officiallyliam

So de-interlining, a purely operational solution that will cost next to nothing, is off the table because of its political in-feasibility and the uproar that it would cause. But shutting down some of the busiest lines in the subway for long periods and tearing up Eastern Parkway and/or 149th St, and likely spending billions of dollars doing so, is the logical solution. Something here isn't adding up for me.

Additional options? Why do we insist on providing service to 8th and 6th - trunk lines parallel through Harlem and UWS and just two blocks apart through Midtown - when we could boost whole system capacity and massively increase reliability by de-interlining? Thus, your argument about cross-platform transfers has no point. The goal of the subway should be to provide the most reliable and frequent service to the most people, not the most number of one-seat ride combinations - especially when that sacrifices capacity. This plan would reduce the number of merges to one - just before/after Hoyt - which ideally could be eliminated in the future by a Fulton local SAS extension. The can run out of 36th St Yard. If I'm correct, when the opens it will do just that as the will displace the from Jamaica.

What about swapping the and northern terminals? This way, Concourse riders with longer commutes can keep CPW express, while the never have to switch tracks in Manhattan, and we wouldn't have to construct any new switches. My plan would be: the basically becomes the , the peak-direction express to Norwood; the becomes the (although maybe it could be extended to 167 or something for more Bx-Mnhtn capacity); the ends at 168 and the serves 207. Inwood riders wanting 8th Avenue have a cross-platform transfer at 125, as do Concourse riders bound for CPW local stops.

It's not like that's a much better proposal, even though you act like its the cure-all for riders. You've just introduced another merge to the , , and , lines which have too many merges as is, and inconsistent service as a result. SAS to 6th Avenue is a cross-platform transfer already, and the two are within walking distance throughout Midtown. It's not necessary, and will only exacerbate the precarious situation regarding frequencies and merges on 6th Avenue, QBL, and Broadway.

That's what the (P) reading on the R32 rollsigns is for, right? I heard somewhere that it was "P" for "Penn Station", the service you just described above.

As someone who lives off the in Ridgewood and occasionally uses the , I could not think of a worse service plan and and even worse justification. To your points: 1. Yes, astute observation. What exactly is the problem? 2. That's not the point. How many people would use the M to get from Middle Village to Forest Hills via Manhattan when you could walk or take a bus? About as many people as use the A all the way from Far Rockaway to Inwood, or the 2 from Flatbush to Wakefield, or the F from Jamaica to Coney Island. The M isn't there to serve the Middle Village to Forest Hills corridor, clearly. 3. Yeah, I'm aware. I did it before the 6th Avenue M existed, back when hardly anyone rode the Nassau M. Why? Because not nearly as many people want to go to Bowery/Canal/Chambers/Fulton/Broad or on to Brooklyn as want to go uptown. I can tell you that the M via 6th Avenue is immensely popular around here as an alternative to the L. And unless you want even more people's "lazy asses" crowding the narrow stairways at Essex-Delancey, I'd keep the uptown M. 4. Look at that on a map. Same as point 2...why would you do that? If you live near the M, the Q58 can get you to QB faster than going via Williamsburg and LIC. As for the on Queens Blvd, when will railfans learn? That service was unpopular since day 1. The first major improvement to the QBL post-opening was the 60th Street Connection. Why? Because more people want Manhattan than Crosstown. After that? The 63rd Street Connection later did the same thing - because even more people want to go to Manhattan. Let's face it. The will be staying orange - it's a hugely successful and popular service, one of Transit's best recent service decisions. The Nassau M was carrying air back and forth to Brooklyn every day. The isn't coming back to 6th Avenue. And the certainly won't be returning to QBL. Not to mention, you propose this a year before a major and necessary shutdown of the ? Come on.

The bypass in phases idea is worrying to me. It means we could end up with an awkward stub-end in the middle of Queens. Example: the 63rd Street tunnel dead-ending at Queensbridge from its opening until 2001.

I'll take the death stare too. I don't know whether Jerome needs all the extra service, but the cheapest and simplest way to boost capacity on the subway is to de-interline and detangle junctions that inhibit service increases. This goes for DeKalb, 149th, Rogers, the Broadway Express tracks at 34th, and any others. Complex rebuilding projects of these junctions is just an expensive way to get a few more TPH out of an operational method that is inherently inefficient. At some point, we should give up the "one-seat-ride from everywhere to everywhere" idea that currently governs subway planning in favor of increasing the frequency and reliability for everyone.

