Coney Island Av

LGA Link N train: I think it's because they want ANY type of transit access, whether it's LIRR or subway. But buses are EXTREMELY INADEQUATE for the people despite SBS service on the Q52/53. 

Anyways, this is my proposal for RBB in the SHORT-TERM. A LONG-TERM proposal will be posted later. 

IMG_0432 by Jacob Robles, on Flickr

I guess I should clarify: 

According to http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2016/02/futurenycsubway-2016/ the LOCAL MAX for CBTC will be 33 TPH, while the EXPRESS will be 40 TPH on QB. This WILL ALLOW more TPH and expansion of service. 

I will also explain how the sections of my fantasy map-http://app.enmodal.co/?id=bee7a31886ae8a71 where three services all run on the same track work. For those who haven't seen the map yet- go check it out, you'll be a bit confused if you don't.

I'm also thinking of swapping the  AND  in my map since in 63rd they could all fit without severe congestion. However, that does leave 53rd with no local option. 

63 St Tunnel :  15 TPH,  10 TPH,  8 TPH. (33 TPH) 

Central Park West :  10 TPH,  10 TPH,  8 TPH (28 TPH)

Queens Blvd Local :  10 TPH,  10 TPH,  10 TPH (30 TPH) This also works because terminal capacity at 71 Av is freed up with the  going to Rockaways. 

Montague :  8 TPH,  10 TPH,  12 TPH (30 TPH) 

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

No, I got what OOS meant, I'm wondering why you're worried about the  losing one. In system transfers are objectively better than out of system ones -- something that  via 60 provides. 

According to MTA docs, QBL CBTC will increase capacity by about 3 trains per hour. So no. No scope. 

Again, you're missing my point about Queens Plaza. The issue isn't 60th st access -- originating customers can just walk to Queensboro, and customers can change at Roosevelt or Forest Hills. The issue is that by moving the  to 63, you're restricting the ways riders east of there on Queens Boulevard can get to the station. If you live between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza, and want to get the , or want to go to work in downtown LIC, you can now only take the  . That's a bad thing, given that the  is already the slight favorite of the two. 

No, it isn't the only way to do it. I've got a radical, cutting edge method, one that gives riders more access to important transfer points and business corridors without expense:

Leave the  train alone. 

Wait. I thought CBTC could be 40TPH. But if what you're saying is true, this will be the frequencies on 63rd:

 15 TPH

 10 TPH

 8 TPH

If CBTC is 40 TPH, the s TPH will be increased to 12 TPH. 

They still have transfer points to the  at 14 St and Canal, and also the  at Times Sq-42 St.

Here is how riders between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza can access downtown LIC besides taking the :

65 St: Use nearby 69 St   

Steinway St: Use nearby Broadway  

36 St: Use nearby 39 Av  

As for 46 St and Northern Blvd: Take the  because those stops are less busy and won't really overcrowd the train. 

Also, the stations WEST of Roosevelt have lower ridership than the ones EAST of Roosevelt. Riders between Roosevelt and 71 Av can simply transfer to the .

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I’m all for your routing via the ConEd land, just not a yard there, for the reasons stated above. Why do I care? Because I like electricity to be reliable. 

I don't see your point regarding the  OOS connection. Can you explain what you mean? (Also note that almost no one uses OOS connections).

As for the 59th merge, well, yes, your plan doesn’t have the 59th merge. It has one at 36th street (both, in fact)... 

After phase three of SAS (assuming we get there), your  will have to be moved. The  runs 15tph, and the  would have to run at least 10-12, so there frankly wouldn’t be space for a  train or whatever if your  goes via 63. 

I also don’t see how a QP QBP transfer would help things. My issue was that riders on your  would lose access to downtown LIC and the  train. Unless you’re secretly adding a station on the 63rd st line, this doesn’t help that at all. (I do support the connection in general)

Also: what’s serving Sea Beach nights? You have  to Whitehall...

Finally, FWIW, you seem to have ignored the most real ops argument against this — the 36th (queens) merge, and its effect on  reliability. 

OOS= Out Of System(this goes for the Lex-63 to Lex-59 transfer)

QBL will have CBTC ready by 2021, so frequencies could be improved, and it would be a tight fit, but not impossible.  

Here's how it would help things: it would give riders at Queens Plaza improved access to 60 St. 

You're a bit confused with the  to Whitehall...technically it assumes the role of the  if its on QB and the  assumes the role of the . In other words, the  is terminating at Whitehall late nights from CONEY ISLAND! 

