LGA Link N Train

I think I have some added thoughts on some routes QT1 - I still personally like this route, however there are many proponents of this proposal given that it mimics the proposed Boondoggle-X. Also eliminates the Q103 and all bus service on Vernon Blvd. Now from experience, by the time the B62 gets into queens, there aren’t that many passengers left on board. (I’m not sure if that’s the same with the B32), I personally wouldn’t mind if the Q69 or QT79 terminated in Greenpoint instead to at least preserve that Queens-Brooklyn Access. QT3/QT54 - While I still agree with @B35 via Church on splitting the Q54, I have to ask: “How many people are actually traveling between Jamaica and Williamsburg?” I ask this mainly cause I want to understand the rationale of giving Metropolitan Avenue Local/Limited Service as opposed to splitting the route. QT14 - While combining the Q10 and Q64 is ridiculous, I can now understand the rationale behind it. Though due to concerns about crowding, I think the should think twice about it. QT65 - While I have no problem with its route, people living along 160th have. However, if the doesn’t want it running toward Flushing, then where else would it go? Cause I can only think of Flushing if the chose to swap the QT65 and QT73 terminals. QT79 - I’m personally opposed with any route running underneath the in Astoria , I would route it via 21st Street and terminate it in Queensboro Plaza or Williamsburg.

@Jova42R Since you like to propose a bunch of LRT routes, I suggest reading this article: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/light-rail-economic-suitability

Well, I guess that’s true.

This is something that I started to wonder, but the amount of duplicative services in the redesign is something here are a few duplicates that I’ve noticed: QT69 - Duplicated by the QT1 on 21st Street QT14 - Duplicated by the QT87 QT36 - Duplicated by the QT18, QT33, QT34, QT38, QT39

LeFrak isn't that far from QCM by any means, I'd say that its a 10 minute walk at least. So I think the QT82 north of Queens Blvd is justified. But along the Penelope section, I disagree with it not going to Metro Station. Well that's good to note. As an occasional Q60 rider, I think it should preserve Manhattan Access given the clusterf**ks that is QBL (especially on weekends). Also, Would switching the QT61 and QT75 Manhattan Terminals work? If anything, the QT86 route along Yellowstone is perfect. The QT87, should preserve the Q23 route from Burns Street all the way to Metropolitan Avenue.

I agree with you on this and I personally think the QT10 is a smart idea, the main problem with how it’s currently proposed is the fact that if doesn’t make enough stops, especially at QCM which is a mall (or shopping district so to speak). I have a handful that I can list: QT82 - It’d be better off if it went to Metropolitan Avenue like the current Q38 does. The main difference is that I wouldn’t have buses turn onto Dry Harbor Road from Penelope Avenue. I’ve passed that intersection a couple of times and it’s way too narrow for a bus to turn between the former and latter. Going Southbound, I think it should continue down 77th Place and turn on Juniper Valley Road instead of Furmanville given the tight turn. Going northbound, the QT82 would be better off turning at 78th Street from Juniper Valley. The QT80 should preserve the Q39’s terminal to avoid worsening congestion at Ridgewood Terminal. The QT66 would be better off going to LIC-Hunters Point to at least cover the entirety of Northern Blvd. Someone here mentioned that the QT78 should go down 65th Place. I would add onto that and say that it should go to Astoria with the QT80. The QT61 should go on 82nd/83rd. A Queens-Bronx connector route was a huge missed opportunity in the draft plan IMO.

That’s one merger that I’ll never understand. What was the rationale behind it?

Replies are in bold.

I notice that too every time I travel in Astoria/LIC. I've been on a few express trains on Astoria (some time before the fleet swap began). Never understood why the has done those oddball express runs with the and .

Tell me about it. The should’ve been deep cleaning their system ages ago.

