IND Fulton: Stretching Deinterlining to Its Absolute Limits
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 08. 2023
- In this video, I will head further east and talk about deinterlining a line with four branches.
Sources/Further Reading
/ check_out_this_new_dei...
pedestrianobservations.com/20...
www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in...
If You Don't Know Your Representative in Government: www.mygovnyc.org
If You Need Inspiration to Write Your Letter:
Hi (insert politician name here),
I am a constituent of District (insert number here), and I am writing about the lack of transit in Queens. Queens has a ton of transit deserts and its existing train lines are extremely overcrowded. Getting from one side of Queens to the other is a challenge, as that usually involves going into Manhattan or taking a slow and overcrowded bus. There is a project known as the Queenslink, and it would remedy the problems by serving a transit desert, boost serve to Queens Blvd and the Rockaways, and cut a north south connection in Queens. I am writing in support of Queenslink and I hope that you consider this project.
Final Notes: Be civil and check your grammar!
![Eminem - Houdini [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/22tVWwmTie8/mqdefault.jpg)
Just wanted to give my input. First off, I appreciate how much time and dedication you invest into these researches and analyzes a lot especially since it allows me to see things in a different perspective. However, I just wish you don't sound too hostile on some of the comments + proposals other viewers may share with you. Yes I get some ideas are ridiculous but it's hard for people to agree with you if you shut down their ideas with aggression. I was listening to your Vanshnookenraggen interview, for example, and Andrew is right. Instead of screaming these ideas are "dumb" or "stupid" I would suggest just listen just try being more calm and respectful with the response.
When people come and straight up ignore what I have to say, I have enough.
So let me explain what that means. Basically, many viewers here do things that really annoy me. One of them is to straight up ignore what I have to say and repeating their false reasoning. At first, when I tried being nice, these people won’t budge at all. Like out of the thousands of commenters, I maybe changed like 10 minds. Most people here are here to validate their own feelings and I can’t open a mind that is closed.
Second, when I make videos, I expect people to watch them. Like this is an 18 minute video. Watch it the entire way through and let’s talk. And if you can’t, save it for later. It’s not that hard. But most people don’t, and these are the same people grilling me about a specific proposal that I literally addressed in the video. I don’t like repeating myself over and over, but these people make me. There was a specific comment that perfectly sums up this phenomenon, where a commentor accusing me of Inwood riders losing their express service won’t be good, and I was sitting there like I have a deinterlining plan that retains Inwood and Concourse express service. If the person just sat there for an extra 10 seconds, he wouldn’t have to make that comment.
The Second Ave Subway video is a perfect example too, where I was like SAS doesn’t need to be extended to the Bronx because of how deinterlining works, and I had comments coming in saying “Third Ave Subway needs to happen.” I much rather have comments that challenge my stance on SAS not being sent to the Bronx, but people just straight up ignored what I had to say and went straight for the comments. That’s not cool.
Third, I absolutely dislike people straight up playing strawman politics with my ideas. They either try to guess what I am proposing and make it the dumbest proposal ever, or fight me on a statement that I didn’t make. That is extremely unproductive and accomplishes nothing because people are fighting something that I didn’t propose nor advocate for.
Then repeat that over and over and it builds up steam. If get enough steam, it will explode. I didn’t want to rip apart alternative Queenslink proposals, but they were constantly in the comments section even though I told viewers not to discuss them because of how petty and unproductive it was. So I had to say it, because no is listening.
Anyway, this has gone on longer than I expected. I will say that after the 59th St video, when people pointed out my tone, I had toned it down for this video. If it is not enough for you, I will do it again for the following video. And I don’t want to diss the comments section, a lot of them are pretty positive, and I usually have a decent conversation with them about ideas, even if they disagree with me. Just saying, if you open with a good positive tone, I will reply back with a good positive tone. If you open with a bad negative tone, I will usually reply back with a negative tone. Some of the ideas that I have taken came from the comments section here like regional rail and certain deinterlining plans. I would say that the comments are 70/30, 70 percent good and 30 percent horrible. The good are plentiful, but the bad really go out of their way and be as bad as possible.
Anyway, have a good day and if you have any more questions, simply reply back.
@@techtransitassociationonly reason why your getting such stupid proposals is because most of the people who plan these out are kids lmao.
@@TrainTheoryOfficial I've never known anyone outside a possible very few at the MTA who know the current schedules and potential capacity of so many NYC Subway lines. It's the only way to take up an 'interlining study' with so many possibilities explored and considered. It's amazing techtransit has done that, and reflects a skill that no other MTA pundit has ever displayed as far as I know. Of course I have my own ax to grind, which sticks to looking forward, to find the optimum capital buildout for a given line, and also the effects of that as it relates to other lines - then work backwards to consider how it should be staged. I don't think it would take much convincing to show that's the only way to plan capital improvements for passenger rail and transit, and that's where the MTA is failing: The more they spend on studies the more damage and neglect gets enacted. They must perform another study on the RBB, this time with oversight, preferably mine.
Yeah I agree but ask Inwood riders if they want 6 Av or 8 Av and concourse too
Seeing the A train being the longest subway to one of the shorter ones is crazy to see
True and we would make the C Train be the longest route. Between 179th St and all the terminals that the A handled east of Euclid, and that makes the C a mile longer than what the A is now, so it should not be a big deal as the longest metro line in the world is 52 miles long, so we have a while to go, before that becomes an issue.
As someone interested but not local to NYC is it possible to show maps with your plans? I think it would really help
The maps definitely could be clearer, and I see how showing them for one second and then moving on doesn't help understand the plans
What do you mean?
@@techtransitassociation It would really help with my understanding if you showed some larger area maps/diagrams showing what you are talking about.
As a non local I basically don't understand a thing with all the names and designations thrown around.
I understand I'm not the probable target audience anyway but even just a couple colorful lines on a google maps screengrab would make it much clearer what in detail you are talking about.
@@techtransitassociationI think he wants a PDF of the subway map under your plan
@@techtransitassociationalthough they're some many politics that but like which one though(city, state, or federal) ?
At 15:42, you discussed QueensLink as a faster one-seat ride between the Rockaways and Manhattan. That proposal will open up more destinations to JFK International Airport via the transfer at Howard Beach-JFK Airport Station. Therefore, I hope QueensLink comes to fruition.
It’s New York so knowing that . That mean nothing will get done lmao
@@bigzclipz5104 Welcome to the city of the Big Delays! You do NOT want to know the painful delays!
To boost frequency on Fulton Line even further, use the old IND Court Street station to short-turn select trains. Move the transit museum to Bowery perhaps.
I dont like this plan, as you are moving a very popular place to another destination, and Bowery is a bad station. Also, this would make people along the whole Fulton local line have to transfer at Hoyt Schermerhorn. The only way to solve this problem is to extend that tunnel to somewhere else, but that would cost a lot of money, and could take money away from the Queenslink.
@@josephrosner905 It still benefits people along the Fulton local line as it decreases wait times and ensures they get on a train quicker, regardless if it terminates at Hoyt. Even if they have to transfer at Hoyt, the fact that it has cross platform transfers with both express and local trains ensures they can get on a Manhattan Bound train fairly quickly. Their overall journey times would still be decreased.
That could double the local right? If I recall correctly, the Court Street Station as a terminal is limited to 24 tps.
