Brooklyn

The thing is that if you have four lines running along QB, you might as well have them run to Manhattan instead of having the use up space when it doesn't even run to Manhattan.

 

Also, it provides a direct ride to 6th Avenue for Queens Blvd local riders (so at least they have the option of staying on the train instead of being forced to transfer to the ). 

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.

The G on Queens Blvd is useless. Additional Manhattan bound capacity via the M is a necessity even with a bypass.

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.

wasn't one of the reasons they took the off of 53rd cause i remember that the crowds really were packed into the station like gills and it was a safety hazard

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.

Mind you, the is a crosstown. Whatever route it goes, it should fulfill the ideal of connecting as many stops in Queens and Brooklyn as possible whether they be on existing lines or line yet to be built. Connecting the to Astoria isn’t necessarily the only way to eliminate the 3-seat Astoria-Flushing-Crosstown ( ) link. They could also connect Queens Plaza to Queensboro Plaza and restore service to Queens Boulevard. Of course, the Queens bypass would also have to be built to move some traffic off the Queens Boulevard trunk as well.

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.

Indeed definitely needed I can't tell you how many times I get asked how to get to the from the Eastern Parkway Line and having to direct to the , or a walk and A second fare. RX is not even a question I know we spoke a few times on a 3rd FRA compliant system that can easily be activated and integrated into the existing system i.e. Overground. I won't beat a dead horse there. to Astoria isn't a bad idea either makes sense there's some capacity that can be used. Why not!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

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.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about the original construction of the IND back in the 1930s. If the 53 St Line was 4-tracked from the start, the 63 St Line would lose a lot of its function, namely to add more capacity on the 6 Ave local tracks. Instead, the 63 St Line probably would have been a simple extension of the Broadway express tracks through Roosevelt Island and into Queens, likely onto Northern Blvd to relieve the Flushing Line. I'm uncertain if any wyes between the SAS and the 63 St Line would be built.

 

The QBL local tracks would have continued onto the 8 Ave tracks, and the QBL express tracks would have continued under 6 Ave. All QBL express trains travel via 6 Ave and the Culver Line to Church Ave (and in the future Coney Island), half of which run express in Brooklyn. The QBL local trains terminate at Hudson Terminal as planned. The 8 Ave trains are unchanged from today's . The IND would run

• 8 Ave Exp / Fulton Exp
• 8 Ave Local / Fulton Local
• Concourse Local / CPW Local / 6 Ave Exp
• Concourse Exp / CPW Exp / 6 Ave Exp
• 8 Ave Local / QBL Local, runs rush hour peak direction express between Queens Plaza and Roosevelt Ave
• Culver Local / 6 Ave Local / QBL Exp, (FF) runs express in Brooklyn
• Crosstown

The   terminate at 34 St until either the extension into Williamsburg or via the Manhattan Bridge are built.

 

I think the 6 Ave Line shouldn't have been built because it duplicates PATH, as well as the 7 Ave and Broadway Lines. It also cost a ton to build since PATH, the 6 Ave elevated, the NEC tracks, and existing subway lines were all in the way. Instead of the 6 Ave Line, I would have extended PATH up 6 Ave and have it curve west under 57 St, where it would connect with the Columbus Circle and 57 St - 7 Ave complexes. The money can be redirected to an actual East Side trunk line, namely SAS south of 53 St.

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.

That's a good question. Unlike the crosstown and lines, QBL was built with four tracks, so it'd make sense to build a four-tube river crossing straight up. Assuming that the 6 and 8 Ave lines are still four tracked, the 4 tracks from CPW and 4 from QBL would feed into them. Services would run as CPW local / 6 Ave exp, CPW exp / 8 Ave exp, QBL exp / 6 Ave local, and QBL local / 8 Ave local, with some CPW / 8 Ave local trains to fill in the gaps. In addition, there would be a third express track between 65 St and 36 St, to be used by select local trains in the peak direction. Local riders between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights would stay on their semi-express trains during rush hour, reducing the transfer volume at Roosevelt Ave. 

 

If I was planning the system though, I would've entirely forgone building the 6 Ave line for a takeover and extension of the existing PATH line, and built the first section of the SAS instead.

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.

Absolutely not. Building some backup infrastructure for emergencies is one thing; building a complex, redundant, grade separated junction in that wouldn't be used in service would only sink the business case made to the FTA at the time and the project just wouldn't have been done at all. The project already had its costs blow out of proportion.

Fair enough.

Would you agree in retrospect, one mistake was not extending the 63rd Street tunnel to go all the way across to the CPW/8th Avenue line?  If that could have been done, it would have come in very handy since then, you could have used it when needed for the to go across 63rd after a stop at Columbus Circle or when necessary send trains from 8th Avenue via the SAS to currently 96th/2nd for example.

 

That and extending Phase 2 of the SAS all the way across 125 (with a connection to the 8th Avenue Line at St. Nicholas) is something that needs to be done in my opinion.

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...

Is this 3 Av NORTH of 60 St or SOUTH of 60 St?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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.

The whole point of running the line under Second Ave / Chrystie St is to connect to Grand St.

 

Maybe....but the point of this topic was how I would design it.

I want to know how you guys would build the 2 Av Line.

