EvilMonologue

2 hours ago, Reptile said:

Do you think an extension of the and to NJ would be warranted? The would be extended north to 72nd St in order to connect the West Side.

I think PATH and Subway integration is something that should definitely happen, at least in so far as allowing free transfers between the two systems. Personally, I'd like it if the  and  were extended to NJ, since I agree that the  is in a preferable location to serve as a 72nd St line, and there is a lot of demand to connect NJ with NY. I understand Hudson County isn't as populous as Brooklyn, but if Brooklyn has 9 track pairs, I'd think NJ could handle 1 or 2 more. Queens is a greater priority though.

7 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

If that were to happen, PANYNJ would take over the line, and just by looking at PATH's weekend service frequency, you can tell that won't be a good thing

I mean the MTA operates Metro North trains through New Jersey and into Connecticut, so I'm not sure that is necessarily the case.

4 hours ago, Armandito said:

Thoughts? https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.75917812494056%2C-73.9353563574515&z=13

I'd add a stop where the Triboro Line would intersect with Northern Blvd, so that would mean either adding a stop by the BQE or moving the one at 73rd St. Also, for the stops in Manhattan, sending the line down 11th Av and either above or below the  would be complex and expensive, so I might have a terminal, at least for the time being, at 10th Av. Also it's worth considering having the stop on Broadway instead of 8th Av, connecting the  with  trains instead of with the , just because they are spaced closer together, though I understand the logic of doing it as you've done. Just my two cents.

IMO the shorter term solution to a 3rd Av service in the Bronx is to improve Metro North frequency and lower price, rather than a new subway on 3rd Av or running the subway along MNRR tracks

17 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Connecting the  to the 11th Street cut would give it access to Queens Plaza in place of the , but would also make it considerably slower in that area. So is that really a good trade off?

Well if the  would be made the local, then I'd say connectivity is more important than speed.

20 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

With #1 and #2, it allows trains (local trains in particular) to terminate, then deadhead to the yard while Peak Express Stations would take over the local stations north. This allows for a greater flexibility in Transit operations. Thing about #1 is that the  is only skipping 2 more stops. 

I guess if it improves operations for terminals, that's good, I hadn't thought about it in that regard. I think I'd still have the peak express  and  trains make the local stops until Fordham and Parkchester, respectively, though.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 - 2 Stop reroute up 21st Street.

I wouldn't reroute the  in a way that necessarily removes the possibility of a transfer to the Astoria line.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

- Central Avenue and Knickerbocker Avenue stations should be rebuilt as Island Platforms with ADA Accessibility. The way I envision it is similar to the way other posters on here envision converting local stations into peak express stations on lines that have 3 tracks. This however, would require a closure of the Myrtle Line between Broadway and Wycoff Avenue. As a bonus, a new track could be added between Knickerbocker and Myrtle-Wycoff in case a train needs to be laid up or short turn. 

 Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't see much of a need to have peak express stations on the Myrtle Av Line, especially when the space for the third track is only for three stops. I do think that converting the platforms on Central Av, Knickerbocker Av, and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs into island platforms, filling in the space where the third track would be, and adding ADA accessibility would be good, though. Adding the upper level to the Myrtle Av station to make merges easier with the  is also something I'd do there.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Local-Peak Express Station Conversions (some of these could work but I find Questionable):

1. Westchester Square  
2. Bedford Park Blvd
3. Fordham Road
4. 161st-Yankee Stadium Train Platforms
5. 161st-Yankee Stadium  Train Platforms 

I wouldn't do #1 or #2, I think a  would work better in a similar way to the , where trains don't move onto the third track until after stopping at several stations. In this case, the  could make all stops until a converted Fordham Rd stop, and then continue until Yankee Stadium, which would also be converted.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Transfers:

1. Lexington 59th - Lexington 63rd
2. Broadway Lafayette - Prince Street
3. Queens Plaza - Queensboro Plaza
4. Grand Street - Bowery

I know it isn't in a particular order, but I'd say #1 and #3 are the most pressing. Also, regarding Queens Plaza, someone posted the idea of using the 11th St Cut for the , making it able to stop at Queens Plaza. I think that would be a good idea, making Queens Blvd de-interlining more palatable.

46 minutes ago, RR503 said:

...so the only line with a plausible claim of ridership growth constraints is Canarsie. 

The thrust of this analysis should be clear, but if it isn't: the Canarsie Line cannot handle a Utica branch. 

So how would the Eastern Parkway be split up?

