RR503

No service. No service trains via CPW/8th Ave local trains run 205 to Euclid via Concourse Local, CPW express, 8th avenue express, Cranberry St and Fulton local trains run 179 to CI via QB Express, 63rd st, Broadway Express, Bridge, 4th avenue express, West End trains run via montague st, 4th avenue local. trains extended to 71st Ave and Kings Highway, full length trains trains to Broad/chambers trains between Delancey and Coney Island Some trains extended to Brooklyn to handle expected crowds at Jay metrotech. Free transfers between Atlantic Barclays and Fulton St, Jay st and Borough Hall. Bus shuttles between Hoyt Schermerhorn and Columbus Circle stopping at Jay, over Manhattan bridge, then stopping at Grand, and all 6th avenue stations to 57th st, where they turn west, stop at 57/7, and terminate at 59 CC. This GO would be so much easier if we could keep the local tracks south of w4

Yes, but we don't need 60tph on second avenue. on 10th is a better investment IMO. I don't understand your question about the . If it ran via bypass, QB local riders would benefit by getting easy East Side service. The on the bypass doesn't help them at all. In your plan, they have 2 6th avenue options, 1 8th and 1 Broadway. In mine, they have 1 2nd, 1 6th, 1 Broadway, 1 8th, giving them an unprecedented spread of options across Manhattan. I also honestly don't understand why you're so excited by the idea of having the "IN ADDITION" to the -- the is actually a more useful service than the as it serves 53rd st. Giving them 4 options -- 2 of which go the same place -- is fine, but when you have an opportunity to give them 4 distinct choices, why the hell wouldn't you do it? Lastly, you're analogy just is missing me. Most of the time in arguments when someone uses analogies, I get where they're going with it and disagree, but you just seem like your angry with me for arguing with you and are grasping at straws. There is no CPW or concourse bypass/connection to 2nd Ave being considered, so I'm baffled.

1. That's what I'm saying. With SAS built how it is, exp service really won't make much of a difference. 2. Your (Gun Hill to Lefferts) and (U) (Co op City to Euclid) are also quite long. 3. It's not that TN can't be built, it's that those other neighborhoods need the service more as they have more people in them. 4. Ummmm QB local riders can stay on the to 53rd or 6th. And just FYI the runs on 63rd, not 53rd, so you can't really lose service to a corridor you never served. And remember, with SAS on Bypass, QB local riders aren't necessarily losing service, but they're reaping 0 benefit from the largest subway expansion in the city since the 30s. I think that should be thought about.

"There HAS to be Express tracks. It would give riders a faster commute into the city and would benefit a lot." You do realize that despite our love for express service, they really don't make that much of a difference? Ex: Roosevelt to Queens Plaza via exp: 8 mins, via local: 10 mins. And there the express is skipping 5 closely spaced stops.. SAS stops are spaced well -- trains have no trouble getting up to a good clip between them. Because of this, trains on the line, despite their local nature, will have express train speeds. "I feel that the and (U) might swap, but I'm not too sure unless riders warrant it. I think the riders wanting to go where they thought they were going will warrant it. "Um I would build the Utica Av line as a branch off of the Eastern Pkwy Line, and the would run on it to Kings Plaza." Sure, that works too, but if you do it from SAS you get more service to bedstuy, downtown Williamsburg, and a line that intersects , allowing for excellent transfers. If you don't do it though, and you kept your express tracks, you'd have to build an insanely efficient terminal somewhere in Manhattan, or connect SAS to more than one Brooklyn trunk. Connecting to SAS also gets you more BK <-> Manhattan capacity. "But Throgs Neck doesn't have nearby subway access. As for the NE corridor line, if would mainly take relief off of the and . But I will say it is the least important. I'm even considering taking it out since Metro-North will have proposed stops in the area and running the (U) there would be redundant." Yes, but there are SO many neighborhoods that don't have subway access. You have got to prioritize, and give that some of the ones you're proposing building to are a lot denser than throngs neck, I say do those. I like your thinking with metro north -- if freedom ticket goes through, people will be able to use it cheaply anyway. "As for the bypass line, its main purpose is to speed up riders commutes to Manhattan and to take relief off of QB. And there should be a transfer at the 42 St SAS Station to Grand Central-42 St since the easternmost exit on the platform is at 3 Av. The is totally necessary, and if you kept the local and SAS express, the will become overcrowded. Riders west of 71 Av can use Woodhaven Blvd, which will be converted into an express station and will still serve a major transit hub with the now stopping there." I'm so with you on the bypass being needed, and the xfer at GCT, and the woodhaven express conversion. However, I don't follow your argument on the becoming overcrowded because you aren't giving one. I'm not interested in you telling me it won't work, I'm interested in you telling me WHY it won't work. I have given you a (at least to me) rational argument for my plan, and given I may be wrong, I want the same from you so we can actually have this discussion. You hear me?