As for the 36 St merge- I did notice it could potentially be a major bottleneck because the  and  have to converge on the same spot. Regardless, this is the only way to do it without constructing expensive connections. 

First off, the yard won't be that big. It will only take up part of the ConEd land. And why isn't it a big priority to you? The MTA proposed this many times before and the only reason it was shot down was because of NIMBYS. Routing it through 19 Av will have a lesser impact on the community. 

Also, as for losing a transfer to the , your  ALSO loses an OOS CONNECTION. My plan will get rid of the 59 St merge. 

But after Phase 3 of SAS opens, there could then be a 2 Av-Queens service via 63 St! This means that riders on my  will eventually be able to transfer at Roosevelt Island for East Side service! 

A solution to no access via 60 St- A transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza! 

15 hours ago, quadcorder said:

What do people think of this to relieve merging difficulties on BMT Broadway and encourage transfers via 63rd Street:

• Reroute via 63rd Street tunnel, replacing in Manhattan and Brooklyn
• Reroute via Lower Manhattan and 4 Ave local, discontinuing service

Upsides:

• (goal) Allows increased Second Avenue service without the difficulties of pulling trains off other routes or finding a place besides Whitehall to turn trains
• Allows flexibility in 4 Av Local and Astoria service frequencies by turning trains at Whitehall

Downsides:

• Astoria loses express service (it's not much faster and half their trains are local already)
• Merging into on QBL has the ability to delay the   (if serious, solution: hold trains at Queens Plaza local platform with new switches just before the station)

 

I have suggested this multiple times before and this is how I'd do it. 

 is rerouted to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63 St all times except late nights, when it would terminate at Whitehall St.

 stays the same, with an extension to Broadway-125 St after Phase II is open.

replaces  at Astoria and is extended to LGA. Tail tracks would come with provisions to extend the line further east to Bayside and Flushing. Before you bring up the yard issue, there could be a new yard on Con Ed land, fixing the problem. 

 is extended to LGA with the , and also extended to Bay Pkwy on the  for additional rush hour service on 4 Av. 

Pros: 

No interaction between the exp and locals on Broadway.

Serves LGA, and allows for more service on 4 Av Local. 

Cons: 

Could be delays at 36 St due to merging with the . 

Just now, Bosco said:

The 'new' announcement for "The next stop is" is actually done by Kathleen Campion, and is the same one that is used on the  and .  Not sure why the MTA keeps playing around with the announcements, but so be it.  The new FINDs are laid out nicer than the R160s and the route indicator screen is larger.

 

 

Yup.  It's good to know that the brake system is working as intended.  As such, it went back into service about an hour later.  The real fun for this train will come tomorrow with the rush hour!

http://IMG_0403 by Jacob Robles, on Flickr

http://IMG_0413 by Jacob Robles, on Flickr

See if you can tell the difference!

I rode it today, but not the first run. It looks much more wider than the R160s. Also the announcements were altered slightly, with Diane Thompson voicing "The Next Stop Is." The FIND also looked nice. 

Next stop...  and !

Were there huge crowds? Im suspecting so!

Welp... they are entering service. I might catch it tomorrow, but not the first run. 

*sigh* time for my daily dose of crazy foamers...

After reading everyone's suggestions for my map, I can compile a list of what I agree/disagree with.

Agree

Union Tpke Line- will cut this from my next map

 to Co-op-City, cut from Dyre

 Pelham Extension- I would build this WITH the latter BUT the  wold definitely be faster because it is peak-exp in the Bronx and FULL-TIME EXPRESS in Manhattan. The  is peak-exp in the Bronx, but completely LOCAL in Manhattan. 

 to Riverdale- MNRR is far from Broadway and this would be a cheap extension for the people closer to the park than the waterfront, but this transit desert is too small to support this. 

 to 9 Av- I should clarify that I couldn't send BOTH THE  AND  down 4th due to DeKalb. I only sent the  there for additional rush hr service, as well as to connect all Chinatowns- in Flushing, Manhattan, and Brooklyn, with each other. But I might remove this. 

 to the City Line- I might reconsider cutting it to Springfield or having it turn on Braddock Av to Bellerose. 

Disagree

 to Red Hook- would be better to send it elsewhere so it would be more useful. The  is a bit obscure, and would really have nowhere else to go to so it will suffice.

 cut from Bayside to LGA- Bayside is VERY underserved and there would be lots of demand for a subway there. Plus, the  is mainly unreliable due to endless merging.