49 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Judging by what I’ve seen, it’ll be a hard job. It’s not like they can just move the local tracks and steel beams to make room for platforms. There is a lower level which has support structures to keep the upper level from coming down. 50 Street was originally not supposed to have a lower level when it was planned. It was added by community request. Otherwise, the and would have run express together with the going to World Trade Center.

Would it be possible to have the  stop at the local platforms, and build a structure connecting those tracks to the express tracks before the  rises from the lower level? (If that makes sense) Alternatively, would it be possible to have the  be local on 8th Av and have the  and another service be express? This would make 50th at least more palatable. My concern with 57th is just how Phase 3 SAS would connect, at least since I think there should be a station around 60th - 63rd Sts to connect the  with 59th St station complex, and the other station would then be around 50th St, connecting to the  at 53rd St. Though I suppose the station could be located around 55th, it would be very close to a 61st (ish) St station. Maybe that's preferable though and an argument for 57th St.

Also, regarding the , I've imagined the  going up Crescent St after Court Sq, connecting at Queensboro Plaza, and then turning West along Queens Plaza N, then turning North to connect to the  at 21st St - Queensbridge. If you were to continue the  up 21st St and then into Manhattan, I think it should go along 86th St rather than 125th St. I think 125th St could be served by the Triboro.

How easy would it be to convert 50th St on 8th Av into an express station, and have the  as the 8th Av express lines? Thinking about this with regard to a 50th St line. 

I was just wondering, why it is that they decided to build the tunnel on 63rd St as opposed to 61st St, where, it would be able to connect to the Broadway lines and the Lexington lines?

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Compare this to the Broadway to IND transfer. There is one transfer that isn't done well that this additional transfer would do better, and that is Astoria/East Side traffic to the UWS and beyond. You can kind of do this change at Times Square, but 57th St is an earlier opportunity to make this connection and it moves transfer volume out of Times Square.

How much would something like that cost? Presumably more than the Jay St - Metrotech Connection which was shorter and something like $150 million? Or was that cost mainly because of station renovation? I also wonder if there are better transfers that could be constructed or station upgrades for that kind of money. 

How long of an in-station transfer is still useful? I think we'd agree the connection to the  to the rest of Times Sq is too far, but would a connection from the  at 50th St to the  at 7th Av be within the realm of feasibility? Likewise, would connecting the  at 57th St - 7th Av to the  at 7th Av be too far? These are connections that I suppose can be made at Times Sq, after the  renovation, but it would be less of a walk, and would improve the 's role as a crosstown line. Is it just not worth the money? Maybe it is?

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

I was reading the LGA Access Improvement Project documents and came across this proposal:

It’s interesting, but if this had any remote chance of being built as proposed, it would essentially turn the 36 Street local tracks into another bottleneck for Queens Boulevard. The split should—instead—start as far west as Court Square as an extension of the to a lower level of Queens Plaza, thereby avoiding any reduction in Queens Boulevard capacity. The dead-ends at Court Square anyway, so with a connection to the at Queens Plaza, this would—at the very least—make it more useful to ordinary passengers.

Idk if you just were talking about the route initially being an extension of the  but I'd point out that a subway connecting to LGA should go to Manhattan since that's where most people flying in would want to go. That being said a transfer would not be the end of the world, though if you are catering to air passengers, having a multi-level transfer with luggage would likely be a pain. That being said, it is an interesting proposal for sure.

Is it a crazy idea to just have more shuttles sort of like what is done on weekends? As in the  would end at Myrtle Av, the Dyre Av Branch of the  at 180th St, the  just being a shuttle from Lenox Terminal to 135th St, the  running from Bay Ridge to 59th St in Brooklyn... If you timed the transfers right it could be a good way to cut down on costs, though it would be a pain for riders.

Also, the most recent post from Second Av Sagas talked about the budget shortfall, and basically concluded with saying that cuts to service, like we saw after the 2008 Recession, really only saved around $20 million, and that organizational fixes like having one conductor per train on LIRR could save much more than service cuts. Either way it seems like the MTA needs a bailout from the federal government because no amount of reasonable service cuts are going to close the gap in the budget.

2 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Yup; that's basically it. 57 St misses the  but lets me hit the ; it lets me basically serve every major corridor in Manhattan. I wasn't really thinking of bringing the PATH to Queens (unless it were actually integrated with NYC subway), but that might be an option if we had fare integration.

