Deinterlining Second Ave
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июн 2024
- Thanks to Jeffrey for helping out with some of the plans laid out in this video.
Sources/Further Reading
www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_in...
kojisposts.wordpress.com/2022...
onthemap.ces.census.gov
Pictures
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_(New_...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexingt...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astoria...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_S...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brookly...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broad_S...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_(New_...
This isn't deinterling, it is a whole new transport network
You should make a map showing all those lines together, it's hard to see how they'd all work together by looking at the individual route maps.
That's what i've been saying! 🥲 (tried drawing a map myself combining all of his proposals, but i'm sure i must've missed "some" details here and there😅)
I agree!
The MTA needs to hire this guy
As if the MTA would do any of this lol
Fr though, they need this type of guy, and, especially with the system we have now!
If only Gov Hocul allowed for Congestion Pricing
@@ThatcrazyAKThe main problem is that most huge municipal organizations such as the MTA hire "dummies" so the agency can train them their way....
Why? They’re having a tough time spending money?
As a former Jackson Heights resident who had to take multiple buses to get to school in northeast Queens, I would've loved to take a line under Northern Blvd & the LIE. It would be nice to see a video exploring the idea in greater detail. IIRC the proposal for such a route dates back to at least 1963, where NYCTA proposed running it into Manhattan through a new river tunnel around 76th St. Highway subways get a lot of flack, but I think LIE is one of the few cases where it does make sense just due to the amount of density along the corridor.
As for 2nd Ave, I have little faith that the line south of 63rd St will ever be built with more than 2 tracks. Unless we can bring back cut and cover or use large diameter TBMs to make a bilevel tunnel, I think whatever would've been the "express" tracks for 2nd Avenue, especially in terms of track capacity, would more likely be built as an entirely new line under 3rd Avenue.
In a world where 2nd Ave does get fully deinterlined, I'm more partial to building a new transfer station at 2 Av/63rd St so the T could run straight down 2nd Ave, while the N/Q or (F/M) run across 63rd St into Queens. Whichever pair is initially cut back to 57th St could one day be extended to a new trunk line in Queens via a new river tunnel. Yes, you force UES riders to make an 800' transfer at 63rd St, but this could be mitigated with moving walkways. This 2 Av/63 St station wouldn't need to be built right away, but Phase 3 should have plans for a shell should they decide to only 2-track the line below 63rd Street.
Anyway, this was a really well-thought out video, and I look forward to seeing more of your content in the future!
Guys, call all your state representatives to get Governor Hochul to activate congestion pricing on June 30th as planned.
Y'all did a good job back in March coming together to try to get an EIS for QueensLink. Now let's join the rest of the city who's been making phone calls since last Wednesday, and maybe join a rally or two planned later this week.
Congestion Pricing must stat on June 30, 2024. It's the law.
Hell no.
Bad lgbt person
@@gerrylee1687And just WHY NOT?!
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x they should penalize the fare evaders. $100 a violation for not paying the fare
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x rainbow people are bad
I love what's proposed for Queens in this video. No controversy from me! Although I'm a strong advocate for modern, frequent, through-running regional rail and not replacing existing or abandoned branches with subway service (especially the Atlantic branch), still the LIRR has limited coverage within Queens proper. I've come around to the need for the superexpress, because extending Hillside Ave further east puts it further away from the LIRR, and a subway that makes many stops on 6th Ave itself but fewer stops in central Queens than current QBL express, would actually be fantastic for the furthest reaches of Eastern Queens. That's probably the best way to do Northern Blvd too.
All of the above should create a ton of capacity to help Queens upzone. Remember, we're not only in a climate crisis, we're also in a housing crisis, and we need as much new housing as we can get.
Speaking of housing, development in southern Brooklyn is mentioned ( 12:10 ). I've said before how I feel about SAS being the Utica Ave line, as a way to relieve the Lexington and Canarsie trunks in general, and platform overcrowding at Union Sq and Bleecker St in particular. (It would also aid Brooklyn/Queens connectivity by giving the E, K, J, and M lines north/south connections.) Right now it would be helpful to know whether current B46, G, J, and L riders prefer Midtown East or Midtown West as a whole. Because my stance for Utica Ave being a separate IND line rather than an IRT branch could be fulfilled by an extension of whichever 8th Ave services terminate at WTC, instead of SAS. Could go either way.
With WTC that is handled by the A. An idea that I had involved extending the A via Worth St to the S 4 St Line which would serve at the Nassau St line replacement subway. With that we have the A running to Metropolitan Ave via the Williamsburg Bridge. Also that converts the WTC station for the new location for the transit museum.
The M would now join the F as a Culver Express each running 18tph. With that we can have the M branch to Staten Island via a proposed Fort Hamilton Subway. They both would run via the proposed Northern Blvd Line to ease congestion on the 7 and from there we can have the F go as far as Little Neck and the M going to College Point and then curving east to serve Whitestone. This would mean all that would have to be done for the 7 at Flushing is to add tail tracks and high speed switches to increase its capacity.
Now on to Second Ave we can have the T and V go to the Bronx by having the T running between Throgs Neck and Bay Ridge via the Manhattan Bridge and the V would take over Pelham so that they can one day they can use the yard for Second Ave trains. With the V I had it run between Pelham Bay Park and Coney Island via Sea Beach on the Manhattan Bridge. With the W booted off Broadway to use Second Ave, I had it run to Queens with TTA’s proposed 57th St Tunnel handling the local service on QBL with the G. The new W route that I had would run between Far Rockaway and Coney Island via West End along Montague. With the W serving Far Rockaway we can discontinue the H service and would be replaced by the C which would make all the stops to Rockaway Park.
Now with Utica Ave I had the B run down to Kings Plaza which was a proposal on the S 4 St subway by Vanshnookenraggen and had the D Trains go to Jamaica Center. The new service would allow riders on Southeast Brooklyn have good frequencies and in the future could get extended to UBS Arena in Elmont via Jamaica Ave.
@@Reformperson I cringed at the second sentence and afterwards because that just fixes what's not broke. Spending money to demolish a set of elevated tracks just to dig and put them underground is unwise. It already takes us forever just to get new tracks, and there are coverage gaps to fill, despite our network already being one of the largest in the world. (It's easy to lose sight of that from time to time, I admit.)
Since we're talking crayons, here's mine. I keep my A/C/E labels for Fulton/8 Ave/Queens Blvd express as before, with the K being 8 Ave/CPW local. I am no longer extending that on the Manhattan side, so WTC stays. The K would instead be extended at the Washington Heights end into New Jersey, via Route 4, to Paterson.
I used to tie an extension of the Myrtle Ave line to 8 Ave. Instead I'm tying it into Broadway. Now that I know that the S-bend between Cortland St and City Hall can only take a maximum of 20 TPH, I'm extending the present-day W down to the lower level of City Hall, then to downtown Brooklyn on a new alignment (to be built in a similar fashion as East Side Access to later bring Atlantic LIRR trains to Lower Manhattan, Hoboken, and then combine with Main Line, Bergen, and Pascack Valley branches), and finally have that run on Myrtle Ave, with a portal still in the area of Ryerson-Steuben Streets so that it properly connects to the Myrtle Ave el. So this new M would run between Metropolitan Ave and Ditmars Blvd, sharing tracks with the deinterlined R between Canal St and Ditmars Blvd. I'd extend both ends of the M later on so that it forms a circle line ending at LGA.
As for 6 Ave/QBL superexpress, the F would go to Flushing, and the H would go to Hillside Ave. 10 TPH on Northern Blvd would still be enough to substantially relieve the 7, simply because you're saving a lot of time on the bus from East Elmhurst to get onto a faster train sooner. I would not extend the F beyond Flushing, because it would make the line too long if it were to be extended to Staten Island. (Port Washington would also help, especially Murray Hill and Broadway stations for Q12, Q15, and riders on other buses; there would be 12 TPH on this segment in my grand vision.) On the other hand, I feel better about extending the H to Springfield Blvd, which frees up the A to do Horace Harding Expwy and the C to do Union Turnpike, both able to replace costly express buses and make room at College Point depot to boost local bus frequencies.
