Brooklyn

With a bypass, there'd be five lines--I think four is enough. If you had the bypass going local to 179th after 71st Continental, effectively making the F and express throughout Queens, you'd pick up a lot of those Jamaica passengers. If they catch the G instead of the R, they'll have room on either the E or the F at Roosevelt or Queens Plaza for a transfer. And you won't have a gap in local service if things go wrong in Manhattan, which they often do. And you'd have lines which don't merge as much--helping maintain reliability of service and a more even distribution of passengers. I wouldn't say useless.....i think it's also about having a reliable feeder line and having even service along the local. It's also about streamlining service and not having them merge as much. Not to mention, I'd imagine the market has grown for a Brooklyn QB service. Bottom line, the bypass is the priority. But I think if the bypass happens, the need for a orange M (with the F going back to 53rd st) would diminish. And many F train riders from Brooklyn would like that Midtown East Stop back.....it would save a transfer at Bleecker for the 6.

Still is a safety hazard with the M.... I really hate the M train alignment--very disruptive IMO. And F train riders from Brooklyn would like to get to Midtown East (50s) too. The Queens Blvd alignment in the 90s was good. Just add a bypass line, and you're set. I like having the G on Queens Blvd....You have a feeder line so riders don't have long gaps of service on the local tracks . You're also helping even the crowds on the express trains by this too. I think it's better for everyone if the G came back.

Making Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza into one station probably should have been done a long time ago. That would give a lot of operational flexibility....You could run a shuttle to Astoria and have people transfer if you need to cut N service. If 7 trains need to be cut, you have another transfer point. I agree about the bypass....no brainer, but the political will is lacking. Nothing I'd like to see more than the E and F running back on 53rd st and the G and R back as the two locals.

Probably does need to happen...the distance is a pain, but looking at street level maps, I think it can be mitigated if they build a passageway from the B and Q platform (St. Felix place) to the westernmost side of the G platform. So you'd have a Canal Street type arrangement, basically (hate that transfer by the way). Another cost saving (but inferior) transfer could be at Hoyt/Schermerhorn to the 2/3 lines...that wouldn't be too much of a dig and it would help out the A/C lines too--something like that would have helped today, especially. Regarding Queens, going to Astoria would be a decent idea--someone had suggested building a side platform at Queens Plaza, bringing in the G then having it joining the N train as an elevated.....not a bad idea. 21st st would be neat too---lots more development would happen in that part of Astoria. But generally, I think the G can be a little more useful than it is if the connections were better and it got extended more in Queens.

I don't like the extension across 125 for the SAS--I do agree with some here that it should go to the Bronx with transfers to the Lex line at 138th st and 149th st . Even if it terminated at 149th st, I'd be ok with it. Do that, and you’ll put a dent in some of the capacity issues of the Lex Line. The times I have traveled on either the 2 or 5, I've always wondered about that two track segment south of 149th st....any disruptions, you basically have screwed the entire middle and eastern portion of the borough (except along the 6). I really think that WP needs some kind of relief and additional transfer points...this should be coupled with the D being extended at LEAST one more stop to meet up with the 2 train either at Gun Hill or Burke. And yes, there is a need for a crosstown Bronx subway service—the D could fill this need at least somewhat. Ideal world, the D (as was planned) goes to Co-op city—and it can do this in 4 extra stops. Just my two cents.

Interesting.... My idea was to keep service the same for the most part, just build a higher capacity terminal at WTC (with a walkway for the transfer to Fulton st--that way, there'll always be 8th av service at Fulton st in case Cranberry shuts down). I would also rebuild 71- Continental to turn more TPH (at least 26). EE service would run from WTC to 71st Continental, all local via 8th av, 53rd st and QBL. The E--WTC to 179th or Jamaica Center via 8th av express and QBL express The G would go back to 71st Continental. I'd probably also add a two track lower level at 34th st (SB) to terminate some local trains.

Interesting....so what would go through 63rd? Also, where would the QBL /8th avenue trains terminate (both ends)? I've also thought about a EE train with its own tracks--I think it would do wonders for Queens Blvd. Now, your last idea is extremely interesting. No 6th avenue line, the system looks really different. I am curious--how would you do it? And yes, what a shame PATH wasn't extended....the least that could have been done was go to 42nd st (I'll take Grand Central)...The 33rd st terminal is a major pain in the rear end--too many jobs in Midtown East for it not to go to. Fair enough.