It might be better to have 57th St as a separate line connecting NJ, Manhatthan, and Queens, rather than having Bergenline/JFK be split up into North and South sections feeding into 57th St. I'd imagine having a continuous line would be in high demand.

6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Not sure if this would count as a subway proposal but how about using the PATH to serve Alphabet City? 

It could turn on 9th Street as there's a provision there for the PATH to turn. The stops could be the following:

- Astor Place (connection with the and  

- 2nd or 1st Avenue. 

- Avenue B (Could be a 3 or 4 track Platform for a Brooklyn extension)

(Swing Down Avenue C)

- 6th Street?

- Houston Street

- Grand Street

- East Broadway (connection to the ) and terminate. 

The Sole purpose of this extension is to serve the Alphabet City because its clear that SAS won't be able to do it)

You'd also probably have most PATH riders upset because now the train doesn't go where most of the jobs are

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

Question: does anyone know what the positions of the 11 St connection and 63 St Line are where they pass over each other?

I wonder how hard it'd be to punch through a pair of tracks with flat junctions to both. It'd allow relatively pain free operation from 6th to Queens Plaza, which would resolve some issues I have with QBL deinterlining.

What kind of service are you thinking of? The  via 63rd, then South to the 11th St cut, connecting to Queens Plaza and then using the Queens Blvd local tracks?

27 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

True, though I still believe that Second Avenue could allow for better service coverage between 63rd and 42nd. While the transfers would be much easier, I feel that much of this can be better served by both the Northern Blvd Line and the SAS being hooked up with the Queens Blvd Line to replace current service on the local tracks (concurrent with building a new Queens subway from the 63rd Street Tunnel for the , and the SAS below 63rd Street being 4 tracks). The Northern Blvd Line would provide an alternative to the Flushing Line and the connect with the SAS at 72nd Street, while the Queens Blvd-SAS connection would provide an East-West Midtown pairing on the QBL, with the SAS on the local tracks to 71st Avenue  and providing express service to West Midtown. With both, passengers can avoid the Lexington-Queens transfers altogether, and simply use the SAS instead between work and home (in the case of Queens Blvd, they can take one SAS train between home and work).

The transfers at 42nd and 55th Street should be built as planned, though with the new connections and lines, I do foresee them being little used by riders travelling to/from Queens as most folks will use the SAS instead due to convenience of access in Queens, but that's just my take on things.

For those that may insist on using Lexington Avenue, they should see trains less crowded since the SAS won't take all the ridership off Lexington, but rather take off a large chunk of riders to a point where there is breathing room on the trains.

I may reevaluate that option if possible.

Is the benefit of greater coverage for two stations worth the decreased connections of those stations for the entire line though? I also don't personally like the idea of planning for an interlined subway, though I acknowledge this is personal preference. And even so, with an interlined SAS, while riders looking to go to and from Queens might be less affected, riders wanting to go West in Manhattan or go to Astoria would still find transfers more difficult or non-existent. The loss of coverage, in my mind, represents benefits to the whole line that are not reliant on interlining which would reduce frequencies, and even riders who are most affected still find closer subway access since it is on 3rd Av rather than Lex.

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

It's working.

Now that I see it, I would like to offer some of my own feedback. For the Second Avenue Subway, I've seen some of the discussion for the lower end of Second Avenue, and I don't know if I'm in the minority, but I do disagree with the SAS below 63rd Street routed along 3rd Avenue. My reasoning for it is because of its proximity to the Lexington Avenue Line to be useful. Yes you would have easier transfers to the current Queens-Manhattan crosstown lines, but the Third Avenue routing leaves much of the East Side east of 2nd Avenue a bit of a hike from the subways. For me, I'd rather keep SAS 3 on 2nd Avenue to allow for better access to the United Nations on 42nd Street and to residential areas east of 2nd Avenue.

I get where you're coming from, but if you include a turn onto 2nd Av South of 42nd St you mitigate a lot of that. The stations on 3rd Av at 42nd and 53rd would be as close to 1st Av as the existing  stations are to York Av, so it's not as though there is no benefit since the subway is still closer for riders living on the East side. I guess I assume the increased ease of transferring throughout the rest of the system would lead to more riders than a Subway that is closer to where people live but makes it harder to transfer. If transfers are very inconvenient or don't exist, as would be the case throughout midtown for the SAS, a lot of riders would likely choose to walk to the  anyway.

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  and any other SAS services really need to be their own self-contained trunk line if we don’t want to force them to run at half capacity or force other lines like QB local or 8th Ave to run with fewer tph than they could or should...

