It's always fascinating to me that NYC subways can be re-routed in any tunnel/can even be interlined. It must make running service so much easier. I come from Boston where all the MBTA subway lines have different train sizes, platform heights and tunnel dimensions so each line is not compatible with other lines--cons of being the first Subway in USA.

@robertdavidson1576

6 ай бұрын

Not quite. The former IRT trains (numbered lines) are narrower than the former BMT and IND trains (lettered lines). The track gauge is the same but the trains themselves (and the tunnels) are wider on the BMT/IND. You can see this at Queensborough Plaza where there is a cross-platform interchange between the 7 and the N/W.

@lzh4950

4 ай бұрын

Meanwhile Singapore's Circle & Downtown Lines are physically joined to each other at BayFront station & Kim Chuan Depot (as the latter's Stage 1 was originally designated as the former's Downtown Extension stage instead) & thus have the same gauge, platform length & power supply, but our gov't chose different signalling systems for them (the former was built before the latter, though the one for the latter has faster braking & more backup capabilities), preventing these 2 lines from shaing each other's rolling stock & taking away some flexibility

@qjtvaddict

3 ай бұрын

It’s a blessing in disguise

This has to be one of your best viewpoints on deinterlining. I’m more open-minded to the potential IRT changes that have been used for decades

I’m just here to see the comments

@logik_08

6 ай бұрын

Me too lol

@electrikpikachujm69

24 күн бұрын

me three 😂

As long as the 5 still exists in service, I'm perfectly fine with this plan.

@jpthompson09

3 ай бұрын

I believe that the 5 should be a peak direction express off peak local on Jerome ending at Kingsbridge road, maybe end on the middle of 149 off rush hour like the B if funding is an issue.

I think it's a bit ironic how the MTA uses their metrics to determine whether Dyre gets the 2 or 5. It really comes down to how many more riders travel between the Bronx and Brooklyn. The argument is that Brooklyn riders tend to come from WPR, and as the 2 serves Brooklyn full-time, they send the 2 to Wakefield. This is why on weekends when the Clark St Tubes are closed, not only do they send the 5 to Brooklyn, they swap the 2 and 5 in the Bronx. Operationally, it's more feasible to give the Brooklyn (dominant) line direct access to 239 St Yard.

@monica012077

6 ай бұрын

I think the best configuration is 5 to Wakefield, local WPR(when it's not rush hour),Express in Manhattan and in Brooklyn. They should make a rush hour version with off peak shuttles for the Dyre Ave riders.

@TheLewistownTrainspotter8102

6 ай бұрын

Actually those weekend 5 trains are internally staffed as 2 trains. The 5 is rerouted to South Ferry and its trains use 2 bullets.

@ThatBronxRailfanner

6 ай бұрын

@TheLewistownTrainspotter8102 I'm aware of this but that info has no effect on the reasoning, which is what I was speaking to.

You would definitely need to expand 149 to make this work, like there needs to be 4 new staircases added from the lower platform directly to the upper platform. There is simply not enough space to make everyone transfer as the station is currently configured. I know you said you took a few trips on the line but as someone who takes it on a daily basis, every time the 5 has to be rerouted to 7th ave due to some issue on Lexington ave, there is a mass of people having to get off and take the 4 train upstairs, its barely possible to move. Now lets do that for every 5 train during rush hour, people would be fucking upset.

@judithweiss6727

5 ай бұрын

That climb from the 5 to the 4 is one reason i avoid that station as much as I can.

You do a great job with research and it's appreciated. Also thanks for not sounding like a monotone robot like some other transit KZreadrs.

Plenty of solid arguments here, leading me to pause and rewind, hope that helps your play time numbers - just one request: in the midst of all the route redesignations, there should be room to keep the 8Av service to JFK as the blue A, for the sake of repeat visitors to NYC \m/

@samuelitooooo

6 ай бұрын

I'm in favor of deinterlining as TTA has proposed for much of the IND system, including Queens Blvd and Fulton St. To address your last sentence, the only changes I'd make would be to label routes differently. Due to Queens Blvd being busier than CPW local as well as having three last stops at the southern end, instead of the A/C and E/K, I would have: • A: 179 St ↔️ Far Rockaway • C: 179 St ↔️ Lefferts Blvd • E: Jamaica Center ↔️ Euclid Ave all via Queens Blvd express and 8 Ave express, of course. Meanwhile the K would carry the torch between 168 St and WTC (much like it did in the 80s lol). That's how I'd label these deinterlined services.

@officialmcdeath

6 ай бұрын

@@samuelitooooo sold \m/

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@samuelitooooo yes and the K would be the sole service for CPW This leaves it with this B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island (Sea Beach) D: Norwood 205th St to Bay Ridge 95th St K: 168th St to WTC We have the K having 207th Sy Yard so that we have the access to the 8 car sets stored there and the B gets Coney Island yard. And this allows the D to have Concourse Yard ro store the trains to Bay Ridge, and also I would eliminate the Express in the reverse peak so that the D can run up to 15tph or more on Concourse, while also maintaining the express on Both Branches.

@samuelitooooo

5 ай бұрын

@@Reformperson Sounds good!

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@samuelitooooo yeah that’s is why I could think off because the trains the end at Bay Ridge need a yard so hence sending the D There would be the better option as politics destroyed the Staten Island subway dream. Plus the B or D would be way too long even deinterlined with at Staten Island line. What I propose for Staten Island would be a light rail to run on the most common areas on Staten Island and the North Shore would be ideal for a light rail. This is far cheaper then building a subway from scratch and would be more efficient with maintenance, while keeping the proposed deinterlined service patterns. I would also recommend that false wall at 95th St to be converted into tail tracks to store more D Trains and that would allow for more efficient use of 95th St as a terminal. As for CPW we need the K to be 8 cars as that is what can be stored in 207th St yard, as that can handle the local service between 168th St and WTC. This allows the proper Deinterling on Fulton as we have the A and C go express and the E local. The A of course would go exclusively to Far Rockaway and the C would go to Lefferts of course like how everyone wants. The A and C would both end at 179th St and I want that parking lot at Aqueduct to be converted into a yard for more A Trains to be stored as they are needed to serve Far Rockaway and the Shuttle can run more frequently.

​In the long term I'd basically replace the Jerome Avenue elevated line with a new subway under Ogden and University Avenue. It would be four tracks with local service used by the (4) train and express service used by the (3) train. It would be 4 tracks until the Goudlen Avenue and Gun Hill Road and two tracks from there to the end of the line (I have the route going via 233rd Street and then Edenwald Avenue to Baychester Avenue), and the express service would be all-day in both directions. This one subway line alone could improve service for the western Bronx area, since we are replacing a three track elevated branch with only local service and possible one way express service with a 4 track subway with all day local and express service, speeding things up for Morris Heights and other western Bronx neighborhoods. For White Plains and Pelham, I am planning to do combinational subway replacements that would allow for direct all day express subway service.

I like how you say, "street," as opposed to how Mystic Transit insists on saying, "shtreet."