I've actually thought about that (63st to 8th avenue).....it would have been a good idea, actually and helpful during fastrack or any reroutes...

3rd Avenue South of 60th st.... The connections are much better with other train lines and I think this alignment would take an unbelievable amount of pressure off the Lex line as you'd have a transfer at 149th st , 59th st , 51 st , 42nd St (4,5,6), Astor Place , Fulton st (4 and 5). So you'd have a TRUE relief line. This is how I would do it. Maybe....but the point of this topic was how I would design it.

I had a quick thought of actually running it on the Bowery (after Chatham) then to THIRD Avenue….it would then cross over to Second avenue after 60th st (maybe E 66th st?). Third Avenue under 60th st would give much better connections. So here’s how this version would look: Fulton st Complex (A, C, J, 2.3.4.5) Chatham Sq Delancey st/Bowery E. Houston (F via short passageway) St.Marks Pl /3rd Av 14th St 23rd 34th st 42nd st (passageway to Grand Central 4,5,6,7,S) 53rd st (E,M 6) 59th st(N,R,W, 4,5,6) 72nd st (2nd Av) 86th st 96th st 116th st 3rd Av-149th st (2,4,5)

Sure, but if I had a limited budget, just Fulton st....to me, that's the most important. Unlimited, Bowling Green, yes.

If I had a limited budget: Extend the 6 to Fulton st. I was looking at a track map and I noticed that there are two tail tracks leading from the SB local tracks. I would see about connecting one of those tracks to the NB local. I'd make a station there. It'd be like the E train at WTC. The loop would stay as is, but would be used if there's congestion at Fulton st--the trains could turn back there. Other than that, I really wouldn't change much. I think the line was designed pretty well. As was mentioned, I might scrap 28th st... I might also consider widening 86th Street (both levels) with middle tracks to allow both express and local trains to terminate--like Whitehall. This could be used to create a short 6 train from 86th st to Fulton st during the morning rush. During the morning, NB 6 trains empty out after 86th st..if some of those trains were able to turn back at 86th st and continue Downtown, that would be a better utilization of resources. If I had an unlimited budget: I would keep the upper level/lower level configuration for the entirety of Manhattan (to Bowling Green). There's a twist: the upper level would have three tracks--the middle track would be express , peak direction only, just like in the Bronx. The would make the same stops as the 4 and 5.

Right....but I am talking about a transfer (tunnel)...not necessarily a continuation of the line. The E can remain at WTC....but I don't see why a passageway can't be built now . This really wouldn't be a huge project at all (unless I am missing something). Just like in another thread someone brought up connecting the R to the 2 and 3 at Park Place---when I look at the station configuration, we are also talking about maybe 200-300 ft of passageway. These are seemingly easy projects that can give more operational flexibility. Another idea I had was to reactivate the old City Hall Station on the 6 train....build a passageway to the Fulton St complex--take some pressure off the 4 and 5 trains. Again, we'd be talking about maybe 400 ft of passageway.

Not to change the current topic, but I was able to figure out the neighborhood map feature (mta.info) It's really interesting seeing the station layout on a block level. I know transfers have been discussed a lot, but I was staring at the Fulton St complex. I really didn't realize how CLOSE the E train terminal is to the transfer. The entrance to the E train is literally about 230 ft to the entrance of the 4 and 5 trains. Why was a connection never built? I'd imagine you'd take a good amount of pressure off the A and C trains, especially if the Cranberry tubes need to be shut down/service needs to be rerouted. I don't think this would be a terribly difficult or expensive transfer....

Isn't there an unused platform at Roosevelt-Jackson Heights? You get 5 train lines there as opposed to one at Woodside. I'd be all for a shuttle train from Rockaway Park to Jackson Heights...that would be a nice reliable and extremely useful route.