At least they’re doing something about the homeless issue. I’d argue that all of this deep cleaning that the is doing now should’ve been done ages ago. While I understand that shutting down the system from 1 AM to 5 AM will help with cleaning the subway and getting the homeless out, I don’t think this should ever be a permanent thing given the density of New York. At the very least, I can foresee the 1-5 AM shutdown drag for 12-24 months so that General Orders and other repairs can be done more efficiently, heck. I’d say that this is a chance for the to rethink their strategies when it comes to G.O.’s. They should bring back FASTRACK given how successful that program was and get rid of flagging wherever possible.

Nah Nah Nah The win-win here would be the following: Reform the fumigating process at Forest Hills. Doing this would increase the terminal capacity up from 20 TPH. Queens Blvd CBTC (which seems to be on the horizon) Full time Service via 63 rd. That’s 8 TPH right there, if anything, I’d argue that there’s a bit more space on 6th Avenue Local to add a few local ’s. These local trains could run express along Culver and would follow the same route as normal trains. via 53rd. Both 15 TPH each. 18 ’s, 12 ’s. On 63rd, it would be 8 ’s, 7 ‘s. 60th can continue with 6-10 ‘s. Extend local service during the peak hours so that commute times for passengers taking the bus to the can be reduced.

That sounds like a short term solution in my eyes. Long Term solution to the issue when it comes to the issues popping up with 4-5 car sets would be to extend the platforms of the BMT Eastern Division so that they can be on par with the rest of the B Division.

To throw my two cents here, I'll respond to the first 3 points of your post. 1. I don't know about everyone else, but I've been predicting a final run for the R-32 since 2018. 2. Couldn't agree with you more. 3. Personally, I'd like to see the R-32 do a run from Astoria to Coney Island via the Brighton Line. It'd also be preferable if it were more than one train (I'd say at least 3) given that the 32's had outlived the 50 year lifespan. But running it via the Line works as well, if not better. We'll just have to wait and see once this whole pandemic is over.

I know that they tried to do this with the Queens Bus Redesign, but the issue people had with routes (that I think can work) came down to the intermediate stops not being ADA-accessible. Decluttering the areas you just mentioned in addition to Jamaica would be nice, but how easy (or complicated) would it be?

With this whole pandemic going on, this is a great opportunity for the to rethink their strategies when it comes to Transit. Especially things surrounding General Orders, as its been noted here that flagging is a bad practice.

The is already working on a Livonia-Junius Tranfsfer since they made the free transfer permanent. I made another post above regarding Hewes/Loimer and Broadway.

Just to update it, that's it. Well that's unfortunate, the is a line that's in need of improvement. Arguably, more than any other line.

I don't know. It was a random thought that just hit my head.

Given that there are 8-car 179's not being used because service is suspended, how feasible would it be to run a 9 car set on the (or any other line)?

Mind if I ask, how many TPH is each line getting under this proposal, I'm a bit curious. Not necessarily since you could do 18 and 12 under @shiznit1987's proposal.

I feel like the needs to update the Line Review because a lot has changed with the Line between 2013 and the present day. If anything, we can all agree on the following: - Trains need to be lengthened to at least 480'. Preferably, it should use 8 car R-160's or R-179's for the upcoming CBTC upgrades, and for compatibility with Queens Blvd CBTC just in case an Train needs to be rerouted. - Build a Hewes Street/Broadway Transfer should be a serious consideration given its success during the Project. (A Union Avenue station along the and to consolidate Hewes Street and Loimer Street would be more preferable though I'm not trying to get ahead of myself).

Not to go off topic, but why is it ALWAYS the East Side and Astoria complaining with every transit related thing that happens?

Yea, pretty much. With this change, and the upcoming implementation of CBTC on Queens Blvd, I would advocate to make the a full time route along Queens Blvd and 6th Avenue. Depending on how much space is left on 6th Avenue/Williamsburg (in addition to any added space along Queens Blvd), the should also get a TPH boost.

Except Montague Unfortunately. Heck, I'll be surprised if a final R-32 run involved the train(s) departing GCT, though I might be foaming at this point.