In the long term I'd basically replace the Jerome Avenue Elevated with a new 4 track new subway on University Avenue. The line would have two components: A west side express and an east side local. Starting at Grand Concourse and 151st Street, the new University Avenue tracks would leave the main alignment and operate along 153rd Street. At River Avenue, it meets with the new tracks from the West Side. The tracks would be used by (4) trains. The other southern end of the line would feed from the Lenox Avenue Line. Starting at 138th Street and Lenox Avenue, the new tracks would branch off and operate to a new lower level of 145th Street, which would serve the (2) and (3) trains. The station would fit a full length train. At 147th Street, the new tunnel would head under the Harlem River, and enter the Bronx at 150th Street. At the Major Deegan Expressway, the tracks split, with two tracks leading to the existing 149th Street-Grand Concourse station (to be used by the (2) train), while another two would turn north onto River Avenue (to be used by the (3) train). At 153rd Street, the River Avenue tracks would meet up with the tracks from Lexington Avenue. After the branches meet up, the new line would continue as a 4-track subway, with (3) trains going express and (4) trains would go local. Near the Yankees 153rd stop, the subway would dig under the SW corner of the Macombs Dam Park and stop at 161st Street and Jerome Avenue, which would be an express station, with another stop at 167th Street and then operate under the El Grant Hwy with another stop at 170th Street. Both stops will be local. The line would then operate along University Avenue, with an express stop at 174th Street. Local stops would also be present at Tremont Avenue, Burnside Avenue, and 183rd Street, plus an express stop at Fordham Road, and a local stop at Kingsbridge Road. North of Kingsbridge Road, the line would then shift to Goudlen Avenue, with a local stop at Bedford Park Blvd, and an express station at Gun Hill Road. Gun Hill Road would serve as the terminal for local trains (the 4), while the (3) express would continue north. North of Gun Hill, the (3) would continue north through the park, and then operate along 233rd Street, with stops at Jerome Avenue, Katonah Avenue, White Plains Road before shifting under Edenwald Avenue with stops at Gunter Avenue and the terminal at Baychester Avenue. The tracks would continue to Murdock Avenue. This would allow for better service between the west side and the West Bronx, and allow for all-day bi-directional express service without affecting local service. As for White Plains and Pelham I'm planning to do combinational subway replacements that would allow for direct all day express subway service.

I'd argue that one thing standing in the way of reliable service is Union Square itself. It happens to be the single tallest bar in the 2:17 graph - not by far, to be fair, but still the tallest, involving no junctions. And solving this seems harder than solving White Plains deinterlining where you're trying to push more trains through per hour for extra capacity (hence the relevance). My reasoning for this is based on my experiences transferring from the L and heading uptown just before 9 AM on a weekday. The problem is, passengers exiting crowded trains experience friction as they sift through equally crowded platforms. Gridlock. 😬 This stands out to me because I've never experienced this in such normalized, daily, and intense fashion anywhere else in NYC. And, of course, the downtown platforms have gap fillers that eat up valuable seconds. There *is* a slightly easier answer to this: there is space between the local and express tracks that span all the way to the interlocking just south of the abandoned 18 St station. I'm not sure why it was built that way 😆, but that's good news for us, as it looks like a straight platform can be built there, and thus, gap fillers can be eliminated. *That* said, as a general supporter of deinterlining, I don't have comments regarding deinterlining White Plains itself because this is the part of the subway system I'm least familiar with, so I've made no hard commitments in my own deinterlining plans. I like your plan to ease people into this transition by starting with lower-hanging fruit first. Besides that, I'd like to see ideas on how reconfigured 135 St and 149 St-GC stations would be built. I considered the "Spanish Solution" for the 4 train platforms at 149 St-GC where doors can open on both sides, but if there's a majority of people getting on and few getting off, and vice versa, then that's not necessary. (That's really what Union Square should have, but it being a shallow and busy station means it would be impossible to retrofit. The exchange of passengers going every which way is greater in Midtown than in the outer boroughs, where more people are likely to get on and go in one direction, or the other way around in the evening, so there's less conflict between passengers getting on and passengers getting off, and flow exists.) I really think that brand new relief lines are the way forward in the long term. Again, not just to relieve crowding onboard trains themselves but at Manhattan platforms as well. And this is where I'd sell the importance of what I'm saying as not just a solution to the climate change crisis, but for the housing crisis as well. I'm reiterating my favor for SAS Phase 4 going to Brooklyn (and Utica Ave) instead of lower Manhattan *specifically* to reduce transfers at Union Square (and Bleecker St to an extent). That's a wall of text I've made numerous times already. Regional rail - in this case extending the Metro-North down to at least lower Manhattan (though it should also go to Staten Island, to get people out of cars + express buses & polluting ferries that are expensive to operate, and encourage upzoning in that borough) - would also play a major role by paralleling Lexington Ave all the way instead of stopping short at Grand Central.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

That is fair. As a Lexington rider, I would love SAS too. But the traffic in mainly in Manhattan, so running it via 125th St would serve the system better than another radial line into the Bronx. SAS to Brooklyn is way more valuable tough. But with the current plan, it almost cements reverse branching on SAS, and I remember discussing this with a few friends on the solution to this. And originally, myself or another member would have made a video on this, but I guess, it has been forgotten. Until I started writing the script for this video. For Union Square, the best thing to do is to put platform controllers. In fact, put platform controllers in all Lexington and 7th Ave stations. Those stations are always crushed by the amount of riders it sees. For the gap fillers, I think it is going to be a necessary evil. Unless the MTA can figure out a plan to shut down Union Sq/half of Lexington. As for the extra space, it was for holding tracks (I believe), so that local trains waiting for the train ahead for it to leave can move on it so it wouldn't hold up the entire line. That being said, that became useless once platforms were extended. Finally, there are many ways to expand 149th St. Like covering the center track for extra stair space, as someone suggested. Or dig into the walls to expand the island platforms. A Spanish solution could work, though I might caution that it might increase dwell times. The reason why the center platform at 59th St was abandoned was because conductors spent way too much time closing the doors for both sides of the train. But again, with platform controllers, it could be mitigated.

@Reformperson

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation RIGHT ON. Also with the platform controllers we would need those on Overcrowded lines like Lexington, and as mentioned in the video 3 minute service on Lexington is not enough, while I don’t agree with every Deinterling plan on the book, I am a big supporter of it and that can prove to have alot of benefits. Stations that would need that is 14th St Union Sq and 149th St Grand Concourse and for that we would also fill in the middle track with more platform space along with a wider staircase so that riders can transfer quickly and easily.

@alexcat3121

6 ай бұрын

I'd guess the problem with Union Square is the old gap fillers which take a while to extend. That could be solved by buying trains with gap fillers on them instead of having platform side gap fillers.

@andrewlucia865

4 ай бұрын

@@alexcat3121 I'm not entirely sure that would actually be worth it. As far as I know, Union Square is the only currently active station in the NYC subway network with gap fillers, caused by the geometry issues of the sharp turns there, and the gap fillers are only at specific points on the platform (unlike the old south ferry loop station, where the extremely sharp curve necessitated the use of what were effectively boarding bridges for each set of doors). To my eyes, it would be a feature that only has a limited application, and certainly wouldn't be worth retrofitting onto all the older sets of equipment just to remove the gap fillers at a single station. In my opinion, it would be more worthwhile to see if the time needed to extend them can be reduced or if the stopping performance of the trains at those platforms can be made more consistent to facilitate that (since positioning the train correctly is a part of the slowdown there).

As a Harlem born and raised, current NYC resident, who's lived in parts of Brooklyn and the Bronx, I always found the MTA subways to be very intriguing and amazing! However, I appreciate the time, research, and effort you've put into making this video, I find it to be very confusing.

I mean the White Plains situation in the Bronx is the same with Nostrand Av in Brooklyn. I used to live at the border of Flatbush & Midwood, and I used to take the 4/5 express to Franklin then use 2/5 for the remaining 7 stops. Much quicker than local 2. I assume many on White Plains are doing the same.

@100problemsnot99

6 ай бұрын

There should be express service to Franklin>Church Av>Flatbush Av on the 5. But these stations don’t have an express track.

