LGA Link N Train

I'm still under the notion that Alternative 8B is the best way to go but it seems as though the Port Authroirty preferrs to build the current AirTrain

https://nypost.com/2021/03/07/these-new-yorkers-wont-forgive-cuomo-for-forcing-out-andy-byford/

Quote

These New Yorkers will never forgive Gov. Cuomo for forcing out Andy Byford

By David Meyer

March 7, 2021 | 7:25pm | Updated

Gov. Andrew Cuomo received a torrent of hate mail from New Yorkers in the days after his hand-picked subway boss Andy Byford quit the MTA.; Seth Wenig/Pool via REUTERS/File Photo, William Farrington

These New Yorkers were on the anti-Cuomo train early!

Gov. Andrew Cuomo received a torrent of hate mail from New Yorkers in the days after his hand-picked subway boss Andy Byford quit the MTA – with many of the missives blaming the governor’s notoriously ego-driven leadership for the popular Brit’s exit, the Post has learned.

The governor received around 225 angry emails and letters in the eight days after Byford’s Jan. 23, 2020 resignation, which the transit chief blamed on Cuomo becoming “intolerable,” according to correspondence obtained through a Freedom of Information request.

“I blame his leaving on your shortsightedness, your ego, your need to control and take credit for the progress made with our subway system,” Philipos Wander emailed Cuomo the day after Byford quit.

Under Byford’s leadership, the subways hit their highest on-time performance in six years. He also set in motion the MTA modernization plan currently being pursued by his successors.

Neither accomplishment was lost on New Yorkers.

“The man has accomplished a lot in his relatively short tenure with the NYC subway. Shame on you for interfering!” Mary Jane Wilkie told the governor in letter dated the day after Byford’s shock resignation last year.

“It appears that the political environment has become nothing more than a bunch of guys trotting around unable to control their testosterone.”

“It’s a shame you cannot share the spotlight,” wrote Malvina Nathanson. “You owe us all an apology.”

Byford blamed Cuomo for his departure from the MTA, which came less than two years after the governor brought him on to steer the subways out of the depths of the 2017 “Summer of Hell.”

Cuomo was never going to let Andy Byford fix New York City’s subway

Cuomo made the job “intolerable,” Byford said in an interview with WCBS-TV shortly before returning to the United Kingdom last March.

He accused the governor’s team of going behind his back and reducing his role after Byford called for an “independent review” of Cuomo’s plan to avert the L train shutdown.

“I found myself excluded from meetings that were absolutely about the day-to-day running of New York City Transit,” Byford said at the time. “The governor is the boss, the governor runs the MTA. But at the end of the day, I needed to be left to run the system.”

Letters sent to the governor alternatively castigated the third-term Democrat for letting his talented transit chief leave, begged him to get Byford to stay — or both.

“You are flailing as the bully in the MTA. You shoved out Byeford [sic] who is ideal for the job and has the workforce that can do it behind him… He who hires talent gets to shine with them. Undo that. Grovel [if] necessary,” wrote Barbara Charton.

“I am a Democratic always-voter, but I will always be against you in any future elected position you try for unless you meet with Byford and convince him to remain with the MTA,” emailed Joyce Stickney.

“As in the NY tradition of people like Trump and Giuliani, you are letting your obsession with getting credit and showing that ‘you’re in charge’ endanger the successes brought about by your appointee,” warned Rick O’Connell.

Cuomo’s leadership style has come under the spotlight again in recent weeks, after he was accused of threatening to “destroy” a state assemblyman for speaking out over the state’s decision to withhold data on thousands of nursing home deaths amid the pandemic.

Transit observers said that style was on full display with his treatment of Byford.

“Gov. Cuomo is incapable of recognizing the concept of reflected credit,” said David Bragdon of the Manhattan-based think tank TransitCenter. “If Andy C. had let Andy B. run the NYCT, Andy C. would have gotten far more credit than he gets for pretending to run it himself.”

“Andy inspired an unparalleled level of trust among riders and workers and New Yorkers, and that was by dint of his independent professionalism, expertise and commitment, and it’s not easily replaced, frankly,” said Riders Alliance rep Danny Pearlstein.

