaotic and problematic, I would just leave it the way it is rn
@@m34tgaming16 will be impossible unless you want an elevated section right though Oculus
@@williamerazo3921 I already said the WTC tracks connection to the Lower Broadway tracks connection is impossible
You crazy! Where would my "W" terminate at? Whitehall can't handle two lines. And is Whitehall really that important that so much money would be used to extend this line?
The W would become redundant here, so it is absorbed into the R.
@@TMC_BC Well. I hope this plan doesn't go through. Because the good thing about the "W" (and "E") line is it doesn't go to Brooklyn, which means it doesn't suffer the delays that is so associated with that DeKalb corridor.
@@qolspony Trains using the Montague Street Tunnel do not actually suffer from the delays at DeKalb Junction. Look at a track map and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
I really don't know why there are a small number of people who complain about ANY deinterlining proposal whatsoever. Like do you all ride the subway to go to important places (I'm looking at you Renegade MS)
The big problem with the transit space here is the use of anecdotal data, rather than actual quantitative numbers.
I want to see:
N Q and R on 4th Ave
Q via West End
N via Sea Beach express
W to 86 st via Sea Beach Local
B and D on Brighton
B local to Brighton Beach
D express to Coney Island
That solves lots of de interlining, tho either the N or Q will have to be a shuttle in late nights
@@m34tgaming16 No it doesn’t. The R will be the shuttle, while the N and Q will run as above
You were gonna have to get rid of Cortlandt Street because it’s pretty close and has a transfer to world trade center
4:40 the Quincy train doesn’t deserve west end
like anybody cares
Culver Express F Kings Hwy to Bergen with the V local weekday only From Kings Hwy to 168 st Manhattan via Houston St and 8th Ave. C service to Bedford Park all times except Evenings and Weekends. B Service Brighton Beach to 71/Continental. M services to 96 st weekday only. Well honestly the Broadway BMT is just a hack job.
I don’t remember a fire in 1999
This sounds quite feasible to me.
Mta please considely overhaul the de kalb junction,first the r train will be split into two sections Whitehall to 71 avenue,shuttle to 59st in Brooklyn on the middle tracks,no w to Brooklyn until it’s fixed and gets suspended as a result or via sixth avenue to second avenue,the q and n get split in two second,two yellow s trains in Manhattan on broadway and second avenue subway the third yellow s train going to pacific street on the express tracks to terminal,the b train gets suspended entirely,while the q only goes to seventh avenue in Brooklyn,the d train will be two sections and result in two orange s train in the Bronx to grand street,with some trains terminal at 145st and the a and c on the local tracks on the upper level.and brooklyn
….
@@Amiri_Francis you can’t compute that
Instead of the B/D via Brighton, instead have the N/Q stop at DeKalb Ave and via Brighton (N to Coney Island, Q to Brighton Beach via express) and the B replacing the N to Coney Island.
Also, I suggest you to extend the G to 18th Ave.
First
What about the MTA striking a deal with Amtrak to put the R trains in the LIC yard.
That can't be done, even if they wanted to its against Federal regulations to have Railroads and Subway trains share tracks. The only way to do that would be to have the entire Subway system become FRA regulated, which would mean the replacement/rebuilding of every Subway car to meet FRA standards and much infrastructure changes to the Subway, all of which are way too expensive
That would be quite dangerous because railroads and subways don't fit in the same depots
The only problem with these ideas is that they change a lot of operations, which isn’t ideal
This idea would further confused the millions of customers that ride the subways.
How?
@@TheRailLeaguer Because Transit is always rerouting and changing route letters on different lines. There's people that come back years later thinking the lines are the same and get confused and or lost when they realize everything was changed around. For example, around my way they switched the (B) and (c) trains Northern terminals. During Rush hours the train stops at my station North of 145th Street, one day a lady said to me this don't look like Saint Nicholas avenue, and I said well years ago they switched the (B) and (C) trains so now the (B) train goes to the Bronx & the (c) train goes to Washington heights. you needed the (C) train now. She was like oh I didn't know that because I haven't been around here in 20 years. The (M) train used to go down to Brighton line to Coney Island, then they switched it to the West end line to 9th avenue and extended it during rush hour to Bay parkway. Now it's a 6th avenue line going to Continental avenue /71st avenue, Forest Hills Queens. Y'all can't keep toying with millions of passengers in a subway system that has a little over 450 stations. It's not like the small subway system in Philadelphia and Boston or like the PATH trains. You can switch those around and don't get people too much confused, but not the New York City subway system.
