EvilMonologue

Is there any real reason why they don't? Same with providing a transfer with the and lines with Atlantic Av. Is it a revenue thing? Does it really cost them that much?

Is there a reason you chose to extend the M over the LIE as opposed to extending the QBL local? Just thinking that it's likely most people would transfer to QBL to get to Manhattan faster, and even if they wanted to go to lower Manhattan and stay on the local, it's just about the same number of stations. It might make sense to extend the QBL local out rather than extend the M because of this. Just a thought.

Any reason you don't want to extend it up 10th/Amsterdam?

There's really a couple conversations going on at once here huh

That's why I think build phase 3 down 3rd av from 63rd st to 42nd st, and then have it go over to 2nd av so it can take over the going over the Manhattan Bridge. That way you avoid the interlining, but more importantly, the transfers are better so the SAS can actually do its job and be an adequate alternative to the . It will still be less of a walk for riders to the east, and you would still need to build another tunnel if you were de-interlining anyway. The 3rd to 2nd av move is a little awkward, but I'm sure doable and preferable to building it on 2nd.

Then what service stays on Fulton?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

Ah ok

Wouldn't you want to make people pick between an express or 53rd?

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.

I guess that makes sense. Does Queens need 4 extra tracks though? And where would they go? Bypass and Northern?

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?

You could terminate it more North, connecting to 59th and 63rd, which would also function as a passageway for a transfer between the two

Would it be more trouble than it's worth to do some tunneling to connect the A/C/G trains to Atlantic Av? Lafayette St and Fulton St stations would be abandoned in this case. I've also personally pictured what other people have said, with the G connecting to the N/W/7 trains at Queensboro and then the F at Queensbridge, and from there going up 21st and then across 86th st in Manhattan. If you want to get even crazier with it, you could then connect this to a Bergenline Ave line in NJ, and even crazier still have the G turn westward to make stops in Red Hook and then finish the loop from Liberty State Park. There's obviously a ton of legal jurisdictional things that would need to change for this to happen and it probably is way down the list of things to do in the city in terms of transit projects, but its been a fun fantasy of mine having a big outer-ring subway line.

Alon Levy has mentioned this with his plan, but a good way to get better transfers out of SAS 3 would be to extend it down 3rd Ave rather than 2nd. I know it's very close to Lex/Park, but it is still less of a walk for people East of Lex/Park and still alleviates congestion on the 4/5/6. Connecting it North of 63rd St might be tricky, but it could start as a shuttle with a transfer to trains at 59th St and 63rd St.

This is much more long term, but if the LIRR Atlantic Branch ever gets connected to Manhattan, it might make more sense to convert the Rockaways back to LIRR service, ofc assuming comparable headways and pricing to subway. This would then mean more service to Lefferts, and the C could still terminate at Euclid, you'd also have a kind of super-express in the form of the LIRR. Just a thought.

So even just looking at phase 3, it probably wouldn't be necessary or worth it to have the T go from Houston on 2nd ave, then switch to 3rd before Grand Central, have a new station at 63rd st on 3rd ave, and then reconnect with the Q at 72nd st?

Someone posted something about Alon Levy's subway crayon, and I was wondering what your thoughts were regarding his plan for the T. Under his plan, the T goes from Utica to Williamsburg, up 3rd ave, then goes through Central Park North of 63rd st and into Washington Heights. I'm not so sure about the part North of 63rd st, but I do think there is something to be said for having the train have good transfers along 3rd rather than 2nd. Perhaps between Grand Central and 63rd st it snake over to 3rd ave then go back to 2nd. Thoughts?