@@zeroone8800 It could. Actually I wouldn't mind Court Street being only used to reverse trains without being a functional stop, and only a select number. If too many trains are short turned it would create too much of an imbalance, especially since most Fulton Line passengers are indeed travelling between Manhattan and Brooklyn.
If only there was a way to run Fulton Local trains to Church Ave via the Culver Line. Yes, that would interline with the F & G but (1), the F could always use the underutilized express tracks and (2) demand would be heavily reduced since Fulton Local trains aren't going into Manhattan, but a 24 tph A train means passengers wouldn't have to wait long.
Ok I take back my comment from the other video. This plan is a lot better than the service we currently have.
I also agree that having a new tunnel that connects the Fulton line and the 2nd Ave line will be the best option however like you said it not even being consider by the MTA and if it were, it most likely won’t be build for another 40-50 years maybe even longer.
Option 3 will be the most ideal to run.
Not gonna lie this is great. I was thinking about this for months I had a feeling you would say something like this.
WOW, I never realized that up to a massive 36 TPH, or a train every 1⅔ minute (100 seconds), would be possible with this switch. As a SE Queens resident, this makes me want Queens Blvd deinterlining even more! I've seen vanshnookenraggen propose this in his deinterlining plan before but basically said that from 50 St you can reach Jamaica faster than Inwood, which I always doubted (according to today's schedules, they take about the same time 👍🏻). It's the beautiful frequency that does it for me, plus the cross-platform transfers at 7th Ave-53 St station for continuation (thank goodness they made it weird like that), and the entire explanation around the 5 minute mark.
Until QueensLink happens, I think a Rockaway Park shuttle can still be run competently, should MTA choose to. All you have to do is time shuttle trains with actual positions of E trains as they head to Broad Channel, and have the northbound shuttle slip in *before* the E, and the southbound shuttle after. This could minimize wait times during off-peak hours if 36 TPH all day all week doesn't materialize.
Not a bad idea considering a deinterlined R can run on Fulton this means that the J would take over the service to Coney Island. This also means even without QueensLink we have the E running to Lefferts Blvd and the C exclusively serving the Rockaways.
With that the Rockaway Shuttle is not needed as they can both have 12tph each with a deinterlined C. With QueensLink we route the R on West End so we give it Coney Island Yard so we can run it safely to Astoria, and terminate all E Trips at Euclid. This means that the M would run to Rockaway Pk and the C gets the 5 minute headways on both Lefferts and Far Rockaway.
With the R gaining Coney Island yard it would share it with the B and N which absorbs the Q into (N) since they are the same route. Any rider that wants 6th Ave service in South Brooklyn has the option to take the B from the Sea Beach Line which under my plan the B would replace the N, while I have the D go to Bay Ridge keeping Concourse yard. This way all lines have an assigned yard.
hello from stuy! good work as always, TTA :)
Around 20 years ago the MTA proposed having the A run local on CPW. Based on the reaction you'd think they were calling for moving the Yankees to Jersey.
This is a very informative video. This is a great idea for deinterlining because as we know, the A and C interline between Fulton Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn Street, and once again at Euclid Avenue. There have been ideas to send the A to the Rockaways only and the C to Lefferts Blvd, which also create interlining between Euclid Avenue and Rockaway Blvd. The E and K trains on the IND Fulton line would solve all of that. However, with the possibility of Queenslink being built, instead of ending the K only at Jamaica Center, why not go with the idea that you had in one of your older videos about extending the E train service to Springfield Blvd using the existing right of way LIRR tracks for the now proposed K terminus? That’s still an important need for more frequent southeast Queens service.
Btw: And I don’t think writing letters would be enough to keep Queenslink. I think a protest and visual aids would be more appropriate.
The section between Grant Ave and Rockaway Blvd can be rebuilt as an underground 4-track line with the latter being an express station and the rest being local. The section to Lefferts can continue as the local tracks. The express tracks can curve onto the Rockaway Line and continue as its express tracks. Queenslink can continue as the local tracks. Further down the line, the Far Rockaway branch can continue as the express tracks and the Rockaway Park branch as the local tracks.
you should very much make more deinterlining videos, they are always interesting, would love to see you do deinterlining of dekalb
Rockaway Park. Again, it should be a frequent shuttle with same platform connection to Far Rockaway trains at Broad Channel. That's a mostly win/win scenario. Aarre Peltomaa
Hey TTA I’m back and I’m going to put my input to this plan people need to stop obsessing with a destination of a train and start caring about what the train will do. Just because I have the A of the local tracks doesn’t mean it will be on Inwood it will go local to Norwood this is because it is a shorter route under this plan. The C will me moved to the QBL to take over service to 179th St so that we can leave the E as is. It’s much better as with this plan we won’t need the K at all.
I agree with all your plans but we can do this with a twist that doesn’t require the K bullet
A: Norwood 205th St to WTC
B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island
C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd & The Rockaways
D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St
E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave.
The B and D would have longer routes but ending the D at Bay Ridge 95th St is a better idea because we can use that for a provision to extend the D to Staten Island.
As for the C and E they would have longer routes than what they have now, as they would run express all along QBL, and 8th Ave, except Fulton where the C continues its express service while the E switches to the local tracks in Brooklyn. The C+E combination would make 36tph with 12tph for the E and the rest of the 24tph would be for the C, which is because the C ends at 179th St under this plan.
Well although sending the e and k to Brooklyn helps, it may create that merge at hoyt Street. Plus the a now became a former K train (168 st - wtc) I may have an Extension for the A beyond 168 but not now later in the future. But I still approve of your plan, your better at de interling Cpw, and fulton street.
That already happens with the A and C at Hoyt. There is no cost effective way to solve this problem
I'd rebuild the existing BMT Liberty Avenue Elevated Line & IND Fulton Street Connector Line to have 4 tracks, enabling the (C) to run to Ozone Park-Lefferts Boulevard. The (A) should make another express jump from Euclid Avenue to Rockaway Boulevard & to The Rockaways 24/7. The (C) should also be accompanied by the (K), which runs 24/7 from Euclid Avenue to Fordham Road via Fulton Street local, 8th Avenue local, Central Park West local, Saint Nicholas Avenue local, & Concourse local.
I agree with your Queenslink Plans; excellent ! I agree with the E and K to Euclid Ave., and the E to Far Rockaway. I think that Rockaway Park should always be a shuttle, but with more frequent service, to turn back just north of the Broad Channel stop. Lefferts and Far Rockaway can get 12 per hour. If you needed more Far Rockaway trains, however, you could have a shuttle to Lefferts. A LEFFERTS SHUTTLE could pull into Rockaway Blvd. westbound platform, and then take a new turnout to the centre/3rd/express track and use that as a pocket/turnback track; it could then take another new turnout to the eastbound platform at Rockaway Blvd., once the way was clear, and run back to Lefferts. Lefferts patrons could use the same platform to continue their trips; no biggie.
Aarre Peltomaa
Broad Channel would need to have an upper level for the shuttle to terminate and not interrupt any trains and the shuttle would be isolated except for hammels wye
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan please don't mess with my h train and it can run twelve trains per hour
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan the h train in its current status isn't that inconvenience
Rockaway Park has a ferry, which offers a better alternative than what had been available.