I would do one of them to Bayside.

1. The 3 most important ones (125 crosstown, Bypass and 3rd ave) can be handled with a 2 track SAS. And many of the areas of the eastern bronx that you mention will never be able to produce enough demand to justify new subway construction, or are much better served with extensions of existing services (think coop city and the ). 2. Yes but why make them do that when the solution is literally swapping two trains? 3. ???? The Utica ave line would fill a MASSIVE transit desert and link many east-west corridors in Brooklyn. And given that it runs through areas much more dense than say, Throgs Neck, it is a much more justifiable expansion than some of the ones you've proposed. I'm all for a northern boulevard line, but that has nothing to do with your current proposals. 4. That's what the should be doing in this scenario -- running to Lefferts (at least weekday rush hours). 5. Honestly, between Dyre and the , that part of the east bx doesn't really need more service. A few SBS lines is more the capital cost magnitude that the area needs, not a multi-billion dollar subway line, especially when some of your other proposed northern extensions (crosstown and 3rd ave) serve very real, very large, and very underserved markets. 6. To both Bob and you: SAS via bypass would off the bat disallow any Queens Boulevard riders who board west of 71st ave from benefitting from the service. That is a MASSIVE market in queens, especially those stops between 71st and Roosevelt, and it seems kinda bad to ignore them. Now about Roosevelt congestion. I honestly don't think which service runs via bypass will make much of a difference to crowding there. In one scenario, it stays the same with some manhattan congestion moved to woodside. In the other, you move xfer passenger to the to woodside, and move some east side transfers to Roosevelt. That said, I don't think many east side riders will switch to a service going there in Queens. The links up with the at GCT, and a ride there will probably take about as long as a ride on the Queens SAS service. And yes, I can read a map, and I'm aware there are stops east of 71st ave. What I'm saying is that to them, whether their SAS service or train goes via the Bypass or the QB Express tracks is immaterial. However, which goes where matters very much for those west of 71st. They have 6th ave on the , so the is not totally necessary, but if SAS goes via bypass, you'll be giving them nothing in terms of east side access. In fact, you may even see riders using the as a bridge between the mainline and the Bypass, adding to the horrific crowding on that line.

I personally think that the money that would be needed for 2av exp service would be better spent building extensions elsewhere, but I'll give my opinion anyway. You should swap the and the or (U) in your plan. People going from the west side of Manhattan across town probably want to go to, well, the east side, and the just takes them back west at 63rd. For the (P), I'm assuming that there's some new line your building to get trains onto the Myrtle el, but do you really think that's the best use of resources? They already have direct midtown service. Use that money to do a Utica Ave line or something. I'm 101% with you on a 3rd Ave line, though I think you should cut one of your other bronx lines and send its trains up there. The BX already has good subway coverage -- we really don't need another 3 lines. Also: your will not be able to access Fulton exp unelss you want to add a merge at Hoyt. And anyway, instead of sending 20+ tph of SAS down Fulton, I'd use savings from cutting a bx line and the Myrtle connection to build a Utica line. Then you can have 1 down Fulton, 1 or 2 down Utica, and the last on some other Brooklyn trunk (or just terminating in lower Manhattan somewhere). I am all for SAS-Queens Boulevard service, but I think SAS trains should run on the main corridor, not the bypass -- the F should run there. Mainline stops have service to 6th via the , and wouldn't benefit at all from the 2nd Ave connection if it runs via the bypass -- no place to xfer west of 71st Ave.

1. Probably because the MTA is a state concern and planning is a city one. We all know how those 2 levels of govt get along... 2. Why would you do that? Isn't it easier to just increase service? Also FWIW, I've heard that the astoria crowding issues aren't actually as bad as people say. People at my office were doing a capacity survey on 60th st this spring, and at least on the days they went, very few trains were crushloaded. I believe this was PM rush though, so take with a grain of salt. And I know I'm always pushing broadway swap, but that is really the easiest way to add service. No more merge at 34th gets you more bandwith through 60th, and therefore more capacity to astoria (which, as pointed out in another thread, can in fact handle more TPH than current). 3. I've heard internally that crowding is the rule, and whenever I've visited, it has been quite well patronized. That said, I don't ride the line regularly, so I'll defer to others here who do. 4. In dekalb, the issues lie for the most part north of the station, where Brighton and 4th ave express services do ballet to become 2 pairs of tracks over the bridge. For Montague, trains don't have to traverse that part of the interlocking, and in fact experience 0 merges, so capacity can be added. Remember the brown used to run on those tracks too. As for those who say send more via the Manhattan Bridge.......... 5. Cool. I don't know anything about that, but I can 100% sympathize with foamnnoyance.

