officiallyliam

The shouldn't go to Ozone Park until both and are Fulton Expresses, ideally with the taking over the Fulton Local via an extension of SAS phase 4. Just because the and merge twice doesn't mean we should add a third bottleneck.

Well, come on - WTC and 179th can handle a lot more than a train every 15 minutes. With a proper deinterlining plan, the will have the Queens Blvd Local, 53rd St Tunnel, and 8th Avenue Local all to itself (as the will both be express). Removing the merges means that we should be able to run very frequent service, and QBL won't need a second local. @RR503 said in a different thread that WTC should be able to handle about 15-16 tph, or one every four minutes. I'm not sure how much this could be improved by changing the terminal procedures so T/Os board the front end of the train as soon as the doors open. 179th can handle about 24 TPH on the local tracks; based on the numbers for both WTC and 179th, the sweet spot for frequency should be around 20 TPH if we could make that possible. This would make it the same scheduled frequency as the QB Local today, but far more reliable without any merges.

It is possible, but keeping the and in the picture doesn't help. Pre-SAS, this whole thing is easier, because the and take 2nd Avenue while and take Astoria. The would run 179th to World Trade Center, all local, via 53rd Street. The and would run express via 63rd, to 179 and to Jamaica Center. The problem with this is the terminal capacity at WTC - I'm not sure what it is exactly, I'm sure it's not high, but implementing new procedures such as T/Os being ready at the front end of the train to speed turnaround could help with this.

Yeah, that is one problem with the plan. You could elect to only use one track as the terminal track, but that combined with the fact that the crossover will be far from the Queens Plaza station will inhibit the capacity of Queens Plaza as a terminal. With the two-track setup, countdown clocks will eliminate the guesswork for people entering the station, unfortunately, though, not as much for people coming off of or trains. Physically, I don't see why that couldn't work. You could cut off and realign the 11th Street Cut so it creates a flat junction with Crosstown just north of Court Square. Of course, the problem is that you're sending trains through 60th Street, which is at capacity, then down Broadway Local but has no place to terminate trains until Whitehall. You could then build a complementary connection from the unused Montague-Brighton tracks just south of DeKalb to the Fulton Crosstown stop, creating a that runs in a perfect, uninterrupted circle - kinda cool to think about, but guaranteed operational nightmare. At the end of the day, the shouldn't go to Manhattan, but should be improved into a proper circumferential. Building transfers to the IRT at Hoyt Street and to the BMT at Broadway (ideally with a new el station to replace Hewes and Lorimer) would be a good start - from there, we should work on completing one extension that should have happened: the connection from Bedford-Nostrand to the Franklin . This creates a better "crosstown" line, where going north-south doesn't mean detouring through Downtown Brooklyn. This proposal requires the to be removed from Queens Blvd (vanshnook's proposal sends the via 63rd, which I don't agree with) in order to allow the local tracks to be available. And the is crowded, yes, but the is underused during the morning rush because of the popularity of the and , so that hopefully will be able to absorb people who want 53rd to get to Manhattan who haven't changed at Court Square.

Said what? It would be great for the to go to Queens Plaza; you'd have a cross-platform connection to the rest of Queens on the QBL and a far easier connection to Manhattan via the than Court Square can give you. And if any form of connection is ever built between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza, the will finally have a connection to Astoria that would be useful (and would basically then have created a two-seat BQX service for a fraction of the silly streetcar) as well as another way to Manhattan via 60th Street. There's a relatively simple way to do this; @vanshnookenraggen has detailed this on his website. It would entail building a double crossover on Crosstown between Court Square and Queens Plaza, and converting the single crossover between local and express just east of QP in to a double, thus leaving the local tracks free for terminating trains.

In short, because it shouldn't be. Who would take a bus from North Williamsburg to Grand Central via the Midtown Tunnel? If any route would be extended to Manhattan, it should be the 62, because it carries far more, but even that I'm unsure of because the Midtown Tunnel can be a nightmare, the bus route is long enough as is, and the subway has far higher potential capacity.

The all terminating at 179th? That would be even worse than Forest Hills is today, and the and would all be running near empty past Forest Hills; the mostly carrying air past Court Square. The is not coming back to Queens Boulevard, unless some way was found to turn it at Queens Plaza. The should have a transfer to Atlantic Avenue, but it is a bit far for a transfer passageway to be useful, especially transferring to the 4th Avenue lines. One alternative to this, though this would just get you a transfer to the , would be to connect Hoyt-Schermerhorn to Hoyt Street IRT. Apparently there's a disused mezzanine from H-S to Livingston Street; this could be used as part of the new connection, meaning that new construction would only be under the short block from Livingston to Fulton.

Yeah, you're right. Making the and locals via 53rd and the and the 2nd Avenue express via 63rd will help distribute loading among the Queens Blvd trains in a more even way than it is right now; it also allows the locals to serve the center of Long Island City, which seems more intuitive than having them skirt around the area by going via 63rd Street.