I have always wonder why a shuttle can't run to and from Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park. This would cut out one direct line from Manhattan. And of course i prefer Far Rockaway getting the 24hr service.
This can be done tomorrow.
If Queens link is created, only than service can be extended into Rockaway Park.
But a more clever idea is to build Utica Avenue #4 IRT and extend it to the Rockaways. Because of how this line comes into the Rockaways, Rockaway Park would mo longer be a terminal.
Advantages:
1.Rockaway Park gets the same service as Far Rockaway.
2. It covers more of the Island (Inlet) than is previously available today.
3. It provides to rail options (explain below) to the Island (Inlet).
The Rockaway Inlet won't loose the IND entirely, just the various stations. There would be a station that parallel the IND with the IRT.
Queens Link should totally severed Fulton Street from the Rockaways. But a new parallel station will be built between Queens Link and the "A" Fulton Street/Lefferts Blvd line.
There is a downside to the #4 into the Rockaways. Mileage! Increase mileage would be harder on work crews.
The #4 extension would have to consist of fewer stops than many other lines, because it will be local until it gets to Eastern Parkway. Otherwise a skip stop pattern might garner more riders to use this type of service.
The #4 is no "A" train by any stretch of someones imagination. It express service is probably one of the slowest in Brooklyn. And partly due to some curve sections.
But it does not matter, the #4 takes a much shorter route than the current "A" service. And i am 100 percent sure that the "4" would win a race against the "A" from the same location.
There might be some capacity issues though. But unlike the "A", the #4 has the "5". There is also the 2/3 if passengers prefer to speed a little time taking in the commute.
I too have always wondered why can’t trains just cross from one end of the Rockaways to the other. If anything, that’s what the shuttle service should be used for at certain times. Yes, it might have some interlining, but I’m sure Rockaway residents would appreciate it over bus service on those skinny crowded Beach boulevard/drive/Shorefront parkway streets.
Is there a petition for Queens Link
I think sending that to Rockaway park and the E to Mott Ave reduces that interling. And of course a second level for the broad channel could delinter
Hmm I wonder if a new at grade alignment along the parkland by union tpk then via an EL linked to Jamaica yards.
I would send the K to Lefferts and the E to Far Rockaway (the E would skip stations between Euclid and Rockaway Blvd) and I would make the H from Bedford Park Blvd on Concourse Express CPW Express 8th Avenue Express and Fulton Express to Rockaway Park
Maybe you could also have the A or C go via the Worth Street line and bring up the H train to go to 2nd Avenue and then meet with the A or C on the way to Utica Avenue - Nostrand Avenue and go another route after meeting the IRT trains to let the IRT Utica Avenue line start.
What announcement voice wound the k train use
why is thier no joint subway lirr station at far rockway mott avenue
There's really great way to get 36tph to the three branches of the A that only requires a modicum of capital spending: convert the Fulton St Local into a shuttle that terminates at Hoyt. All that's needed is to refurbish the outer-outer platforms and expand the mezzanine, then requisition one of the tail tracks inside the Transit Museum to reverse trains from Hoyt (with a sound-dampening glass screen installed to protect museum patrons). A FSL Shuttle could operate at 12tph, while the FSE wizzes by at 36tph all the way past Euclid Ave, with not a single merger with another line. Timed Cross Platform Transfers at Hoyt would absorb all the Local riders traveling to Manhattan without adding to their journey times.
I think this is the right time to bring up Bowery and Canal Street on the J as locations to consider for museum relocation.
@@samuelitooooo indeed, the former trolly terminal would make a great location for the museum. I was just trying to devise a solution that doesn't require relocation. If it were relocated, then Court St could be reopened for passengers, though it would have low ridership as it did in the 50s/60s when they closed it. Any extension of the FSL into Manhattan would have to go through Court St anyways, so relocating the museum could also allow the MTA to install provisions for such a project. Ultimately I believe that relocating the museum is feasible and beneficial to the system as a whole, I just don't think it's strictly necessary for converting FSL into a shuttle.
@@botmes4044The former trolley terminal is at Delancey St-Essex St. I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to a couple stations after that: Bowery and Canal St. This is in the midst of a quad-track corridor where Queens-bound J trains today use what used to be the southbound express track; the out-of-service tracks and platforms are hidden from view and inaccessible. With two tracks and platforms likely to never see sensible use again plus trackage in between, this is more room for the museum to store equipment. (The Chrystie St cut that the M uses today still allows equipment to get to the 207 St yard, and the Montague Connection makes it easier to get to Coney Island yard.)
So, rather than converting the Rockaway Park line into a shuttle, which has triple digit ridership for I think most of the stations, you are going to make Fulton Local, which has decent ridership and density, have to transfer?
@@peskypigeonx Yes. May sound odd, but hear me out.
Rockaway Park Branch is economically depressed. Enhanced subway service may be just what the area needs to drive development and get more people moving into the area.
Also, it's not just Rockaway Park. Far Rockaway and Lefferts would also receive service boosts under my proposal. Nevertheless, Rockaway Park may not need a full branch: if it remains a shuttle, then the other two branches could receive even *more* service, about 15-18 tph each during rush hour. That would certainly drive a lot of development.
Lastly, converting FSL into a shuttle would *enhance* service from a train every 8-10 minutes to every 3-5 minutes or better, so the trip into Manhattan would on average be *shorter* than today when factoring wait times, even with the transfer.
So overall, everybody gets more trains and faster services, and the *only* trade-off is an extra transfer. You gotta think outside the box if you want to move more people more quickly using existing assets.
The Lefferts Blvd line is due an extension since it inception. But that is another story.
Yeah. I propose that maybe that line can continue the original plan of sending the C train into Cambria Heights.
@@calvinkendrick851If you want a Cambria Heights extension, it would probably be best to use the 76th Street tunnel since it would be underground, kinda like the IND Second System. It could either be two-track or four-track until Cross Bay Boulevard, where express trains head further to Cambria Heights.
I’m not from the New York (or the US) I’m just here for trains. Hence a maybe dumb question. After implementing you de-interlining plan to get 36 Trains per hour on the IND Fulton line. You suggested terminating Locals at Euclid Ave or by gong down to 30 trains per hour locals could merge with express after Euclid and run to Lefferts Blvd.
Isn’t Grant Ave the only really limiting factor here as it is a two track island platform.
After Grant on the Old Fulton El you have 3 tracks, so at least peak direction express should be possible.
So rebuilding Grant from an island platform to two side platform should be able to somewhat fix it.
From Wikipedia I read the the Pitken Yard leads are under the platform, so it would be more complicated.
But still Grant is a very shallow station surround by a sea of Asphalt, so it should be that expensive to rebuild the station.
After a rebuild all peak trains run through to their destination. Locals to Lefferts, express to Rockaway.
Reverse Peak would have to share the local track on Fulton El (maybe some services do not start at The branches but at Euclid if the EL can’t handle 36 trains per hour between Grant and Rockaway Blvd.
He was talking about the merge after Euclid Avenue. This might cause delays, which is why locals end at Euclid.
Just run the E to Euclid as a local. That solves for additional capacity in the cannery tubes.
Deinterline 59th street and have the A run local from 59th to 207 in inwood. Run the B express up central park west.
Have the C as additional rush hour service on 8th Ave with a terminus at World Trade Center.
You are reverse branching the 8th Ave express. Not good.
