Coney Island Av

Holy crap. Since we now know the status of 3010-3019, this means that I can create an update. 3010-3019- Still testing in the Rockaways, stored at Pitkin Yard 3050-3057- Testing on the line, stored at ENY Yard 3058-3065- Assigned to the in passenger service 3066-3069- Assigned to the in passenger service 3082-3085- Presumably stored/delivered to 207 St Yard 3086-3089- Burn-in testing on the , stored at ENY Yard 3090-3093- Assigned to the in passenger service 3094-3097- Stored at 207 St Yard 3098-3101- Testing in the Rockaways, stored at Pitkin Yard

He did say a new crossover will be built closer to 18th itself. So the will be fine turning at 18 Av, since capacity will be boosted once the necessary switches are added. Not just that, since 18 Av is aboveground, it allows cars from the to rest outside. As for the switch installment, I would cut the back to Church for 1-2 weekends, while free shuttle buses run to Coney. And the train terminating at Whitehall can simply be solved by extending it to Bay Pkwy on the at all times. But the only runs 6 TPH not because of capacity, it's due to the fact that there isn't enough equipment since it's shared with the . If TPH was increased, then we could send the to Brooklyn. As for Broadway Jct, that's only temporary, and the will be running normally in only 2 months from now. The switches are farther away from the station, as they're located closer to Chauncey St, which is the reason why capacity is constricted at the terminus. Now for the 18 Av extension- yes, today, capacity would be limited. But as mentioned earlier, necessary switches would be added so the can terminate at 18th efficiently.

I agree with @RR503. I went to 53 St a few months back. And what did I see? Only the walls were renovated/replaced, and mezzanine also looked cosmetic. However, that's about it. It looks nice on the outside, but that's the only thing it does. The MTA has to consider that these renovations are pointless with all the aforementioned things (ADA, new entrances, etc) being left out. The ESI renovations, IMO, are a "f**k you" to the disabled and local residents that have to walk a lot to the nearest station. I also agree with his point of the stations not being the most deteriorated. For example, they propose an ESI renovation of Arthur Kill, a station that's new and only opened 1 year ago. What's the point in doing that when the station isn't going to be dilapidated at all, and it already has ADA-accessibility. Most of the 4th Av stops look like stations from the 80's or 90's at best. That's fairly recent.

Is the heavily used enough to even warrant a station renovation? I'm asking this because people keep saying that despite the fact Lower Manhattan is a busy district, but Nassau is underutilized.

I'm going to share another proposal- this one is a bit foamish, however. Thoughts? The Liberty Av EL is demolished and replaced with a parallel subway running via Pitkin Av/Linden Blvd. Underserved transit deserts in Eastern Queens will now have subway access to Manhattan. : Normal route, 207 St to Far Rockaway. : 168 St, extended to 234 St-Cambria Heights near the Nassau County line via Linden Blvd, Fulton St express days, peak express between Cross Bay Blvd and Francis Lewis Blvd. : Replaces as Fulton Local, to Francis Lewis Blvd rush hrs, other times to Cross Bay Blvd. : Extended to Howard Beach-JFK via the RBB, with three rush hour trains running from Rockaway Park to 2 Av-Houston. Other times, this is replaced by split service between the two Rockaway terminus.

Totally with you. I mean, the Myrtle Elevated was abandoned for the same reason. There's no way it was staying as a result. And as for 3rd, it was demolished because the residents were promised to get a extension to Gun Hill as the replacement. That obviously didn't happen because the MTA ran out of funding. And the city never intended to let RBB rot, but it was never built. It was because either the MTA didn't have the funds to reactivate the northern half, or it was just forgotten. The "it would've been reactivated sooner" nonsense is just like saying, if Hillside Av was dense enough, the would've been extended to the City Line. It was proposed, but never built. So a subway extension on the RBB would be viable and beneficial, but we still have to consider overcrowding...