I keep the T on Utica Ave (which means Canal St and Bowery remain available for transit museum replacements). I think SAS on Utica Ave is too important to remove, because of the potential relief benefits for various lines and, as a result, at Union Square as well. Note that G riders currently have no way to make one transfer to any east side subway; South 4 St would be very valuable to them if they could transfer to the T to Midtown East or the J to Broad St. A, C, G, and M riders coming from Queens could also use the T to get deep into Brooklyn simply because it makes all the north/south connections, unlike extending the 4 via Utica.
The V would serve the original Phase 4 to Hanover Square. I'm not sure about whether to have a W train going out to Forest Hills, or to have the G train doing so instead. The pros of extending the G instead of having a SAS W is Brooklyn-Queens connectivity, but the cons is interlining, halved frequencies, and no direct train to Manhattan at 67 Ave.
@@samuelitooooo all that’s is really good idea but Utica I have it labeled as V so that we can still have a SAS serve Utica. I have the T taking over service on Montague to Bay Ridge 95th St which already amounts to 30tph between there and Throgs Neck. The alignment TTA had to serve Alphabet City can allow the T to use the lower level of Bowery and Canal St taking over the service to Broad St which is where the T would use Montague.
For the V it would run via Utica on the proposed S 4 St line (Replacement Nassau Subway) which would have the J ending at Essex St and the V would use the Tracks curving south to access Utica Ave to Kings Plaza.
For the W I had it use the proposed Extension to Red Hook which would be beneficial for serving one of the only Transit deserts in Brooklyn. This would allow it to go to 9 St which would be beneficial for people transferring to 4th Ave and Culver trains.
As for the M that can be used for the proposed Horace Harding Line while the C handles Hillside Ave. with that said we can have the WTC station converted into a station for the Transit Museum which can have the A replace the M to Metropolitan Ave, and sending the M via Culver to one day serve Staten Island and even take over service of the SIR.
With that the K is no longer needed and can be better controlled with the R now handling the service to Euclid Ave. This also allows the E to now run to Lefferts Blvd and the C to Rockaway Park since the W is doing the service to Far Rockaway. Both the V and W under my plan will run 18tph each totaling 36tph on the local tracks on QBL, meaning the SAS takes over the local tracks on the Queens Blvd Line. This would also allow room for the G to run to Forest Hills at 12tph which would turn around 30tph
Yall Keep Cooking Your Videos Are Pure Gold! Mad Respect And By The Time This Happens The R211s Are Probably Gonna Be The Same As The R46s Are Now lol
Build the Queens Link
Most important project the mta is ignoring
I suggest these projects (please note that multi-lettered routes aren’t mentioned which will balance out the service along with it serving several new lines):
IND Northern Boulevard Line & IND College Point Boulevard Line serving the (M), , (R), & . The (M) & should run local, while the (R) & should run express. The line also has 2 branches, one to The Bronx via White Plains Road & another to Little Bay Park-Cross Island Parkway via the new IND Malba Line. The (R) & runs onto the IND Malba Line, while the (M) runs to College Point-5th Avenue. The also extends to Bronx Park via White Plains Road & Bronx Park East. The also is an express service on the new IND Malba Line & extends to Little Bay Park-Cross Island Parkway.
The BMT 2nd Avenue Line should have 3 branches uptown, with the 1st going into Queens via the new 86th Street Tunnel serving the (I) & . The next branch goes onto the BMT 125th Street Line to Manhattanville-Saint Clair Place serving the (T) & , while the other goes onto the BMT Concourse Line to Crotona Park-Wilkins Avenue service the (Y) & . On the newly rebuilt BMT 2nd Avenue Line, the (I), , (T), & should run local, while the (Y) & run express onto the BMT Concourse Line. The should serve the whole QueensLink to Inwood-Cypress Road via Broadway (Queens) local, Queens Boulevard express, Rockaway express, Rockaway Beach express, & Sheridan Boulevard local, while the (I) terminates at Forest Park-Myrtle Avenue.
There should be 3 southern branches on the BMT 2nd Avenue Line. The 1st goes via the BMT Nassau Street Line, Brooklyn Bridge, rebuilt BMT Fulton Street Elevated Line, BMT Liberty Avenue Elevated Line, IND Merrick Elevated Line, IND Lincoln Avenue Elevated Line, & IND Long Beach Road Elevate Line to Island Park-Austin Boulevard serving the , while the (Y) terminates at Springfield Boulevard. The 2nd branch goes to Staten Island directly after stopping at Governors Island, running via the new BMT North Shore Subway Line & BMT South Avenue Line to Bloomfield-Edward Curry Avenue serving the , while the (T) should terminate at Saint Joseph’s Avenue. The last branch serves the (I) & terminating at Battery Park.
The Queens Boulevard Line should serve the (E), , (F), , , (V), & . The , (V), & should run local, while the (E), , (F), & should run express. The should run to Forest Hills-71st Avenue via Crosstown local & Queens Boulevard local, while the (G) should terminate at Court Square. The should run to JFK Airport-TWA Hotel via Queens Boulevard local & Van Wyck Boulevard local, while the (V) should terminate at Atlantic Avenue. The should run to South Hempstead-Southern State Parkway via Queens Boulevard express, Archer Avenue local, Merrick Elevated local, & Peninsula Boulevard Elevated local, while the (E) should terminate at Roy Wilkins Park-Foch Boulevard. The should run to New Hyde Park-Lakeville Road via Queens Boulevard express & Hillside Avenue semi-express, while the (F) should run via Hillside Avenue local to Jamaica-179th Street.
The IND Fulton Street Line should serve the (A), , (C), , (K), & . The merging of local trains with the express trains should be eliminated by rebuilding the Cranberry Street Tunnel to have 4 tracks. The (C), , (K), & should run local, while the (A) & should run express. The (C) should run to Ozone Park-Lefferts Boulevard via the rebuilt IND Fulton Street Connector Line & BMT Liberty Avenue Elevated, while the extends to Freeport-Mill Road via Merrick Elevated express against its 8th Avenue local rival, the (E) & . The abound run to Clearview-Willets Point Boulevard via Fulton Street local, Liberty Avenue Elevated local, 168th Street local, Union Turnpike Elevated local, & Utopia Parkway Elevated local, while the (K) should terminate at Euclid Avenue.
The IND Concourse Line should be rebuilt to have 4 tracks for better express service. On the rebuilt IND Concourse Line, the (B), , (K), & should run local, while the (D) & should run express. The should run to Throgs Neck-Schurz Avenue via Concourse local, Bruckner Boulevard local, & Tremont Avenue Elevated local, while the (B) should terminate at Bedford Park Boulevard. The should run to Bay Terrace-Cross Island Parkway via Concourse express, Bruckner Boulevard express, & the Throgs Neck Bridge, while the (D) should run to Bay Terrace-Cross Island Parkway via Bruckner Boulevard semi-express. The should run to Co-Op City via Concourse local, while the (K) should terminate at Fordham Road.
15:56 that K train almost forms a loop😂
Literally but I have that line as the E as we really don’t need the K at all in this senerio while the C serves Rockaway Park.
I would like to see the C to Rockaway Park as well. That would make most sense, as one wouldn’t have to wait a long time for a train at Broad Channel. Hopefully, they’ll do something to improve the service. That line is notorious for having delays. He had a better route for the E in one of his videos last year. And yeah that K train loop looks crazy. It’s as crazy at the current M loop. Is it worth adding another line to Fulton street? Maybe if that C doesn’t improve its service.
@@calvinkendrick851 that is a better choice while the E does the proposed K route. With that the K is not needed at all because the C and E are all the routes needed to serve Fulton Express the R handles Fulton Local
In theory we have these southern terminals for the lines
Rockaway Park (C)
Lefferts Blvd (E)
Euclid Ave (R)
The northern terminus for the lines are follows
Jamaica 179 St (C)
Jamaica Center (E)
Astoria Ditmars Blvd (R)
@@calvinkendrick851 most definitely and with the C serving the Rockaways with the new W that would mean we would need tail tracks at Far Rockaway so that it can run 30tph to Far Rockaway, plus that is a better option as people would wait two minutes for a train there and QueensLink Riders can transfer to C Trains bound for Rockaway Park. The E would almost form a loop in this case. The reason why we don’t need the K is because it defeats the purpose of the C existing.
The C service that is proposed would be increased to 18tph which is 3x the amount that the C runs today. Plus it would run on QBL to 179th St terminating there with the M. I also had the G come back to QBL to serve the local stations after 63rd Drive.
