Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

137 profile views
  1. If you do it that way, though, you limit frequency of Utica and New Lots. And I agree that 5 av in the UES is a difficult sell, but I don't think it necessarily needs to go to the UES. It could go to Midtown and end there, or go to Queens, or (given the timeline we're talking about here maybe transit is integrated by now with New Jersey) go to New Jersey.
  2. The Nassau line definitely needs to be looked at in a critical way, especially given the popularity of the (look at that it only took me 20 posts to figure that out haha). Sending the Brown to Bay Ridge isn't really that much more valuable just because people still ultimately want to go to Midtown, and this is just an inherent flaw with the Nassau line. In the medium term (hopefully) maybe you could do it this way. The and take over the and in Brooklyn and Queens once the southern section of the 2 av (with provisions for 4 tracks) replaces and service on the Manhattan Bridge (under a de-interlining scheme). Stop consolidation should occur along today's line, also making sure to combine Hewes and Lorimer stations for a better transfer with the . A 3rd track connecting to Cypress Hills station and platform extensions should be done as well. The Manhattan portion of the is now a downtown shuttle. In the long term (again hopefully but realistically never), this is what I'd like to see. Start the Utica av line as a extension, but with the intention of shaving back platforms for eventual B Division conversion. The line would go first from Av U to the . And then once it was converted, extended to the and , then to the (at this point) and , and as far as the and the eventually. The goal would be to have a line with an obvious connection to the and and 2 av, you'd just need to build the tunnel. When the other 2 tracks for 2 av are built, they would take over the south of the Bowery station. To have the and connect to the Utica av line, introduce a new 5 av line which would go over the Williamsburg Bridge and would go to Middle Village and Jamaica on today's and lines. Breaking up the Nassau line, in the long term, is probably the best way to increase ridership along the corridor to provide Midtown access. In the medium term this can be done by replacing and service with and but in the long term, we'd hope to see the number of services in the outer boroughs increase with the number of services in Manhattan. Sending the and down Utica av and the and up 5 av might be the long term solution to that.
  3. I tend to favor returning the Brown M service so as to maximize the capacity you get out of the Rutgers tunnel but I understand that probably would be a hard sell. Still though, even will the Orange M, I'd think the platforms should probably be extended to accommodate 10-car trains anyway, no?
  4. No, the point is you don't want to connect a new train line to Manhattan via an existing line because it would then reduce the number of trains you can run on that existing line. So if you run Lower Montauk trains on the L or the 7, there will be less trains going to Flushing or Canarsie. So you would want an entirely new tunnel connecting Lower Montauk to Manhattan. The reason it doesn't really make sense to build the Lower Montauk Line with the connection to Manhattan is because there is not enough population density along the line in Queens to warrant the cost of tunneling under the river and then under Manhattan.
  5. I guess you could make it a light rail line, but it's not advisable to connect it to Manhattan via the L like you drew
  6. I'm saying though that the tracks should probably be used for freight or regional rail, rather than subway or I guess light rail in this case
  7. I kinda think it's best to leave the Lower Montauk line as freight or maybe an express regional rail line. Idk about subway, though, especially not sharing tracks with the L
  8. I guess in order, create a transfer between Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza. De-interline QBL so F/M trains go express via 63rd St and E trains go local via 53rd St, send the R/W up to Astoria and the N/Q up to 125th St. In terms of extensions, I'd like to see the R/W go to Laguardia, the 7 go to College Point, the F extended on Hillside Av to Springfield Blvd, the E (no longer express) extended along Jewel Av after 67th Av to Francis Lewis Blvd, and the G extended to Astoria Blvd on 21st Av after connecting to Queens/Queensboro Plaza and then Queensbridge. In terms of new lines, the Triboro of course. Getting either a new crosstown line or the Second Av Line to go up Northern Blvd to relieve the 7 would be good. I also think having a Main St light rail that connected Flushing with the Jamaica Station would be really useful for people in deep queens. I think if you do that, and you make LIRR more accessible for people in the city, you don't necessarily need a bypass line.
  9. Wouldn't you want to make people pick between an express or 53rd?
  10. If there is only one service on 6 Av, you could in theory connect the PATH to the other set of tracks, although you'd need to do station reconstruction. This also assumes that PATH and the Subway could get along and introduce free transfers, which is doubtful.
  11. I guess that makes sense. Does Queens need 4 extra tracks though? And where would they go? Bypass and Northern?
  12. I tend to think 50th is better than 57th, just because of the transfers, even if 53rd is there. But either way, and this is a genuine question idk, wouldn't it be cheaper to do two separate tunnels than one two-level tunnel?
  13. You could terminate it more North, connecting to 59th and 63rd, which would also function as a passageway for a transfer between the two
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.