The reason why they terminate at 71 Av, and goes local east of there, is because Hillside Local residents prefer express over the local. When the was extended to Parsons/Archer in 1988, the was extended to Jamaica-179 St in its place. However, people ditched the by the time they got to Parsons Blvd, Union Turnpike, and 71 Av because they wanted fast express service. As a result, this extension was cut back to only rush hours, until the was cut back entirely to 71 Av in 1992. If this was re-introduced, only with the added, it will have the same result. Also, having the terminate at 179 St only replaces one conga line with another. You'd have the , , , and terminating there, which would exceed the 30 TPH limit. If you were to fix the conga line, you'd have to build a spur out to the LIE or an abandoned ROW west of Forest Hills.

Fair enough with your point of QBL being at capacity. But we can actually fix these issues. You should also see that all these problems of overcrowding, ridership, and myriad everything can actually be fixed. However, which problem do you think is the most severe with RBB? Is it capacity or density? The only reason I brought up Dyre was because it's a low-ridership branch, which is what you would expect the RBB to be. And you would obviously expect the IRT Lex to be overcongested, just like the QBL. @T to Dyre Avenue brought up a proposal earlier in the thread by returning to the pre-2001 split, except it's reversed with 18 /12 . Since the is the more busier of the two, the extra 3 TPH could possibly handle the riders coming from RBB. However, this also means fewer s would need to turn at Kings Highway. This is more likely to happen this century, because the bypass will never be built within that time. It's imperfect, but it's the only way to do it without the MTA becoming fossils. Now for the bypass. This is obviously the most optical solution for relieving congestion on the QBL. This fast route to/from Jamaica will pull passengers off the . Since QBL will then have enough capacity, there's nothing stopping the RBB from being reactivated. I also said that converting Woodhaven was to reduce the number of people transferring at Roosevelt. If people transfer at Woodhaven, there will be less transferring at Roosevelt. It makes two express stations for the average RBB rider to choose from, as opposed to 1 present-day option.

That's not what his point is. People are bringing up the letter for a "supplemental service" to the going to 96 St-2 Av in @Wallyhorse's dreams...