You're right, which is a shame - it's in the right location, SAS should definitely connect to Fulton local, and the tiles at Court Street even match the color of the . Ideally, we could find a way to connect the Manhattan-Brooklyn SAS tunnel to the Fulton local line between Court and Hoyt to help mitigate the Cranberry capacity crunch by allowing both the and to run express, simultaneously relieving pressure on the Clark and Joralemon tubes. I think this been mentioned above, but how feasible would it be to build the river tunnel under State or Atlantic, building an 11th Street Connection-style junction to the Schermerhorn subway somewhere in the vicinity of Boerum Place? The State/Atlantic tunnel could include a stop near the waterfront to serve the Brooklyn Bridge Park and Columbia Street area (though this might be too close to the water). This also allows us to keep the Transit Museum intact, which I'm sure we all approve of.

As others have pointed out, the Orange Line actually does agree with me - the BRT setup has left the corridor underserved and is currently being considered for an LRT upgrade. What's the point of doing BRT on Rockaway if we're going to be here several years from now talking about how it should have been rail?And the Orange Line Busway, unlike Rockaway, isn't awkwardly bookended by rail tracks. RBB should be rail. The problem is that in reality there are several other projects - including getting the existing network back to a state of good repair and ending the rolling stock shortage - that have to come before RBB. If we want a rail project in Queens that can be done on existing ROW, the Triboro Rx is of far greater value, simply because of its better connections to other lines and its independence from crowded trunk lines. If/when the QBL CBTC project is done, and, ideally, a bypass similar to the Program for Action plan is built, we will be looking at a situation of surplus capacity on the Queens-Manhattan lines. That is the point when RBB service can be seriously considered. We shouldn't rush into it now and end up with poor-quality BRT or a low-capacity subway that we're just going to regret and have to spend money to replace or upgrade a decade or less after it opens.

Possibly? I've thought about that, but also think that the value of buses is their direct, street-level service on important corridors. Remember that the RBB is always a couple of blocks away from Woodhaven - even farther through Rego Park -, where the businesses, etc. are. I think the value of the bus would be lessened as a result of it not being on Woodhaven Blvd, but being several blocks away. The RBB in my mind is really far better for subway service, where the quick ride to Manhattan can be justified by the extra walking. Also, the RBB's ends are difficult for buses: on the north and south ends you have to find a way to get buses back on to the road, as one end is the LIRR tracks and the other end the tracks. I'm not wholly opposed to a real BRT service on the Rockaway ROW, but when the subway option is there, I don't think it's necessarily the best idea.

Yeah, it does look like that; I've seen a map where someone drew the Court-SAS tunnel as running under Pierrepont. That, however, seems unnecessarily complicated: you'd have to cross over/under the various IRT and BMT tunnels at Borough Hall. Plus, it would highlight the somewhat awkward location of the Court-Schermerhorn stop: it's to close to warrant building another station at Borough Hall to connect with the , but Court is a bit far to build a passageway to BH, and you'd end up missing a transfer between the Eastern Parkway and Fulton lines that doesn't exist in Brooklyn. Suffice to say this part of the Fulton line could have been better designed.

This is why they should have preserved the 1970s plans for a bi-level terminal at Hanover Square: one level could have turned half the trains back up 2nd Avenue while the deeper level sent the other half under the river to Brooklyn. I was actually wondering the same myself: how a continuation of the Court Street stop would actually get to the river. The IND Second System did have plans to connect Court with SAS, but I wonder how they were planning to do that. Slicing through Brooklyn Heights and tearing down houses just isn't feasible, and I don't think Court is deep enough to simply TBM under Brooklyn Heights.

I like this plan, but think the and should be the other way around. The already connects with all those other lines at Times Square and Union Square, since the Broadway Line acts as a sort-of circumferential through Midtown. The should be the one to go across 125 to allow folks from the West Side of Upper Manhattan to reach the Lower East Side easier and faster, instead of the which will just loop people back to the West Side again.

Hey everyone - I'm new to the fourms here and thought I'd join to share proposals and ideas. I live in Queens, and it is no secret that the Q38 bus route is unreliable, largely as a result of its strangely-shaped route. The idea to split the route into two has been bounced around many times, but I details on how the new routes would operate. This would split the Q38 and combine it with two other existing routes. The Eliot Ave Branch would be taken over as and extension of the Q50 from Flushing. The Penelope Branch would be taken over as an extension of the Q64. Q64 service would run from Electchester to Middle Village-Metro Av Station via Jewel Ave, 108th St, and 63rd Dr, then continuing regular Q38 route. Q50 service would run from Co-Op City to Middle Village via College Pt Blvd, H Harding Expressway, 57th/59th Avs, then regular Q38 route down Eliot. In terms of depots, the 64 would continue to run out of Baisley Pk and the 50 could be just Eastchester or split Eastchester/CP. Thoughts?