@@techtransitassociationFor that, would it be alright to have (B) and (D) trains be the same, while the (C) can just run local to Inwood-207th Street by itself?
@@shadowmamba95absolutely not it would be the A running local by itself to Norwood. The B and D handle the Inwood Branches and I have the B ending at Inwood and the D at 168th St. What you said with the C is that it would be moved to the QBL and the E would be going on Fulton to the Local Tracks as planned. This means that the C would have to be an express on Fulton.
For the C we have 24tph and the following
9tph Lefferts Blvd
9tph Far Rockaway
6tph Rockaway Pk
Unless we have QueensLink then we have the C only handling 2 terminals
12tph Lefferts Blvd (C)
12tph Far Rockaway (C)
12tph Rockaway Pk (M)
I’m CPW we have this
A: Norwood 205th St to WTC (21tph)
B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island (15tph)
D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St (15tph)
I live in New Orleans and know no one in New York City let alone Queens. My representatives are Congressman Troy Carter and Senators John Kennedy and Bill Cassidy. I would have to move to Queens to have any influence and I don't have the money to move there!
Let's say the G heads to Forest Hills with QueensLink, what would the frequency be?
Can the K not go to lefferts?
It’s sad that the MTA is so short sighted, high priced, and underfunded. The best thing would still be to run the T via Fulton local to Euclid. Then have the A or C go to Liberty while the other goes to the Rockaways. But we have people who aren’t fit to run the MTA in charge.
How about having the C run to Lefferts and having the A split service between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park?
Or just go back to what it used to be - have the C run to Rockaway Park, The A to Far Rockaway, and an A shuttle from Euclid to Lefferts?
We believe that having Fulton St Trains branch off QBL so we can have more capacity. This involves using the C and E Routes. The E would run Local on Fulton so that we can retain most of its service patterns, and from there the C will get sent to replace the A to Lefferts and Far Rockaway giving better frequencies on the three branches. It would have 7.5 minute headways on each branch the C would have.
what about the inter rockways shuttle.
Where, exactly, did you get that 5 tph figure from?
MTA timestables plus certain transit CZcamsrs.
But now that I think of it, 6 tph is more likely on the C, but my point still stands. By deinterlining and sending the K down Fulton, the frequencies become 12 tph, which is two times what the C has.
The reason this linear park idea has gotten so much traction is because the MTA has ignored their duty to plan ahead to develop the Rockaway Beach Branch... as a high-capacity trunk line to Rockaway and on to Hempstead - and everything in between including the airport, Glendale Junction, Jamaica Avenue, the casino-and-nascent convention center, Richmond Hill and Jamaica. The park must not be allowed to infringe on this more important use (which is a necessity in terms of LIRR mainline capacity) and at this point I'd say the MTA must be compelled to address it BEFORE anything like the QueensWay study coming out "this winter" gets irrevocably etched in stone. See this video: czcams.com/video/lB82-gqiRpY/video.html
Hopefully, the QueensLink will be built, then we can make A trains Lefferts-bound only.
Correction: The Station "Shepherd" Avenue was misspelled as "Shepard" Avenue.
What's your thoughts on routing RBB via Lower Montauk ROW?
#1 It's a shorter route, #2 it covers more transportation deserts (Maspeth, Middle Village, Glendale), #3 ROW is already made (cheaper to build). #4 It eliminates the need to worry about any IND QBL interlining and #5 if it's too expensive to build a new tube to Manhattan, provisions for interlining with LIRR is alot more feasible as interlining with commuter rail frequency is far less interruptive.
RBB through Lower Montauk is way too expensive.
There is no third rail, so you would need to spend billions to electrify the route. Then there is the issue of a single track at certain locations and at grade crossings, so you would need to spend billions to double track and eliminate those grade crossings. Then you would need to rebuild stations along Montauk, which again would cost billions. And finally, if you overcome all of that, you would need to eliminate freight traffic on Lower Montauk, because of how many freight trains use that line. Eliminating freight trains is not good idea and would lead to more trucks on the road, which equals more pollution and higher prices for everything, as Lower Montauk serves some key distribution centers. All of this to serve 21,000 riders daily? Not worth it, especially with RBB is shorter than Lower Montauk and is projected to serve 47,000 riders daily, and is much easier to convert. Finally, QBL has much more important connections that Lower Montauk does not have, like a connection to the 7 at Jackson Heights.
I really don't understand why people are so against interlining Queenslink. As a massive deinterlining advocate, I understand you are like, this adds an extra merge, so bad. But there is more to the picture. As I said in the video, due to how bad Forest Hills is as a terminal, you can get an extra 10-16 tph out of the local tracks of QBL. And if you factor even partial deinterlining on QBL (which the MTA has entertained in the past) and CBTC, you effectively can get another rail tunnel worth of capacity onto QBL.
Here I will show you.
Currently, the express tracks have 27 tph. With deinterlining, that becomes 36 tph, or an increase of 9 tph.
Currently, the local tracks run at 20 tph. With Queenslink, plus CBTC, on the local tracks, plus some deinterlining, it becomes 30-36 tph, or an increase of 10-16 tph.
The total additional throughput is between 19-25 tph, or close to an additional rail tunnel's capacity.
So interlining the Queenslink would be the better option, because not only would it be cheaper, but you actually get more capacity. That's why I support Queenslink in its current form.
@@techtransitassociation Just use the old Rockaway Beach branch of the LIRR. Have a line split off from the QBL after 63rd drive - the provisions for that expansion are already there as that was part of the original IND expansion plans. In fact that is being discussed with the line surfacing on to the old LIRR branch a few blocks south of where it splits from the LIRR Main Line.
Stations would be at Fleet Street right after surfacing as well as Metropolitan Ave, Myrtle Ave, Jamaica Ave (with a transfer to the J/Z trains), 101 Ave (using the old Ozone Park LIRR station) and finally connecting with the current Rockaway service south of Liberty Ave.
This would also give residents of Middle Village, Glendale, and the southernmost portions of Rego Park and Forest Hills some much needed subway service.
@@MultiScooter68 That is what we are talking about??? Minus the Fleet St station?
The MTA is NOT HEARING a QBL along the Fulton Street line. The Rockaway residents are not trying to hear that. (A) customers from Inwood are not trying to hear a transfer for the Fulton line.
What I suggest is the Lefferts Blvd (A) extends to Rosedale above Lefferts Blvd, Rockaway Blvd and the Belt Parkway Center. The (C) would service the 76th Street Station (Pitkin) and then across Linden Blvd to Cambria Heights (I am branching the (F) line . I am not DEMOLISHING the Liberty Avenue El.
I would go for an (H) line on the Rockaway Beach Branch. I would add a (V) line to the Rockaway Beach Branch.
That joke of yours is getting too old.
I really like you trying to give me a lecture about how politics work when I literally am in politics for the last two years working as a transit advocate. So if anyone has experience working with the community and hearing people’s concerns, it is going to be me.
Second, which is related to the first point, it is also very funny to see you give a lesson on politics when you yourself propose some of the most horrendous lines that I have ever seen. Like try proposing whatever you propose to the common person. I bet no one will take you seriously, espiceally when you claim over and over that the B46 on Utica is fine and not overcrowded. And apparently I am not alone. When I try to reason with you, you always try to repeat your weak reasoning. Like nothing anyone says here goes through your head. Not disrespect to you as a person, but if everyone says that your ideas is bad, you might want to reevaluate them. When I make these videos, I never intend what I propose is final. There are always changes, some major and some minor.