I'm now going to explain the positives of RBB being built, seeing as how we're stuck thinking about the negative sides of things: 1) The Q52/53 haven't changed at all. Buses will do nothing to accurately serve/cater to these folks, who arguably want a rail. Despite the "Woodhaven Bus Lanes" traffic is still prevalent in many major streets, and Woodhaven is one of them. The Q52/53 SBS haven't changed due to traffic, and bus lanes were arguably a waste because of it. It'll still take half an hour to get to Woodhaven-Queens Mall because of this. That's greater time than it takes to get from 14 St to 145 St on the , which is 20 minutes. Also, do you wonder why there's a MULTITUDE of buses (the Q11, Q21, Q52/53 SBS, QM15, QM16, QM17) running down Woodhaven is because the area is actually dense enough! If the area really wasn't dense, then all those buses wouldn't have been serving the area, and it would've only been one bus. And don't say Woodhaven is different because 1) it's only a mile from the controversial ROW, and 2) many people, even from the RBB itself, cram onto the buses. 2) A lot of ya'll seem to disregard additional projects that will be constructed in conjunction to RBB. Many of you seem that the will experience 53 St congestion because of feeding the passengers into QBL. You completely seem to forgot converting Woodhaven into an express station. This isn't about extra TPH- it's to handle the crowding condition. Many riders transferring from the buses have to pack onto the . Make Woodhaven express, and it will handle the passengers fine, and will lessen the crowding condition at Roosevelt, thus making BOTH the former and latter options for express service. Way into the distant future, we could then have a bypass, with a turquoise , therefore adding a new, high-speed route to Manhattan from Eastern Jamaica. 3) The is often regarded as "a pointless line that doesn't even touch the metropolis." The reason that people think this way is because of ridership, reliability, and lack of connections. However, these changes can be revoked. New connections could be built between Fulton St-Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr, and Broadway-Lorimer or a new Union Av stop), allowing connections to the . This will make the get a lot more ridership, therefore solving the second issue. But we're missing another core connection- a connection to the at Queens Plaza, and even the at 74 St-Broadway. Those two stations have a lot of ridership, and you may say, "it's impossible to run it there because it will reduce Manhattan-bound service!" However, RBB, if built, will allow the one of the two QBL locals, the , to diverge east of 63 Dr-Rego Park. This frees up terminal capacity at Forest Hills, and will therefore allow the to be reextended to 71 Av. This will reduce, but not completely negate, the conga line. The will gain even more ridership in doing so, and allow direct crosstown service between Brooklyn-Queens. It's the same reason why the was extended to Church. 4) This line is actually a crucial crosstown. Let''s say you wanted to go from, say, Long Island City to the Rockaways. Currently, you have to take the to Manhattan, and have to go on a suburb tour on the through Brooklyn, just to go to the beach. But if RBB was constructed, there will just be a diagonal path to the Rockaways. None of this backtracking, going through Brooklyn nonsense. Just take the , and you're good to go. 5) Other projects involving the use of RBB, such as a highway, a roadway, or even a light-rail, are 99.9% nigh impossible to build. Firstly, the ROW links into the , and is provisioned onto the . Constructing light-rail will be impossible because an elevated structure will have to be built, and there will be even more opposition to it, than if it was subway. Making it a highway or roadway is also impossible because highways are more disruptive than subway lines/elevateds. It would be even worse if you heard the sound of cars zooming by right out your window. Finally, converting to LIRR is off the boat because people from Howard Beach/Rockaways won't tolerate high LIRR fares, and it will only see/meet the same fate as a result of barely any ridership. And what if someone has atrocious driving skills and crashed into your backyard! This is why, if RBB is reactivated, has to be subway. Not a highway or roadway, and even a return of LIRR. 6) Most of you who criticize the RBB, aren't even regular people who use that line on a daily basis. I want to people to explain what exactly happens on a daily basis, when riding QBL. Daily commuters, such as @N6 Limited and @LGA Link N train, who use QBL on a daily basis should explain what actually happens. People don't have to flee or bail for the . That's just like saying if the was extended to Lefferts, everyone would bail for the . The locals do have capacity to spare, and don't say the is congested because it does have capacity to spare. Maybe not a lot, but in some form or another, it will. Keep in mind, the Dyre Av line was already constructed, and I expect the RBB to be no different! I'm sure if we were discussing about the Dyre Av line before it was built, we would run into the same problems: overcrowding and low-density. But here we are, in the present, and Dyre was constructed already. The , despite having busy usage at 3 Av-149 St, and immense crowding on the congested Lex, can actually handle the crowds coming from Dyre! And the IRT Lex is a more busy corridor than QBL, so the can definitely handle the crowds coming from RBB. Piece the analogy together like this: the , despite feeding into the QBL, which is congested, and also has busy usage at Roosevelt, can actually handle the crowds coming from RBB! But it doesn't end there, also the has this too! The , despite being full from Grant Av to 59 St-Columbus Circle, and having to experience high usage at 42 St-PABT, Chambers St, and Jay St-MetroTech, can actually handle the passengers coming from the Rockaways! Rinse and repeat. The lines that are described as "full and overwhelmed" have capacity to spare as evidenced as what I wrote. So in conclusion, the RBB is dense enough, the best option, and has capacity to spare, just like the Dyre Av line. Whew, that was a long post.

I'm now gonna explain the benefits of RBB being built, because we're all stuck in an endless swamp of negatives. EDIT: Please delete, accidentally posted before listing reasons.

i'm just curious who is actually friends with one another on this site. I have seen a few members before on fantrips. I'll try to meet/speak to members such as @Union Tpke on fantrips in the future. I'll start us off with members I've seen in person: @Around the Horn @Union Tpke @Fan Railer @Dj Hammers (actually spoke to him once)

Snooze happily everyone. Have a good night. Looks like we're gonna have to call in animal control to take care of this mess.

Lmfao please, please don't get offended by the next post I'm gonna make. This isn't intended to harm you in anyway. And if it does, then I completely didn't mean it. Anyways, An train derails at 28 St. Broadway is shut down in both directions. No worries, let's just take the to 6 Av! A panda named Bob escaped from the Space Needle Zoo and revisited NYC. He went to 4th Av and surprisingly got stuck on the tracks at 36 St. Animal control shuts down all tunnels in the area, in order to return the panda back to its home. The are holding in stations, going nowhere. Since Broadway is closed, let's just go to 6th- Oh wait, there is no 6th Av service because the panda named Bob wants de-interlining. @P3F and @Jemorie are both right. These are actual issues completely overlooked.