Governor Andrew Cuomo greets MTA Andy Byford after speaking to attendees; Robert Miller

“Because of his clashes with the governor, he was essentially demoted to running trains and buses daily, but not modernizing the subway as he had proposed.”

Speaking to WCBS-TV last March, Byford suggested that Cuomo, reputed for wanting to be the hero in every situation, may have been jealous.

“I didn’t seek the moniker ‘Train Daddy,’ I didn’t seek the publicity. But the fact is a good transit professional gets out and about,” he said. “We did over 100 public events. That garnered a certain amount of publicity. If others didn’t like that, well, that wasn’t my intention.”

Cuomo, for his part, claimed to have never told Byford what to do. When asked if Byford was “undermined,” the governor said: “If anything, he was over-mined because I dealt with his bosses.”

“I didn’t work with Andy Byford. I worked with [MTA boss] Pat Foye … I worked with his higher-ups,” the governor told reporters last March.

Neither the governor’s office nor Byford responded to requests for comment from The Post.

Everybody knows this by now (hopefully) but still a huge disappointment.

Good news:

http://blog.tstc.org/2021/02/24/subway-to-laguardia-made-possible-by-faa-rule-change/

Quote

Subway to LaGuardia Made Possible by FAA Rule Change

POSTED BY: LIAM BLANK FEBRUARY 24, 2021

An antiquated rule that led to the Port Authority choosing an airtrain over a subway extension to LaGuardia Airport is no more. Eliminating the rule is a game-changer for U.S. cities looking to build a direct rail connection to their airports, which is already the standard practice in Europe and many cities in Asia. Before rushing ahead with a $2 billion airtrain that already has a reputation as a boondoggle, the Port Authority must reevaluate how it plans to connect transit riders with LaGuardia.

Last month, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) changed the rule that had been used as a primary argument against any proposal for extending the NYC Subway to LaGuardia Airport. The statute allowed airports, with the FAA’s permission, to charge a small Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) for airport improvements. Revenue generated by this statute–a maximum of $4.50 per airline ticket, which has not been increased in 20 years–could be used for specific types of internal airport improvements only, such as airtrains.

According to a 2018 analysis of LGA AirTrain alternatives by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), “Funding using a Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) and/or airline contributions is necessary for this Project, and therefore, the selected alternative would have to comply with the FAA’s requirements for the use of such funding sources.”

In other words, while an extension of the subway to the airport was determined by PANYNJ to be technically feasible, choosing this alternative would disqualify the project from funding through PFCs—that is, until last month.

One of three subway extension alternatives evaluated by PANYNJ (Source: PANYNJ)

Getting funding for major transportation projects is a long and difficult process, so PFCs provide cities and airports a convenient way to fund airtrain projects that connect airport terminals to mass transit. The problem is that train-to-train-to-plane connections, while better than nothing, are incredibly inconvenient for commuters. Not only does it force an additional transfer and long walks with luggage, it requires paying an additional fare. If you’re a traveling family, those costs add up quickly, which then encourages more people to drive instead of using transit–the exact opposite of the project’s intended goal.

The preferred alignment of AirTrain LGA, which will connect to the NYC Transit 7 Line and LIRR Port Washington Line at Willets Point Station (Source: PANYNJ)

The new rule, however, makes an extension of NYC Transit’s N/W Line to LaGuardia eligible for funding by PFCs, with costs prorated typically by estimating the percentage of ridership that would use the new airport station. 

The Port Authority should now reconsider a more direct subway connection before spending billions on an airtrain that is out of the way and offers only minimal time-saving benefits. Furthermore, any urban transportation project of this scale is going to inevitably cause some degree of community disruption, but this must be appropriately weighed against the project’s overall improvements for the city and the regional transportation network. The easiest option, while tempting, is not always the most strategic one.

 

I just realized that the idea of deinterlining the system changes the way I look at potential subway expansion (that'll all probably never happen anyways unless I or someone else someday grabs a postition of power... within the cuty, state or the MTA some day...)

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

Note: Can someone show me how to make the Brown  Logo

Put “brownM” in between parentheses and done:

(brownM) 

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

2. Finishing the lower level of City Hall now would not help the lower manhattan ridership and ridership from the Staten Island Ferry, which would now have to pile onto the  if the  ended at Canal St rather than Whitehall St (or switch to using the  train. You would still have an  / train merge in Lower Manhattan.