You haven't de-interlined Queens Blvd if the locals and expresses are still split between 53rd and 63rd, and the same merges at Queens Plaza and 36th Street that exist today wouldn't go away. Make the and expresses via 53rd, and the and locals via 63rd. Instead of taking away West End's express service why not extend the via Broadway Express and West End, with the becoming today's (local to Whitehall, rush hours via 4th Avenue local)?

Where would the new tunnel be placed in order to connect to Broadway Express? The best alignments that I could think of for a new tunnel would be either 1. via 38th Street, then following the LIRR ROW through Long Island City and continuing as the bypass or 2. at 50th Street, following 45th Road through the Court Square area and turning into the LIRR path. Connecting either of these to Second Avenue would be easy, but getting either to Broadway would be difficult. A third possible alignment could be to follow 79th Street in Manhattan to 35th Avenue in Queens, then into the LIRR, but this raises the problems of connecting it to the existing SAS and also creates a chokepoint where and services must share tracks between 72nd and the tunnel junction. Didn't remember Tremont - you're right, that would be better, plus Tremont is more of a destination than 167th. How feasible would it be to add a crossover between the northbound Concourse local and the middle track south of Tremont? This would eliminate fumigation delays as s terminate and s get stuck behind.

I was thinking of a platform extension at 50th Street to allow s and s to stop there, since making everyone at 50th (a relatively well-used station) go to and from the lower level platforms would be a pain. Here's the thing about the being the Culver local: fundamentally, it is a bad transit plan and one I wouldn't ever suggest if we were building the network from scratch today (same with the layout of QB). People primarily want to go to Manhattan, not turn away from Manhattan at the last second as the does. That being said, though, I think that Manhattan-bound riders across the board would be better off because of the increased reliability. Lower Culver and 6th Avenue riders get better service, and upper Culver riders have a cross-platform interchange at Hoyt (which wouldn't be as crowded, since a full-length would distribute transferring riders more evenly along the platform) to more reliable and service. The plan simply makes the best in terms of train frequency out of the poor track layout that the IND left us. As for sending half the s local, I still disagree - because a frequent (maybe 15 TPH) service would have to fumigate at Church in the way of southbound s. The as the sole local means that its fumigation won't disrupt service and will keep a cross-platform transfer to service at Church and 7th Avenues. The 480-foot train is an issue, even if the runs as frequently as it possibly could. That being said, the loss of 2 cars could possibly be made up for by the fact that QB will be far more reliable without the merging in at Queens Plaza and the no longer capped by having to share river tunnel capacity with the more-popular . The flat junction at Myrtle is more of a problem, though; this could be alleviated by starting and terminating some rush-hour s at 2nd Avenue, especially in the AM rush, where there is little demand going to Brooklyn. In a more long-term basis, the flat junction can actually be eliminated relatively easily, with a bit of new construction: the new Queens-bound track will diverge to the right from the main line at Lewis Avenue, making a left onto Myrtle and running into one side of the old upper-level platform. This shouldn't cost too much, as the only properly new construction will be a few hundred feet of viaduct between Broadway and Lewis and Myrtle Avenue.

What about this service plan? This will work until SAS phase 3 is built (clearly a ways off) and assumes no Queens bypass, and minimal construction. There are a couple of problems, which I'll mention below. Norwood to Lefferts/Far Rockaway via Concourse/8 Avenue/Fulton Express 168th to Brighton Beach via CPW Local/6 Avenue/Brighton Express Bedford Park/167th to Euclid via Concourse Local/CPW and 8 Av Express/Fulton Local Inwood to CI via CPW Local/6 Avenue Express/Brighton Local Jamaica Center to World Trade via QB Express/53rd/8 Avenue Local 179th to CI via QB Express/53rd/6 Avenue/Culver Local, possibly Hillside Express with an extension to 179th Forest Hills (179th?) to Middle Village via QB/63rd/6 Avenue/Jamaica and Myrtle Local 96th (125th) to CI via Broadway/4 Avenue/Sea Beach Express 96th (125th) to CI via Broadway/4 Avenue/West End Express Astoria to Bay Ridge via Broadway/Montague/4 Avenue Local - based out of 36th Street Yard Astoria to Whitehall, peak hours to Bay Ridge via Broadway Local - also at 36th Yard A side note: would upper Culver riders flip out if the went express and a much-more-frequent and full-length was the local? This would allow the to run at almost-maximum capacity, and the de-interlining (above) would allow more reliable service through Cranberry to absorb some of the riders from Park Slope, and a more reliable 4th Avenue service would let more people change at 4th and 9th. Long-term, Bergen lower could be reopened. I get this would be quite a long shot, but is it even worth trying? Problems: Sending all the QB Locals to 63rd, while operationally efficient, could be practically poor, since 53rd will end up full while 63rd will continue to be underused. It also raises the problem of having no QB Local serve Long Island City directly, since 63rd skirts the center of the area by running to Queensbridge instead. It will allow, though, for better and service by simplifying the merges on 53rd St, and a Queens Plaza and 36th. Do I support the bypass being built? Probably (there are issues). But it isn't even in the works now unfortunately, so I'm not trying to plan in a way that is dependent on its construction. This simply won't work once SAS phase 3 opens, as the northern section couldn't support the , , and . 72nd could have been used to turn s, but that won't happen now. And the SAS to Queens service, while attractive, will create more ugly merges at 63rd Street and 36th in Queens, unless a bypass is built, which is a long way off. This could be mitigated by sending the back to Astoria and cutting the . Hopefully, though, this could be done with the going express at 57th and wouldn't mean a return of the horrible 34th/42nd merge.