@@ronaldharvinjr636 That’s not a big issue, and also, no one is toying with millions of passengers on a large subway system.
You sound like any change in the system is bad.
@@TheRailLeaguer it is when you have millions of riders and then they get confused when these changes are made. Especially lines that been going out of specific route for years and maybe decades. Like in the beginning when they switch the (B) and (D) trains in Brooklyn. I was working in Coney Island that summer. They did it because of the demolition of the Coney Islands terminal for renewal. Being that I'm a Subway buff since I was a kid I was familiar with the change. The next day going to work I seen people that was confused. With the d train now going down to West end line a few ppl was looking for prospect Park and I told them Transit switched the routes yesterday, you have to go back to Atlantic avenue and catch the (Q) train. And those two routes ran those respective routes for decades before they changed it in 2002.
@@ronaldharvinjr636 Really? If anything, the riders should be fine. Just because there is a potential of confusion does NOT mean we should not make a single change to the subway routings, no matter how beneficial these changes are.
If anything, we should make large scale routing changes to the subway system, but have a lot of advertisements and marketing and large scale preparation (pretty sure the lack of marketing is why people are confused). If we go all out on the marketing in the form of TV commercials, advertisements, mailing the pamphlets to households, this would give people enough time to adjust commutes.
Do this
B 168 street CPW Local Coney Island via sea beach 4th Avenue express
D Bedford Park Blvd CPW Local Bay ridge 95th street 4th Avenue express bay ridge local
N Coney Island Brighton local
Q Brighton Beach Brighton express
R Coney Island 4th Avenue local.
The Q train becomes a weekday only route
The A train runs local from 207th street 145th street on weekends and Late nights while the B train will only be allow to run up to Atlantic Avenue during weekends and late nights. Since 6th Avenue and Central Park west ridership isn’t high enough to justify having 4 services on weekends and late nights
Problem is 4th Ave-Brighton transfers
@@TMC_BC At dekalb Avenue?
@@Amiri_Francis Both at DeKalb and Atlantic.
@@TMC_BC People prefer Broadway service on Brighton so it work out. There’s a reason why the B train weekday only. So I figured that Atlantic Avenue would have to be the last stop for weekend B train.
@@Amiri_Francis That is true, however, 6th Avenue is extremely close to Broadway, especially if we’re talking about Midtown from 30th Street up to 59th Street.
4:10 great so now you won't say B Train
Something tells me the F Train is next
I'll say (B), but I won't say the other one.
@@MysticTransit Yeah I know,I was joking.
If Mystic wont say the F I bet he will call the F the Faulty because that'd how u describe the line in culver currently and the M will be called the Moderate
How I would de-interline the B division:
The E can run along a new connection to Cortlandt Street, running with the W via the Montague tunnel, and 4th Avenue local down to 36th Street. It’ll run with the D along West End, towards Bay Parkway. The W will replace the R via 4th Avenue local, and the N via Sea Beach, and run to Coney Island, while the B runs to Bay Ridge-95th Street.
The N and Q will run along Brighton, with the N running express all the way to Coney Island, while the Q runs local to Brighton Beach.
The R, meanwhile, will run via the lower level, through a new tunnel connecting to Fulton Street on the Nassau Street line, with the C running along another new tunnel, having it meet up with the R at Broad Street. As such, the J will be cut back to Chambers Street. The C and R will run via a brand new tunnel under the East River, towards a new station next to the New York Transit Museum, named Court Street-Atlantic Avenue. Here the 2 lines will split off from each other. The C will run towards Bergen Street to run local with the G to Church Avenue, while the F runs express along the Culver Viaduct at all times except late nights. This means that the R160’s and R179’s can be interchanged between the C and G, and that G trains can run with full 8 or 10-car trains instead of just 4 or 5 car trains (because honestly, having the G run such short trains is just friggin dumb). The R meanwhile will run towards Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets, where it’ll run local along Fulton Street, to Euclid Avenue, replacing the C.
