NoHacksJustKhaks

For sure, the speed between a local and an express is diminishing on many lines like the Fulton / 8th Av. line. It's becoming system-wide, now the flushing express and queens bvld. express lines are still pretty fast but the trend is definitely becoming increased from my experience.

That's a very specific example and that type of thinking doesn't always justify this stuff. Also, cant you just take that north and transfer to the , a much better way of getting to JFK? There could be a need for this, but in this case, you also have to look at all your travel options and plan accordingly, just like how @EphraimB cant get the extended to Reed's lane, you cant propose a passageway between the stations for such reason. Im sure this is only for the benefit of very little and there's other options of getting around as ive demonstrated. Your proposal doesn't take into consideration the time of construction, costs, and usefulness this idea actually has.

I don't really think people want a transfer to the or vice versa. Both are locals, go to lower Manhattan, and serve different groups of people from different regions. For the few people that want this. They are already served by the passageway and 42nd St.. The routes don't warrant another passageway as of now.

It could be technically done...maybe. But you also have to consider the structural rigidity of the bridge and strain put on it (it's old so designing around it's age would be costly). I think i'd cause too many reliability issues on both the trains, and bridge itself. It'll take a ton of time, and fixing the issues would be costly as well so im not sure it's a good idea. I prefer @R68OnBroadway's idea, though lets not ignore it's potential costs as well...

Most discontinued bus routes deserve to be discontinued. They likely serve little point for anybody these days, have low ridership or a replacement today. An example near where I live is the Q21A, nobody rode it and it served little point for Green Bus to run it at all. Another might be the Q22A (though I have no idea why that one was discontinued specifically). Some discontinued bus routes like the B37 have been brought back, but I highly doubt that others like the B75 will as well for the reasons I’ve listed above.

Not sure, but it may be likely from my usage. I'd imagine if so, then it's only temporary and might not continue once R179's arrive on the (especially since the is projected to be just R46's once all NTT's and R32's leave the line, at least to my knowledge).

Agreed, especially in a dying-popularity region like lower Manhattan where the complex will be built. Most new large projects around the world and America (like Wilshire Grand) are like this anyways. Really sad to think the of all things is getting this station done before the Port Authority has any idea of what it's doing.

If you're talking about 2 WTC, it still is yet to be built (only the foundation is built so far) since IIRC the developers aren't sure about which design they should use to proceed. There was the original 2007 design by Foster and Partners and a 2015 redesign by BIG.

We'll have to wait until it's opening to confirm this. No doubt many people may still refer to this station as "Cortlandt St-WTC".

Whenever the takes station design in a new direction, it's bound to cost a ton. It honestly doesn't matter for most riders however since the stations function to carry people in and out.

Maybe... But the size of the "World Trade Center" text in @Around the Horn's photo compared to @Lance's makes it clear theres more likely a chance this station will just be called "World Trade Center". After the building of the WTC complex in the 60's-70's, there is no real reason to keep it's name as Cortlandt Street anyways.

Makes sense since the is going to be connected to the WTC transport hub. Cannot wait for those who disapprove of it in the name of nostalgia. Does this mean that we'll have 2/5 trains going underwater as well?

It appears to be regular maintenance to my eyes, I highly doubt the would send these cold war era subway cars through another SMS or similar (to extend service life) considering there a burden to them at this point, and it would cost a ton to do so. Replacing them with newer cars will simply cost less in the end. And the R179's are still expected to retire all R42's, but if they stay for Canarsie, I don't trust the doing that much for them contrary to what you said. Not putting down that theory you made, but we'll have to wait and see as always.

Maybe, i'd guess around that time but we'll have to wait and see. They should all be on the by April 2019 when the Canarsie tube shutdown happens.

Not to mention dollar vans and Uber/Lyft, when all else fails (PRETTY frequently)...

For your first concern, the proposal kind of reminds me of the when it used to go all the way to Rockaway Park, length definitely is a concern. The stop spacing between 31st and 82nd kind of makes sense since their is a parkway along the line, and I highly doubt the ridership along the area of the line would warrant an extra station.

This may work as a summer only route (for people going to Rockaway) , but I highly doubt it would work during all times of year. If done though, also add Rockaway Bvld. stop., since that's another way for passengers (on the ) to get to the beach.

Can confirm those buses are packed like sardines (when I ride them) and it's usually a nightmare in general. People have had issues going to Rockaway Beach (whether by train, bus, and even car) from since the past decade during this time and that's expected frankly. Knowing the MTA, im not surprised they are making little attempt to fix the congestion, but I do feel they should since ridership to Rockaway beach isn't slowing down. And past efforts like extending the Rock. Park Shuttle do benefit many greatly, same could apply to running more buses along Woodhaven/Cross Bay bvlds.

Interesting... Though im not conceived all the MTA's issues could be fixed with a fare hike. They are riddled by bad politics in this state and dwindling support by basically everybody. Also gotta consider that the MTA would make a lot of money, but ridership would drop greatly to the point where little extra profit is made.

The purple color of the , and (11) do need to be darker, and same for the gray . But this is a nice rollsign!

Funny to think that the MTA still had a ton of problems back then...

The R62A's don't have A/C's that function well or at all in the summer, and the has the most amount of trains with broken A/C's, the not far behind. This is why there's been numerous R142's have been assigned to during certain points from the . So that train's A/C's can be fixed.

1. Its definitely slower to take the train all the way to Williamsburg and Manhattan, instead of walking to Cedarhurst, and back for both, by at least around a dozen or more minutes. 2. Aren't there UPS Stores closer to Far Rockaway and within the trains reach? Unless I made a misconception on my part, your father may have a point.

I don't see sacrificing commute times over hate for certain train models worth it, at least today. There are valid reasons why certain fleets need to be improved, but you cant simply let your preferences determine what trains go on what line, or your now unnecessarily long commute. If you really want to have a more selective commute choice about what train comes to your platform, move to another subway neighborhood or preferably get over it cause' the MTA and everybody else can care less (especially if the last two pages of repetitive opposition on this thread are any sign).

Whos paying for all of this? Certainly not the debt ridden MTA, I've said it before and might as well say it again, but I don't see how they'd want to invest time and money into building Reed's lane. It's in an area that would see little ridership for many years, and the MTA likely wouldn't make profit for these many years either. Far Rockaway ridership is growing somewhat noticeably, but to require trains at CBTC headway's? In an area where these trains are still frequently found empty or with 2-3 people in them? The costs of making the Rockaways CBTC would outweigh the positives for this in my opinon, so would making tail tracks, which would make the expansion more expensive and serve little means considering the amount of people who may actually benefit from it. The MTA sees greater potential making 8th av. or Fulton St. CBTC first since those areas are growing quicker than the Rockaways and crowd the line everyday, it would be a better investment. So why would they want to build a costly expansion into what is basically a suburb, with arguably meaningless tail tracks along with the cost of bringing CBTC to the Rockaways, all with little reward and high chance the MTA will further go into dept? I would instead (as @LGA) said, make the Q113/Q114 have lower headway's, and/or make service more reliable since its another (more practical) option you have, and I know how much of a hellhole it can be. Improving the route would benefit much more people than a costly subway expansion or CBTC, and it can certainly be done quicker and cheaper than the former, though that's a conversation for another thread.