Now that the 5 is my home train, I find that my commute relies on how the train passes through that reverse question mark. There's always some delay. I wish they would run the 4 express thru 138 more often to at least allow the 5 room to pull into the station. And I prefer a one seat ride down Lexington during the day, wish some 5 train ran local during rush hour and still like 24/7 access to 7th Ave. So yes people who live along WPR line want it all. 😂

@TheRailLeaguer

5 ай бұрын

To be fair, the better option would be to build a new connecting track set between the Jerome Avenue Line and the White Plains Line. This new pair of tracks would branch off immediately north of the 138th Street station, and would shift to operate under Park Avenue for a bit. From there it would then turn east along 149th Street and merge with the White Plains Road Line immediately west of the 3rd Avenue-149th Street station, bypassing the 149th Street-Grand Concourse station. This would speed up service for just about everyone, including 4 train riders.

At 2:55 I think the real reason the Dyre branch had Lexington Avenue service restored over White Plains Road was because it had lower ridership and thus worked better with the 4 Train. Having both White Plains Road and Jerome Avenue riders sharing Lexington Avenue would have created more crowding issues imo. Also at 3:30 you mention that the 7 Express doesn't stop at 74th Street-Jackson Heights because they don't want more crowding at the transfers. But it's mostly because there was no express station built at the time (the Flushing line predated the Queens Blvd Line). It's basically the same situation as 59th street-Columbus Circle. it's probably just too much of a hassle to build an express station there now.

@jaimerosado3896

6 ай бұрын

Yes it would be a hassle, but seriously, you don’t think the 7 express is crowded enough?

@EM-od6yr

6 ай бұрын

@@jaimerosado3896 The 7 is obviously super crowded. But Isn't he saying that not building the express station is to prevent it from becoming even more crowded? All I'm saying is that crowding has nothing to do with why it's not an express station on the 7, it just was never designed to be. The only instance of a local adding an express stop after it was built is 59th Street and Lexington.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to start by defining what in the world interlining and deinterlining even mean?

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

Interlining: When two services share a track, and if you want to go more in detail, when a line branches into the city center (which is also called reverse branching). Deinterlining: Removing reverse branching so that services stay on the same track into the city center This video is part of series, which is why I don't necessarily define what interlining/deinterlining is. Here is the original video that kind of created the entire series. kzread.info/dash/bejne/gmeM0M-onbG0qJc.html

One person on Mystic Transit’s discord server did support swapping the F and M on 53rd and 63rd respectively when I mentioned it earlier today, but went on a short tirade and said that the (Orange) M is a redundant line and it should be eliminated in favor of bringing back the V and the Brown M to solve the issue of the F being swapped to 53rd Street, which is way to complicated for a simple swapping of where two services run. If the M train still has to be cut back to Myrtle Avenue - Broadway during late nights and Essex Street during weekends the F could simply run via 63rd Street during late nights and weekends similar to how the N runs via the R in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn during late nights.

@ECRALSE40LPS

6 ай бұрын

Yeah the orange m is useless, the brown M would have a new line serving forest hills to coney island via myrtle Avenue. The v train would also serve the new Queenslink purpose from Rockaway beach/Lefferts Blvd to church Avenue via Manhattan(f trains would go Express during all times except for late nights from Jay stree to church Avenue in both directions), these 2 would be the 3rd train being re installed, the first was the W, 2nd would be the 9.

@samuelitooooo

6 ай бұрын

The M is not redundant. The lines it shares tracks with would be too infrequent without it, because those too share tracks with other lines and have low-capacity terminals. Moreover, it was a "service cut" that actually benefitted Bushwick and Ridgewood residents. That said, I'm not against removing the M, but the V cannot end at 2nd Ave if that's the case. LES absolutely needs double capacity to absorb people transferring from the brown M (and J), and Jay St-MetroTech does as well. It should go down to at least Church Ave - practically speaking, Kings Highway and Avenue X would be the best bets for last stops. (Coney Island is a low-capacity terminal).

@noahnorman6877

6 ай бұрын

Either Way if the M still has to be cut back on Late Nights or Weekends it should be extended similarly to it’s former brown service pattern by going down to Chambers Street or Broad Street during those times instead of having to terminate at Myrtle Avenue or Essex Street

@logik_08

6 ай бұрын

In a city like New York, you need redundant lines like the M, W, Z and even the C. It keeps service flowing and makes other lines faster. Redundancy is vital for New York's subway

@joecurry382

6 ай бұрын

The Brown M used to travel to Brooklyn as well I believe it was down the F line or the D that was when NYC was in the 80s and 90s

Can someone in lamens terms explain why the lines and either bmt or irt transits need to be combined

If I stand on Simpson street I don’t see 20 number 2 trains passing by so what do you mean when you say these “lines” run these many trains an hour

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

It is combined. The 7th Ave express, meaning the 2/3 combined, runs 20 tph. The Lexington Ave express, meaning the 4/5 combined, runs at 24 tph. I don't know the exact throughput on White Plains, but I think it should be 20 with the 2 and 5 combined.

The only way to even get IRT deinterlining is to drastically upgrade the 149th grand concourse station capacity and add an infill station to the MNRR to allow access to the UWS from the regional upstate areas and CT served by metro north ohh and you won’t have to run riverdale express buses anymore either. Currently at best you can get away with reducing the bxm1 and dropping bxm18

I became unwilling to travel my subways years ago. I just found your channel, and it is very nostalgic.

Y'all have transit?

When the brand new R262/As comes for CBTCS on the 4 5 6 S lines the R62AS could be save and have six car units just like the 42nd times Square shuttle on the green 🍏 circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line.

5:09 If not being able to get a seat means it's "extremely crowded", it's definately not crowded

Mostly Mott interlocking have been solved by having the 4 skip 138 that way the 5 can do its switch to WPL with no trains backing it Vice versa in the morning

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

It doesn't work like that. There is a reason why the MTA have the 4 skip 138th, and even with that, delays still occur.

I am guessing that this is the service pattern of the (4) and (5): (4) Woodlawn to New Lots [switched to Eastern Parkway Local east of Franklin Avenue] (5) Woodlawn/BPB to Crown Heights or the Utica Avenue subway [stays express through Eastern Parkway, northbound terminus depends on capacity]

@shadowmamba95

6 ай бұрын

In my dream subway, I changed some stations in the Jerome Avenue Line to be express. These converted-to-express stations are: - Bedford Park Boulevard - Fordham Road - 161st Street - Yankee Stadium Plus, I change Mosholu Parkway to be an island platform. With these changes, here are the following services: - (4) BPB to New Lots. - (5) Woodlawn to Crown Heights/Utica Ave Subway (with peak-direction express from Mosholu to Harlem - 125th).

@botmes4044

6 ай бұрын

Keep It Simple, Silly! Weekdays: (4) Burnside Av to New Lots Av (Jerome, E. Pkwy Local) Woodlawn to Utica Av (Jerome, E. Pkwy Express) Late Nights, weekends: (4) Woodlawn to New Lots Av Burnside already has island platforms for turning around local trains just like at Parkchester, except it needs a few new switches. New Lots aligns with E. Pkwy Local, not Express, hence the weird terminal assignments, otherwise the two services would have to cross each other at grade at Utica. However, with a Utica Subway, then the tracks and crossovers would align Utica with E. Pkwy Local, and New Lots with Express.

@shadowmamba95

5 ай бұрын

⁠@@botmes4044That could cause problems, it would create another Parkchester situation [that is (6) and trains merge into one another]. Yeah, I know it is cheaper, but if it makes the situation worse, that is still money down the drain. The reason I picked BPB is because it has direct yard access to potentially allow northbound terminating (4) trains to head to Jerome and turnaround, while southbound (4) trains can head up from the yard without affecting the (5) [the (5) still has to serve Mosholu and Woodlawn, similar to the (D) having to serve Norwood]. With that being said, there needs to be a change to yard access to Jerome Yard: - New elevated junction for northbound (4) trains north of BPB: Right now, the movement is at-grade, just like Myrtle Avenue, which is a no-no since it would delay any trains north of BPB. This would be priority, as it would benefit the line, regardless of whether we go with either the dream scenario or current-time. As for the southern termini for the (4) and (5), I would show the termini before and after the Utica Avenue Subway is built, based on the dream scenario I created: - Before: (4) to New Lots and (5) to Crown Heights [Yard: (4) uses Livonia, while (5) uses Jerome] - After: (4) to Mill Basin and (5) to New Lots [Yard: (4) uses Jerome, while (5) uses Livonia] I went with this, because I overlooked the fact that the proposition would connect with the local tracks, and in both scenarios, I have the (5) running express at Eastern Parkway, while the (4) runs local at it east of Franklin Avenue.