Do you think it’d be feasible to reconstruct the Lower Level of City hall to then connect it with the Tracks at Cortlandt in an effort to widen the cure and speed up service in that area?

12 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Not entirely no, and it's misleading, but I definitely a service cut for people that have to now transfer, etc.

I still don’t understand what the rationale was behind cutting the Q66 to Northern and 51st. I don’t really buy the excuse of having people transfer to the subway (especially when the entrances at Northern Blvd aren’t even ADA-Accessible

17 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I wasn't actually aware that were were provisions for X-overs north of 45 St. When you say X-overs, do you mean 3 of them with one for relaying and the other two for switching between local and express or the two X-overs between express and local like south of 59 St/4 Av currently has? It's interesting to know they had them, but how long has these provisions been around? Personally, I hope they've looked at Vanshnook's plan of deinterlining Dekalb if they ever go through with those provisions.

It might be true that the  was around for much longer, but I think people would mind not seeing the  as it's usually shafted wherever it goes anyways. 

I forgot to mention the downside to the  and  on QBL, both of the stop at Queens Plaza, but there are no local trains running at all to Queens Plaza at all. 

1. 2 X-Overs for Local-Express merges and 1 for relays on the express tracks. As for how long they’ve been there, IDK. Now as for wether or not the have looked at Vanshnook and A320Lga’s plan, we’ll just have to wait until they release the full report, which I’m sure will get the attention of 2 Broadway at some point. 

2. I guess.  or  as the Astoria-West End Route, I wouldn’t mind. Although, you could throw in the brown  as a special service (its not necessary though) 

3. I guess the issue of no Local Service at Queens Plaza would be an issue, but it would also justify the conversion of Woodhaven Blvd from a Local to an Express Station and a potential Transfer between the Queens Plaza Stations. I’m not sure how feasible the latter would be. 

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

I had another idea regarding the Fulton line - Lefferts shuttle.  Similar to Vanshnook's idea with regard to  in Harlem, Lefferts can be connected to Rockaway Blvd via shuttle.  If that were done,  could still terminate at Euclid and  could serve the Rockaways.  Obviosuly, some construction at the Rockaway Blvd station will be needed to allow for this to happen, but if the statoin were reconstructed as an island platform, with middle track trains going to Lefferts, this can be done.

I don’t really see a point in doing this but I wouldn’t mind converting Rockaway Blvd into a station with 2 Island Platforms. However the big obstacle would be how to reconfigure the junction east of the station in case of any emergency reroutes.  

18 hours ago, mrsman said:

Vanshnookenraggen has tweeted more of his deinterlining plan.  For the believers, this plan seems to check all of the boxes to provide a consistent service pattern without train interferences.  I like it and I think a lot of the ideas have merit.

 

I saw this a few days ago, and the rationale for each idea is pretty clear. Vanshnook and A320Lga said they're working on a full report so I'm interested to see how that'll look like once its finished. Also, I wonder how many people are aware that there are provisions for X-overs north of 45th Street/4th Avenue. Also, it's pretty obvious that while some of these ideas are very beneficial, they would also be a very hard sell. 

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

There are a few things I would personally change, like the  for starters is just the  at this point which can easily be changed to that and then there's the . As cool as it is to having the  operating outside and being able to run more trains without any interference whatsoever, people are more used to the  both in Astoria and West End technically speaking. I've seen a lot of reroutes that had the  run along West End, the  rarely ever is rerouted and if it was, it was not in service throughout the line except for 9th Av.

Having the  solely operate to the Rockaways with the  to Lefferts wouldn't really hurt much, but then there would be that merging issue along Fulton since both split up and then merge back together once entering Queens. Although, the  is already a long line as is so it kind of makes sense.

For the  and Trains in this proposal, you could argue that, but then again, the current day  Train is leterally a Local Train and the  is a local Train, especially when the Manhattan Bridge Reconstruction from 2001-2004 was occuring. I do agree with you on the line though, though I think Vanshnook chose to keep the designation because its been around longer. 

As for the  and via Fulton, the fact that Bed-Stuy and East New York are Gentrifying in addition to 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd CBTC being Implemented/built soon does justify the change since you'd be connecting 3 very busy markets together. 