...but I honestly can’t see the MTA being in favor of building a third line on the UES in between the existing SAS and the Lex, even if it is cheaper and wouldn’t have as many stops as the  or the  on upper 2nd Avenue. I don’t know if 2nd is wide enough to bore two more tracks beside the existing ones. I doubt it is. Maybe one option for a Queens service could be to have the  continue up 3rd until 72nd St, turn right, have a transfer with the  at 72nd and 2nd, then continue on into Queens that way. Squeezing the  and  onto the existing two-track Phase 1 and future Phase 2, will be a very tight squeeze, so that’s not such a great option either (though it is possible).

I agree that building the tunnel to Queens as you've described it is a higher priority than building more express service in the UES. I also don't think it's a good idea to have the  connect to the existing SAS, like you've said, because it necessarily limits capacity on both the  and the . 

14 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I can’t see them leaving the existing SAS as stub. Plus one reason for going with 2nd over 3rd was to fill the gap east of the , especially below 23rd St, where Manhattan begins its “bulge.” Though an alignment on 3rd does make for much easier transfers with the cross-river tunnel lines in Midtown. And just going with the MTA’s current four-phase plan is bad because it leaves Phases 3 and 4 with far less service than there should be, unless a Queens-SAS service is simultaneously implemented when the  debuts. But even if there is a Queens-SAS service in addition to the , it’ll still be limited in frequency by being on the same two tracks with the  and any other trains it shares tracks with in Queens (or Brooklyn for that matter). 

South of 42nd St, as others have mentioned, turning the  from 3rd to 2nd would be a good way to provide both transfers in Midtown and better subway coverage for the LES where Manhattan bulges.

11 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Here’s something to consider: Phase 3 and 4 will most likely not be complete for at least 30 years given MTA problems. Personally, rather than waste time thinking about all these alignments, people should focus on making the first two SAS phases as useful as possible- that means sending both the  up SAS, extending the 125th street line to 8th, and thinking about the merits of Bronx extensions such as one up 3rd or Webster. I’d much rather see SAS phase 3-4 $ be used to bring service to the central Bronx (where construction can be much cheaper and cut and cover due to less dense construction) than spend a huge period of time building an astronomically expensive subway. 

I don't think these things are mutually exclusive, though. Phase "2.5" where you extend the SAS across 125th St probably makes sense to do before creating a new service down the East Side of Manhattan. You could also have it branch with one covering 125th St and the other covering 3rd Av in the Bronx. Having service South of 63rd St, though, in the form of the  is a way of expanding subway access to Queens and a way of boosting the frequency of the SAS, since you could have a service take over 125th St or 3rd Av in the Bronx.

9 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

This plan does essentially abandon the Nassau St line; you could run a shuttle from Broad St to Delancey-Essex for people who still need to access it (since the old Delancey-Essex and the new Rivington-Essex would be 500' or less apart you could easily connect them via a concourse (and I was planning on adding a spare track connection between the new subway and Nassau St that would see use before the  gets pulled off Nassau but after the Jamaica subway build is underway; that and Montague would keep Nassau St attached to the city subway system, and enable the transit museum to be moved to the unused platforms at Bowery and Canal.

Instead of abandoning the  or leaving it as a shuttle, you could also try and connect the (P) to the Nassau Line either at Bowery or at Chambers St via Park Row. A new tunnel could then be constructed from the Nassau Line to the Fulton Line. I'd also suggest connecting the  to Utica Av rather than continuing it down the Brighton Line and continuing it as the express to Jamaica. I really like the idea of connecting the Northern Boulevard Line to LGA, I've not thought about that before and it's a cool idea.

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

hmmm. Since we're on the topic of Second Avenue, this method (from an operational standpoint) would maximize everything. 

Someone brought up having a tunnel diverge from 3rd Avenue onto 72nd Street, this is what I envision:

This pretty much sums up how I feel about what to do with expanding the 2nd Av Line. I'd include a stop at 34th St though. Also, for the // whatever you want to call it, there are two ways I'd do it. If you are deciding to leave the Nassau Line as is, continuing to Jamaica, I'd build the line to Chatham Sq, then down St James Pl/Water St with a stop at the Seaport, after which the  would go to Brooklyn connecting to Orange or Pineapple Street, then turn down Adams St with a stop at Willoughby/Fulton St. This would connect the 2nd Av Line with all the trains the current planned routing for Phase 4 will miss, connecting the train to both the Borough Hall and Jay St-Metrotech stations. It would then connect to the Fulton Line, making a stop at Hoyt St. If you decide to break up the Nassau line and connect the 6th Av Express to it, then I'd do it how you routed it or have it turn before Grand St onto the Bowery station.