It is worth adding another line to Fulton as that way riders can tell which goes where. This would depict that Lefferts Blvd bound trains would be labeled as E, and Rockaway Park trains as C. We also add the R there so that it can run 21-30tph to Euclid Ave.
Interesting and thought provoking, thank you
A subway line under northen blvd might be good to take relief of the 7 train
I was thinking that too, but I'm not sure if the MTA would use the 63rd street connector since they didn't executed properly in the Sunnyside area so I don't know how it's going to be built
The Northern Blvd would relieve Queens Blvd of some of it capacity as well.
Hey TTA, were you at Broadway Junction for the congestion pricing rally yesterday?
Yes
@@techtransitassociationcool
You want to build a new line in Northern Queens that DOESN’T go to LaGuardia???
You could build a Phase V to Staten Island, too.
You can do that by extending the T from Bay Ridge 95th St I had the V run via Sea Beach to Coney Island.
like deserved, i am subbed. i have to power 99-100. nice video
I have another idea:
North of 63rd street, the T would be express via new pair of tracks under the existing ones and the Q would be local (the same layout as Lexington Avenue), while south of 63rd the T would be local. Express stops would be built at 72nd, 96th and 125th. Those new express tracks would be the ones that will serve the line south of 63rd (Phase 3 and 4), though there would also be a connection between the local tracks and the Phase 3 tracks (in a similar layout to the Culver F/G junction north of Bergen st) if the T would need to be rerouted via the local tracks. As the T would be free of interlining, it could run easily at 30+ trains per hour.
As to preserve the idea of an one seat ride between Queens and Midtown East, I would like to convert the LIRR main line to regional rail all the way to Jamaica, with new stations at Long Island City, Sunnyside, Elmhurst and Rego Park, so Queens riders could easily access Midtown East via the East Side Access and this would also decongest the 7 train and QBL.
Can you do a video of the Northern Blvd IND line
I’m gonna need separate videos for each proposal of de-interlining/rerouting/extension lol. Based on what I was able to take away from this video, I am glad to see that there is an interest in having the SAS subway expand beyond one borough if needed at all. I’m glad I’m not the only one who sees the need for a Union Turnpike line. Making the M a super express onto QBL and then continuing on Union Turnpike is definitely a great idea. The M can use the outer tracks while the LIRR can use the inner tracks. (I think you might have forgotten to add Woodside as a stop though.) The Bronx can certainly use a line running through Throggs Neck eventually onto Tremont Avenue. I’m surprised you didn’t mention your other genius of continuing one of the lines onto the right of way Atlantic LIRR branch into Springfield Blvd, though I would prose a Rosedale terminus. Now idk if I can picture an R train to Euclid Avenue, but if it would work then why not? lol. And just for the sake of wishful thinking, why not revive the plan of extending one of those lines past Euclid Avenue into Cambria Heights?
You should consider the new Utica line to be part of the Second Av Branch
Great video. Thanks for learning everyone including myself.
If nothing else, having a 2nd Ave connection to QBL would be huge.
Also, I feel like it would make more sense for the T train to go all the way down to Whitehall St instead of stopping at Hanover Sq. That way, Staten Islanders have immediate access to a train that will bring them to the LES or UES right off the ferry. Considering how many people get on and off at Bowling Green that would really help out with congestion on the 4 and 5.
Thanks
This isn't just a de-interlining, this is the whole Second System brought back to life!
I'm seconding the request by @miles8178 for a map showing all these new and relocated routes. And could you do a separate video on the new Queenslink and East Queens services? Thanks. 🙂
the W alignment gave me fucking CHILLS you fucking won with this one dude
I like your ideas, but I thought I'd make a couple changes.
As for Second Avenue, I would have a lower level built for the express for phases 1 and 2, served by the T and U, while the N and Q run local. The V and Y will handle the local for phases 3 and 4, and will replace the M and R on QBL local, whilst the E and K run express and the F and M run super-express. The M will handle the Rockaway Beach Branch and can run via Fulton express with the A and C during rush hours, making it a complete loop. Woodhaven Boulevard will be converted into two island platforms serving the local V and Y and the super-express F and M, while the E and K skip the station entirely. Before the M splits off from the F and diverges onto the Rockaway Beach Branch, it will stop at 63rd Drive-Rego Park, which is also converted into two island platforms.
At Forest Hills, a new lower level is constructed for the Y, which will terminate at Forest Hills whilst the F merges with the V on the local track, stopping at 75th Avenue and Briarwood, after which the V will split from the F to run with the E to Jamaica Center. The F and K will run to Jamaica-179th Street, with the K running express and the F running local.
North of Second Avenue, there will be a bit of interlining. The N and U will run via 125th Street, while the Q and T will run to The Bronx, with the T running express and the Q running local. After Castle Hill Avenue, both lines will split. T trains will continue down to Throgs Neck-Locust Point while the Q will head north along the Throgs Neck Expressway, towards Co-Op City-Bay Plaza.
South of Second Avenue, the Y will split off from the V after 14th Street, making stops at St. Marks Place, 8th Street-Thompson Park, Houston Street, and then Delancey-Essex Streets where it will connect with the abandoned platforms on the Nassau Street line, before terminating at Chambers Street. Meanwhile, the V will split off from the T and U, and meat up with the R and W at Atlantic Avenue-Court Street. The R will split from the W and run via Fulton local while the A and C run express, with the C replacing the A to Lefferts. The W meanwhile, will run local with the G on the Culver viaduct, while the F and V run express. Both the G and W will terminate at Church Avenue, while the V terminates at Kings Highway, and the F continues on to Coney Island.
The T and U will run via the Montague Street tunnel, and take over the Brighton line, with the T running express to Coney Island while the U runs local to Brighton Beach. The B, D, N, and Q will handle the 4th Avenue line, with the B and D running express and the N and Q running local. After 36th Street, the N and Q will run via West End, with the Q terminating at Bay Parkway and the N continuing on to Coney Island, while the D handles Sea Beach and the B runs to Bay Ridge-95th Street (The B will stop at 45th and 53rd while the D will skip those stations).
Last but not least, we will also have the C replace the B on Grand Concourse, which will be rerouted to 168th Street. The C will terminate at Bedford Park Boulevard while the D continues on to Norwood, with a potential expansion to Co-Op City.
The 6 Pelham line is definitely gonna be extended to co op city. The T trains could definitely run on the 3rd Avenue Elevated line up to Gun hill road. The 10 trains could definitely run on the Thrid Avenue Elevated line up to Gun hill road.
Great plan
Are there any plans to utilise the upper platform at Jackson hieghts/Roosevelt that goes to maspeth?. Could send one of the QBL trains there
Do you have a website or link with physical maps of your fantasy projects
I have 2 concerns:
1. The Price & Time it will take
2. Some trains are disproportioned espectially in terms of length.
You can deql with the section of the line between 63rd street and Hanover Square with a branch toward Sunnyside splitting the service where the second avenue subway can emerge onto QBL at Forest Hills to Jamaica 179 street and the M train can serve the northern Blvd line providing service 24/7
This would be so cool to see on a map. I'd love to see your 20XX MTA plan kinda like what Nandert does for LA
This is where the Furmer 8 Thrid Ave Elevated line once ran on Webster Ave Clearmount Tremont Boston road Bronx.
The F going to Flushing via Northern Blvd has a bunch of benefits as that would reduce overcrowding on the 7 then would eventually take over 7 train operations East of Main Street to Bell Blvd in the future if enough people switch over to the new subway then it is possible to discontinue 7 express service and replace it with more frequent 7 local service rendering superexpress 7 service to Citified obsolete (local/express service on Northern would allow for faster service anyways) as for the M it would run local along Northern Blvd serving the Hoarce Harding Branch to Bayside. While the Astoria Line would serve College Point and Whitestone to Throgs Neck Bronx.
The Second Ave Subway type of metro (T) Train Line would be at times tranquil and distinct viewing from Seoul, South Korea.
지하철 2호선(T)은 때때로 평화롭고 서울-한국의 독특한 전망을 제공합니다.
7:35 . Where does NY transit museum relocated to when the R line starts in the Fulton street line?
The MTA won't do it because you have to construct another station facility to store those historical trains and the cost and the relocation has to take in to a factor, but even if that were to happen, the other issue is Hoyt and Schmerhorn in terms of handling the situation with all six tracks
Maybe they could move it to Chambers St, or Broerry or Canal, or even Exsses St.