Finally, I literally stated two things you seemed to ignore. One, stop obsessing over the designation of a train and care about what a train would do. And two, deinterlining in NYC is done using the existing system. If you make me keep repeating what I say, then either you didn’t watch the video, or ignored what I had to say, which to say, are not great qualities for any commentor to have.
I know you are a great person. But if you here to validate your feelings, then get mad when you experience pushback from other commenters, then this channel is not for you.
Best regards,
TTA
Again, I know you are an amazing person, and I mean it sincerely. But I really implore you to start taking more criticism and apply it in some of your proposals.
Nice video. However, here's my beef with Queenslink:
There aren't enough subway cars for the (M) to branch off at 63rd Drive and go down to Rockaway Park.
The extension will only bring more Rockaway traffic to QBL. Traffic from the Q53 already exists on QBL, alongside Flushing Line traffic, locals, and the other buses that connect with it.
If anything, Fulton Street local trains should serve Lefferts, while Fulton Street Express trains serve Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park.
Regarding your plans for the (E) and (K) on Fulton Street, it's a great way to increase service, but there aren't enough cars.
Assuming that the (B) runs between Inwood-207th Street and Bay Ridge-95th Street, it would need to run full time(therefore, the C wouldn't run on weekends). However, it would have to switch to the local track north of 36th Street-4th Avenue in order to serve 45th and 53rd Streets. This can easily delay the R/W, or a D train that might be directly behind it.
I keep hearing the “there isn’t enough trains” argument so let me address it. The MTA knows that with CBTC, they need more trains. That’s why we have seen an influx of new trains like the R179s and R211s in the past few years. Yes, they are replacing older models, but they will a net positive in the total fleet.
And if the city chooses to extend subway lines, there would always be a massive increase in the subway fleet. The Program for Action came with the R44s, the initial attempt in the 50s for SAS came with the R11s, and the IND came with the Arnines. So yeah, expect a fleet increase when they do Queenslink, CBTC, or any type of deinterlining.
If the B needs to run late nights or weekends, then so be it. There should be more service to accommodate the growing riders on the weekends, what is wrong with that?
And finally, at 36th St, first of all, you are timing two trains, the B and D. That is perfectly fine. That problem is when you are timing three or four trains, which is why DeKalb and 59th St are major choke points. Second, that merge that you are talking already exists in a different form with the D and N trains, where the D branches from the N to serve West End.
@techtransitassociation They can do fleet increases. Good point. However, I'm simply not in favor of Queenslink since it brings more customers to QBL.
Queensway is basically a modern high line, so I don't support that either. However, it's more popular among activists and politicians.
Edit: Actually, the choke point would move from south of 36th Street to north of it. If the (R) gets transferred to West End, the (B) would have to use the switch north of 36th Street in order to serve 45th and 53rd Streets.
The MTA has to order new trains
@stevenroshni1228 No shit, Sherlock. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.
@@clbtransit4798QueensLink definitely needs to happen, and I’d like to go a step further and make it a Subway line of its own (preferably the H) that connects the Rockaways to LaGuardia Airport (via Junction Boulevard).
QueensWay is a pointless waste of money, because it’s just another High Line clone and nothing more. Like, what is even the point of it? It just has the same function that the High Line does. I really don’t see why so many people would want to throw away such a useful Subway link just for a repeat of something that already exists on the western side of Midtown Manhattan. Talk about wasting opportunities. It’s an even bigger disappointment than the Low Line (which is the old Williamsburg Bridge Trolley Terminal turned into an underground park. I honestly thought it would be repurposed as an underground nightclub [it might still become a nightclub tho considering the Low Line project is on hold, and hopefully called off]).
I agree E train to Far Rockaway and M train to Rockaway Beach would benefit Southern Queens if the Queens Links is built having two options for Midtown and Lower Manhattan directly The A train would like for it continue to go to Lefferts Blvd only and the C train can terminate at WTC personally I'm in favour of this plus the E Train would reclaim the title as the longest route from its pre-1970s era and F train as the second longest
The C is a better choice with it running on QBL. The A can handle the WTC terminal on its own. Plus the E retains Jamaica Center as a terminal with an extension to Euclid Ave, so the C runs express to Lefferts and the Rockaways which is more familiar to Lefferts and Rockaway Residents.
What line would replace the B to Brighton Beach? N? Q?
The N the B would then take Sea Beach
My proposal run C Express under 8av and Central Park West E and D Local no more B, D trains will have two southern terminals. A to Norwood 205 St, D to Inwood 207 St.
So, 12/9/9/6 what would the service pattern be?
I got it. ABCADBACBADC repeating every 20 minutes. A, the local, every 5 minutes. D, Rockaway park, every 10 minutes, B and C, Lefferts and Far Rockaway in a 5 minute, 8 minutes 20 second, 6 minute 40 second cycle. This would avoid least common multiple issues.
The letters here don't represent the A-D services, but the branches.
What are your sources for train frequencies? Is it just the official MTA timetables?
is the Uday Schultz / Vanshnook plan somewhere online already?
I just found but you should still credit your sources in the description.
I forgot to put the sources. It is now in the description, thanks for letting me know!
I agree with this plan 8:48
Although I used to live in queens at 115 avenue, I do perfer Queenslink over queens hell.
Couldn't the a and c still run down 8th av express (south of 50 st) by adding a switch between 50 st and that spot where the e enters?
You could, but that becomes a question of where the E would go. Since deinterlining equals removing reverse branching, the E/F split would need to end and QBL express would be served by 8th Ave express only. But WTC is restricted to 24 tph, so you are cutting capacity to QBL, which signals can handle 36 tph. But by taking advantage of IND Fulton and its associated branches, we can retain that 36 tph.
@@techtransitassociationoh right. All because of the archer av branch after briarwood. I'm looking at the vanshrookenragen track map and a possible solution could be to create a branch off 8 av local at worth st that ends at east broadway with a transfer to the F (similar route that the e makes when sent down 6 av to 2 av).
Maybe it could even be extended into brooklyn via franklin av and the franklin av shuttle, to atleast prospect park (ideally i'd have it be the k route since it'd likely be more so a support route alongside the e. Late nights it would probably be cut back lexington av - 53 st or another stop close enough to 8 av but not on it to avoid merging issues with the e.
Of course, this would mostl likely be quite expensive, take alot of time, and construction (more so with the underground sections and tunnel) would likely cause some problems. This is more so an alternative plan if the city has enough money, resources, and political will to consider serious expansion/redesign projects. But at the very least, the small branch to east broadway would fix a good chunk of the frequency/train capacity issue.
@@techtransitassociationWhat if you choose to have the E push past WTC to serve from Cortlandt to Whitehall Streets to the Montague tube? Would it make more sense to have the E there with this new connection?
@@shadowtoad95that can depend on how riders want that I would make the E a local in Brooklyn so it retains most of its route, from there the C would do the service east past Euclid Ave as it’s done in the past for gap fillers, so let’s just send the C to Lefferts and the Rockaways so that it’s more Familiar. The only case for the K is labeling the routes east of Euclid as Far Rockaway (A) and Lefferts (C), but if that’s not needed then we have the C handling the service to Lefferts and the Rockaways all by itself, with better frequency.