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Essentially the core capacity issue is that 2 Av can only flow 30 tph with two tracks, or 60tph with four, and having the  on 2 Av eats into those slots north of 63 St (even more so if we decide to deinterline northern Broadway ( 15 tph  to Forest Hills, 15tph  to Astoria, 30tph  going elsewhere, as that would put 30tph onto the existing tracks above 63 St and require a fully discontinuous 2 Av corridor if the corridor runs two tracks). There's not really a great way to resolve this without there being a four (or even six) track segment on 2 Av. A 6 track segment would accommodate the  plus sixty additional tph, letting you run a full four-service corridor all the way down the island on top of  service. The big question then would be whether it would be possible to thread a four-track corridor above the 63 St tunnels and below the  tracks, with a 61 St express stop connecting the  at 59 St to the  at 63 St via mezzanine. I personally like this idea because it could comfortably form the core of a full Second System like I posted about a few pages ago, but I can understand it not being the most practical.

The way I look at 2nd Av is mirroring the Central Park Av Line. The  and  trains are analogous to the  and  trains, while the  and  trains are analogous to the  and  trains. For this reason, I don't think there needs to be 4 tracks going all along 2nd/3rd Avs. I feel the  should be left alone as built, being the local on 2nd Av and the express on Broadway. Of the  trains that run on 2nd/3rd Avs South of 63rd St. You could mess with the configurations, but I think one should be the express train in the UES and the express train South of 63rd, and the other should be the local South of 63rd with the connection to Queens. It's easier to just run the service down 3rd Av in the UES, and if you are building that as an express train I'd say it matters a little less that it is farther away from 2nd Av. I agree it doesn't really expand the footprint of the subway system, but the  is already doing that.

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

Is there any possibility of branching off the SAS somewhere between 72nd and 63rd such that the  could have a station between 59th and 63rd along Third Ave?  If that were accomplished, then maybe the new station will connect to   at 63rd and   at 60th.  In that sense, you create a grand NE Midtown station, improving the connection for  to the Lexington line via the new platform and providing one place where everyone from the Upper East Side, Astoria, and anybody coming from the 63rd St tunnel could all transfer to SAS (along 3 Av), Lexington, Broadway, and 6th Ave (local) service.  Furthermore, if the  had a better connection to East Midtown (to Lex and SAS trains), there may be the possibility of better organizing the trains to/from Queens so that all 60th street trains go to Astoria, all 53rd street trains go to QBL local and all 63rd street trains go to QBL express.

The only down side to all of this that I see is that we would still be running Broadway express trains and SAS trains at half-capacity because the two lines join as one line to service 2nd Ave between 72nd and 96th.  One partial solution to this problem is providing a third track on the Third Ave platform of the new station so that half of the SAS trains can short turn there, so that there is full service on the SAS from 59-63 all the way to downtown. 

I wouldn't connect the  to the  or the  just for the reason of it limiting capacity on all three. I'd say have  trains terminate at 63rd St with tail tracks continuing up 3rd, with the goal ultimately being to have SAS trains run express service either up 3rd Av, which would be cheaper, or go underneath the  at 2nd Av, which would be more expensive but more convenient. I would have  trains go to Queens via a new tunnel at 69th or 72nd St later on, and then when the Southern portion of the SAS is expanded to 4 tracks, that's when you would also build the UES express service either on 3rd or turning back over to 2nd. 

2 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Ways the  can go beyond 72 St: 

• Plan #1 via 2 Av and 3 Av
  • 72 - Second Av
  • (Turn on 57 St, and turn down on Third Av)
  • 51 - Third Av
  • 42 - Third Av  
  • 34 - Third Av
  • (Turn on 30 St, and turn down Second Av)
  • 28 - Bellevue [Not entirely sure if a stop here would be good or not, or if the stop placement should be spaced out]
  • 23 - Second Av
  • 14 - Second Av  
  • St. Marks Place - Second Av
  • Houston St - Second Av  
  • Grand St - Chrystie St  

I'd be against the 28th St and St Marks Pl stops because while the goal might be 4 tracks South of 63rd St eventually, it certainly wouldn't run that way for some time, and so having larger stop spacing is important. For that reason I wouldn't put stations on 28th and St Marks.