 

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 60^th st (maybe E 66^th st?).

Third Avenue under 60^th st would give much better connections. So here’s how this version would look:

1. Fulton st Complex (A, C, J, 2.3.4.5)

2. Chatham Sq

3. Delancey st/Bowery

4. E. Houston (F via short passageway)

5. St.Marks Pl /3^rd Av

6. 14^th St

7. 23^rd

8. 34^th st

9. 42^nd st (passageway to Grand Central 4,5,6,7,S)

10. 53^rd st (E,M 6)

11. 59^th st(N,R,W, 4,5,6)

12. 72^nd st (2^nd Av)

13. 86^th st

14. 96^th st

15. 116^th st

16. 3^rd Av-149^th st (2,4,5)

Couldn't the just end at Bowling Green?

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

If any of you were to rebuild the Lexington Avenue Line how would you do it? Specifically, I am interested in what you would do with the City Hall Loop.

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.

Because the IND was designed to run the IRT and BMT out of business at the time.

 

If you were going to do that connection, the time to have done so would have been 1966, when all of "Radio Row" was being cleared out (save one of the Hudson Terminal Towers that I believe remained standing until 1971 when the current PATH station opened) and as part of that, you could have connected the terminal at Chambers to the Broadway line at Cortlandt, possibly having the (AA) or (or both) continue to Whitehall where it could have terminated, or perhaps had the (AA) or both run via 4th Avenue local with the then- , possibly with the becoming the line from 95th Street-Bay Ridge for example. .

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....

Or you could just extend the Rockaway Park to Woodside where you could transfer to the and for Manhattan service.

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.

As you all read my last post, I posted all the routes that were affected in the 2010 cuts. All of them should be restored or at least, modified to meet the demands of people that lived in areas affected by the service cuts. B37 to Court Street. B61 split form the B77. B57 split from the B75. B69 bus off from Flatbush, 7th, and McDonald Avs to Kensington. B49LTD should operate between KCC and Fulton, weekdays from 6am to 10pm.

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

FWIW, LIberty av is dead, fam.... There's no benefit to bringing back bus service along Liberty if the MTA knows they're getting away with murder with how they're running service on the Q24... On top of that, for as many people that falls within the catchment area of the Q24... Go 'head, look at how much bus service there is binding the , , Penn av, and Crescent st..... Huge catchment area isn't it..... And the part that sucks is that splitting the Q24 isn't a viable option either, since the masses are seeking either Lefferts, Woodhaven, or Jamaica proper, and the usage west of B'way Junction is & has increased

 

As for the B12, only thing I miss about it running to City Line was that I'd walk the 1 stop back (before Alabama av, across the street from the eastern side of ENY Depot) to evade the crowd at Alabama av for the ride back west..... There would almost always be less than 5 people on the bus coming from City Line, before any embarking occurred at Alabama itself..... Amazing how it took the MTA so long to realize all the mileage that was being wasted by running B12's east of Alabama av .....

 

How long is it that the both of us have been preachin this (in bold).....

 

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.

No one would ever need to use a connection like that, and I say that as someone who commuted through Jamaica for at least a decade.

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?

I did leave the alone aside from the new transfer passage at Main Street. I'm helping the . Isn't that what people wanted? With this new line, all the could have to really worry about is passengers coming from points south. The NBL would handle passengers from the north. Then, the two would share the riders in between the two. 

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.

Cost. Expanding MNR row is orders of magnitude easier (if not cheaper) than tunneling under Third Av.

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...

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zh758mgJc1tw.kMt-J-aY8MeQ Here's my proposal for an SAS to the Bronx. In this case, the would not run overnight, the and will now run express in Brooklyn during the day and evening, and all trains that used to run to Lefferts Boulevard will now run to Howard Beach (the replaces the to that station days and evenings). Also, the portion along Pelham Parkway would be built as a concrete viaduct and the express tracks would be built below the local tracks between 116th Street and 14th Street. And lastly, the Transit Museum would have to be relocated to the abandoned platforms at Bowery or Canal Street on the line.

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.

 

So they should definitely extend the B8 and 35 there now. The plaza may not be much by itself to warrant that, but again, to take advantage of the better environment (than the previous desolate junk yards and garages) for the transfer to the (which would be really useful for crossing the boro).

Again; it's just a matter of extending them on a simple four block (six for the B8) clockwise loop, down New Lots, plenty of layover space on Junius, and then back via Hegeman.

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.

you must be trippin. And what do you do sir. Next topic

Not exactly. proposals B100s.

 

1) renumber B100 to B22. 

2) New Bay ridge to JFK B105 Stopping at : 86th street then 95th subway

Sheepshead bay subway and then Knapp @nostrand 

Canarsie pier

Lefferts Airtrain and final stop woodhaven at 157th.

3) B101 rockaway Blvd subway to kings plaza via same routing as BM5 then via canarsie pier next and last stop kings plaza.

4)B108 bay ridge sheepshead bay via cropsey , Belt & provides local services along BM3's route upto ocean and ave x. Stops only at transfer points on 86th& cropsey to connect with local buses. 

Bm3 gets some service restoration. X28 gets sat service.

 

B108& 101 would start off as Mon-sat service.

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.