On 2/9/2021 at 9:32 PM, bobtehpanda said:

When did they want that?

It's not an inherently bad idea. Cross-platform transfers are convenient and redoing the loading gauge across a line is more trouble than it's worth. We already have this at QBP.

I remember seeing the 1968 plan showing the SAS Bronx Extension overlapping with the  near Brook Avenue and 138th Street. Could that have been a potential example of a Cross Platform Transfer between the A and B Divisions?

Well this thread I made in 2017 didn’t age too well. (Even though we’ve only just entered the 2nd month of 2021)

This may seem like an odd speculation but given that the R211’s are CBTC equipped, and QBL is set to get CBTC upgrades within this year (or the next) what if the  sent all 460 R211’s to Jamaica, which should boot a majority of 160’s to 207th/Pitkin given that 8th Avenue CBTC is slated to be after QBL (and Culver since that’s a Work In Progress). Basically:

Jamaica Yard   - R211’s. Most likely, some 160s would be left over. Wouldn’t surprise me if they operated solely on the . 

207th/Pitkin   - Gets the 160‘s left over from Jamaica in addition to keeping its 179’s. This should be enough to boot whatever 8 car trains are at these 2 yards over to East New York. Coming to think of it, it would’ve been nice if the 179’s came CBTC equipped, but alas that’s not the case. 

IF we get to the option orders:

- Whatever CBTC equipped R211’s that happen to be 4 car sets should go to the  Line. I would also say to put them on the  but given that the Canarsie Line’s CBTC equipment is different (and outdated?) I don’t think R211’s could run there, at least not yet. 

- The rest of the 5 car R211’s should (obviously) replace the remaining number of 46’s, that would fill up the  and  fleets. But then there’s the argument that they could go to the  and  lines first in anticipation of 8th Avenue, Crosstown and Culver CBTC. But given how well Concourse takes care of their R68 fleet, I doubt that they‘ll touch the  line, (with the  its a bit more debatable given that its based out of Coney and a part time line). So here’s what I got:

 - Mix of leftover 46’s, 160’s and 179’s (211 base order only)

 - R68’s and R68A’s

 - Mix of 160’s (if any space is left) and the entirety of the R211 base order. 

  - R68’s. (Assuming that the Option orders of the 211’s are supposed to create a fleet expansion, I wouldn’t be surprised if it got any 4 car sets or if it gets anything out of East New York)

 - R143’s, R60’s and R179’s. (If it gets a piece of the R211 option order, I wouldn’t be surprised if a few 160’s and 179’s got booted to CIY or some other Yard) 

 - R46’, R68’s and R68A’s (The option orders for the R211’s to replace the remainder of the R46’s) 

MInd you, I did not account for the Shuttles. 

Just now, R32 3838 said:

440 cars

the 20 R211T's would be based out of Jamaica

440 “normal” cars, correct? Cause I lumped in the 211A and 211T’s together, but given QBL’s service levels, I’d guess it’d make more sense to put them on QBL. Finally, (hopefully) another thing worth fanning on my home line. 

25 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

You guys to fail to realize, The priority is to make the 100% tech. Yes I predicted that the Base order to Pitkin and Coney island, But It would make sense to give pitkin the whole base order (If they get open gangway cars in the future, then half of those standard cars could be transferred)  . 8th Ave is the next to get CBTC (Might be getting delayed) But 53rd st has its signals disabled (If they do a reroute).

the R179's are supposed to be equipped with CBTC next year.

Coney Island isn't a priority for new cars (They would get some Obviously because of politics and the ) But CI doesn't need no more than 300 cars.

 

and one question why do you people want the R160's to be bumped to the so damn bad, Screw Coney, the should be number 1 priority for new trains period.

The only thing that would make sense is to send the siemens R160's to 207th for the . 260 cars is enough for full length trains and spares plus 2-3 sets could run on the as put ins.

 

let Pitkin be R179's and R211's

This is what I’ve been thinking of the entire time. Like you said, from a practical sense, it makes sense to end the entire base order of R211’s (apart from the ones going to Staten Island Of Course) leaving about 460 cars going to 207th. In my opinion, this might be enough cars to displace all of the 8 car R179’s to either East New York or Coney Island for the , permanently making the Train full length. (Now the 8 car  debate is a whole debate in of itself). That should retire all of the R46’s from 207th/Pitkin, and assuming that the  could ever get 8 car trains, that’d leave about enough 68’s to run on the  and . I’m not going to account for the Option orders and the possibility of the 211T’s being successful as that’s all up in the air at this current moment.