I recommend you put the email of the representative.
I say make the C go to ozone park and bring the H back, Rockaway park branch for the LIRR.
I’m genuinely surprised that the A goes to Lefferts at all. The C should just go to Lefferts, and if they could plan a connection up to Jamaica from Lefferts that would be great and provide for another route into the city and more connection opportunities for people heading to the airport. As the A stands right now, its pretty long and just kind of all over the place. If they could extend the 2 or 5 into the Rockaways and connecting it to the current shuttle service there would create a better route for people there getting into Manhattan and there wouldn’t need to be more trains going that way so that the A can just go straight to far Rockaway.
@NYC_Pokemon_FanYou’re wrong. The same exact merge happens at both Canal Street and Hoyt-Schermerhorn.
I suggested at a public hearing back in 2004 that C train service should be extended to Lefferts Boulevard and al A trains should go to the Rockaways. You can tell how that went.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan How would the A and C train using the same track from Grant Avenue to Rockaway Boulevard be any different from them using the same track from Canal Street to Hoyt-Schermerhorn like they currently do?
4:02 wat is a (D) train doing at high st?
That was the same thing I was asking when a D showed up on the countdown clock.
Once something forces the downtown D train to go on 8th Avenue Express, there's no recovery to Manhattan bridge (or Delaney) so after Jay Street it will have to take Culver to Coney Island (and then it can uptown West End towards Manhattan).
Yes bring back the g on qbl in any form 9:50
I partially agree, as the should run to Forest Hills-71st Avenue via Queens Boulevard local, while the (G) terminates at Court Square.
I'm not a fan of this since it would make the situation at Queens Plaza worse than it currently is. If the (M) branches off at 63rd Drive to serve RBB, the (R) can simply serve 67th Avenue alone.
@@clbtransit4798 This messes up the Romeo and Golf trains and for the Diamond 💎 g train it would have to be express on Culver and that won't happen because the foxtrot needs the Culver express tracks to increase the pH and QBL express won't work at all
@@alexthemtaandr211weatherfa2 There's no need for a if the (F) becomes the Culver Exp. I'm with you on that.
I think the (G) only needs two changes, but this might be costly:
1. Church Avenue Yard should be a more fleshed-out yard: It will allow the (G) trains to be independent from the rest of QBL, removing the need of having (G) trains to head to Forest Hills during non-revenue times, removing any interference from out-of-service trains at the QBL Local.
2. Have the northern terminus of the (G) be Queens Plaza: Whether by simply using an interlocking switch, or installing tail tracks just for the (G), this will allow a direct cross-platform transfer to the QBL Express trains [like the 8th Avenue trains]. Court Square is not really the best interchange for QBL and Crosstown. Plus, with 6th Avenue trains serving the QBL local only to 36th Street, and Broadway service being booted out of QBL Local, this leaves those local tracks at Queens Plaza empty, making Queens Plaza a better northern terminus for the (G). Sure, it was not meant to be a terminus, but given the layout of QBL between 5th Avenue in Manhattan and 36th Street in Queens, this might be the best option.
I really hope they don’t go ahead with the QueensWay project, because it would be a huge waste of a one-seat ride from the Rockaways to Northern Queens. I don’t know why so many friggin idiots would want to throw away a perfect Subway connection just for a stupid high line clone in Queens. One high line is enough, we don’t need another. Go to Manhattan if you want to see an elevated railway turned into a pedestrian walkway so badly, for Christ’s sake.
Anyways, my proposal for de-interlining the Fulton Street line would be to have the R and W diverted via a brand new tunnel under the East river (something the MTA should consider in the future) to run via Fulton Local to Euclid Avenue while the A and C run express. The J and M (Z is discontinued) will handle the Montague Street Tunnel, and 4th Avenue local, while the N and Q run via 4th Avenue express (N via Sea Beach, Q via West End, J and M to Bay Ridge-95th Street [I’d have the J or M run with the Q to Bay Parkway, but that would be interlining. It would provide a one-seat ride between Bay Parkway and Myrtle Avenue though!] and the B and D handle Brighton (B runs local to Brighton Beach, and D runs express to Coney Island). The Liberty Avenue elevated will be converted into a 4-track line, with Rockaway Boulevard being an express station. The A and C will run to Lefferts, while the R and W split off to run via the Rockaway Beach Branch, with the R running to Far Rockaway, while the W runs to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street.
As for Queens Boulevard, I propose the QBL Super-Express. This sees a reconfiguration of the 63rd Street branch and the reintroduction of not just the K, but the V train as well. The E and K will run Normal Express, the F and V run Super-Express, and the R and W will run local.
2 new tracks will be built along the 63rd Street line, with the F and V running on the new Super-Express tracks while the R and W run on the current tracks. 21st Street-Queensbridge will be rebuilt into a 4-track station, with the F and V tracks on the right side, and the R and W on the left (If you look at how 21st Street-Queensbridge is designed, it does look like it could be converted into a 4-track station). The E and K will handle 53rd. With that, the possibility of reverse-branching on the 2nd Avenue subway is eliminated, though the connection between Lex-63rd and 72nd will be needed for yard access. That, and for Grand Street converted into a 4-track station as well, with switches connecting to the Christie street connection.
Woodhaven Boulevard will also be rebuilt to serve both local and Super-Express trains. The F and V stopping on the outer tracks, R and W on the inner tracks, and the E and K skipping the station entirely. Basically the same layout as DeKalb Avenue. Also, Queenslink will pretty much be a line of its own, being designated as the H, and I’m having it go a tad-bit further by having it run along Junction Boulevard, to LaGuardia Airport (Will skip Howard Beach-JFK, Aqueduct-North Conduit and Aqueduct Racetrack tho, so you’ll have to transfer to the R or W if you’re headed to JFK Airport at either Rockaway Boulevard or Broad Channel).
The R and W will still terminate at Forest Hills, which will have new platforms constructed for Super-Express trains. From there, the F and V will run on the local tracks while the E and K continue running express.
The K and V will then split off from the E and F respectively and run along the Archer Avenue branch, while the E and F continue on to Jamaica-179th Street. From there, there will be a 3-track extension along Hillside Avenue, towards New Hyde Park Road. The E will run peak-direction express during rush hours, while the F makes all stops at all times. The E will terminate at New Hyde Park-Langdale Street, while the F continues on to New Hyde Park Road.
For the Southern terminus for the E/K and F/V, I’ll have the F run via Culver Express to Coney Island, while the V runs local with the G to Church Avenue (this will mean re-activating Bergen Lower Level, which, in all honesty, is something they really should do). The E and K will terminate at World Trade Center.
Now to wrap this up, let’s de-interline CPW: have the A and C run local and the B and D run express. The A and B swap terminals, with the A running to Bedford Park Boulevard, the B to Inwood-207th Street, and C and D still terminating at 168th Street and Norwood-205th Street, respectively.
The T will run with the U along 2nd Avenue, via 125th Street and Riverside, from Woodlawn (which is converted into a 4-track station for passengers to transfer to the 4) to Hanover Square and into Brooklyn, and after Atlantic Avenue-Court Street (where the R and W will stop as well), the T and U will split off from each other, with the T running with the F via Culver Express to Kings Highway, while the U will run with the G to Bedford-Nostrand Avenues, though a case can be made to extend it to run via Myrtle Avenue with the M, with an extra stop at DeKalb-Throop Avenues.
