LGA Link N Train

This is more of a random thought as opposed to any sort of criticism or proposal, but given the mass confusion and criticisms that people had in the early days of the redesign, I think that the might revert a majority of its proposed routes back to the numbering scheme of the current day routes (with some exceptions here and there).

...which is why I haven't really said anything in these last few threads regarding the topic of (MTA)'s budget shortfall. While I may have my own speculation as to what might happen, I also want to wait and see what will happen.

I actually have a document (that I would've posted earlier had it not been for the fact that the security certificate expired) which shows all of the modifications that I made into the Queens Bus Redesign. There are some ideas that I still disagree with (such as the QT50) but don't know what better alternative to provide whereas other routes (such as the QT34), I don't necessicarily have an opinion on them. I also added 5 routes that were never part of the Official Plan such as a QT90 (which is a South Bronx-Queens Connector). NGL, I kinda felt bothered by the fact that the never proposed a route that connected South Bronx with Queens via Astoria especially after they mentioned that they were going to improve interborough connections IIRC. Maybe it was to keep things budget neutral. Anyways, enough rambling, here's the document I made while the forums was down: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13bgZvRvkYdMhcMTbtcePbyqwYp9KfRrMgsB-McrdfdM/edit

Thanks, it took me a while to draw each individual line cause I had to draw each line from one end of the map to the other end, then back the opposite direction of where I started drawing that line. I'm going to add descriptions to lines that I altered, In fact, there wer're some lines in this map that I split into 2 sections like the QT67 and the QT81, but I don't know which end should keep its proposed name and which end should gain a new name. QT2/3 - I drew the QT59 route first on the map and basically had the QT3 follow its route within Brooklyn. Whereas the QT2, I think it should be a straight shot into Queens via the service lanes of the BQE and that a Brooklyn Route should take care of Bushwick/Woodpoint/Kingsland. (Looking back at 's Redesign, I'm guessing they did that so that it covers the current day B24 route) I forgot that I gave the QT2 and QT3 different routings south of Borinquen so thanks for pointing it out to me. QT2/QT4 - The reason I put the QT2 at Jackson Heights was because I intended to have it run as a split B24 route with both ends meeting up at Jackson Heights. After examining my alteration to the QT2 after I made an unrelated alteration with the QT76, I see that there would be no reason to have the QT2 at Jackson Heights. Let alone the fact that I didn't even notice that I had 2 routes serving Brooklyn starting at Jackson Heights. QT42 - For this, I didn't alter anything from the official Queens Bus Redesign (other than make the QT42 an SBS Route) although I see your point about why buses make the loop (as I'm typing this).

I see whaty you mean, so I adjusted those 2 lines to fill in those gaps. In the case of the QT75, the reason I initally didn't put it down Greenpoint Avenue was because I intend to have the B24 serve that route between Jackson Heights and WIlliamsburg via Greenpoint. But alas, having both the B24 and QT75 running along Greenpoint would be redundant, so I'd keep the QT75 in favor of the B24 just to have something serve 48th Street.

Welp, I completed my own version at what the Queens Bus Redesign should look like. Added some changes that were the result of the ongoing discussion and I plan to tweak a few things here and there: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1TFLioK_1NnV15T-J0gOIR7WFRvp2GKz3&usp=sharing

I mean.. you can do that during the morning and afternoon hours on any day of the week.

Fore the part in bold, I see your point there. But looking at the route from the eyes of any commuter who use the Q23 to get to the Q38 would look at the QT82 and wonder why it diverts from Metro. I do like your idea of sending the QT82 up either via Dry Harbor Road or 80th Street/Grand Avenue from Myrtle as opposed to 63rd Drive. I prefer Dry harbor Road because it wouldn't alter the route too much. Also, I'm assuming that you'd have nothing on Penelope which makes sense according to 's standards of not having buses on Narrow Streets in the redesign. As for the Q67, I agree with having it go east on Metro (which seems to be a general consencus here on this thread). I didn't jump into the Q39/Q67 discission up thread and a few pages ago as I spent that time observing, but I would have the Q67 start at Queensboro Plaza (or Court Square if congestion is a really bad issue at QBP), have it do its current route until Greenpoint Avenue, where it'd operate as a commuter express (similar to the B103) up until Maurice Avenue. The Q39 IMO should handle industrial Maspeth. From there, I'd still have the Q67 serve Residential Maspeth and 69th Street before going east on Metro/80th and ending at Atlas Park Mall.

I like the idea of having a Woodhaven local Serve 63rd Drive as that would have a lot of ridership potential. It would've save me a 10 minute walk especially during the winter. Although, since the topic of the Q38 was brought up, I still don't like how they handled the QT82. One day (right before the pandemic got bad), I was taking the Q38 to Metro for the . I passed by the corner of Penelope and Dry Harbor Road where the proposed to have the QT82 turn to go to ..Atlas Mall or Myrtle (forgot which one). I observed the corner for a bit to realize that its way too narrow for buses to make that turn. Then again, I don't know how people put up with that tight curve at 77th Place and Furmanville Avenue. If it were up to me, I'd have the QT82 go straight down 77th Place (and straight up 78th Street) to/from Juniper Valley Road, and then just end near Metropolitan Avenue.

Quick Question about Penn Station Access? Now I understand that the project was put on hold because of the Pandemic and the budget shortfall, but Did the or Amtrak include an alignment or diagram of each proposed Station along the NEC, like for Exapmle, do they have a diagram about what a Hunts Point Station would look like under Penn Station Access?