Bringing the topic of Coney Island Capacity over here from the 2nd Avenue Subway thread, I know that signal upgrades (spefically for the and would bring terminal capacity up a little bit), but how feasible (or practical) would it be to do the following? 

* Expand Coney Island Station by having the EL Structure (the  and ) curve immediately after 12th Street. The curve will be widened (going over the W 12 Car Spa)  and the easternmost platforms and tracks would be adjusted to have them curve in the eastward direction, doing so would allow for the relocation of X-over interlockings so that they’re located right before trains enter the station. During this time, the  train would use the  platforms to terminate which Segway’s into my next point. 

* On the North end of Coney Island, the interlockings would be adjusted to allow for more and Trains to terminate. In addition to that, the possibility of adding 2-4 extra tracks leading straight to Coney Island Yard should be looked at so that and  or Trains headed to the yard doesn’t interfere with  and service. 

Alright then. I was revisiting the RPA’s “Save Our Subways” and looked at their proposed expansions, and I’m over here trying to figure out the rationale behind their Bronx “Extension” of the 2nd Avenue Subway or how such a connection would be feasible in the 1st Place. Only conclusion I can reach is that they want to provide a relief line for the . I think many (if not, all) of us on here agree that RPA’s proposals are rather questionable. 

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/rpa-org/pdfs/RPA-Save-Our-Subways.pdf - Page 62 is where I can find the most detail on an SAS-Grand Concourse Connection. 

@Deucey would anything that was proposed by the Regional Plan Association be counted as an “official” expansion plan or no? 

1 minute ago, Stormxx said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra thanks for making me realize in the real world not everything takes 2 seconds

No problem

6 minutes ago, Stormxx said:

@subwaycommuter1983 we dont want to hear that baloney. Coney doesnt deserve the r68's, they're complete junk. C.I needs their r160's back, and the r68's can stay in concourse. Im sick and tired of r68's on the , whenever I watch railfanning on the astoria line, they're chock full of them. Also, there is junky A.C, the NTT's are so much better in that case. Also, its not 100% clear if 8th avenue is gonna get CBTC, so for right now, give the r160's back. Leave the r68's at concourse, until they get replaced. Its useless if they keep moving the r68's around, and dont forget, coney is getting their r160s PLUS some r211's. So if they're gonna make Coney that one yard without NTT's, then im gonna lose my mind. C.I is the largest yard in the system, and one of the largest in the U.S.A, why fill it with old cars when you can work on new cars?

(and yes the  are my favorite lines, they need better than r68's)

Also dont forget that Astoria CBTC could become a reality.

Concourse and Coney Island Yards AFAIK, take pretty good care of the R68/R68A fleet. Also, sorry to hear that you don’t like the 68’s on the  but it is what it is. You also have to remember that while many people may or may not like the SMEE’s (46’s and 68’s) on the , all they care about at the end of the day is that they get from point A to Point B without any issues. And while changing the rollsigns does increase dwell times at Ditmars, it wouldn’t matter that much in the grand scheme of things because the rollsigns are right next to each other. Now don’t even get me started on the layout of the interlockings between Astoria Blvd and Ditmars, that’s a different discussion for a different day. 

Now for the part I listed in Bold, 8th Avenue is scheduled to receive CBTC Upgrades between 59th Street-Columbus Circle and Jay Street-MetroTech right after Queens Blvd which you can read here:

https://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/mta-moves-forward-signal-modernization-eighth-avenue-ace-line

However, because of the pandemic and the budget deficit that the faces (which I personally find to be BS given that they manage to find money for other things) CBTC along 8th Avenue seems to be delayed at the moment. 

Now personally, I think that Pitkin and 207th should replace every last 46 sitting in those yards, and if there happen to be any surplus sets from the base order, then I’d say send the rest to CIY. I’m not going to mention the Option orders because it’s currently unclear if the  will go through with them.