To conclude:
A/C: 8th Avenue/Fulton Express, CPW Local (A via Grand Concourse, C to 168th)
B/D: 6th Avenue/CPW Express, via Brighton (B to Inwood-207th and via Brighton Local, D via Brighton Express and Grand Concourse)
E/K: 8th Avenue Local, QBL Regular Express (E via Hillside, K via Archer Avenue)
F/V: 6th Avenue Local, QBL Super-Express (F via Hillside and Culver Express to Coney Island, V via Archer Avenue and Culver Local to Church Avenue)
J/M: Jamaica and Nassau lines, via 4th Avenue local (J to Jamaica Center, M to Middle Village-Metropolitan Avenue)
N/Q: Broadway/4th Avenue Express, via Astoria (N via Sea Beach, Q via West End)
R/W: Broadway/Fulton/QBL Local, via Rockaway Beach (R to Far Rockaway, W to Rockaway Park)
T/U: 2nd Avenue line, via 125th Street and Riverside (T via Culver Express to Kings Highway, U via Crosstown and Myrtle Avenue to Middle Village-Metropolitan Avenue)
Both the Rockaway Park Shuttle and Z service are permanently eliminated.
The G and L remain the same.
As for the train assignments:
The E/K and F/V will be based out of Jamaica Yard and use 10-car R160’s, both with the Alstom and Siemens traction motors.
The A/C and R/W will be based out of Pitkin Yard and use both 10-car R179’s and R211’s.
The B/D and N/Q will be based out of Coney Island Yard and use R68/A’s and R211’s.
The J/M will be based out of East NY Yard and use both 8-car R160’s and R179’s (and R143’s during rush hours).
The T/U will be based out of either 207th Street Yard or Concourse Yard and use R211’s.
@@VinceHere98that is a very complicated way of doing queenslink. Would it be simpler using the M, R or G?
@@carlbro1 I would but I don't want QBL local to carry any extra air. Plus, the G was kicked off of QBL due to budget restrictions. I would send the M along Queenslink, but I feel as though it feels pretty odd having it be an incomplete loop, so I'd rather have it be brown again, and kill off the Z because skip-stop is unnecessary and shouldn't even be a thing in subway systems. Bus routes, maybe, but not subways.
Plus, who doesn't want a one-seat ride from JFK to LaGuardia?
@@VinceHere98true, the one seat ride from one airport to another will be nice
9:35 That's foam because it is totally illogical to send the M train there via Queens link.
Why?
Actually, the M is the only QBL route that isn't based out of Jamaica Yard, making it the front runner to serve Queenslink and Rockaway Park.
It's pure foam to think it's a good idea to extend the R down there, or even extend the G anywhere beyond the capacity of rush hour support.
Why not give the Rockaway Branch back to the LIRR and create an S-Bahn/RER type service? Trains can serve Brooklyn via Atlantic Terminal or Manhattan via Penn or GCM. This would give the Fulton St subway a single terminal. Also the Rockaways are the most vulnerable parts of the city to climate change, and Jamaica Bay is projected to see chronic tidal flooding that could negatively impact service.
The LIRR is already full to the brim of service. The East Side Access is not a panacea to terminal capacity.
Also, not everyone in the Rockaways is going to Manhattan. Some want to go to Downtown Brooklyn while others want to go further into Queens. It is a Queenslink for a reason, linking the northern Queens subway lines to the south Queens subway lines.
Finally, I know climate change is happening. But I still don't see the Rockaways being abandoned in my lifetime. What will probably happen is more developments clustering inland near the A train.
There is a connection between the Rockaway Branch and the Atlantic Branch so trains could still serve Brooklyn. And demolished stations at Rego Park and Grand Ave can be rebuilt to serve that part of Queens. And I think that since the LIRR is shifting trains away from GCM and back to Penn due to rider demand, that there's capacity at GCM to handle a few extra trains. And there's definitely capacity at Atlantic since they shifted to that shuttle.
And I'm not saying that the Rockaways can or should be abandoned due to the threat of climate change, but the kind of high density development that a subway line demands is not the right call for such a vulnerable area. But since we also want to provide transit for those residents that's why I think regional rail is a good compromise.
@@Drejco515 The Rockaways is already a dense area. Spend a day riding the IND Rockaway Line and you will find tall apartment complexes. The subways is already an appropriate response to that dense area. Anything less is starving a dense area of good transit access.
With the LIRR, you will be repeating the exact same mistake with the A train: horrible frequencies. The subways can provide 10 tph from Queens Blvd and 10 tph from Liberty Ave for 20 tph total before deinterlining. The LIRR can't crack 10 tph combined because of how interlined the LIRR network is. Also, the subways is all about the connections, which are valuable for Rockaway residents. If you go for LIRR, have fun building more infill stations that will drive up the cost. And for what? Getting the same service levels down to the Rockaways? Then what are spending the money for? Frequencies matter and connections matter, which is what the Queenslink does.
And finally, as I said in the video, I don't like arguing about the specifics of Queenslink. It is a waste of time because the question is not what train we should send down QL, but whether trains should run down the Rockaway Beach branch. And so far, it is a no. I much rather spend my time convincing Queensway supporters than arguing about the most petty detail about Queenslink. We all agree that Queenslink should be built, so let's actually sway the city to get it built instead of dividing ourselves on a petty detail.
If it must be a subway it should use the Super-Express via the LIRR mainline idea from the Program for Action. It should connect to Queens Blvd at 36 St. The station layout will resemble Dekalb Av. The 6 track layout west of the station will be extended through the station, with the current side platforms becoming islands serving the current local tracks, and the new rockaway tracks. I think it would best work using your proposed K 8th Av Express service because it would only need to interline with the E along the entire route.
@@Drejco515 Not to be mean, but, if you want to jack up the price as much as possible, then go for it. And where do you connect that super express line to in Manhattan? 8th Ave? That's maxed out when you deinterline. 6th Ave? That's maxed out when you deinterline. Broadway? That's maxed out when you deinterline. Because for every pair of tracks in Queens, it can already be connected to a Queens Tunnel with no interference. The only way you can connect the super express is by building it to Second Ave, and have fun waiting years for that to happen. Meanwhile, Queensway advocates would say, see? The train is too expensive, so we must have the park only. And people would buy into that argument and Queenslink would be completely dead and any hopes of better transit in Queens would get crushed instantly. My point is that those tunnels can be built later. Like these tunnels can be built at later date. The more important thing is to put RBB back into service, because that is the portion under threat, and is the most important part of the Queenslink. Anything else can come later.
And I never said I wanted to use 8th Ave. I stated very clearly that the M is the only service that can be connected, which a 6th Ave service. Any express would have to perform an at grade merge, at 63rd Drive, so have fun creating a Rogers Junction level of delay. And even with the local service on QBL, it still beats out the A by 12 minutes. That is a lot of time saved and I believe no express run beats this figure.
Let's also expand on the M train thought for a second. Railfanners heavily fixate on the merge at 63rd Dr and say it is impossible and cut service. Except when you look at the facts, it clearly shows that service can be increased from 20 tph to 30 tph with that merge because of how Forest Hills is a terrible terminal. I want deinterlining mostly because of the service increase. Here is a case of interlining increasing service. What does mean? I support interlining here.