All of the J/Z in Manhatten has alot of unused capcity which could become museum space.
@@robotx9285 But in this same video, TTA proposes routing the V and W down to Broad Street using these abandoned tracks.
I would've easily recommended these stations in the past (especially Bowery), but these are gone now too.
One of my ideas is no longer having the E train terminate at World Trade Center. Instead, service would terminate at Canal Street and the Worth Street provisions would be repurposed for turnaround tracks, with provisions for a future crosstown line into the Lower East side as an alternative to the M22 bus.
From there, the World Trade Center station would be converted to a new location for the transit museum.
@@TheRailLeaguernow that’s a great idea from there have the M get sent on Culver and get the deinterlined A to go to Metropolitan Ave. this would join the proposed S 4 St line that will be the replacement subway for the BMT Nassau Line. Since the C and E go on QBL on this plan, we would have the E go to Lefferts Blvd and the C down to Rockaway Park. With all that factored in there is no need to have the K route at all.
You keep doing what you are doing and I agree because we have not seened the V train in a while well various times though. But Their should be a New V train connecting to the T train and It could be with the 4, 5, 6 trains
Your F train definitely needs a stop at the baseball and future soccer stadiums at Willets Point
I had a crazy idea for the J/Z Line in terms of fixing the strange turns it makes after Broadway Junction. I had noticed on the track map that vanshnookenraggen created, that the Brooklyn branch of the LIRR is 4 tracked, with 2 being unused. My idea would be to fix up those tracks for subway use, and route the J/Z trains through it. fix it up, and add stations at Atlantic Ave and Conduit Blvd, Atlantic and Rockaway Blvd, Atlantic and Woodhaven Blvd, and Atlantic and Lefferts Blvd. this would straighten the line, and make it faster (currently there are 12 stations between Boardway Junction, and Sutphin Blvd - Archer Av - JFK Airport).
We are expecting an extension of the IBX beyond Roosevelt Avenue for the 68th Street station at thisnNorthern Boulevard line?
No, but if the IBX gets extended to the Bronx in the future, a station at 68th St would be good for future proofing.
@@techtransitassociationand how exactly would you extend the IBX into the Bronx when the corridor is already serve by the freight and Amtrak
I think for local and express service, SAS localstations will need to b center island platform stations, Houston St will most likely need to b just local cuz the provisions above the F train r shells for 5 tracks, or 4 tracks and an island platform.
I’ve been watching ur videos for a while and been wondering how come this guy is not the chairman for the MTA 😅, ur conclusions and thoughts in this video makes hella sense especially the line to throggs neck and the return of the K
We need non-interlined dedicated double track super-express tracks with almost no stations; they would rocket people past traditional subway lines at high speed, and relieve the packed routes. Aarre Peltomaa
MTA: hmmmm, nah
Unfortunately the MTA is so incompetent and construction costs are so high NYC will never see another 4 track subway, at least not in this century
Fine simple plan Build Northern blvd and SAS as a single line with strategic transfers to existing Q service. Extend MNRR beyond 42nd or a spur at 63rd to 2nd ave it becomes an express to lower Manhattan either to Hoboken via canal through running or lower manhattan to SI with locals SAS to 4th ave via nassau reroute J to Hanover sq. Or link MNRR with LIRR via navy yard have T go to Hanover sq via nassau 8th ave local to red hook along upgraded BQE or myrtle revived
After phase 3 they better bring the T up to The Bronx via 3rd Avenue El like this:
New 138th Street-Grand Concourse lower level platform for the T
Opening between the 3rd Avenue-149th Street station and the White Plains Road line
First elevated stop 3rd Avenue-156th Street
Second elevated stop 161st Street-Saint Anne’s Avenue
Third elevated stop 166th Street
Fourth elevated stop 169th Street
Fifth elevated stop Claremont Parkway-171st-172nd Streets
Sixth elevated stop 174th Street with transfer of connection via Westchester Avenue
Seventh elevated stop Tremont Avenue-177th Street
Eighth elevated stop 180th Street with transfer to the connection via East 180th Street
Ninth elevated stop 183rd Street
Tenth elevated stop Fordham Road-190th Street with transfer to the Fordham Road line T train to Fordham Road-East 188th Street
Eleventh elevated stop Bedford Park Boulevard-200th Street with transfer to the Fordham Road line T train to Fordham Road-East 188th Street
Twelvth elevated stop 204th Street
Thirteenth elevated stop Williamsbridge-210th Street with connections to Metro North
Fourteenth elevated stop being on the lower level of Gun Hill Road below the 2 line with transfers to the 2 train after stopping at the T’s last stop at Gun Hill Road and connections to Metro North at Williamsbridge-210th Street as well and transfers to the Bx41 SBS.
149th Street-Grand Concourse lower level will be completely the same for the 2 and 5 trains but adding the T in it
They was definitely talking about that exstending the T trains to the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. If they don't exstend the T trains to south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx Tremont. They will probably bring the 10 trains to replace the furmer 8 Thrid Ave Elevated line and making the same exact stops on the third Avenue Elevated line.
Something will definitely come back on the brand new Thrid Avenue Elevated line I'm telling you.
@@leecornwell5632 Yup
@@leecornwell5632 Nice
With the 3 train going to Dyre Ave I think the 5 train should go to 241- Wakefield with 2 train.meaning 4/6 trains remain.
I have a cheaper proposal for the 59 St connection from second avenue. What I think is that the former tracks on the Queensboro bridge should be reactivated, along with a new tunnel connecting to the 2nd Avenue line. Then, Queensboro plaza station should be brought back to its original 2 platforms, 4 tracks setup, which would cause less congestion not only for the Astoria line, but for the 59 St line also.
Originally, the 60th St Tunnel wasn’t supposed to be a thing, trains from the 60th St Line would rise up and run over the Queensboro Bridge. It was ditched because the bridge is too weak to handle steel cars.
Oh
You might as well have the F stop at Mets-Willets Point (outside security)
The B train can go to Coney Island-Stillwell avenue on the sea beach line if the n train will end at Brighton beach on the Brighton line
That’s without the SAS but with it then the B would be sent on the S 4 St Line with the D to serve Williamsburg. The Sea Beach Line with the SAS would be the V Train.
Sea Beach Line
Without SAS: B
With SAS: V
What is your proposal for the A & C trains
They had the A and C both end at WTC, with the E and K taking Fulton. To that I say we don’t need the K at all, because you can do the Jamaica 179th St to Rockaway Pk alignment with the C which would have the E end at Lefferts Blvd with the R ending at Euclid.
7:43 where would the Transit Museum go then you need to find a replacement home for it with this proposal. Looking at Brooklyn Bridge City Hall you're going to have to fix the the crappy portions of it
Oh he doesn’t actually believe in museums… or past history. He’s a zygote himself.
The plans you made sound nice but I don't think it's possible. First the T train won't able to run with the 2 and 3 since the width of the T train is wider than the 2 and 3. Unless the plan was to build a new tunnel running underneath the 2 and 3. Second this whole plan won't be finish in 50 years, it will be done probably be done within 100 to 150 years. I have one questoin I like to know. Since you moved the N train with the Q, what train is going to replace from 8th Avenue to 86th Street in Brooklyn where the N is running now?
" First the T train won't able to run with the 2 and 3 since the width of the T train is wider than the 2 and 3."
If you watched the video, I said cross platform transfer, which means the 2/3 and T are on their own track.
"what train is going to replace from 8th Avenue to 86th Street in Brooklyn where the N is running now?"
The B train. I went by the Vanshnookenraggen-Uday Schultz plan, except the B goes via Sea Beach and the R goes to Bay Ridge.
What will happen with the C train seeing that the R goes to Euclid Av. Will the C run alongside the R or will something else happen?
Under my plan I had the C Train take over service to Rockaway Park. As the R runs 30tph we can have 36tph on Fulton Express which are the C and E Trains.
Improved Fulton
Rockaway Park (C)
Lefferts Blvd (E)
Euclid Ave (R)
I'm gonna make the assumption that this accompanies other deinterlining plans proposed in prior videos. In which case the C would kinda be discontinued, only running as a service between WTC and Bedford Park Boulevard during rush hours, alongside the A via 8 Ave local and Central Park West (CPW) local. (The B train would be CPW express and go to Inwood.)