The K will be reintroduced, running from 96th Street with the Q (until phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway is completed, after which it’ll either be rerouted to a new northern terminal) to Lefferts Boulevard, replacing the A. The K will run via a newly-constructed tunnel connecting from Lexington Avenue-63rd Street to 7th Avenue-53rd Street, where it’ll meet up with the E. After 50th Street, the K will run express with the A. The K will replace the C along the Cranberry Street tunnel, and run express along Fulton Street with the A , and the 2 lines will split after Rockaway Boulevard, with the A running towards the Rockaway’s while the K heads on over to Lefferts Boulevard.
Queens Boulevard will also go through some changes. The M will be rerouted via the 63rd Street branch, but will run via a brand new tunnel from Roosevelt Island to Queensboro Plaza, replacing the N. The M will run with the N up to Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard, while the N replaces the F along the 63rd Street branch, towards 36th Street to run local along Queens Boulevard with the R, up to Forest Hills-71st Avenue. Since Queens Boulevard is having CBTC installed, both the N and R can interchange R160’s at Jamaica Yard. The F will run along 53rd Street with the E like it did back in the 90’s. The G will continue to terminate at Court Square until an extension along Northern Boulevard is constructed.
The Z? Get rid of it. The Z is as good as toast. Skip-Stop has proven to have outstayed its welcome, so it’s time we say goodbye to the Z once and for all. Plus we should make improvements to the Jamaica Line by replacing both the Hewes and Lorimer Street stations with a brand new station at Union Avenue, so that passengers won’t have to transfer out-of-system to the G.
Now that my friends is a grand plan to de-interline the B Division.
Crazy talk.
It’s called Montague it’s French
The (E) is NOT getting extended into Brooklyn.
Let me explain. The MTA needs to implement 2 free transfers system wide.
This way, Queens to Brooklyn can be achieved by people seeking to "speed" their commutes via the (A), (J) and (Z) lines or via the (G) line linking 2 bus routes in the respective Boroughs.
What does this have to do with deinterlining?
Go home bro
And this is paid for by...? The pandemic ended the need for all of this.
Americans are too obsessed on one seat rides sometimes
Astoria yard? Sorry, don't ruin our residential neighborhood, never gonna happen.
The yard will be sitting north of 20th Avenue on property that belongs to Con-Ed.
This is the best Suggestion you hv & it's with in the 🏙️ City Budget..
Some of the ideas are good: Here's some of the subways I think it would benefit the riders, but NOT all:
(A) Inwood 207-Far Rockaway (Express During Day & Local Midnight)
(B) Belford Park Blvd-Sheepshead Bay Peal Express in The Bronx, and Sixth Avenue Express, and express in Brooklyn.
(C) Washington Heights 168-Lefforts Blvd. Ozone Park, (C) Shuttle Service Midnight Euclid Avenue-Lefforts Blvd.
(D) Local in The Bronx & Express in Manhattan & Brooklyn.
(E) eliminate the peak express service to from 179th Street Jamaica
convert from the (E) peak express plus one way peak express in Culver Avenue Line. Reopen The Bergen Street (Lowel Level).
(G) Forest Hills 71st Street-Church Avenue.
(H) Beach 116th Street-Broad Channel replace the (S) Shuttle also extend (H) peak express trains to/from 42nd Street Port Authority Bus Terminal (Lowel Level) replacing the peak (A) express trains.
(J) Jamaica-Broad Street (All Local Train).
(K) Local Proposed Interboro Express
(L) no changes
(M) no changes
(N) Extend from Astoria to/from LaGuardia Airport local in Queens & Manhattan & Express in Brooklyn.
(Q) no changes
(R) no changes
(W) Astoria-City Hall (Peak Only Service Express) at Astoria Line, Manhattan Express to/from City Hall (Lower Level).
(Z) Jamaica Center-Canal Street peak only express service in Brooklyn. Reopen the abandoned Canal Street & Bowery Street.
IRT New (8) 34th Street Hudson Yards-Willis Point to replace .
So you’re suggesting no deinterlining?
Maybe@@TheRailLeaguer
@@carlos.a.sanchez201 Why? What’s wrong with deinterlining?
Re no (E), (K), and (R) connection, couldn’t they build a transfer between WTC and City Hall?