Another thing I've been thinking about is where the station connecting with 53rd St would be. I think that, assuming there is eventually a plan to build a new crosstown line in Manhattan, where that line goes should decide where the  would stop since the two lines should offer a transfer where they meet. If there is a 57th St crosstown line, then the 53rd station should have its Southern end at 53rd. If the crosstown line goes down 50th St instead, then the North end should be on 53rd.

Also, I really think it's important to have a station between 59th St and 63rd St, allowing for an in station transfer via the  platforms, and also offering a better transfer option for  riders looking to go down the East side. Just some considerations.

5 hours ago, Theli11 said:

I think that the East Village, would benefit from a subway on 2nd Avenue, atleast below 42 St. As someone who lives on Avenue D, the closest trains are the and   trains, the being 10 minutes out by bus, and the Essex/Houston being about 30 by bus with crowding. I think St. Marks Place would be great for train service, specifically since M8 buses would be a direct way to get there. A Fulton St transfer would improve on the transfers, especially if it becomes a 125 St Crosstown. Second Avenue should have a lower level for Broadway Services so that the /  can become maxed out. 

With regard to a lower level on the upper portion of the SAS, the fact is it would be much cheaper to tunnel along 3rd than to drill a new tunnel underneath the already very deep existing stations. Between 63rd and 42nd, a relief line for the  that has very long transfers at 53rd, potentially an even longer transfer at 42nd, and no transfer at all at 59th or 63rd, seems like a big problem to me. Anyone riding in from Queens wanting to travel up and down the East side would likely not choose to switch lines to the . If you put it the  on 3rd and make the transfers as good or better than Lex, then much more people will use it. 

South of 42nd St, I do agree that the alignment is better if it runs along 2nd, so in my ideal world the line would turn onto 2nd Av, giving better access to the East Village and better transfers to  and  trains. That being said, if I had to pick between strictly one or the other, I would pick 3rd Av. The and  already go farther East than the  on 2nd Av would. And since there is no stop planned for St Marks Pl, you would need to walk from the M8 up to like 11th St or down to 3rd St to connect to the , at which point traveling one avenue further is not costing that much time I'd think. Unfortunately, either way I don't see East Village residents getting a huge service improvement.

Also, with regard to Fulton St in Manhattan, the line as currently planned would be too far East to connect to any of the subway lines down there. I personally feel like since there is not a huge need for more trains to Lower Manhattan, it would be better for the  to go into Brooklyn, maybe taking over the  trains.

16 hours ago, Theli11 said:

My main issue with the 2 Av plan is the Broadway Line on 2nd Av, I think that Northern Blvd should be reserved for Broadway Service, with trains running on the line splitting off at 36 St, via outer tracks. trains will be on Astoria, and trains will be at a Lower Level along with the , providing service to 138 St - 3 Av and 149 St - 3 Av and extending it to Fordham Plaza.

It's an interesting idea to use the outer tracks to extend the  up Northern Blvd, but that would leave Astoria with just the  which is not enough service. Also there isn't really capacity to have  and  services all sharing the 2nd Av line. In this case, if trains should go to Northern Blvd, then it should probably just be a 2nd Av service I think. A bigger problem with the 2nd Av line for me is that South of 63rd the  will have terrible transfers, and that without the construction of a new tunnel, Phase 3 and 4 will have low frequencies, both of which its effectiveness in decongesting the . Someone else mentioned 3rd Av in Manhattan as an alternative, maybe just for future express service, but in my mind the 2nd Av line South of 63rd St should run down 3rd Av rather than 2nd.

16 hours ago, Theli11 said:

The  won't be able to handle all the customers at 12 TPH. So we can accommodate this, we can have a train on 8th Avenue Local, that runs local in Queens. And using the rest of he capacity at WTC.

If the  were shifted over to Astoria and the  to 2nd Av, then these are changes that could happen without any new tunnel construction, barring allocating or expanding yard space for the . I do agree that thee should join the  and introducing a new service 8th Av service to accompany the  is a good idea.

Wouldn't it make more sense to connect the MNRR tracks at Grand Central to Atlantic Terminal? I get the point isn't that people will be riding the routes end to end, but I'd think more people would continue that journey past Grand Central taking MNRR than those who would do so taking LIRR. Also, LIRR riders would already be able to connect to Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn at Jamaica, something that MNRR would not be able to do until already in Midtown. 

Totally on board with rethinking commuter rail in NYC, though. It can be the super-express that some people have talked about on here or at least used to.