The , , , and are the best because they don't have to merge at all. But there are many instances, where trains have to merge. I get where you are coming from, segregating lines will boost capacity. But with the customer outrage alone, will make this never see the light of day. Only a few merges are severe, and most aren't even major at all. But you have to accept the fact that the current setup is in place because they like it that way. If there is heavy demand for Lexington service, it means they prefer it. This demand is also why extensions such as SAS and East Side Access are built: the people like/want it that way. And extensions that don't get built, such as an extension of the to Queens, never get built because people don't want it. I'm pretty sure the benefits of your proposals are completely negated by the downsides. The only reason why 6 Av was on the Brighton line with the was because it was only temporary. I'm sure if this was permanent with the to Brighton, people will riot. Similarly, 4 Av had only service to Broadway and Nassau St, which were only the pre-2001. Again, it was temporary and people were promised to get their service back once the tubes reopened. Why were the swapping northern terminals? It's because the people like it that way. And this is a question for ppl who foam over sending the back to Nassau/4 Av. Yes, the gets more TPH and eliminates merging, but will the customers prefer it that way? No. Just because certain lines have a certain pattern does not mean we should do the same for all lines having the same pattern. Merging is there because of ridership, not because it's atrocious and wants to ruin your day. But now let's get to one of your proposals I partially agree with: de-interlining Broadway. I agree because of the sheer congestion that floods the 60 Street Tube, which is something riders probably won't like at all. Therefore, if there is a solution that satisfies ridership, then let's do it. I do agree with @bobtehpanda's point of not maintaining current patterns for the next millennia, however that's only for severe instances in the case of merging, like 149 St, Dekalb, Myrtle, and Rogers, but not minor merges like 59 St-Columbus Circle, and 145 St. Let's only make a big deal out of severe issues, not a turd issue that doesn't cause delays.

I'mma make this point one more time because ya'll seem to ignore me. I will take your points, and also @Lance's, @Trainmaster5's @Jemorie's, and my points into account. The whole point of fixing these interlockings (149 St, Rogers, and more) is to BOTH provide additional service, and faster service, WITHOUT ANTAGONIZING THE PEOPLE LIVING OFF OF (let's say, Dyre), by taking the train away. Yes, this is a thousand times more expensive, but at least it satisfies everyone without any harm! This to me (aka all proposals claiming we should treat customer preference like it's moot) is just like saying we should permanently reroute the back to Nassau to avoid merging with the , so the 's TPH could be increased to INFINITY.

These are my solutions to this merging, extra capacity stuff. Instead of eliminating service on WPR, why don't we instead rebuild the Rogers and 149 St junctions? This will give the Bronx a really balanced service, which will make things more convenient. The 149 St junction should be rebuilt in a configuration that allows the to merge between 149-GC and 3 Av-149 St. 145 St will be expanded to a 10-car station, and the will both stop there. A connection to the Jerome Av line will be built to allow trains to supplement the . One benefit of this proposal is that the 's TPH could be increased and can cruise into 138 St instead of a slow crawl. Meanwhile, the Rogers Junction should be rebuilt to have flying junctions, in order to avoid the chokepoint caused by trains merging with both the . And FYI, the aren't based out of the same yard. It's best to keep current configurations on Brighton/4 Av as-is, in order to comply with customer preference. It should be: : Wakefield-241 St to Flatbush : Bedford Park Blvd to New Lots : Woodlawn to New Lots : Dyre Av to Flatbush As for Dekalb, it should be rebuilt with smooth connections instead of a mess of tracks and switches, This will speed up service, and add more capacity. : to Brighton Beach : to Coney Island via West End : to Coney Island via Sea Beach : to Coney Island via Brighton : to Bay Ridge-95 St : to Bay Pkwy via West End QBL: : Express to eastern Jamaica : Locals to 71 Av and the LIE : via Bypass, local east of 71 Av Untangling Broadway would involve this: : to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63 St : to Broadway-125 St via SAS : to Astoria/LGA