@shadowmamba95

5 ай бұрын

@@botmes4044 First of all, you did mention about the actual terminals for the Utica Avenue subway. It is true that based on what I propose, (5) should head to New Lots, while the (4) should head to Kings Plaza. That is true. Secondly, there is a problem with ending trips at Burnside Avenue, that being it does not have a direct access to the Jerome Avenue Yard. With the current configuration, you create a Parkchester 2.0, where locals and expresses cross each other, which is a huge no-no for a vital train line. As a result, it is best to end (4) trains at Lehman College on the local tracks, allowing peak-direction (5) express trains to head to/from Woodlawn/3rd Avenue-138th Street with little delays.

@botmes4044

5 ай бұрын

@@shadowmamba95 Burnside being Parkchester 2.0 isn't such a big deal. The latter has already been known to handle 30 TPH. The delays are mainly caused by yard-bound Local trains hogging the northbound platform for 90 seconds during the AM peak while they're "swept," which then delays the following "Express" (not Express) train continuing to Woodlawn; the delays actually have very little to do with the crossovers themselves, since that's a conflict between a revenue and a non-revenue train, and the non-revenue can always be held on the middle track to avoid delaying the revenue train. With CBTC, a pair of crossovers built south of the station, and reconfigured AM platform assignments, then the grade crossing would become a moot issue, and wouldn't reduce capacity below 30 TPH. It's all in the 2020 IRT Capacity Study which I'll link in the edit. In fact, Burnside does have direct yard access via the middle track on Jerome, just like on Pelham. There's a grade conflict going to/from Jerome Yard, but again that's not an issue since the non-revenue train can be held to prevent delaying the southbound revenue train coming from Woodlawn. Trains only flow in one direction to/from the yard depending on time of day, so the single middle track is fit for purpose. I believe it's important to use what we have and make it as efficient as possible, rather than to propose massive physical alterations to ancient infrastructure that ultimately have very little impact on service capacity and performance. Rebuilding BPB, reconfiguring the platforms, lifting the entire elevated structure so as to make space for a mezzanine, is simply not worth it, when we can achieve the same goal with just a couple switches a few stations to the south.

Hard to believe The Jerome Avenue line had 3 lines ! 😱 The Sixth ,The Ninth & The Lexington Avenue Line. So did the White Plains Dyre Avenue line. The 7th Avenue, Lexington Avenue , up the WPRD line Third Avenue El line. one time The original second Avenue EL. ran from Manhattan to the Bronx , along with the Third Av. Ex Manhattan lines. Yes Todays Flushing 7 line shared the Second Avenue El in Queens ftom Manhattan. If this was proposed it would be big mistake. The Jerome Avenue line is always messed up. 149th Street Grand Concourse will be worse than over crowded. And what about Lenox Avenue Terminal & 148th Street Manhattan ? A Shuttle worse holding up the West side 2 Train ? Never had additional letter lines in the Bronx . The only other transfer for the IRT & IND is 161st Street Yankee Stadium my old neighborhood. I wished the Transit Authority never removed the 8 line messing up the Bronx - 3rd Avenue. The whole El line should've been replaced up & let it run later along south along the Pelham 6 into Manhattan Lexington Avenue Local. Those are plans i would propose or consider.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

"149th Street Grand Concourse will be worse than over crowded. " That's why you expand the station lol. No one is advocating for 149th-GC to remain as is when these changes are in effect. And finally, trying to use tradition to justify interlining is not an excuse when the MTA changes train routes all the time. For 50 years, the 3 was the established local on 7th Ave, and the 1 was the established express, and you know what the NYCTA did? They changed it. For 50 years, the B was the established train to 168th St and the C was the established train to Concourse. And you know what the MTA did? They swapped it. For 50 years, double letters were used and you know what the MTA did in 1985? They got rid of it. For 30 years, the BMT and IND ran separately. And you know what the MTA did? They made it run together. Tradition went out the window for these decisions and the system ran better as a result.

1:17 instead of having the (S) be in the middle and a flyover, have it take the westernmost track with southbound (2/3) in the middle. my solution would be cheaper bcz there is no overpass or underpass. wat do u think?

@shadowmamba95

6 ай бұрын

Yeah, that can work too. No problem. It would work as the following: - Platform 1 (Island platform): - 1A - To *Wakefield* or *Dyre Avenue* - 1B - To *Flatbush Avenue* - Platform 2 (Side platform) - To *Lenox Terminal - 149th Street* I usually designate IRT shuttles as (0) trains. Have the 42nd Street Shuttle as the (0h) and the Lenox Avenue Shuttle as the (0n).

@josephrosner905

6 ай бұрын

Wy do u designate IRT shuttles as (0)? Also, that will probably never be used to avoid confusion with (O)

@shadowmamba95

6 ай бұрын

@@josephrosner905That one is more of personal preference. I just use the 42nd Street shuttle's internal designation, which is (0), given that it is IRT, numbered services. But, you can still put (S) if it is still preferred. Plus, I have not seen a single bullet with an (O) in it.

@samuelitooooo

6 ай бұрын

This makes the transfer less convenient for 148 St-bound riders, and for shuttle users coming from 148 St and wanting a train to the Bronx. If the shuttle terminated in the middle, everyone gets a convenient and step-free cross-platform transfer. Then you wouldn't have to dig an underpass and build (and maintain) more elevators for passengers.

@alexthemtaandr211weatherfa2

6 ай бұрын

@@shadowmamba95 the 42st shuttle is the zero train

Man the transfer to 4/5 from WPL trains will be hell. It’s hell now with 2/5

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

Yes I know. That is why I said expand the station. It works pretty well, look how Atlantic Ave handles the transfers.

My one thought on this excellent video: I support deinterlining. I support the political strategy proposed here. But does the MTA actually have the trains + operators + desire to deliver the increased service deinterlining would allow? My feeling is no, since they have failed to deliver promised frequency improvements (as far as I know). So deinterlining would *allow* for more frequency, but the MTA would not capitalize on that. And I think they would argue there isn't ridership necessary to justify the increased frequencies.

@michaellemay4887

6 ай бұрын

I think that's wrong, and low ridership can be solved on the same timeframe by upzoning areas with low subway usage.

What White Plains line has is fine with the 5 Running Express to 238th or transfer at 180th. So the line can get both 7th and Lexington Ave Service. But the Jerome line's problem is they should also have a 7th Ave service but there's no direct track from the 4 train to get onto the Lexington Track. If they build that that track, they could extend the 3 Train up to Jerome during Rush hour at least and there would be much less switching at 149th street all around.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

Jerome doesn't need the 3, especially when Concourse, a line that provides service to the west side, runs a few blocks away. Boost service there, or partially deinterline it according to the Van-Uday plan, and we are in business. And second, the 5 is only on White Plains because it is a load distributor, not serve one seat rides. If so, the 5 won't be running express, skipping almost every station White Plains. But the 5 up to White Plains cuts capacity to huge extent, so I won't call it fine.

@botmes4044

6 ай бұрын

Why have the trains swap around in every direction, when we could just have riders do so at 149-GC? A few staircases are a lot cheaper than a whole new subway spur.

