RR503

I highly doubt anyone here disagrees with you. I absolutely agree, for one. But, as is said, hindsight is 20/20. We have to live with the mistakes of our forefathers. Complaining doesn't fix them.

Agree 100%. And yes, the BMT crosstown was to be a more waterfront line. See here: https://www.google.com/search?q=bmt+crosstown+line&rlz=1C9BKJA_enUS616US616&hl=en-US&prmd=imsvn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1keiX6pjTAhVLuxQKHU3nAwgQ_AUIBygB&biw=1024&bih=653#imgrc=z6zK1swK_HE0AM: I would agree with you in terms of a Myrtle-montague connection if the el still existed, but now that it's gone, I really can't see that happening. As far as the black V goes, however, you're repeating the mistake that the IND made all over again (see my post on the last page). Basically, you're routing local passengers away from where they want to go, creating massive transfer flows at express stops. I would be for this if the Q kept its place, and if the black V joined the G, giving it LIC access instead of routing it into the back of beyond on the Myrtle Ave line. One thing us railfans need to understand is that just because it once existed and we now miss it doesn't mean it is the best plan for the present. Things change.

Crosstown to 8th, yes (that's yet another pesky merge at that interlocking) but all this about rerouting trains makes no sense. N/B G trains and E/B A/C trains and vice versa go in the same direction, so a train going from 8th to HS to Culver would have to reverse once on crosstown. So basically, I don't see how this helps with reroutes.

Why? What useful service does that provide?

Not really in event of in emergency. The IND (and the BMT with their crosstown line before it) anticipated a lot of Brooklyn-Queens commutation, so they thought that QBE trains could go to Manhattan, serving that market, while QBL trains could go to Brooklyn. While they probably anticipated the flows to be a bit uneven, they almost certainly did not forsee the fact that almost everyone would get of Brooklyn-bound QBLs at QP in favor of Manhattan-bound QBEs. This situation continued until the City built the 41st street cut, allowing Broadway trains onto QBL, partially rectifying the problem. When the 63rd st connector opened, the got cut back to Court Square, allowing all 4 QB services to go to Manhattan. And yes, I'm aware that was TMI

Yup! That's a remnant of the old Fulton St el which trains used up until 2004ish. Look at this to get an idea of how things once were: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

With you as far as NYCS to NJ goes, but not a gateway stop. Can you imagine the train backups in those tunnels if ones are stopping? I also think that we should take our medicine and rebuild Rogers. I know its political suicide, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

Most Bergenline buses/jitneys are intra-NJ, making me question the size of the NY commutation market in that area. I also think that brooklyn needs more than 30tph of relief from 2nd Ave, half of which will be going to Fulton. There are just so many unserved areas in the borough, not to mention southeast Queens. +100 here. People are xenophobic by nature, and especially so if they live in relatively segregated communities like FH Gardens. Again, I find it depressing that such a small number of people can veto something that is for the greater good (I'm looking at you right now, BHA), but that's a failing in the planning process, not in RBB plans. I also think that politicians will try to sell Woodhaven SBS as 'adequate,' making any subway proposal more difficult to float. One way I could see this gathering more political momentum is promising to extend the subway to the JFK terminal area; that would get the monied elite on board.

Yup, that's why I said 76th ish I don't think the should be extended. It's arguably over cap in BK, so I think that a 10th Ave line needs to work both to relieve Queens and Brooklyn. Using the does nothing for the latter, just continues the status quo, so I think that's not how it should be built. Point taken abt PATH. Problem with that route though is that you miss all the dense employment and residential centres on the waterfront. That's​ where growth will be. If I was to do a 57th St PATH, I'd add a second set of tracks from JSQ to Hoboken junction, and then run north under Weehawken before turning east. As for the RBB, if there's a will, there's a way. FH hates it, so until some community south of Forest Park shows a real need for it to happen, I can't see it coming.

Has a full on 10th avenue trunk line ever been considered? In theory, it could connect to Queens via a 76th ish st tunnel, and to Brooklyn via a connection either to the culver line, the LIRR Atlantic branch, or maybe a Utica Ave line. This is given we have infinite cash, of course. Thoughts? Much easier to extend north from 31st and 6th, IMHO. You could either squeeze the existing tracks below the 6th Ave exp, build a newer low level station, or use the provisions for an east side extension at 14th st (?) to get there.

What's the limiting factor there? Even for a 10mph entrance/exit, 7.5 tph seems a bit low... That's 3.75 tph/track, or one train every 16 minutes on each track.

Speaking of the Concourse line, what are express speeds like on it? I've never ridden in RH/PD so IDK.

Well I mean in *theory* you could put it on the middle track and run it as far as 242 in the north, or Dyckman in the south. Then you avoid platform edges until....scrunch.

Is that the limiting factor? I was under the impression that it was the terminals (esp. on the )

I stand corrected then! Mea culpa. However, it still seems easier to me for them to turn trains at QP

What Lawrence St. said; 2 routes for 1 train. Also, it's nice to avoid merges like that one; it fluidizes ops.

Yeah I've heard QP, but never 96th...

Nope, I'm pretty sure that's the foamer plan. I don't think that they've given specifics yet.

While I agree the neighborhood's concerns should be taken into account, I think it's wrong to give them veto power. Public transit is for the greater good, and as such, alternitaves should be looked at through the lens of what's better for both residents and for riders in general. In essence, we should be doing what's best for all riders, not what's best for lower Manhattan politics.

Lol all cool I think 63rd Street being selected had a lot to do with the geology of the East River in the area, along with ease of construction in Manhattan. IIRC routings as far north as 76th and as far south as 62nd were considered. Also remember that the 63rd St tubes were built with ESA in mind.

QBL connection is at 63rd, I think. I see that being built hell or high water; Queens will raise the dead otherwise. I can see the other things you mention though.

I understand that they can't divert the money directly, but they haven't even funded it entirely yet. We all know that in politics, regions have unspoken quotas of capex they can have. In this case, New York could spend 6 bil on this, which would be all well and good, but they could also use their 'allotment' on something more cost effective, like getting a grant to replace sewer lines, update the water system (and finally finish CWT3), rationalize the city's grid, etc. As for the argument about minorities, point taken, but you could instead target some of the above listed monies at such neighborhoods. Already we're seeing this strategy with the 125th st terminal rather than a bx extension. I really do think sometimes that the best thing that could happen to the MTA would be lots of republicans in the state and city govts. I'm a democrat through and through, but it'd force them to cut costs.

Honestly, if the MTA can't keep the phase 2 costs to a reasonable level, I don't think it should be built. The money can do more good elsewhere. Imagine if the city spent 6 billion on new schools, for example...

No for 3 reasons. 1. The R would lose access to Jamaica yard, requiring deadhead moves to/from CI. 2. You'd be cutting service on 60th Street -- a much busier corridor than 63rd. 3. You'd be adding a merge to the F and N lines.

BQX is a crap idea. It's all about deblasio's ego along with his developer friends and not about transport. The fact that they had to falsify travel time and market data for their 'study' speaks volumes about it, I'd say. The problem with LRT in NYC more generally is that most of the corridors you mention should be getting subway service. LRT is just a bandaid