Armandito

For the Rockaway extension, I'd keep current service as is and replace the Rockaway Park with an extension of an SAS route from Manhattan.

I wouldn't overcomplicate things like you're doing now. I'd just leave current subway service as is and just extend the along the Atlantic Branch to Sutphin Blvd.

Better yet, you should only consider a Northern Boulevard subway line as its own route as I mentioned earlier. You'll undermine use of its full capacity if you choose to have it as a trunk line serving multiple routes.

Leave the alone. Extending it in any way, shape, or form will doom the entire line to become unreliable and serpentine like the currently is. Doesn't help the fact that the has already been overcrowded thanks to the gentrification of Bushwick and Williamsburg.

Thoughts on this? -Expand B6 LTD service to operate 7 days a week (B6 local service would continue to operate overnight) -Establish a new route between Avenue J/Coney Island Av and JFK Airport by extending current B6 local short-turns at the Rockaway Parkway station to the latter, with the new route being the successor to daytime B6 local service -Former B6 local buses that operated to Harway Av would be converted to B6 LTD buses, making local stops west of Coney Island Av

The more feasible way to go would be to install barriers along the breadth of the bypass. I also recently suggested building the stop at Woodside as high elevated platforms right above the existing and LIRR stations, though I'm not so sure if this is the best idea.

It did, but that was after the LIRR abandoned service on the Rockaway Beach Branch in 1962. Even so, that still wouldn't have triggered FRA compliance because the trackways of the bypass wouldn't be connecting to the Main Line in any way, even though they'd run parallel. Think of the layout of trackage along Sixth Avenue; the trains run adjacent to PATH between W 4 St and 34 St but neither of the two trunk lines connect with each other.

In the original 1968 plan, the QBL Bypass was to be relatively isolated from the Main Line on its own trackways. No need for FRA regulation compliance there.

I personally wouldn't do that; the spare capacity on 63rd could be better utilized for a bypass along the Main Line ROW between Sunnyside Yard and Forest Hills-71 Av, which could also spare room for a subway line along the LIE to Fresh Meadows (as I outlined here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&cid=mp&cv=50pJvT5O5ys.en.). This could also pave the way for a new SAS service from the Financial District to Queens. Should the PW Branch ever be converted to subway use, it would be better off as its own service than as a trunk line serving multiple routes or an existing one. A tunnel extension under 50th Street would certainly be ideal for a potential subway route along the PW Branch.

My plan closely mimics the original 1968 proposal from the Program for Action, in case you didn't know. Similar but with a few modifications.

There are two unused trackways located on the outermost sides of the LIRR Main Line; these were abandoned since the Rockaway Beach Branch closed down in 1962. The segment west of the junction with PW could be built as an el, with the Woodside station being built above the existing and LIRR platforms. For the LIE Line, the tracks would go outdoors via a portal near Lefrak City and also become an el, more or less in the style of AirTrain JFK along the Van Wyck (it would be depressed along the segments where the highway rises above ground; these would be the sections passing Flushing Meadows-Corona Park and around Utopia Pkwy).

@engineerboy6561 My plan calls for the LIRR right-of-way along Sunnyside to be used for a bypass parallel to the QBL between Queensbridge and Forest Hills, which would be used by trains; the existing QBL express tracks would be used by and trains via 8 and 2 Avs, respectively. Woodhaven Blvd would be converted to an express station with provisions for subway service along the LIE to 188 St, to be served by trains on weekdays and trains during other times. 63 Dr and 67 Av would only be served by trains during the day, but this would be compensated by the addition of Woodhaven as a new express stop. How does this sound?

No, just one SAS service. My plan calls for the LIE Line to follow this service pattern: Weekdays: to 188 St via 53 St/QB Local, to 179 St via 63 St/QB Express, skipping 75 Av, Briarwood, Sutphin Blvd, and 169 St Late nights and weekends: replaces to 188 St; no service to 179 St

If the QBL Bypass and LIE Line were already on the books: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=18jFWx4hiotMYgqkD5i3yJtylRH_0EBa3&ll=40.71225279709198%2C-74.02131743453633&z=11

Made a revised proposal with the serving the LIE Line: The service patterns would be as follows: rerouted via QBL Bypass at all times rerouted from 71 Av to 188 St on weekdays; late night and weekend service unchanged New subway line operates from Hanover Sq at all times, making express stops in Queens. Weekdays to 179 St (making express stops east of 71 Av); other times to 188 St to replace trains. and service remains unchanged

IIRC, a few people in one of my FB groups have even suggested rebuilding the abandoned Bayside Yard and adding extra service on the PW Branch instead of building a new subway line along Northern. I'm not very enthusiastic about this plan because of the different fare structure on the LIRR.

Which of the Bayside alignments would work best for my proposal: straight along Northern Boulevard or via Crocheron and 35th Avenues?

Thoughts? Second Avenue Local/Queens Boulevard Super Express: Hanover Square to Fresh Meadows (all times) or 179 St (all times except nights) *Woodhaven Blvd converted to express stop

That's unfortunate. On the other hand, had a Northern Boulevard subway been built at the time the other IND lines opened (during the Depression), it would've been a completely different story.

Didn't the PANYNJ assist with part of the construction of the Sixth Avenue Line?

Just for reference:

Because that would require interlining to some extent, and the general trend in recent years is for two-track lines with stations spaced further apart. As you can see in my route map here (https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.76156963855868%2C-73.88143614999998&z=10), my proposal has fewer stops between LIC and Flushing than the train. While not the fastest way to get to Manhattan, fewer stops and CBTC treatment would pay off accordingly. (Note that the stops at 36 St and Queens Plaza would be built underneath the existing platforms along the QBL.)

Which is why I designed my Northern Boulevard subway line ( train) to be its own route instead of a trunk line serving multiple services. You get to maximize route capacity and there's much less propensity for delays due to the lack of interlining. (Needless to say, I got rid of the third track in the latest revision of my proposal and settled for just two tracks like the SAS.)

I don't think that's an option at all. The in its current form is too popular to route back to Nassau Street and Ridgewood commuters would be livid if this were to happen. They want Midtown, not downtown service--especially when taking into account how much ridership trends on Myrtle have changed over the past decades or so. We should leave the Williamsburg connection alone and focus on building that transfer at Bowery.

The part was mostly justified as it has been already been unpopular with QBL riders before getting the boot. For the part, it probably had to do with switch reconfiguration at 96th. That's just my inference though. For the part, it would've been better if the made the sacrifice by building the QBL bypass instead of connecting it to an already congested subway artery. Now everyone seems to agree that the should be axed from the QBL for good... And let's not forget that conductors had to literally advertise the in announcements because it was so underutilized, not to mention the natural human instinct of automatically associating express trains with faster service even if there's little or no time saved compared to the local.