1 hour ago, Stormxx said:

The R211's will be on the  line. When the  comes out, It'll be in the 2030s.

I dont know why the  are being so lazy, while there are only 3 stops: 106th st, 116th st, and 125th st.

GET A MOVE ON!!!

You see the thing is, there are a handful of factors that you need to take into consideration 

1. Politics - there are a handful of political factors behind this. Also, given there there are regulations (such as the Environmental Studies and whatnot) that dictate how the line can be constructed, which also inflates the cost of the project. To add insult to the injury, Governor Cuomo would like for the stations to be fancy and have full mezzanines. 

2. Given that you seem to be new here, allow me to surprise you with the fact that the  is more of a business and real estate corporation who just so happen to manage and operate the Subway, Bus and Commuter Rail network. I’m pretty sure that others here on the forums can elaborate on this point that I just made, so let that sink in.

3. Contractors - The  has a history of (how do I put this?) ...hiring contractors who aren’t the most reliable. Can’t name any off the top. Of my head but if you need any examples of what I mean, look at 23rd Street on the  and . The amount of time it took (or is taking) to build SAS, the  extension and East Side Access.

Under an ideal world, $4.5 Billion should’ve given us all 4 Phases of SAS with a 4 track section between 72nd Street and 42nd Street Stations, potential branches from 23rd Street (for alphabet City) and to the Bronx and a cross platform transfer from Grand Street. But alas, I’m only describing a fantasy here.

And one last note, I notice that you seem to be repeating a bias that you have as to which equipment should go where. That bias in question being that the  and  should get the 160’s back from Jamaica once the 211’s arrive. On behalf of everyone here, we understood you the first time, no need to repeat your statement 7-10 times. 

2 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Where can one find this Unbuilt Ideas Map ? I've read things like the Routes Not Taken and the like but most are round up of  different thoughts official and unofficial. Just curious. Remember that back in the day any neighborhood association or real estate speculators could come up with an idea. 

https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/01/ind-second-system-track-map/

This is the map that @Lawrence St is referring to. The Train proposal that they’re referencing here is listed at the “9th Avenue EL Replacement” 

2 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

But in seriousness.

The 1968 project was depressing. 

Back then Phase I of the SAS would be from the Bronx all the way to 34th St in Manhattan

There would be an LIE Subway

E train to Hollis

J train to Rosedale.

If we have gotten the QBL Bypass, that line could've been alleviated. Because after the Lex Ave I think the QBL is definitely the next on the list for overcrowding

Its sad how the 1968 Program for Action didn't happened as envisoned, given how intriuging it was.

Under an ideal world, $4.5 Billion should've accounted for all 4 Phases of the current SAS with a 4 track section between at least 72nd Street and 42nd Street Stations. Not to mention a Bronx extension. But things changed between 1968 and 2021. 

An LIE Subway would be pretty nice not gonna lie. I think that this proposal shows how we really need to rethink our road networks.

It would've actually have been the other way around. to Lareulton (with a new layup Yard where Railroad Park now sits) and the  to Hollis. 

The QBL bypass is a proposal that would be nice. It'd be easier in the to create some rapid transit hybrid service with inner LIRR services. THough interestingly enough, this proposal was brought up briefly in the Sunnyside Yards Redevelopment Plan. https://api.sunnysideyard.nyc/sites/default/files/2020-03/200302_SSY_MPH_Executive Summary_0.pdf. Although with certain rules put forth by the FRA, I don't think this proposal would look the same as originally concevied. 

3 hours ago, elantra06 said:

As of now Kawaski is on schedule to deliver a 10 car test train (R211A) onto NYCT property in April. I'm glad the master controller is back centered in the middle. 5 car unit in the Nebraska plant is near complete assembly.

For a minute, I thought the master control was set on the left side (given that I’m a lefty IRL, this would’ve been nice if I ever chose to be a T/O). But keeping it in the middle makes more sense. Now on the overall cab itself, it looks really nice, with the 2 screens (CBTC monitor). Also heard there’s a security camera in the cab but IDRK for sure. It’d be nice to catch foamers who like breaking the law, but I’m not sure how T/O’s would feel about it. 
 