LOL I agree. One thing that bothers me is the relative innefectiveness of CBTC in NYC vs elsewhere. Most systems get a solid bump of 8 or 10 tph when they install, and it usually allows ~40tph to be run. Why isn't this the case in NYC? Badly designed terminals?

At the very least they should build a stop at Livonia in the yard. It's high time they did that.

This isn't only about SAS. It's about increasing service on Broadway. As I've said time and again, that crossing over at 34th severely restricts capacity on that corridor, making it by far the worst run of the Manhattan trunks. The Broadway swap allows you to fix that, while providing more service to both second and fourth avenues. Nope, read again. "...and then terminate an extra 2-3 southbound at 2nd Avenue." A surprising number of intra-queens trips occur out towards the end of Queens Boulevard -- the or could capture that market. I'm not saying they'll run anywhere near full, but the won't not be used. Also this proposal's main intention isn't to provide more service to eastern queens -- it's to eliminate the conga line at 71st. As for 179th, its a much more efficient terminal than 71st, and because there are switches after 169th, trains arriving on the local tracks can access both the local and express tracks to terminate at 179. (you could also run like 5tph express).

You're probably right that my annoyance of having heard this a thousand and one times clouds my judgement -- thanks for calling me out on that. That said, QBL (and Queens in general) does need more service, and especially after CBTC comes in, capacity will be extant for it, which is why I feel so strongly that the should be left alone. If you need more Forest Hills capacity, you can easily extend or trains to 179 during the rush, allowing select trains to go express (or not, I don't think it matters). Also: if you're increasing service for the shutdown, you probably don't want to be terminating trains at 2nd avenue... You can make an induced demand case, but that only takes you so far. I think once the thing is over, we will have cars for a Broadway swap with increased service, so that should be done.

Correct -- the provisions go to the local tracks.

Correct. Changing Broadway/6th Ave service patterns twice in 3 years will not go down well with anyone.

I think confusingness and lack of necessity does too. Commuters like predictability. In this day and age of broken subways, a 4 or 5 tph train will not come at any regular interval, and will probably suffer large service gaps. People won't use this because they will not know if they can rely on it. Furthermore, it will add a merge to the at 63rd, split a merge with the , and generally result in a mess. Send the down Queens Boulevard -- it's the second busiest corridor in the system and could use a few extra tph. For SAS, do the Broadway swap that literally everyone talks about. I am very for at least looking at this though. Maybe add a stop at 8th st too so it isn't just replicating existing stops on the underserved LES (or extend the new stops so that they go south/north from 14th/Houston, acheiving the same thing

They were seriously turning trains at BERGEN???? That sounds *highly* inefficient.

I think the response is still the same, no? Commute data, census data, etc. Knock yourself out! https://onthemap.ces.census.gov

No. It wouldn't. People want to go to midtown, not downtown. Extend the not the -- whose route is already overlong.

That's not how math works. Williamsburg Bridge is capped at 24, and with 12 from / along from 8+4 from and whatever the line is called you're finished. And you can't really run rush hour trains from 2nd ave. You'll have 2 merges in ~800 feet of track that handle a combined 29 tph. You can turn much more than 14 there. Look at other 2 track terminals in the system: 8th ave, 34th st, Rockaway Parkway. All of them turn 20+. And 8th ave does it without tail tracks. I mean in theory yes, but you start playing a zero-sum game with williamsburg bridge access.

Oh hell no. You're cutting service on Queens Boulevard and Brighton, adding merges to the and , and giving commuters a service that only comes once every 15 minutes. People like to be able to predict their commutes. Such frequencies preclude that, and will both confuse and frustrate people as their commutes will change with each day. Just do what literally everyone else suggested. Send the other Broadway Express service up there and leave the poor alone. PS the can handle more -- they've already said they'd be adding tph for the shutdown.

Yeah ^^^ is how I'd do it. However, I'd still connect it to QB local for flexibility's sake

Wait where do you get these?

Lol that was literally his point.

How does it matter that the M starts in Southern Queens? No one will ride the entire line. Doing it with LIRR is a terrible idea. It limits connectivity, increases fares, and would require the reduction of some LI service to accommodate RBB trains.

So extra... I'll let you go back a page or 2 to see why this is wholly unnecessary