Because they know that no community will ever agree to cut and cover; the MTA has ruined their reputation when it comes to community impact from capital projects after 63rd Street and, most recently, SAS. People won't forget that even with deep bore tunneling, SAS phase 1 still managed to be a decade-long pain for the East Side. If the MTA had a better record with meeting budgets and timelines, and really minimizing the impacts of their construction work, doing cut and cover in a more widespread fashion would likely be on the table. They're still proposing it as one of the (and, in my opinion, the best) options for the Grand Street SAS stop to allow a cross-platform transfer to the . In order to stay out of the way of potentially oppositional communities the MTA will choose cut-and-cover, for better or for worse, for future projects.

Ok, Hudson Yards was not a good example because of the rail tracks - but my point still stands about cut and cover being superior for routes which follow the street grid and don’t have large obstacles (rail yards, water, other tunnels) standing in the way. You mentioned the Sixth Avenue line. Yes, that was an engineering marvel that probably won’t be repeated again. But if we could build a subway around PATH tracks and an elevated in 1940, we can do a two-track line down Water Street today. It will be a temporary pain, but we should be able to do construction and keep at least one late open (possibly for buses). Utility relocation isn’t the end of the world, and they could probably be replaced inside the newly-built subway tunnel.

Nobody said these things have to take seven to ten years. If anything, cut and cover would speed up the process by removing the complexities associated with working several stories under the ground. And we should be working to speed up capital construction across the board; there’s no reason we have to except the status quo as inevitable. Is cut and cover feasible tomorrow? No, people would rightfully be skeptical and they’d have to be sold on it. But New York was a 24/7 city back when the original subways were being built using cut and cover - it’s definitely doable. Except in instances where tunnels have to cut across the street grid, we should be promoting the use of cut and cover. As an added bonus, cut and cover subway construction can be doubled with utility modernization, likely making it easier for residents and businesses to accept. The unfortunate reality is that future SAS phases, Utica, Nostrand, Third Avenue - subway extensions we all think should be built - just aren’t possible if everything is built like SAS phase 1 and Hudson Yards. Cut and cover is a proven alternative that works well in New York’s road layout. Why aren’t we using it, considering the TBM and deep station method simply isn’t sustainable? As for the Jamaica Van Wyck skylights thing, I was simply saying that the MTA should incorporate more natural light into future station designs, not necessarily that Van Wyck’s example is directly able to copied to other stations.

The MTA got scared off from cut and cover after the PR disaster that ensued when they cut the Broadway - 63rd Street line through Central Park. The combination of an angry affluent public and the advancement of TBM technology made the MTA just give up entirely on cut and cover. Provided you have wide, straight roads (as we do in NYC) cut and cover is far and away the best subway construction method. But bringing in back now is politically infeasible.

Yeah, agreed on all of those points. My Canarsie shutdown improvement plan would include the following: Accessibility / Elevators: An additional elevator at 8th Avenue (possibly replacing the ramp with escalators, which have higher capacity), ADA accessibility for 6th Avenue, 3rd Avenue, Lorimer Street and platforms, Grand Street, and DeKalb. (as well as 1st and Bedford, as planned). Platform height at all stations should be matched to the height of the train floor. Renovations: Full ESI-grade renovations 8th Avenue through Bedford, plus an ESA-lite program (that can be done without station closures, except for maybe weekends) for the rest of the line. Renovation of the Atlantic/ENY station complex to encourage Atlantic Branch and Freedom Ticket use. PSDs: Full-height doors from 8th to Bedford, half-height doors from Lorimer to Myrtle, provisions for half-height doors to Canarsie. Passenger Flow: Planned improvements at Union Square and Bedford, plus additional improvements to 8th Avenue. Infrastructure: Tail tracks at 8th Avenue, and a bay platform on the old structure at Atlantic to allow short-turns to be extended there. Plus, the MTA's planned upgrades to the power distribution system to allow more TPH.