I don't agree that all of the routes you listed should be restored, but I definitely agree with the B61/B77.....They took an extremely reliable route (B77) and destoyed it. The cut back B61 was good too--they got it right when they seperated the route into the 61/62. The newer 61 looks good on paper and seems reasonable, but no understanding of traffic patterns went into it. The 71 should be brought back but with some modifications--I would send it through the Battery to Bowling Green (not South Ferry). That way it can

I never understood why they don't have the Q24 turn on either Georgia or Alabama Avenue rather than Pennsylvania--- IMO that would shave at least 3-5 minutes off the trip, especially when it's rush hour. There's too much traffic off the Jackie Robinson. Coming back, maybe it should follow the B20 on Fulton st to Pennsylvania.

This is moreso for scheduling and capacity and flexibility purposes on the QB express, that's all. I was thinking the E can make its usual stops (Jamaica Center and Sutphin) then be able to use the 179th Street terminal. Whatever train that goes via Jamaica Center won't be limited to 12 TPH. Also I figure that people at 179th st would like the E too... (rather than the 3 TPH during rush hours). If say there is a disruption on the E train, some F trains can be sent via Jamaica Center and resume service. Again, this is more for flexibility. Thanks for the response.

How about extending the E train to 179th street via Jamaica Center? A section would have to be built on either 153rd st or Parsons Blvd connecting it to Hillside Av....It would form a cup handle.. I think this would give much more scheduling flexibility to the QB express service. Thoughts?

A Northern Blvd line would be a winner---stress would be taken off both the Flushing and Queens Blvd lines. It would be a nice short and sweet route. I've had ideas about that and where it would terminate in Manhattan. I was thinking it go into Manhattan as a 42nd st crosstown with the ...of course, the 42nd street stretch would have to be rebuilt with additional tracks, though. In another universe, I would rebuild the 42nd street stretch with 6 tracks--room for the , the new Northern Blvd line AND a full time QB local terminating at 179th street. Maybe the Northern Blvd line would go to Penn Station.

Oh, he mentioned that before? Sorry I missed that.

I just zoomed in on the Bronx portion--I noticed you put in along the Metro North tracks and Morris Avenue--why not along Third avenue so there's a transfer with the and at 149th st? I feel that 3rd Av/Boston Road could really use a potential station rather than Park and 162nd...

Looks good: makes the major transfers, serves as relief and a lifeline for people in the Bronx and fills in a major service gap in Manhattan. It also gives an 'assist' to the A and C in Brooklyn. This line would also be relatively fast too. If this hasn't already been said, I would put a stop on 23rd Street and either 86 or 96th Street. If it's going to connect to Fulton st, might as well have that Court Street stop and possibly a transfer to Borough Hall 2,3,4,5,R trains). 23rd would be the priority---there's too much around there and it is poorly served by the subway. Other than that, rock solid.

I agree. On a personal note, I wanted to see the limited extended to the New Lots Avenue Station --just four stops--Van Sinderen, Pennsylvania, Van Siclen and New Lots. But I'll take an extension to Van Sinderen. It's just a royal pain to get around in East New York--ENY is a huge neighborhood. To me, lots of the bus routing out there makes no sense.

I actually really like the B105 idea. That actually sounds like a great idea. I see this bus getting decent ridership. As another crosstown limited service that I see getting very, very decent ridership would be a route from Bay Ridge to JFK that used Ft Hamilton Parkway and Linden Blvd. It would serve Sunset Park, Boro Park, Kensington, Flatbush, East Flatbush, Brownsville and East NY. It would pretty much use Linden Blvd most of its route. It would make stops here: 4th Av/95th st 4th Av/86th st Ft. Hamilton Pkwy/Bay Ridge Pkwy Ft. Hamilton Pkwy/60th st Ft. Hamilton Pkwy/49th st (Maimonides) Ft. Hamilton Pkwy Station Ft. Hamilton Pkwy/39th st Caton/McDonald Av Caton/Coney Island Av Caton/St. Pauls Place Linden Blvd/Nostrand Av Linden Blvd/Albany av Linden Blvd/Utica Av Linden Blvd/Kings Hwy Linden Blvd/E98th st Possible stop near van Sinderen?? Linden Blvd/Pennsylvania av Linden Blvd/Ashford st Linden Blvd/Fountain av Linden Blvd/Eldert Lane JFK Might even toy with taking it off Linden before Van Sinderen and putting it on New Lots with the B15. Either way, this route would be foolproof--no doubt in my mind it's going to get very good ridership. But I do think the MTA should utilize some of these highways and boulevards more.