@@samuelitooooo yeah that’s how I see that because with that plan the K pretty much defeats the C’s purpose, and the K is not needed at all for a few reasons. With the SAS taking over QueensLink to Far Rockaway, The E would now get extended to Lefferts Blvd and then the C serves Rockaway Park. With all that the A would be the only service running between 168th St and WTC.
I like the ideas we got so far also what we can do is by having the SAS also take over Pelham so that we can give Bronx SAS trains yard access along with 38th St yard. Also the K would not be needed as that defeats the purpose of the C. The following Service Patterns I have had are the following
C: Jamaica 179th St to Rockaway Pk
E: Jamaica Center to Lefferts Blvd
F: Bayside to Coney Island
M: Jamaica 179th St to Metropolitan Ave.
R: Astoria to Euclid Ave
T: Throgs Neck to Bay Ridge 95th St
V: Pelham Bay Park to Coney Island (Sea Beach)
W: Far Rockaway to Coney Island (West End)
I also had the B and D cut back to Grand St under this plan but I had the W go Local to Broad St which it takes over service to Montague. This also solves DeKalb Junction. Like you mentioned Dyre Riders like West side Service so it’s better to have the 3 go there where they can transfer to east side service at 149th St 3rd Ave for the T and V. Instead of the V I had the G take over the service on QBL to 179th St as under my plan I had no trains terminate at Forest Hills as it’s a bad terminal. Overall the plan I had was to phase the B and D out of the Manhattan Bridge. And have the T and V take it over.
I decided to make slight adjustments with the SAS taking over QBL local service with two branches one along Hoarce Harding and the other to 179th Street while the (F) and (M) would use the Queens Bypass with one branch going along Queenslink to Far Rockaway and the other merging with the Archer Avenue upper level to SE Queens while the (G) would instead serve the western portion of Northern Blvd and along the Whitestone Expwy to 14th Avenue while a connection would be provided to the Franklin Avenue Shuttle while the eastern portion of Northern would be better served by an extension of the 7 to Lakeville Road with half making local stops to Bell Blvd and the other half making express stops to Bell Blvd and local stops to Lakeville Road and the eastern portion of Northern should stay underground the whole way as it is more commercial and allows for a four track operation to Bell Blvd while Expresses continue to Lakeville Road (in the meantime) this could help simplify service patterns on the 7 and the western portion of Northern can relieve crowding on the 7 providing a connection between the Queens and the Bronx in the long term.
@@CR1Creativethat’s not a bad idea also we just need one line to take over Queens and that’s the W and I had that use the Superexpress using a proposed 48th St Tunnel, which would allow no merging conflicts on 63rd St allowing it to be used at 36tph. The 42nd St Station on the SAS would connect with the 4 5 6 7 and the Shuttle to Times Square. This way the W would run to the Rockaways at 30tph and I would put tail tracks after Far Rockaway so that it can handle that capacity.
@@Reformperson
I had the SAS QBL local only with half going via Hoarce Harding and the other half going via Queenslink branching East of Forest Hills or 63rd St Drive in the long run as for the (G) I had that serve the Queens Bypass which would feed into the Archer Avenue Subway to SE Queens with the E rerouted to 179th Street while the (F) and (M) would serve Northern Blvd which would be four tracks here the (F) would serve Flushing and in the Future would eventually take over 7 train operation to Little Neck in the meantime then eventually merge with the PW Branch east of Manhasset to Port Washington as for the (M) it would branch off to serve Whitestone and College Point via the Whitestone Expwy then eventually serving Throgs Neck Bronx. As for the Crosstown K route that should stop at a lower level of Queens Plaza before heading under 21st Street to 20th Avenue where there would be provisions for an East River Crossing into the Bronx.
Now if any rider wants to transfer to Lexington from QBL local they'd be advised to transfer at 42nd Street and the reason why I had the (G) serve the Queens Bypass is because the (G) is useless serving QBL local traffic since riders on QBL want Manhattan Service.
@@CR1Creative yes and with Samuel’s proposal we would have the SAS take QBL and Utica. We can follow the proposal set by the Tech Transit Association to do so. We would have to have the SAS serve Brooklyn via S 4 St since riders want Midtown service in West End and Sea Beach. With that the D is unchanged while the B is routed on Sea Beach. This keeps the service pattern of the T serving Bay Ridge and the V and W going via Utica. They would both run 18tph so the proposed 57 St tunnel can funnel in 36tph.
@@Reformperson
I would build a parallel subway to the (L) route at 13th Street and build platforms extra wide for future demand in mind with passageways and mezzanines to connect with the L line platforms in Brooklyn this new parallel subway would run under Metropolitan Ave stopping at Met-Lorimer then deep bores under Graham Ave and turns east at Johnson Ave before making a stop at Montrose Ave then the line would run under the existing line making another stop at Myrtle-Wycoff Avs then the line runs on a Separate ROW making a stop at Myrtle Ave-Fresh Pond Rd the line would continue superexpress on the ROW to Woodhaven-Glen Oaks then shifts eastward along Union Turnpike stopping at Metropolitan Ave and Queens Blvd before rising up onto an elevated structure along Union Turnpike to 260th Street in Manhattan the Parallel subway would merge with the existing (L) route here the 10th Ave Subway with the new subway running express and the (L) running local here the (L) enter New Jersey along 69th to American Dream while the new subway would branch off running superexpress to Washington Hts stopping at Morningside Hts then stopping at a lower level of 125th Street CPW then using the CPW layup tracks A5/A6 running local to 168th Street with the deinterlined (A) relocated to join the Concourse Line and whichever route is the shortest would take the Fordham Road Subway to Co-op City and with the S 4th Street Subway the Myrtle-Gates trunk line would be extended via Eliot Ave and Junction Blvd running superexpress to LGA stopping at Elmhurst, Jackson Hts, and East Elmhurst to LGA.
This is great when you don’t have to worry about budgeting for all of this… or politicians changing their mind at the last minute and revoking the revenue sources you were planning to have in place (like last week). Now the 2nd phase of the SAS is in jeopardy as the $3.4 billion Federal money earmarked for it was dependent upon the MTA coming up with the remainder of the $8 billion price tag. The MTA was hoping to use the Congestion charge funds to get a $15 billion bond to cover that and other projects… I don’t see Albany giving out $4.6 billion, let alone $15 billion!
First I want to say I love every video you make, especially the DEEP amount of research you put into your proposals. I can see you're a very intelligent man, not just one of those random teen Cities-Skylines/Transport-Fever foamers drawing and pasting together senseless maps so he can live out his fantasies lmaoo.
That being said, I don't understand your idea of K AND R existing in IND Fulton at the same time. Yes, we need more frequency Post-Rockaway Blvd but K&R on Fulton feeds into capacity of the A in Fulton/8th Av, especially north of 59th Street because you're bottlenecking the Cranberry Tube. A BETTER proposal would be to run your idea of 2nd Avenue via East village to connect Hoyt-Schemerhorn so the Cranberry Tube can run more needed As to Inwood, then we can bring back the old K from WTC to 168 (we need to get rid of the low capacity bumper-block terminal at WTC).
Also don't even bother making future videos about extensions to Northeastern Queens as the affluent NIMBYs from Bayside/Little Neck will snarl at any idea of a subway line lest "unwanted poor people from having easy access to their neighborhoods". You should indeed focus on extensions to College Point and Southeastern Queens as those areas of Queens are minority/working class driven and they really NEED a rapid transit subway that doesn't congest the streets with walking-speed buses.
As always great job with your quality videos and your EXTENSIVE thought and research into these topics. Keep it up and hope to see more of you 👍
Under these plans, What’s gonna happen to the A and C?
The A would run between 168th St and WTC.
With the C I had it run between Jamaica 179th St and Rockaway Park
Did you just sneakily abandon the sea beach line?
No
I hope they use the Mr. T voice on the new T train.
he v should become he woodhaven boulevard local service.
What about the sea beach line???
That will be served by the B trains. Now, B trains would run 24/7, N trains would run 19/7.
@@techtransitassociation yup and with the SAS we have the D Train service the exact same just with higher frequencies. With the T serving 4th Ave to 95th St then the 4th Ave line in Brooklyn serves both Midtown and East Side services. Also what will be the frequency of the B and D combined on 4th Ave?
How come you have SAS terminating at St Nicholas when it's planned to terminate at Broadway?