Anyway, please watch the entire video. I know you are a good person that means well, but I went through like every "alternative" that other railfanners proposed. I don't want to repeat myself here. Thank you in advance
The local tracks on Fulton should just be continued until the Lefferts split and the local service to take over three more stations and Lefferts.
what is my man on
The Extension of the M to the Rockaways might not work
1. The M used 8 Car Train
2. The G and R will be Delayed because the M will go to the Local track
3. It Will Look Strange on the Subway Map
So Having the E Run 9 TPH On Leffert and Far Rockaway and 6 TPH On Rockaway Park will be Good and People will have a One Seat Ride to Manhattan
1. Okay so? That’s still not an excuse, when the M train runs all over the placing, mixing with trains that are 10 cars long.
2. You are timing the equivalent of two trains, which is perfectly fine.
3. Have you looked at the Singapore’s Downtown Line, Toronto Line 1, or the F line in NYC? Comestics are not an issue with planning, getting people to and from their destinations are.
Although the 9-9-6 split in a massive improvement for frequencies, it is still not enough. With Queenslink, the frequencies would be 12-12-12, which is reasonable. And if you are saying that South Queens and Rockaway riders have fast ride into Midtown, then try riding the A from the Rockaways to Midtown. It is an hour and 12 minute commute on a good day, and an hour and 30 on a bad day. With Queenslink, that would reduced down to a 55-60 minute commute, even when the M makes local stops. There also more benefits, like cutting down crosstown travel in Queens by 15-30 minutes, so Queenslink needs to be built. And again, we really shouldn’t having a conversation on petty details of the Queenslink. That would come later. Right now, we need to have the RBB converted back to subway service.
@@techtransitassociationOh Okay, I Get Annoyed that the M look So Weird and it used 8 car, I like when All Branches used 12 TPH(5 Min Headway), I Would Choose Something different instead of the M like the G or R.
What Would it look like on Late Nights?
@@R262SubwayTrain The G and R are both based out of Jamaica Yard. The (M) is the only liable candidate for RBB since it's based out of ENY.
@@clbtransit4798Honestly, I kinda wish that Church Avenue Yard is an actual yard and not just a turning point for trains. It probably would look like the 174th Street Yard for CPW Local trains, but at least the (G) can depend on its own. It would not need Jamaica Yard anymore since now, G trains have to go through QBL Local to just get to their yard at Forest Hills.
How does adding (K) service on 8th Avenue affect LeBron’s legacy?
K train To Bedford Park Blvd
The K is not needed unless demand calls for it
K TRAINS
People really need to STFU about demolition of ELs ITS NOT WORTH IT!!!!! Street running however should be eliminated with the quickness
Crack is one hell of a drug
Isn’t it .
What do you mean by that?
Bros acting like the e doesn’t exist
Do I need to blog about this? tl;dr you're massively overserving the Rockaways. The ridership demand for 15-16 tph (8+8 or 9+6) is just not there, let alone 24 (12+12) - these are some of the lowest-ridership stations in the system. For the same reason, capacity isn't really relevant there (whereas it absolutely is relevant on QB). It's also far enough from Manhattan that frequency is not what keeps ridership low - this isn't Queensbridge, where trains that take people to Midtown in 6 minutes come every 12 minutes; Broad Channel-Chambers is 45 minutes, at which point whether trains come every 5 minutes or every 10 is barely noticeable.
Hi, are you Alon Levy from Pedestrian Observations? If so, thank you so much for inspiring us into the field of deinterlining.
As for the Rockaways, I proposed the maximum capacity that we can run there, and this capacity can be dialed back if necessary. But I don't think that would be the case is because the Rockaways is a dense neighborhood with a bunch of high rises, and is slated to get more housing. Asking tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of riders to wait 10-16 minutes for the A train or 10-16 minutes for an inconsistent shuttle that ends at Broad Channel is unacceptable. These low frequencies I argue is the reason why the IND Rockaway Line, despite serving a dense neighborhood, sees very low ridership.
And to your point, 10 minutes is outrageously long, but if it down to 6 minutes, I would definitely wait it out. 4 minutes per way, times two is 8 minutes. Multiply that by 5 and that is 40 minutes saved. 40 times 52 weeks is about 1.5 days back every year. Those extra minutes add up and that's why I think that the IND Rockaway Line should deserve 6 minute service, just like every other subway line.
I did not realize the argument between TTA and TMC started here (2nd interlining short)…
Hey MAN, LEAVE MY A TRAIN ALONE , KEEP THE A TRAIN TO FAR ROCKAWAY FOR FREQUENT SERVICE !!!
*frequently delayed service
So u want to gut & butcher my beloved A train & reduce it to the AA train? No thanks
I mean it's better than a huge delay and huge wait times for just 1 train
6:00
I mean, there are ways to still make the (A) useful with this configuration in the future. Considering that a select few proposals have the 8th Avenue Line take over the portion of the Broadway Local Line south of City Hall [after that strong curve], this (A) train can serve where the (R) currently serves in Brooklyn.
In my own plans, while I had the (A) serve QBL to 179th [(E) serve QBL to Jamaica Center], the (C) will start from Inwood and be express till 145th Street, while the (L) starts at 168th Street. After which, the (L) will divert from the CPW Local to head west to Amsterdam Avenue, while the (C) switches from CPW Express to CPW Local before the 145th Street Junction. The (C) will then serve till 95th Street.
These should be the {ACE} route stations via the Fulton Street Line extension to Cambria Heights-229th Street & IND Riverdale Line to Greystone-Odell Avenue:
Ⓜ Greystone-Odell Avenue {}
Ⓜ Arthur Street {}
Ⓜ Philipse Road {}
Ⓜ Point Street {}
Ⓜ Ashburton Avenue {}
Ⓜ Wells Avenue {}
Ⓜ Prospect Street {}
Ⓜ 259th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 246th Street {} {(ACE)}
P-O-R-T-A-L
Ⓜ Dyckman Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 168th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 145th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 125th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 96th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 59th Street-Columbus Circle {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 34th Street-Pennsylvania Station {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 14th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ West 4th Street-Washington Square Park {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Canal Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Chambers Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Fulton Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Jay Street-Metrotech {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Hoyt-Schermerhorn Streets {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Nostrand Avenue {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Utica Avenue {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Broadway Junction {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ Euclid Avenue {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 76th Street {} {(ACE)}
Ⓜ 84th Street {}
Ⓜ Cross Bay Boulevard {}
Ⓜ Hawtree Street {}
Ⓜ Aqueduct Road {}
Ⓜ Rockaway Boulevard {}
Ⓜ Lefferts Boulevard {}
Ⓜ 126th Street {}
Ⓜ Van Wyck Boulevard {}
Ⓜ 144th Street {}
Ⓜ Sutphin Boulevard {}
Ⓜ Brewer Boulevard {}
Ⓜ Merrick Boulevard {}
Ⓜ 178th Street {}
Ⓜ Farmers Boulevard {}
Ⓜ 200th Street {}
Ⓜ Nashville Boulevard {}
Ⓜ 221st Street {}
Ⓜ Cambria Heights-229th Street {}