Now on the overall design on the rest of the train, the FIND is a huge visual upgrade over that of the 160’s. The LED screen on the side of the Exterior looks a bit weird IMO given the large size of the text. I wonder how/if it’ll be used to describe reroutes/G.O.’s. The face of the train is kinda interesting as well. Reminds me of the facial designs of the Tube and that other train running on the Orange Line? over at the MBTA. 

3 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Uh, kinda?

So you mean, like going into the history and logistics and whatnot behind proposals like the IND Program For Action, 1968 Program For Action, One off proposals put forth by government officials, etc.?

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

@Deucey can you rename this thread to "Original Expansion Plans Discussion" if you can please, I dont want to create another thread when I could just reuse this one.

Wouldn't this basically be the proposals thread? Or would that discussion be limited to Official Plans put forth by the , NYCTA, the City, State, etc.?

36 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

Not a bad plan. 

My stations will probably be

*list of stations*

To reduce the number of stations required.

I wouldn't use the  though. I prefer an SAS extension from 125 St/2nd Ave. If we are going to do an Lex Av extension, we need to find a way for the  to branch off before 138th-GC to reduce the curvature. 

I was wondering about your interlining proposal though. What if, we completely shut down 145th/H-148th and just reroute all the Lex trains to Woodlawn and all the 7th Ave train via East 180th St.

 

That being said, bronx do need a crosstown subway. preferable one that crosses Fordham Rd

 

Now I completely ignored  's construction track record. Because if I have to take that into account, there will be no subway

I’ll respond to all parts of your post in the order that you listed them:

List of Stations - I understand what you mean by reducing the number of stops. I guess 181st would be a better connection since the Bx36 runs along East 180th Street. Pretty sure another bus runs along that corridor. Don’t remember cause I haven’t been to the Bronx in 5 months. 

The reason I chose the  as opposed to some SAS route was because I have something else in mind for SAS. Happened to make a visualized map of the 1968 Program for Action (which you can see in the previous page or 2 of this thread) and drew the  as the Park Avenue line given that SAS was planned to replace the IRT along Dyre and Pelham (north of Hunts Point Avenue). Thus I wanted to leave room for an SAS Bronx extension that could potentially serve an underserved area like Throggs Neck. TBH I’d prefer that over some B Division Pelham replacement. As for branching off 138th, I am proposing tunnels that would bypass 149/Grand Concourse so that would put the current (S-Curve) tunnels out of service. These new tunnels would obviously be wider than the current ones. 

For the part in bold here - No. For one, if we were to abandon 145th and 148th, that section of Harlem would only be left with bus service and I don’t think that’ll bode well with Harlem Riders. Secondly, while I did support the idea of sending all 7th Avenue Trains to WPR (which still happens in this proposal) and all Lexington Trains up Jerome, that would require a massive expansion of the 149th/Grand Concourse Station to deal with that potential transfer load. Also, while Jerome Avenue could use better service, I don’t think duplicating services would be a good idea. Especially when you have the  and under Grand Concourse a few blocks away. With White Plains Road, its different because trains Branch out after East 180th Street whereas Jerome doesn’t have that Luxury. With a  (cross platform) Transfer under 3rd Avenue-149th Street, it at least WPR Riders will still have access to Lexington if they choose not to transfer at 149th-Grand Concourse. 

A Fordham Subway would provide very nice crosstown service for the Bronx, however the problem lMO lies in the geography between Crane Concourse and the University Heights Bridge. For starters, individual transfer stations with the under Jerome and the  at Grand Concourse would be too close to each other, and even if you were to build a mega transfer station in that area, it wouldn’t be a desirable place to transfer given that Fordham Road makes a sharp turn between Jerome Avenue and Grand Concourse, and a few sharp turns between Jerome and the University Heights Bridge. You also have to take into account that the area I listed is somewhat of a mountainous region so taking that into account along with the sharp curves, wouldn’t make building a subway desirable. Finally, I have to mention 207th Street. 207th Street is on the opposite end of the University Heights Bridge facing west. And As far as I know, the tunnels that connect the  and  with 207th Street yard are under 207th. Meaning that a Fordham Subway would have to run beneath those tracks to terminate at Inwood with the , and that would be DEEP. While not impossible, I don’t find building a subway across Fordham Road to be a desirable choice due to geographical reasons. A streetcar or LRT is more plausible for Fordham Road IMO.