Also, why route SAS phase 3 under 2 Av if you're already modifying the EIS plan? Job density is much higher near 3 Av in midtown, and you get better transfers at Grand Central, Lex-53rd, and Lex-59th-63rd (as well as connecting those two stations underground). Then it can go back to 2 Av or 1 Av further south.
To answer your first question, I went by Kristian Laverick's plan to end it at St.Nicholas Ave. This is because there is a fault line in the area, extreme topography, and a protected landmark that is the Manhattan Valley viaduct. Building a line here would be pretty costly, and you won't see a whole a lot more benefits, as 8th Ave and IRT Broadway run pretty close to one another. Therefore, ending it at St.Nicholas Ave is the better choice. In the future, we can make a deep bore that bypasses Broadway to 137th St, but I haven't ran or seen any numbers for that.
www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/05/second-avenue-subway-phase-2-the-case-for-a-crosstown-extension-on-125th-street/
As for the second question, I don't believe that is really necessary. People transfer at these stations are Queens riders who want to go on the East Side. Well, under this plan, we already have a direct East Side service from Queens. And if they are coming in from the express, a way better transfer exists at Queens Plaza, which is a cross platform transfer. As for jobs, I believe Third Ave and Second Ave are the similar. Second Ave is closer to the UN, and multiple hospitals that come up as high ridership destinations.
@@techtransitassociation In Harlem, the #1 at 125th Street and Broadway, and the A-B-C-D trains at 125th Street & St. Nicholas Avenue ARE NOT NEAR EACH OTHER. There are several subway and elevated station transfer stations - this would be just another one.
@@michaelsherrell6389 First of all, I was talking about Northern Manhattan. If you are using this, then you are coming in from Inwood or Washington Heights. The A and 1 run pretty close up there. If you are rider coming in south of 125th St, take the 2/3.
And second, it is not "just another elevated to subway transfer", you are dealing with a fault line in the area, a protected landmark, and the potential for leaks to develop in the tunnels. The extra cost is not worth the small benefits.
it ios true that new yorks states govenor cancelled the next stages of the 2nd avenie line.
The "R" has a more superior station off of Queens Blvd - 59th Street Lexington Avenue. It also have a very superior route south and west of that. The 63rd Branch is the least popular. Having second Avenue does help, but it doesn't serve time square, which is the most used station. Than you taking another local that people rely on.
I have an idea for the "V". It can be. routed along Northern Blvd with an extended "G".
Several things can happened here.. The "V" could go to LaGuardia Airport, while the "G" could turn towards the. Queens Blvd going south connecting to the Rockaway line.
It could also be the "R" to LaGuardia. But how the "R" comes into Queens Plaza in a fixed position, makes me not see it as a Northern Blvd line to LaGuardia.
Since the 63rd Street is already under ground, it could remain so, which means an underground station at 36 Street, Steinway Street. and diverge at Northern Blvd with no track connection.
So the "W" stays in Astoria. It is the only line that doesn't go to. Brooklyn, which often has delays. So we need our four serves on Broadway.
Every other line has a Manhattan terminal except for 6th Avenue. 6th Avenue is so badly designed, but at least the "F" takes a separate route from the south Brooklyn lines.
But borough wide issues can still affects a line. We know that by massive flooding in Brooklyn that knocked out several lines.
boost!
This is interesting but I have my own takes on deinterlining the SAS to start the SAS would take over QBL local service with one branch going along Hoarce Harding to Little Neck Pkwy and the other branch continuing on the QBL local tracks to 179th Street while the 63rd Street Tunnel would use the Bypass witu Infill stations along it but rather than feed onto QBL at Forest Hills it would merge with the Archer Avenue upper level to SE Queens while the M would branch off from the Queens Bypass to serve Queenslink to Far Rockaway. Meanwhile all 8th Avenue trains would be rerouted to 179th Street for the (western portion) of Northern Blvd I would send the (G) there along with linking the Franklin Avenue Shuttle to the Crosstown Line lower level platforms would be built at Queens Plaza and 36th Street (to avoid interlining) along with an additional stop at 48th Street and another stop at 57th Street with a transfer to QBL local tracks this is where express service begins with local stops at 69th Street, 82nd Street with an express station at Junction Blvd with a local stop at 108th Street and express stops at Seaver Wy and Collge Point (this would be the terminal for local trains) the western portion of Northern would serve a different market along the Whitestone Expwy serving College Point and Whitestone rather than Flushing here the line would rise up to be Elevated making stops at Linden Pl, 25th Avenue, 20th Avenue and the terminal at 14th Avenue where there would be provisions for a future extended to the Bronx as for the eastern portion of Northern that could be better served by an extension of the 7 train to Lakeville Road with half of the locals terminating at Bell Blvd while the other half would make express stops to Bell Blvd and local stops to Lakeville Road while the (E) would get extended along Hillside Avenue to Little Neck Pkwy as for Union Turnpike that would come in at a much later priority as it's a larger plan of the carnation S 4th St Subway to replace the Broadway/Myrtle Avenue els but in the meantime I'm planning on keeping it for now and fixing the Jamaica Line for another project but I'll come back to this later.
As for Northern SAS the 125th St line would be converted into a shuttle and that would've been an easy east-west connector for the Bronx two additional superexpress tracks would be built with redirecting the (N) and (Q) into the Bronx as well here there would be two segments with one going via Prospect/Controna Avenues to the Northeast Bronx to replace the Dyre Avenue Line in the long term while another branch would continue along 149th Street to Southern Blvd for a transfer to the 6 then cut along the Buckner Expwy making an additional stop at Longwood then would head along that street cut along the Bronx River then rise up elevated along Lafayette Avenue to Throggs Neck.
For Brooklyn two sets of tracks would connect with the Manhattan Bridge taking over the Sea Beach and 95th Street with the B and D redirected terminating at 2nd Avenue while the two other sets of tracks would continue under montage making it four tracks with the SAS connecting with 4th Ave locals tracks and would operate along West End while the Broadway local tracks would connect with the Fulton Street local tracks where It would split into two branches with one heading under Jamaica Avenue for 2.3 miles from there a portal would be bulit at the southern portion of Highland Park connecting with the Jamaica El east of Cypress Hills from there It would merge with the Archer Avenue lower level and extended one stop to 168th Street with this the Jamaica Avenue portion from Broadway Junction to Cypress Hills would be demolished with the El disconnected the J would be truncated to Broadway Junction while the other branch would continue to Euclid Aveune also a connecting between the 8th Avenue and Nassau line would be provided along with upgrades to the Jamaica Line along with singal upgrade to the Williamsburg Bridge (the bridge can now handle 30tph) with all 8th Avenue service taking over the Myrtle and Broadway els with some trains short turning at Chambers Street under this plan the M would be rerouted along the Culver line to Church Avenue with a branch to Staten Island as a result both the J and Z would be discontinued. Any thoughts?
WOW, what an enjoyable dissertation!
However, first of all, there should be NOTHING built along 125th street, as an active fault line exists there. The line should instead be extended into the Bronx, to eventually connect with the extended D train from Norwood. This would mean a stop at Co-op City.
As far as connecting the Second Avenue line to Brooklyn, such a provision already exists at Grand Street; if the side walls of that station were knocked down, a wide platform with "local" trackways will become visible. Just north of the platforms, space for dual scissors crossovers have been included in the design.
In sending the line down to Hanover Square, bellmouths for a tunnel extension to Staten Island "COULD" be installed, thus making the line a complete FIVE BOROUGH CONNECTOR if the IBX line is built!
Brooklyn needs a helluva lot of track/route work; the center tracks of the Sea Beach line can be out to better use with a massive remodeling of the New Utrecht Avenue station, converting it into an express station to allow passenger transfers to the West End Line. At Coney Island, the service will continue through, becoming the local service on the Brighton Line to Prospect Park, where the service diverges onto the tracks of the now-existing Franklin Avenue Shuttle, which will be rebuilt and extended.
The rebuilds will include flattening out the sharp curve on the southbound track just north of the station, plus re-installation of the double track to Fulton Street. The line will then be extended north of Fulton street to Myrtle Avenue, where it'll curve onto Myrtle, replicating all the stops to Broadway, where it'll share tracks with the M train.
North of Metropolitan Avenue, the line will be extended along the defunct Bay Ridge branch, and will somehow be connected directly to an extended Ditmars Blvd line which'll serve LaGuardia airport.