Exactly @Trainmaster5, I mean Brighton Local riders prefer access to Broadway over 6th. That is why we have the express and local. If only the went to Brighton, and to 4th Av, you will have a lot of uproar from Brighton line residents. And if the went to WPR and to Woodlawn, a lot of people will be inconvenienced, especially Dyre which prefers Lexington over 7th. And let's say we completely reversed service patterns north of 145, where all 6th Av service goes to 168/207, and 8th to BPB/205. Again, riders will crowd 125 St like a madhouse. I'm sure if you asked residents of Inwood/Wash Hts, that you want to take the away, I'm sure they would disagree as they have been having service for many years, and commute to the areas in which the serve. And @Jemorie, I said I am not advocating for swapping the northern terminus. It's more of a would-you-rather situation, than advocating. So yes, as @Trainmaster5 said, we should treat customer preference over operations. Besides, most of these merges from quite a few proposals, aren't even that major. And customers do not care and will never care about reliability/capacity. They only care about the service they are receiving. I've ridden through 59 St a million times before, and I can personally tell you, the merge between the isn't that major, and doesn't really delay trains. And FYI, Columbus Circle is a major transfer spot. You're gonna have severe platform congestion, with people transferring and the current ridership levels. It just worsens a disaster IMO. And 53rd Street has to have express service because it is the more popular corridor. If all expresses went to 63rd, ridership will drop significantly and ridership will soar though the roof. But the merge at Queens Plaza, again, isn't really that severe. I do agree that the Hoyt merge is severe, and it can be fixed with the , but the Canal St merge IDK. And with the current configuration, for example the and sharing tracks, you're getting the same amount of TPH anyways, so why even bother? The only thing I do agree with is fixing up Broadway, by having the not merge at all, because the 60 Street tubes are congested, though this would require a new yard on ConEd territory, along with an extension to LGA. And I do agree with fixing up Dekalb, but this isn't the best solution. You cannot send the up SAS with the . The should instead be sent to QBL via 63rd to replace the , which would be rerouted to LGA/Astoria. These types of proposals should only be looked at if: 1) would customers prefer it that way 2)if the merges are really severe to justify this 3) whether this would cause massive congestion or a drop in crowding 4) the outrage that will spark if this is proposed

You're forgetting that 53rd has an in-system connection to Mr. Lexington Peartree. Edit: @bobtehpanda 63rd does not have a connection to the Lex, but the real reason why express service is on 53rd currently (the ) is because you at least have ONE local, and ONE express.

Ok. I personally disagree with these types of proposals. Here's why: The reason that the and , or the and , share tracks, is to provide additional options, whether it's express or local, regardless of merging. If you place every line running on the same track all from the same trunk, you're going to have immense transferring crowds at express stops. But there's is already a cross-platform transfer to begin with, so why even consider this in the first place? And no, the DO have to switch in Manhattan. Once at Canal St, and the other at 145 St. I use the regularly on my commute, so I'm guaranteed to be familiar with the layout. I would rather have the to 207, to 168, to Bedford, and to 205 St, but I am not advocating for this. Leave the alone. Now, as for @bobtehpanda's proposal: Firstly, the won't have yard access if it goes to Astoria. Please don't say, let's do OOS yard moves, because that will delay and trains. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the whole reason why the , , , , all share tracks is to provide additional options. Atlantic will become a madhouse if Broadway and 6 Av were completely segregated. Finally, WTC won't be able to handle your proposed "24 TPH," and since that's the case, 53rd will become overloaded at the loss of service.

Sorry @Union Tpke, I only put it on there so I wouldn't have to constantly update it on this forum.

The info you posted was edited by me on wikipedia @LGA Link N train what do you mean by "deadass?" I genuinely edited it and I'm not lying.

The former

Why did the MTA originally project some R179's to go to the ? Why is it just the that's getting them now? And I also have a question about 3010-3019 and 3050-3057. I know they are test trains, but 3058-3061 entered service already, and it's a test train. How come these two oddballs haven't entered service yet? Finally, to answer this discussion from above, the 's R160s will go back to ENY, and not Coney Island. The needs extra service more than the .

You’re better off just eliminating/rebuilding the bottleneck at Rogers and 149 because, ahem, 149 St and Franklin Av will become overcrowded, making the crowd condition worse. Both the Bronx and Brooklyn won’t have a one seat ride to either side of Manhattan, unlike the current setup which does.