I find it interesting that you plan to send the to Pelham Bay Park and to introduce a new service along 3rd Avenue. Although, doing this adds more interlining to the system at no additional benefits. Although, I can't argue with the notion of 145th Street being extended for 10 Cars (with a new tunnel) even though I'd consider that to be a low Priority. Might I also point out the fact that while your proposal introduces a 3rd Avenue Line making the transfer with the at 3rd Avenue-149th Street, you might as well send the to Dyre Avenue and leave the handling Pelham Bay alone. Although, I did think of another idea that might interest you Since your goal is to send the via the Pelham Line, why not swap the alignments of the Pelham and White Plains Road Lines at Hunts Point instead? Over there, you'll be able to create a new transfer between the 7th Avenue and Lexington Lines (Those being the and Lines). In addition, that leaves the potential for the creation of a Transit Hub because Amtrak (and soon the Metro North) pass by that area. Although, the only downside to that is that you'd have to build a new Underground Station at Hunts Point for the ( and) in addition to widening the street in order to build a portal (and new station on Westchester Avenue) which would require eminent domain. The changes in this scenario would be the following: - Pelham Bay Park to Flatbush Avenue-Brooklyn College via "Pelham, 7th Avenue Express and Eastern Parkway Local". Some trains would run express in the peak direction. - Pelham Bay Park to New Lots Avenue. "via Pelham, 7th Avenue Express and Eastern Parkway Local". If I don't decide to include a Harlem Shuttle, then some trains would be rerouted to Harlem-148th Street. - Harlem-148th Street to 135th Street-Lenox Avenue (this would require expanding 135th Street station which isn't included in this proposal but still worth considering) - Same route as today but service would be doubled. - Dyre Avenue to Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall. "Bronx and Lexington Local" - Wakefield-241st Street to Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall. "Bronx and Lexington Local" - Wakefield-241st Street to Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall. "Bronx Express" between East 180th and 3rd Avenue-138th Street. I know this plan doesn't include 3rd Avenue, but thats mainly because I'd prefer if it were a part of SAS instead of Lexington. Anyways, here's my map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1XA_Bb9gktIXPBvejC3uokCbKGCxBLFSR&usp=sharing

I think this might've been a typo on 's part because it sounds like they were referring to the . I thought the same thing, but then stopped to think about whether or not they'd have work trains laid up at York Street throughout the duriation of the Project.

Can you elaborate on this. What is the rationale behind.... ALL of these proposals?

South 4th was originally proposed back in the 1920's.

Guess I'll clarify a little bit. 1. Think about this. By the time Phase 3 ever gets built, there will be a very high chance that all 75 Footers would be retired and be replaced by newer (60 foot) equipment. At the same time, the idea of extending platforms (and consolidating stations) on the BMT Eastern Division is one that would have to be implemented in order for this reroute to work. Even without Phase 3 and the idea I pit up, I think expanding the BMT Eastern Division would be beneficial not only in the long term, but in the short term as well. 3. The would run between Bay Ridge and (an expanded) Essex Street. During the evenings and overnight, trains could deadhead to ENY Yard, (which i also recommend expanding to fit longer trains). 5. I guess but given the considerable amount of Distance between Broadway and 2nd Avenue in Manhattan, there wouldn't much of a reason to deinterline DeKalb now. 6. I understand your concern over the , but if that's the case, might as well reroute it to Astoria and fold the into the . A nice little bonus is that an running from Astoria-Euclid would still have Yard Access to Pitkin. And then maybe something else could run in place of the on Queens Blvd, Maybe a Train, but doing that would force you to deinterline CPW/8th Avenue. If you want, I can make a map to clear things up.

I thought the same thing Until I realized that Q24, Q54, Q56 and Jamaica Hospital all exist.

While Physically possible, I don't see a reason as to why we should send the to Brooklyn. Lexington Express already has enough to deal with in addition that your proposal makes Rogers Avenue Junction a bigger bottleneck than it already is. True. While connecting SAS to Montague wouldn't save much IMO, it would be interesting if we did the following: 6th Ave Express - Williamsburg 6th Ave Local - Rutgers/Culver Nassau - Montague/4th Ave Local 2nd Avenue - Manhattan Bridge North/4th or Brighton Broadway Express - Manhattan Bridge South/4th or Brighton Broadway Local - New Tunnel connection to Fulton Local 8th Avenue Express - Fulton Express. Doing these connections in addition to building transfers in Key areas would provide a system wide benefit as every Manhattan-Brooklyn connection would be gaining access to Midtown in addition to providing a better integration between the IND and BMT.

Ehhh.... I don't think so. The way I see it is if you want SAS to go to 4th Avenue and South Brooklyn, that'll have to come at the expense of having direct 6th Avenue Service. Unfortunately, you simply can't gain certain things in life without sacrificing other things.

I almost didn't see the large "B" for a second. Nice photo!

I heard about it on Facebook. Thank god the conductor is okay.

Nothings wrong with that. However, we're just confused as to how it would be built or what the rationale behind the proposal is, and you're exxagerated tone in response to the criticism you got isn't helping your case. This may not matter to you, but I like to keep my proposals as realistic as possible (while still being a proposal). Also, here are some fun resources for you that you can reference to whenever you decide to think of another idea (not all ideas in the documents I'm linking down below are the best, but are pretty fun to think about): https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/docs/NYC_full_trackmap.pdf http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/AC_LineReview.pdf https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-12/MTA NYCT Subway Speed and Capacity Review_Final Report.pdf https://www.pcac100daysandnights.org/ http://fourthplan.org/ https://rpa.org/work/reports/save-our-subways#key-findings

Which sucks because those are the very people who keep transit moving within the .

Too much for me to read it right now. So no.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the put a 46 on the a Christmas or 2 ago?