The defunct Rockaway Beach branch could be reactivated for subway service EASILY, and could become part of a service which could be extended into the Bronx from Queens.
There's so much to post, but....
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x "However, first of all, there should be NOTHING built along 125th street, as an active fault line exists there."
How many times do I have to tell you that there is no fault line that exists along 125th St?
@@techtransitassociation Your words mean NOTHING; a map showing the fault lines crossing upper Manhattan do, and a map shows that a fault line exists there, perfectly bisecting the foundation of the Manhattan tower of the JFK (Triborough) Bridge.
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x Then provide me a link to those supposedly credible maps. Otherwise, I will stick to maps drawn by geological experts by Duke, Columbia, and Hofstra Universities that show that the 125th St Fault line runs diagonally, and the fault line you are talking about that "bisects the RFK bridge" runs along the Harlem River, and not 125th St.
nymag.com/nymetro/news/features/15002/
www.researchgate.net/figure/Geologic-map-of-south-end-of-Manhattan-Prong-showing-Camerons-Line-the-St-Nicholas_fig1_267552855
@@techtransitassociation Then WHAT'S that huge gash at the bottom of the East River that demanded to be bridged to provide the JFK Bridge tower foundation?!
Sad part was they couldve started phase 3 if this was the past as soon phase 2 started they wouldve started 3 and 4 asap
Do we really need a queens super express line when a) it pretty much makes the same stops as the regular qbl express, and b) the lirr already exists and is able to make nearly the exact same trip at higher top speeds
Probably not for capacity reasons. I kept it there for load distribution. Basically, if I used QBL local for any future branch east of Forest Hills, like Union Tpke, those riders will transfer to the express, which will recreate the congestion seen on the express. But if the riders get a one seat super express ride to Manhattan, there will be less transferring to QBL express, which will free up capacity.
I used to make the same counterpoint. In reality it would have a straighter alignment and make one fewer stop, so those few minutes saved could be valuable, especially for crews, and particularly for when the time comes to extend the Hillside Ave line further east, where people living north would have easier access to Hillside Ave than to the LIRR. In addition, the subway has more stops in Manhattan, adding that level of convenience for people who work there, whereas it's unlikely that commuter rail, especially trains to Penn Station, would have more infill stops in Manhattan. (Trains to Grand Central are another story, but those would stick to the east side.)
Also I'm in favor of adding capacity ASAP not only to accommodate people who currently drive or take the express bus (express buses are expensive AF for MTA to operate and those de0ot and driver slots could be filled in with better local bus service), but also to have capacity ready for more housing to be built.
We're not only in a climate crisis but also in a housing crisis. More housing needs to be built so that prices can come down.
If this is gonna be like the 70s plan for the super express, then that section through Woodside is going to be a serious challenge. What people rarely bring up with the super express is the amount of properties that needed to be taken just to widen the ROW to accommodate a new pair of subway tracks in Woodside. People have suggested tunneling under the LIRR tracks, but then that drives up costs. Maybe you could have it rise above the existing station complex but I don't know how close it would be to flights approaching LaGuardia.
@@Netbook451 I did say as much in a prior video TTA did more focused on the superexpress itself, questioning how much it would be worth since about half of this ROW would have to be tunneled anyway. If routed over the 7 line however (+ 3 nearby overpasses), looks like there are apartment buildings that would still be taller than trains on the superexpress will be. Now that I actually took a look, I'd be in favor of routing the superexpress over the LIRR and the 7 at Woodside, though the question would now be how to route it back underground.
F train should have stayed at 53 Street Line and M train being extended to 63 Street Line
The M has has to use the Queens link in order to maintain the service on the 63rd, I don't know why tech transit didn't mention it in this video and this is the same person who was pushing for the Queens link and did a video on the topic
15:52 he just contradicted what I just posted.
15:30 That's big foam just send the turquoise w train to Lefferts Blvd and bring back the h train and the northern terminal be Jamaica Center Parsons Archer this would De interline the A train and shuttle rock a ways would be discontinued but would the h train be medium blue.
Nowdays f train not using the queens plaza line instead it using the queesbridge line
Try 2055 for completion of everything
Dam 7 gone welp can’t say anything else
NYC needs to have you on their transit payroll as an advisor...
It's Dek'a'lb, not Dek'o'lb
Charles Shaub ova here…
Yea I’ve always said the Broadway line would integrate better with Fulton by making a tunnel to where the transit museum is
Here is My propose plan on 2nd ave v runs express m train still runs via 53rd but it will be queens bolevard express f local you get the idea
F already has a longer route. Making it QBL local would add commute time, even if you add Culver Express into the mix. Also, the M is 8 train cars, meaning it would be less train space for express riders.
Keep the m run via 53rd street but late nights some f trains run via 53rd and some to 63rd and return brown m service to bay parkway or broad st
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831yes but the m will borrow some f train 10 cars and it will be like the v train
Also Q Runs Via 4th Ave D Via Brighton B And D Run Local A And C Express
I personally think the best way to do it is N on QBL and Queenslink, M the same route but on 63, F on 53, R to Astoria and LGA and Bay ridge, E the same route, T to 125 st broadway via Fulton to southeast Queens , Z to throgs neck, serves alphabet city, and Utica Av, V on LIE and 21st.
I feel like only some Subway superfans are going to have strong opinions about your ideas.
And they aren't much better
No four track station would ever be built in anyone lifetimes. Unless it is a transfer station, even than it won't happen. Look how the put the "J" underneath the "E" with no track connection. It almost looks like a system run by two separate companies.
Who ever thought of such a stupid idea. That was the 1980s, this is now. People are even more stupid than they were before.
The best we would get is two tracks. But we would be lucky to get that before our great great grand children are born. Besides, people would fight tooth and nail of how much delays that a four track system would cause. Than the amount of money to build the line.
Look how much trouble it took to get a three track station at 72nd Street? And look what happened. Nothing.
Planners are not thinking capacity, they are thinking budgets and what they can get away with.
So we get this two track line to maybe Houston Street. Than maybe they might put in a connection for 14th. Street, or maybe it would connect into the "F" line. But south of there, officials might just get tired from there.
We will see a very scale down SAS and be lucky if it goes as far as Houston Street.
With the concession plan off the table, we might never see anything above 96th Street.
I like most of the plan tho it’s creative in a way however queens blvd super express is just not needed
im the fifth comment
Jesus, dekalb junction does not need deinterlining. If you ride the B,D,N,Q you would know that delays aren’t common, and when the train does stop, it only does so for 30 seconds so the switch can change. I ride the Q train everyday and sometimes the B and I’ve encounter maybe 2 delays per year from dekalb and they were around 5 minutes each.
The delays are only part of the problem. It's the capacity loss from interlining at this junction. With just some service pattern changes and some switches, almost 50% of service can be increased on both local and express tracks on 4th Avenue and Brighton. It also helps that Broadway and 6th Avenue run within a block a apart and there are several cross platform transfer points between these lines. So, the effects of this hypothetical deinterlining wouldn't be as drastic as that of deinterling the White Plains Road Line and in exchange, all 4 of these trains would become more reliable.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831 Having a mix of 6th av and broadway in Brooklyn is good. People who live near the Brighton line can hop on the B to get to 6th av or the Q to get to broadway without having to transfer later on. Similarly with 4th Avenue. I don’t see how deinterlining will help maximize capacity when it would just overcrowd Atlantic av or dekalb more with the transfers.
@@blaazer9473 6th Ave and Broadway run within one block of each other in the CBD, where people are going. So at most, you would walk an extra block and have a one seat ride home. Therefore, that overcrowding argument makes no sense.
The only drawback of DeKalb deinterlining I see is Broadway not connecting with 8th Ave, but at the same time, Broadway and 8th Ave run pretty close in the CBD, and 8th Ave is not a majority destination, 6th Ave/Broadway is. Therefore, get rid of one of the worst merges in the system that is DeKalb Junction.
OOF. This is hella convolute for no reason.
Phase 3 and Phase 4 should not even be needed, for the main reason that 1st Avenue and Allen Street OR 2nd and Christie Street can be turned into a 2-way busway for the M15-SBS, saving a FUCK TON OF MONEY.
Buses are trains are not the same thing. One mode carries 4 percent of the other mode.