@klabkebash

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation Brooolyn has 7th and Lexington service on both ends of the 2/5 & 3/4. The 4 Train on Jerome is always packed and a lot of those people will transfer at 149th to take the 2 down 7th. They don't want to necessarily take the Grand Concourse B/D lines because they don't like walking that extra Ave block over from 6th towards 7th in bad weather. Hence people would over pack the 4 on Jerome would and transfer at 149th. The White Plains line has a direct track switch to go down into Lexington. The Jerome line doesn't have this go to down towards 7th or other lines on the west side. If so, people to take it and reduce the bottleneck at 149th. Key is to reduce transfers that involve walking up / down different levels. Transfers on same platform people don't mind as much.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

I think you are missing something here. Do you know how bad the D train is on Concourse? It runs every 10 minutes, and only during rush does it run ever 6 minutes. Even so, it is bad. That is going to deter a huge amount of people who would otherwise take the D train. Now if you boosted service, then it would be more enticing, and people will be more willing to take it. And if you have the Van Uday plan, the B/C will be swapped, with the C now running to Concourse, which will also take some riders from Jerome. Now the plan you proposed is completely unnecessary and does more harm than good. You are cementing reverse branching now to Jerome, making even more harder to time than it is. This is going to have adverse effects on Lexington and 7th Ave riders. If you really your Jerome service to be increased, and I 100 percent agree with you, then deinterline.

@klabkebash

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation I remember back until the early 2000's the C ran on the Concourse only during rush hour and would take up the local stops while the D ran express all the way down 6th Ave or vs Versa for the C express until it reach 8th ave and ran local. Either way that brought more riders to the west side either 8th or 6th ave lines. Currently the B & D just go down 6th Ave. Jerome & Concourse needs increase service but even if the C train replaces the D and they both get increased rush hour cars.. That doesn't help the people who live West of Jerome that have to hull their way up to the concourse to only get to 6th ave. They overpack the 4 line and many to transfer at 149th to get the 2 down to 7th ave which is closest west. There is no IRT track from Jerome that can join the 2 down the west side. There are currently people who live next to Jerome who walk or take a bus to the 1 train and reluctantly take it local just to be on the 7th ave and switch at 96th to hop on the 2/3 downtown express. This could all be solved if the Jerome line had rush hour express like the White Plains line has with the 5 and served the oppose side of Manhattan.

I love the IRT but the line has always needed more lines over all especially in the Bronx as well as the lower part to Brooklyn causing this congestion because of it being the only line along the East side until the Q train was granted the resources to go up the upper east side and now it's going up to 125th street now and down to Broadway Lafayette later on in the Century I would like the T and the 8 train in the Bronx line design because it would ease up a lot of the bottom necks around New York City as well as a Cross Brooklyn and Queens to Bronx line would service much of the City greatly of course all of this takes money and a loan from the Government as well as some imminent domain In the Bronx and Brooklyn because with the Construction we must be mindful of buildings along the proposed lines for the safety of all New Yorkers and those that are visiting the city

@joecurry382

6 ай бұрын

@@ianhardy9375 wouldn't it be better if there where 2 places with such split offs like the 3 line at 148 street could be expanded both ways one to 161 st Grand Concourse to help elevate East side traffic as well to 168st in Manhattan to intersect with the AC and 1 train as well

People want deinterlining to get rid of delays. Nice idea but not always practical.

@shadowtoad95

6 ай бұрын

It is something that you have to get people to be used to it. It has long-term benefits that people are not seeing because they focus too much on traditional and obsolete practices that might only benefit some, and not most people. As he has mentioned, start small with the deinterlines, with DeKalb and the F/M swap between 53rd and 63rd Street trains, then take it a few steps further, and repeat till people get use to it (look up the Chrystie Street Cut and how people took the change). Then, the benefits will snowfall to the point that we can get reliable service again, because frequency is more beneficial than one-seat rides (this is a metro system, getting people from A to B punctually is of the upmost importance, even if that means transfers will occur).

Id be happy if the red line was red and the green line green

Outline the key problems and state how this presentation addresses them. Define your terms, e.g., "deinterlining". When graphics are presented, spend some time for the viewer to absorb the information, and explain how the graphics support your views. Keep up the good work. I wonder how CBTC will affect all this.

The 149th Street spur might be to convenient to remove, but Rogers Junction should definitely get deinterlined.

@TheRailLeaguer

5 ай бұрын

Which is why it would be better to relocate the 5 train connection between the Jerome Avenue Line and the White Plains Road Line so that the White Plains Road merge would occur between the Grand Concourse and 3rd Avenue stations. In other words, 5 trains would no longer stop at 149th Street-Grand Concourse.

Around 3:30 or so, you mention that the MTA doesn’t want Flushing express trains stopping at 74th for transfers to the IND. The infrastructure was never built to support this. When the Flushing line was built in 1917 or so, the Express stop was placed at 61st, where riders could go downstairs for the LIRR. The Queens Blvd IND was not built until 1933. Retrofitting the IRT was not an option.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

That is fair.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@@mljrowell8654 Boo hoo.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@@mljrowell8654 I don't know where you got that from. I am willing to be wrong. If I wasn't willing to be wrong, I would have deleted Larry D's comment.

@IlDiavolo2515

6 ай бұрын

​@@mljrowell8654your opinion is invalid.

@IlDiavolo2515

6 ай бұрын

​@@mljrowell8654Stop talking from your a$$ 😂

4:41 If you are going to have 2 services on Pelham, say the 4 and 6, and 1 service on the Woodlawn, say the 5, then what about the mixup between express and local at 125th St.? Will all Pelham be express on Lexington, and all Woodlawn be local on Lexington ? Probably express is more needed than local on Lexington ( 2 to 1 ratio ) ??? Aarre Peltomaa

@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831

4 ай бұрын

That map is highlighting the changes in service relative to the regular map. In that map, the White Plains Road Line map is still red, meaning the 2 is there. Also the 4 is still running to Woodlawn on this map. You can clearly hear in the video his plans.

I can only imagine so much what a de-interlined subway system would actually look like, both with the expansions proposed and without. I have mixed feelings on them but I’m sure the good stuff would outweigh the bad stuff

The way it is now works. As long as crews minimize the dwell time and operate according to speed limits and not below, it runs smooth. The Jerome has enough 4 trains to cover it's service. Also the idea is to give people options with it's service. Sending 7 AV service to Dyre would cause trouble for people who need Lex Service. People would complain about getting off at 149 GC just to transfer

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

"As long as crews minimize the dwell time and operate according to speed limits and not below, it runs smooth." You have no idea how fragile the timing is here. All it takes for a minute delay for the entire line to grind to halt. And it happens everyday, despite Lexington/7th Ave running restricted capacity. "The Jerome has enough 4 trains to cover it's service." Take Jerome during rush hour. It gets more crowded than White Plains. And it should come as no surprise when Jerome sees the same ridership as White Plains, but only half the service. "Also the idea is to give people options with it's service." Yeah, to two stations. Two stations. That represent 22 percent of all riders on White Plains. The 78 percent of riders need to transfer, which is why I don't buy this one seat ride argument. "Sending 7 AV service to Dyre would cause trouble for people who need Lex Service." And it is in the minority. Dyre riders are heading to 7th Ave more than Lexington. "People would complain about getting off at 149 GC just to transfer" First of all, people already transfer if they want Lexington service. It is where they will transfer, and there are a ton of mitigation projects you can choose from. And second of all, people complained about the 1 and 3 train swap on 7th Ave. And then it was dead silence once they realized how much better 7th Ave ran as a result. I am sorry, but have you watched the video? Because these answers came directly out of the script of this video.

@TheLewistownTrainspotter8102

6 ай бұрын

And that isn't a handicapped transfer IIRC.