I absolutely agree, but I'll raise you one - the PSD pilot program should include all of the shutdown stations. That's Bedford, 1st, 3rd, Union Square, 6th, and 8th. The MTA will have full access to these stations, making the work easy, and they're the busiest stops on the line making them an ideal place to test the effects of PSDs on passenger flow and dwell times before we suggest their deployment to the rest of the system. 3rd Avenue is the least busy of all the Manhattan stops, making it a terrible place to test the way that PSDs will handle the stresses of the subway system - it's as if the MTA wants to not be able to justify a larger use of platform doors. Not to mention the is, of course, ideal because of automatic train operation. The MTA is already making efforts to improve passenger circulation at most of the shutdown stops (extra entrances and elevators and Bedford and 1st and new escalators and staircase realignment at Union Square). Platform doors have been proved in many cities to help with both passenger flow and reliability. What's stopping us? Quite frankly, I think they should test out half-height doors as well between Lorimer and either Myrtle-Wyckoff or Broadway Junction, considering these stops will be seeing far less traffic and are also quite busy stations during the rush hour. And they should fix the abhorrent wall tile situation at Sixth. Come to think of it, there's quite a lot that Transit should do to take advantage of the Canarsie shutdown that they're simply not doing.

Phase 1 of SAS transformed itself, particularly in the later days of construction, from a necessary public works project about function in to a monument to the governor and aspiring president's so-called infrastructure expertise. We can't afford (literally) to have this happen to phase 2, 3, or 4 or any other subway project in the future. The stations should be, at maximum, as complex as the Archer Avenue stations (with a little bit less orange). Modern, but not insanely overbuilt. And speaking of, they should try to incorporate more natural light wherever possible in the style of Jamaica-Van Wyck (and restore those skylights). Take some of the money saved by building simpler stations and use it for features that people will appreciate more - more natural light, less boring color schemes, and dare I suggest platform edge doors. Jamaica Van Wyck's skylights - something we should try to emulate in more stations. It's always nice to see the sun underground.

I couldn't agree more about the station layout - I think the most important thing is that this station (and just about any future ones) aren't colossally overbuilt like Hudson Yards and the SAS stops. That being said, though, 77th works the way it does because it's super close to ground level. 41st and 10th is already quite deep, but the station should still be as simple as possible.

Yep - they can run (as seen here at Fresh Pond Road on a fan trip, 1976), they just couldn't pass each other leaving Marcy Avenue or Myrtle and Broadway. The curve is too tight, and two 75' cars could sideswipe one another. An 8-car set of R44s couldn't platform at any of the stops, though. I'm trying to figure out how much space the platforms are missing to make 600'.

Is basically what I wrote: I understand that. But the use of a mostly-inferior system on the B Division is in large part because the governor wanted the entire B Division wired up with countdown clocks before the end of 2017. As well as being the reason for choosing a simpler system, that's why the clocks are often placed in terrible locations throughout stations. Now, separate question: does anyone know what the actual platform lengths are along the Jamaica/Myrtle line are between Marcy and Middle Village? I'm trying to see just how feasible it would be to make the a 600-foot train. I know most of the platforms are longer than 480' exactly, but does anyone know exactly what they are?

Yes, true, but they are far more nimble around these kinds of service changes than the B Division ones. Not only are the A Division ones more consistently accurate when service is running normally, they adjust *relatively* quickly to last-minute service changes. Meanwhile, the B Division clocks are busy signing up all kinds of wacky stuff during relatively basic reroutes - s to 168th showing up as s to Jamaica and s to 96th appearing as s or s to 145th. Not to mention, trains will often show up at stations having gone fully unmentioned by the countdown clocks. And, yes, most of what I just mentioned are products of the system on the B Division not being as precise as the A, but that's what happens when you rush things to score political points instead of ensuring stuff is done properly.

Perhaps it's a blessing in disguise that the B Div countdown clocks can't speak, given how inaccurate they've been. At least on the IRT, you can trust what the announcements say.

If I remember correctly, no rolling stock is being retired until post-Canarsie shutdown. The 50 remaining R42s, as well as all remaining R32s, will be around until after the shutdown, even after the full R179 delivery. However, the R42s will be moved from the - starting closer to the shutdown, the will have a 100% NTT fleet. This is to improve reliability and speed up the Williamsburg Bridge crossing, as NTTs cross faster than 32s and 42s. (The biggest capacity increase could be had if Transit loosened or removed some of the timer restrictions on the bridge, but that's another story.) The R160s which currently live on the should be returning to ENY for service . As we know, the potential assignments for 32s during the shutdown have been controversial - they won't be on the (which I think will be all 600-foot trains for the shutdown) or the (see above). As for the handful of 42s, my guess is that they'll just follow the 32s to wherever those end up, but I could be wrong.