Gotta agree with you. A lot of this plan makes no sense especially the improvisions of certain tunnels. The 57th Street tunnel will be impossible to build since Queens Plaza already has two split offs, one for Crosstown (G) & one for the BMT Broadway Line (R). Where would there be room for another split off to the 57th Street Tunnel ? On top of that, the idea of a QBL Super Express is completely unnecessary when the LIRR runs parallel to QBL from Penn station to Jamaica making identical stops for just $2 more. I get this whole plan is so Midtown Manhattan on the SAS has more capacity, but there's better ways to get there & I'll explain :
1. Keep the (Q) SAS route exactly the same.
2. Making the (T) SAS express keeping the provision for lower level express tracks in the Upper East Side/Harlem & diverging east to Grand Street through a new tunnel to South Williamsburg
3. Introducing the (V) as SAS local replacing the current (T) proposal line.
Between Houston and 55th, it will be 4 tracks with the (T) exp & the (V) local before the (T) dives below into a lower level making stops at 72nd, 96th & 125th only. (T) trains can also run local on weekends to add more capacity. This would help add capacity on SAS, and wouldn't have any impact on any other main lines. There can also be a provision where south of 55th Street, the (T)(V) merge to provide a 2-track sevice through midtown & lower manhattan.
@@casimirsavage "Where would there be room for another split off to the 57th Street Tunnel ? "
If you watched the video, you would see I would a portion of the 11th St Cut, far away from Queens Plaza. The intersection point, 43rd Ave and 24th St has no elevated structures on top of it that will complicate construction.
"On top of that, the idea of a QBL Super Express is completely unnecessary when the LIRR runs parallel to QBL from Penn station to Jamaica making identical stops for just $2 more."
I did it for extra express capacity, especially if you want to pursue a Union Tpke branch. If you route a local, then people are just going to transfer to the express, which is already a problem when the express is already overcrowded.
And if you want people to actually use the LIRR, regional rail and fare integration is key. This means fares will be the same as the subways, within city limits, or else people still won't use it.
15:55 LOOP THE K
16:14 LOOP THE M
The SAS must NOT be built along 125th street; an active fault line exists along that corridor. The lne should instead be extended into the Bronx, to eventually connect with the extended D train from Norwood, with a station at Co-op City.
There is demand for a 125th St crosstown line which would extend it to St Nickolas Ave which would be served by the N and Q.
@@Reformperson Which could be a surface light rail line….
@@user-dj7wv5ok2x on areas that don’t have transit I would recommended the North Shore of Staten Island to get a Light Rail. similar to the IBX. From there it would existing tracks to reach Newark Liberty International Airport.
Is it just me that thinks video is a terrible medium for this material. Complex ideas go by at rapid-fire speed, sometimes accompanied by explanatory diagrams that disappear just as you're making sense of them to be replaced by meaningless stock shots of trains running around the system. This isn't like, say, sports, where action is important. There seems to be nothing about this subject that is amenable to the video format.
I'd love to see an article or even a small book, with appropriate diagrams and charts, on the subject of deinterlining the NYC subway system.
I disagree that video is necessarily a terrible medium. I don't disagree that these ideas might be better in a static format such as a blog. But the video could be done better by lingering on diagrams and showing maps more. Headings (necessary for blogs too) and chapters help tremendously too. Most train stock footage serve no purpose in explaining the idea, so the above are ways I think the video could be done better. (I would try myself, but don't have the hardware for it. Blogging is definitely within my grasp though.)
@@samuelitooooo Well that's certainly true. Most of all I could do without precious visual presentation time bring wasted on random clips of trains. But I still don't see that there us much use that could be made of the ability to show movement. [Exception: a cool graphic in an earlier video showing the timing problems between Sixth Avenue and QBL.]
Also, the explanations go by too relentlessly to always keep up with. Static print enables the reader to set his own pace and to easily revisit material without fumbling with awkward controls.
Print is the obvious medium for a serious presentation of this subject, but video has become a "thing" these days. Too many people seem to lack the attention span for the go-at-your-own-pace effort of reading.
Anyway, I'm now interested in the subject, and would love to be directed t oi any relevant printed material.
F train to Flushing isn’t a good idea
Why not?
The F going to Flushing has a bunch of benefits as that would reduce overcrowding on the 7. The next thing would be having the W do the local service on QBL up to Jamaica 179th St at 30tph. That along with the G can send the F and M along Northern Blvd to serve College Point and Bayside.
Your dreams will not work
Explain
Oh me personally i would not take the disrecpect
I had my head slap in shame cause this is a bold move.
1. Your plan is reverse branching again...
2. If your willing to let v be restored why not split the m into 2 lines that's I'm into the point either split the M into 2 or don't do this at all.
3. you just killed the W only to be on second avenue. What kind of logical is this. either have the W on Broadway line to allow broadway service onto the IND Northern Blvd Line or don't.
4. where's the 7 in this. I know I wanted Northern Blvd but no just no. having it stop the fucking same way as the 7 just feels so off. Make the U and X branch off the W at flushing main street and head to College Point while W and 7 can go further east with the 7 going to bayside while the W heads over to little neck.
5. Make r and w swap. Since the R is going into Fulton Street line it makes sense to put the W to 95th Street and also make sure it has a yard cause I'm not dealing with the times square hell on BMT Broadway Line.
Yeah sorry if I hate it but it was disappointment like you said no reverse branching well there you go more reverse branching. Why am I not surprised.
1. Did you watch the entire video? Reverse branching and interlining are related, but not the same thing. What I did for Phase 1 is to interline Phases 3/4, which is better than purely reverse branching it, I later then deleted that merge in Phase 2.
2. Again, keep watching the video. The V is not on 6th Ave, it is on 2nd.
3. That is completely unneeded. Watch the video.
4. That is a different project. I preferred not to go any deeper in this because this is SAS, not Northern Blvd.
5. Did you watch the video?
I would understand if you have genuine disagreements with what I have planned, but I can tell you based your comment on points that are taken completely out of context. Watch the video again, especially when I introduced Phase 2.
@@techtransitassociationi like the nassua street change alot
and plus the W is probably gonna run on 2nd av since he burned the W to ashes, Thats the reason he took down Broadway W. you must be deaf
@@techtransitassociationalso didnt you mention the T would probably run underneath the transit muesum, because if you didnt then it was probably from someone else, i took the 2 to borough but yeah the T should run to the Transit Muesum or Around that area. and no hate but this video is awesome, i have a question. how would the T get yard access because i forgot about most the video, also if they store the transit muesum contains old trains so that means how would R46 get that. even more questions, which train fleets do you think the T would use? ive heard some people saying R179 but i dont know because i saw Transit Talk has a photo of an R160 or R179 T train photo.
@@techtransitassociationokay I'm going to say this, I'm glad that you listen to what about us wanting the R to Ecuild but yeah if you want to look that diagram again as it made look like Rockefeller Center(station) where M branch's off the F and with the E. I going to say it again. That
I understand about second Avenue but I don't get how n and q go to 2nd Avenue buf yet second Avenue on 3rd Avenue, I assume it's to save money for damage MTA had done to the project.
Well at least you fixed up Delkab Junction. As before hand had the B to 95th street, D via sea beach and r to coney island via west end. Which was disaster cause that plan is just like 34th Street junction where the N goes on the local track to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd. But with now better although
You’re using 2014 (decade-old), pre-pandemic data on ridership patterns without accounting for lost commuters in midtown.
That’s just misleading.
You’re literally advocating for spending BILLIONS of dollars to increase frequency, slightly, over transfer points and system maintenance. My guess is that you’re either not a New Yorker or you don’t actually pay any taxes.
The reason why I used 2014 ridership is only for a comparison between Lexington stations on Midtown East and Upper East Side. If I used say, 2019 or 2023 ridership, I can't make that comparison, because a ton of Upper East Side riders switched onto Second Ave.
And to your second point, maybe understand what I am proposing before you accuse me of anything? Three things to note here:
1. Ridership is going back up, especially in the outer boroughs. This is why capacity is important. More capacity equals more service into the outer boroughs.
2. NYC Subway interlining so bad that it either is redundant (Broadway and 6th Ave), or it cuts a ton of capacity (up to 50 percent). Deinterlining does not automatically mean your one seat rides are gone, which is why I use Census data to make a point.
3. Even so, I have two "phases" of "deinterlining" here. One is better suited for right now, the other suited for 50 years into the future. You might want to look that over to see what my reasoning is for both.