It can be done by having the E replace the A in Brooklyn and run the C as a shuttle in Brooklyn to court st from Euclid and bring back K as the Cc have D/B be express. But your strategy can work

@Reformperson

6 ай бұрын

The C would be a better replacement for the A for multiple reasons, 1. The C already runs on Fulton 2. The C would be free to take the line to Jamaica 179th St leaving CPW 3. The E would be left alone for most of its route. 4. The C would have all Express Service on 8th Ave, QBL, and Fulton. The A would still serve CPW but as a sole local route to Norwood 205th St

@dannyboy34677

5 ай бұрын

@@Reformperson One problem with that, what local would go to 168th Street? Are you proposing moving the D from Norwood in the Bronx to ending at 168th?

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@dannyboy34677 yes and the D would only go Local after 145th St up to 168th St, I have the A going local to Norwood as that is a short route already to begin with.

@dannyboy34677

5 ай бұрын

@@Reformperson The B would take over the A route and the D would take over the current C now

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@dannyboy34677 yes and the A would take over the Concourse Line

There are both pros and cons to interlining, I personally like a good mix of interlined and de-interlined routes like we see in the NYC subway. I live in Jersey though so not sure my opinion matters Edit: Reverse branching (which can only be done with interlining) is very helpful for people who don't want's to make fifty transfers. It can also significantly shorten transit times.

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

Not if trains are held up at merge points

@botmes4044

6 ай бұрын

Fifty transfers is hyperbolic, more like one.

@fishyswirlgaming5741

6 ай бұрын

@@botmes4044 fair point

Central Park West doesn't need the service that the *A* or *D* provides. And any changes in service would impact train crews and passengers even more. The unfortunate crew member who has to work an all local *A* or *D* service just so uniformity between the branches is just non sense to me. You also need to factored in the 145th Street and 50th Street stations. While the 145th Street is terminal station for "B" service at certain times the 50th Street station still needs some service on the upper level now served by *C* Having all 8/6th Avenue Express/Local will greatly impact passengers at the 59th Street Columbus Circle Station. The passenger flow would be enormous there, because now they have to choose between a faster ride or a one seat slower ride. The could also affect more crowding on the #1, because things are no longer persistent on the *ABCD* lines. The #1 isn't really designed to take on anymore passengers. But the IND local has nothing but capacity. So much capacity, that the "D" is sent up the local track as a "skip stop" service, because of the lack of express track capacity served by three *A* services. The way this can be fixed (somewhat) is by eliminating at least one of those *A* services and replace it with a shuttle. This would make Rockaway Park passengers upset! But the shuttle could run more frequently between Rockaway Park and Far Rockaway as a concession. Yes! The Far Rockaway *A* would see more crowding, but it would help the 59th Street situation. Some *D* trains could now run on the Express tracks. And *C* trains can run every 8 minutes than 10 minutes it currently runs. All in all, this would greatly makeup the shortcomings at 59th Street junction. It is as easy as eliminating one of those *A* trains.

@captainkeyboard1007

6 ай бұрын

The train crews who work at night and midnight get the most cruddiest runs in the entire rapid transit system. That is why they work best at no more than 2 trips per tour. That is the reason I disapprove of extending rapid transit system lines, including the A-Division (formerly IRT) lines. The express services are cancelled at midnight and night intervals. Each run becomes grueling on the train operator and conductor eyes on the first trip.

@qolspony

6 ай бұрын

@@captainkeyboard1007 Even so, the night trips would be easier if any of these branch lines are forced to be local during the day. From dwell times to operational difficult due to mechanical failure are mostly a problem during the day hours. Besides, the *A* has the best Express run when you factor in Brooklyn's Fulton Street.

@captainkeyboard1007

6 ай бұрын

@@qolsponyThank you for typing to me.

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@qolsponyok but understand that on two of the A lines’ branches have people waiting at railroad like frequencies, and it only having 6tph on both branches is absolutely ridiculous. When it has 3 branches then it’s even worse. People say that the C should go to Lefferts Blvd and yes I support that but with my plan we have the C handling Far Rockaway as well as I have Fulton St Trains coming from QBL. The E would then join Fulton going Local as we have E Trains ending at Euclid. The A/C combination is 17tph but with the C/E. Combination on Cranberry we have 36tph. You may ask how I would do this first the 12tph that the E currently runs would go local to Euclid while the 24tph proposed for the C would go Express. Take CPW on Manhattan you have very long wait times for a local train and if we have the A line then you have 21tph or a train every 3 minutes, you may ask what I did with the A line I cut it back to WTC and then having it go to Norwood to serve Concourse since it’s a dense area that needs more trains. If you are wondering how I proposed my plan here’s how I did it A: Norwood 205th St to WTC B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island C: Jamaica 179th St to Far Rockaway/Lefferts Blvd D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave.

At 19:03 there are a few flaws on this plan 1st Having the A and C ending at WTC, and what I say to this is that the C doesn’t have to end at WTC, but continue on Fulton via the Express Tracks. The C has ran express on Fulton a few times during Weekend GOs so it would be good to continue doing that until we make the C go express permanently on Fulton. This means that the E can join Fulton on the Local tracks to Euclid Ave as the C continues East to both Lefferts and the Rockaways. The next thing is QBL, we don’t need the K route as the E would remain ending at Jamaica Center. This will mean that we can send the C to Jamaica 179th St. This means that the C would be required to take the route to the Rockaways. The next thing is 59th St and this involves removing the C and keeping the A, B and D lines. The first thing that is switched is the A line as that should end at Norwood 205th St instead of 168th Street. The B and D would continue on the Inwood branch with the B ending at Inwood 207th Street and the D at 168th St. The next Junction would be DeKalb as that is the capital of Delays on the BMT, first the B and N swap title patterns as the B would be the line running on Sea Beach and the N on Brighton. The D would still run through DeKalb but it’s southern terminus would be Bay Ridge 95th St as the R would take the route on West End as the D and R would swap southbound terminals. The results would be as follows A: Norwood 205th St to WTC B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island C: Jamaica 179th St to Far Rockaway/Lefferts Blvd D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave F: Forest Hills 71st Ave to Coney Island N: 96th St to Coney Island Q: 96th St to Brighton Beach R: Astoria Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island

@coolboss999

6 ай бұрын

You are absolutely diabolical if you think I'm gonna let the MTA take away my D train from Grand Concourse

@Reformperson

6 ай бұрын

@@coolboss999 the thing is you will get 21tph with the A as you can benefit with transfers. Any rider that wants concourse service can transfer to the A. The A can go via concourse, as that’s the best way to deinterline the 59th St Junction. Plus sending the A to Norwood has way more benefits than negatives.

@coolboss999

6 ай бұрын

@@Reformperson The thing is, you would be taking away my one seat train ride to Brooklyn which I often do a lot. Having to transfer at 59th would be a paid cause I wouldn't get a seat

@samuelitooooo

6 ай бұрын

​@@ReformpersonThe benefits end as soon as you realize you can't fight psychology. People *will* transfer to the express at 125 St (cross-platform transfer) or 59 St, even if they're told that the express only saves like 3 minutes. If MTA ever gets around to CBTC on CPW, I bet that time savings will go up along with the speed limits. Also, not many people talk about how less comfortable it is accelerating and braking so often. It's also logistically difficult. 207 St yard can only store 8-car trains, not ten. 8 cars is adequate for CPW local service that ends at WTC - and we'd actually have the trains in our fleet for it, even after R211s - but 8 cars wouldn't be enough for the B or D in any Brooklyn-reaching form. The only change I'd make to the 19:03 plan is really labeling routes differently for added clarification. A, C, and E trains would run between Jamaica and Fulton St (because we have Far Rockaway (A), Lefferts (C), and Euclid (E) as terminals), and the K would serve CPW local like it did in the 80s. But that's just cosmetics. 10 TPH on Concourse as the D is still a substantial capacity and frequency increase over what riders have today, and all the trains would be right-sized considering physical constraints at the relevant yards.

@chrisinnes2128

6 ай бұрын

So you want to go back to the service the BMT used to run

I don’t think 149th/Grand Concourse can handle all this transferring between the 234 and 5.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

That’s why we expand the station lol. No one is advocating to leave the current station as is when we implement these changes.

@ariesmichaelsayan4013

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation they won’t expand it! Bronx is not a priority for the MTA.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@@ariesmichaelsayan4013 The MTA fought against many things that they now embrace. Like the IBX, ADA requirements, and platform screen doors. It is going to be a slow campaign, but we will get there. I am trying to be a cautiously optimistic with the MTA here, despite them letting us down numerous times.

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

It can with more trains.

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociationthey also butchered IBX to avoid serving the Bronx

I have been trying why are not still in?

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

?

@subwaymtaboy

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation oh no wrong comment

@subwaymtaboy

6 ай бұрын

Great video idea

@subwaymtaboy

6 ай бұрын

I also think 2 train could go with the 3 to 148 street and riders Juction should have 3 trains go to Flatbush and 5 to Utica

@leecornwell5632

5 ай бұрын

The Red circle 🔴 8 could still run on the Third Ave Elevated line alone to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn or Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains. Even though they don't have the powder blue 🔵 8 anymore. The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line is definitely needed to help out the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 buses.

Would your argument be any different if you incorporate equity into the equation?

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

Well, I think giving better service to Dyre, White Plains, and Jerome riders does pretty well for equity.

@Vector_X409

6 ай бұрын

​@@techtransitassociation One crack hell of a drug Isn't it?

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@@Vector_X409 And what do you mean by that?

@shadowtoad95

6 ай бұрын

@@Vector_X409Huh?

Honestly they should close 145th st and 148th st because these stations doesn’t get too much ridership and rebuilding the 142nd street junction would cost a lot, though the tracks to lenox yard would still exist

​​​​​​My long term plans are extremely ambitious. It calls for a wholesale replacement of our three-track elevated lines with new 4-track subways running below or near them on other streets. The lines affected are the White Plains and Dyre (2 and 5 trains), Pelham (6 train), and Jerome Avenue (4 train) lines, the latter of which has no regularly scheduled express service. Replacing these three-structures with 4 track subways, while expensive (hence long term plan) would combine the deinterlining need with the direct rides to both east and west sides of Manhattan White Plains riders get to enjoy, and for Jerome Avenue riders, all day local and express service. No reverse branching (where two services from two different trunk lines) or slow moving junctions required. My long term plan calls for replacing the current three track elevated structures with brand new 4-track subways. This move combines both deinterlining with allowing one seat rides to both east and west sides, while also allowing the benefit of the bi-directional express service all day (compared to one direction express service during certain times). Some subways would have to replace two separate elevated lines (like White Plains and Pelham), but in the end, it could be worth all the time, money and headache that could result from planning such a large project line this z Long-term this does sound great, but deinterlining is the best we have in the short-term. WPR with 4 tracks would be great for deinterlining, though I don't believe other lines need 4 tracks besides WPR.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

Honestly, I would love a Cross Bronx subway. I think that should be a main priority of any Bronx related transportation plans.

@Reformperson

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociationthat would be a good idea and also we could consider the plans for Concourse Line of having the B Train take the Fordham Line and if deinterlined we can have the C do it. That would make the C a 24/7 route and ending the C at WTC would be relevant with the Cross Bronx Subway from Concourse.

Stop sending the 5 train to Flatbush Avenue. The delays on the Manhattan bound trains at knewkirk are criminal

A lot of it comes down to labor. If the B train gets rerouted to the Sea Beach Line, then that means having to run both the B and N trains on weekends, whereas the current setup allows for no B train service on weekends. Which is very likely why the 59 Street and DeKalb junctions won’t be realigned. And the absence of 5 train service in Brooklyn on weekends can easily explain the reluctance to realign Rogers Avenue.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

If the B and N were swapped, the N won't have to run on weekends because it is the express version of the Q. Not that the MTA should do that, the MTA should treat weekend commuters the same as weekday commuters.

@dorf33

6 ай бұрын

i think this would work well if we saw a plan like the N and Q running on 2av exp and bringing back the T to run local. this would happen because the R would run to astoria, and the W would be eliminated, as 8th/6th ave would replace the R on qbl, deinterlining cpw and fulton as well. hopefully, there would be side tracks on SAS that would be built for an express service (the N/Q). we could see a configuration like grand army plaza for local stations, and one like 34th street penn sta. for express ones. while this wouldnt be ideal, this is what we were left to work with from the island platform 2 track config that SAS was originally built for. we could see the N/Q run x town on 125st, and the T would continue north into the bronx as a 3rd av el replacement or cover a subway desert in the bronx. its southbound route can be debated, but this facilitates for the N to basically be the same thing as the Q but just run brighton exp to brighton beach, facilitating a current B/D config

@jaimerosado3896

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociationWhich train would serve Astoria?

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@@jaimerosado3896 In the short term, we have the N/W. In the long term, the R.

@jaimerosado3896

6 ай бұрын

@@dorf33Depends on how you define “ideal.” There are three four-track express stations that have one island platform and two side platforms: 34 Street at 8 Avenue, 34 Street at 7 Avenue, and Atlantic Avenue at Flatbush. What two things do they have in common: they are all right after another four-track station, and they provide a connection to the LIRR. Designers knew that these stations would we see enough foot traffic with people connecting to and from the railroad without people running across the platform changing between the local and express.

3:15 It is nearly impossible to swap the e, f, r, m line on Queens Boulevard with the seven lines, but the m train would cease to exist, and the same with the w, because the r would be on Astoria, upgrade the r.n in Queens to have full-time express service and the 7 train, would have weekday express service in both directions with two express tracks, Queens bro plaza would be right tracks, but court square e.m station would not exist and the r.n can't fit in the current court square seven-station, so my solution is interlining and the seven services at the former Ind station and court square e.m would exist and the seven trains would be underground for the entire route. 3:18

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

That makes no sense. The F and M swap can be done. Literally put the F via 53rd and the M via 63rd and you are done.

@Reformperson

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociationexactly and if riders still want Broadway services they can throw the R on 63rd St.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@meli4157cozy Yeah, and there are a ton more people going into Manhattan than into Queens. I know the drawback of the F and M swap is the waiting increase, but 14 tph to 10 tph is not that much an increase in wait times. And your train will be much faster with the swap, you will make that minute back easily. And finally, the F and M swap is a first step. A real deinterlining plan is to completely deinterline and have 53rd St 8th Ave only and 63rd St 6th Ave only. This solves any frequency issues.

@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831

6 ай бұрын

@meli4157cozyit’s due to its currently route. The M has the merge with the J then merge with the F then merge with the E and then merge with the R. That’s why there may be more delays. The R in its current route merged away from the M to the N and then away from it and stays by itself for the rest of its route.

@Reformperson

6 ай бұрын

@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831 the F and M swap can be done but however if you want to keep that then have the F run Local on QBL so that the F can handle 24tph but for that to happen we would also have to deinterline Culver and that would not be hard and the F would also have all its merged with the G removed bringing a boost for culver riders. The M however is capped at 12tph thanks to the Willamsburg Bridge. The E would run alone on 53rd St at 18tph and if you want to maintain that then have tail tracks on its new terminal and this is why the E should be extended to Rosedale Francis Lewis Blvd. If you want the E to maintain its 12tph then you would need both the A and C to join QBL to Jamaica 179th St and you would have to have 24tph on the A and C combined. This is so both tunnels get 36tph. In Simple terms for the Queens Tunnels 53rd St: 12tph (A) 12tph (C) 12tph (E) = 36tph 63rd St 24tph (F) 12tph (M) = 36tph

Too bad you are not a schedule manager or a planner, for NYCTransit.

I just want the mta to deinterline to see how it would fuck up the transit system

@TheRailLeaguer

5 ай бұрын

What do you mean by “fuck up the transit system”?

@NewYorkBall557

5 ай бұрын

​@TheRailLeaguer , how it either messes up everything, or benefit everything

@NewYorkBall557

5 ай бұрын

​@@TheRailLeaguerthats what i mean

@TheRailLeaguer

5 ай бұрын

@@NewYorkBall557 So you’re doubting any benefits of deinterlining?

@LtRainoffical

5 ай бұрын

​@@TheRailLeaguer My long term plans are extremely ambitious. It calls for a wholesale replacement of our three-track elevated lines with new 4-track subways running below or near them on other streets. The lines affected are the White Plains and Dyre (2 and 5 trains), Pelham (6 train), and Jerome Avenue (4 train) lines, the latter of which has no regularly scheduled express service. Replacing these three-structures with 4 track subways, while expensive (hence long term plan) would combine the deinterlining need with the direct rides to both east and west sides of Manhattan White Plains riders get to enjoy, and for Jerome Avenue riders, all day local and express service. No reverse branching (where two services from two different trunk lines) or slow moving junctions required. My long term plan calls for replacing the current three track elevated structures with brand new 4-track subways. This move combines both deinterlining with allowing one seat rides to both east and west sides, while also allowing the benefit of the bi-directional express service all day (compared to one direction express service during certain times). Some subways would have to replace two separate elevated lines (like White Plains and Pelham), but in the end, it could be worth all the time, money and headache that could result from planning such a large project line this z Long-term this does sound great, but deinterlining is the best we have in the short-term. WPR with 4 tracks would be great for deinterlining, though I don't believe other lines need 4 tracks besides WPR. I would have the 4-track subways parallel the existing Jerome and Pelham Els while another 4-track subway would operate underneath the existing White Plains Road Line in the Long-term

None of this will ever happen.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

That has been tossed around with IRT 7th Ave at 96th St, and it did happen.

Here me out. Rush hour deinterlining for irt

@techtransitassociation

5 ай бұрын

Honestly, that is not a bad idea.

@trae3290

5 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation I thought i was gunna get ratioed but although it might be chaotic and annoying at first like you said once people get over it they’ll forget what they were mad about. As much as I love my one seat rides, I’ll get up if I’m in a rush.

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociationagreed and if any Deinterling projects happen, then deinterling the IRT should be top priority

@mikemanners5804

5 ай бұрын

​@@ReformpersonIs it possible to modify the city hall loop or to build a new terminus for the 6 similar to the 1 to handle more trains per hour.

@Reformperson

5 ай бұрын

@@mikemanners5804 I’m afraid not but if anything I think we can increase the 6 train frequencies by extending it to Co-op City and have it have tail tracks. Every good terminal needs tail tracks.

Get rid of 148st and convert to a secondary maintaince facility

@davidrivera9743

6 ай бұрын

Interlining IRT would require closing 145, 148 and Nostrand.

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

@@davidrivera9743nostrand can stay the other stub can go

No way the 2/5 gets deinterlined. There's pure nonsense right there.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

And what are some reasons that you give that deinterlining the 2/5 is nonsense?

@DyllanDynamik

6 ай бұрын

@@techtransitassociation Think about it. If you re-route the 5 to Jerome with the 4, what's the point of the 5 at all? It's basically getting rid of the 5 altogether. The Dyre Avenue section is the whole reason the 5 still runs! And what becomes of Lenox Terminal? Scrapped? Also the 59th Street thing is ludicrous too. There's no way A trains are gonna run local on CPW. It's already an established EXPRESS train....why confuse people??

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

@@DyllanDynamik Well, what did I say in the video? Build out the Utica Ave subway and you have a good reason to retain the 5 designation. In fact, I literally said, a bonus factor is when Utica gets built so the MTA can use it as an excuse to switch train routes. And I didn't say Lenox Terminal gets scrapped. It gets turned into a shuttle or becomes a branch of the 3. Stop trying to straw man what I am saying. That is why I designed 135th St like that. And finally, trying to use tradition to justify interlining is not an excuse when the MTA changes train routes all the time. For 50 years, the 3 was the established local on 7th Ave, and the 1 was the established express, and you know what the NYCTA did? They changed it. For 50 years, the B was the established train to 168th St and the C was the established train to Concourse. And you know what the MTA did? They swapped it. For 50 years, double letters were used and you know what the MTA did in 1985? They got rid of it. For 30 years, the BMT and IND ran separately. And you know what the MTA did? They made it run together. Tradition went out the window for these decisions and the system ran better as a result.

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

@@DyllanDynamiknone it becomes extra 4 trains not so hard it’s a simplified service. 2/3 easy routes and 4 ends up like the 6

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

@@DyllanDynamikyea Lenox gets scrapped and your point? It has some of the lowest ridership in Manhattan.

IRT riders can cry, they should stop saying they’re the best lines if they have so many complaints. They should try the far superior IND and BMT. All these daily riders and tourists act like the GLORIOUS B Division isn’t PEAK Subway. (B Division fanboy here).

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

People can like a train line and still have criticisms of it because they want to see the line improved. People can still like something and have criticisms of it because they want to make it better. Just as James Baldwin said, “I love America more than any other country in the world and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

@captainkeyboard1007

6 ай бұрын

That comment is quite impractical for so many people. They would not know the difference between the A-Division from the B-Division. All they know is to travel from origin to destination. And you are lucky to only get that.

@monica012077

6 ай бұрын

​@captainkeyboard1007 It doesn't take long for people to notice the numbered lines run smoother than the lettered lines. And have better stations.

@captainkeyboard1007

6 ай бұрын

@@monica012077 Thank you typing to me.

@qjtvaddict

6 ай бұрын

It ain’t

19:02 Why do you have an A and C if they are both the same line ?? Does the C then do local on Grand Concourse ? Also, can you stop flipping the maps every second ? I'd rather see the maps for 5 seconds each than see trains go by; let's get our priorities correct. If I wanted to see trains, then there are a hundred videos. I need to study the maps, not pretty trains and stations ! Aarre Peltomaa

“Interlining’ is a great convenience, particularly to the not-so-young and the handicapped. Check your premises.

@techtransitassociation

6 ай бұрын

Have you watched the entire video?

@theautistictransitfan

6 ай бұрын

yes, but a line that shares track with another can only run at half frequency, because the other line, even if it only shares track for 2 stations, will take up that other half of frequency. the only ways to solve this problem are adding extra tracks, which is very time consuming and expensive and would result in disruptions to service in the areas where the reconfiguration would take place, deinterlining, which removes one of the one seat rides, or dramatically reducing the frequency of one of the 2 lines. In an ideal world, yes, we would build all subway lines with their own dedicated set of tracks that arent shared with any line, save for a few switches and yards, but realistically, the most viable option to benefit riders on both lines in most cases is deinterlining. However, on the IRT lines, the one seat rides are much more valuable when it is considered that the reverse branches are on opposite sides of manhattan. So it isnt always beneficial, but usually 9 times out of 10 deinterlining is the best option.

@alum6390

6 ай бұрын

"De-interlining" is also a great convenience, particularly for the 'not-so-young' and the disabled. Check YOUR premises.

@carlbro1

6 ай бұрын

Who's gonna tell him that interlining's the reason we have long wait times and delays

@danielwaitzman2118

6 ай бұрын

@@carlbro1 I remember when the Transit Authority de-interlined the Broadway and Lenox Avenue lines at 96th Street in Feb. 1959. The inconvenience was palpable.