NOT Demolishing the Broadway EL from Marcy to Myrtle: Firstly, it is not the WHOLE EL. It is only part of it, and all the tunnels the , , and (P) use to get into Brooklyn are all underground. There is no way to link up the  with the EL structure still standing without destroying a full chunk of buildings. Also, the  on Bway-Bklyn- yes I did know Wally proposed that, but it would only be for weekend closures, whereas this is full-time. Also, the three lines would be adequate enough to provide Midtown service, allowing the  to return to Nassau St, freeing up capacity on 6 Av/QB to be used for other lines. 

Not extending the  to Hollis: I disagree because firstly, this terminal would be more efficient than Jamaica Center. Secondly, it would be beneficial to central Jamaica and replace the old Jamaica EL. Third, it would be very cheap to pull off. 

No Cambria Heights Extension- Disagree because this area is a bit far from the Laurelton  Extension, and would be cheap, so it wold make sense. Plus, the  would be fast to Manhattan, skipping stops between Sutphin Blvd and Berry St without any bottlenecks. 

I also want more people to critique this map, so I can get more suggestions. Thank you!

8 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

   My response: 

The whole  to SI shtick is pointless. SI already has buses to St George for the quick ferry, and dragging riders into Brooklyn is a waste. People use the ferry for a reason.

Red Hook is underserved, but it would be easier just to have a line branch off Montague and to 4th Av. 

Most people in Riverdale are wealthy and drive Lincolns to Park Av. Also, MNRR takes 30 mins to get to GCT, and the 1 to TS will take the same amount of time, if not longer.

The  on Dyre is enough. Dyre is a low-ridership branch and does not need another line. 

Bayside has LIRR, and they can take that to Woodside for the  . 

 

 

SI : THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A TUNNEL TO SI IS FROM BROOKLYN! IT WOULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE TO MAKE A DIRECT TUNNEL! You see, it's not as simple as "take the bus!" Buses only do good for local residents and SI commuters have long travel times to midtown. They would rather take the subway tan experience long commutes in the middle of traffic. THE ONLY reason why people use the bus, and ferry for that matter, is because there is no other subway available to them. 

As for Red Hook, I sent the  there because Montague would have no extra capacity with the , , and  sharing the tube, secondly this extension isn't that important and Red Hook isn't as big as other transit deserts. A local train will suffice. 

Lincolns/Park Avs are nowhere near Riverdale. Again, Metro-North isn't simple enough. MNRR should handle service OUTSIDE THE CITY, and the subway should handle service INSIDE THE CITY. They'll also have the , which is express from 261 St to 96 St. 

The  connects to two Dyre stations: Eastchester-Dyre and Gun Hill Rd. It is meant to provide express service to Manhattan, as well as serving Co-op City. 

Again, it is not as simple as "take the LIRR!" It increases fares, reduces transfers, and most would rather take the bus to the subway if one isn't nearby. 

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Frankly, there are many problems with the map.

The K is way too long and only goes to SI indirectly.

The 9 to Red Hook is a waste and is not a priority.

The 8 reduces service on the 6 east of Whitlock, introduces a merge, and slows service for people on the Dyre Avenue Line.

Your B route is way too long and is not direct. Everyone east of Queens Boulevard would pile onto the Queens Boulevard Line. In addition, how would you connect the Canarsie Line to your line via the NY Connecting RR. In addition, you can't have subway service run there: freight uses it. In addition, the LIE route will have very low ridership.

Your M route is just a horrible idea. No-one from College Point would take this ridiculous, round-about way to get to Lower Manhattan. They would just take the Q25 to Flushing for the 7 to the 4 or 5.

 

That Union Turnpike–Central Queens Line would be way too expensive, and would not have the ridership that would warrant such an expenditure. 

Don't extend the F that far. Just end it at Springfield.

There is no need to extend the 1 farther north. No one has been advocating that, it would require rebuilding the 242nd Street station, and would face heavy opposition.

What is the point of tearing down part of the Broadway EL? Having the  there is coming right out of Wallyhorse's playbook.  The  to Southeast Queens would be way too slow. If you were to have such a service, have it be a Fulton Express, which I am not advocating. Anyway the extension of the  could be done more cheaply by the Southeast Queens extension of the  which you show. Also, don't extend the ; there is no need for it. Tell me when it needs 30 TPH.

That L extension is way too expensive. Just end it at 72nd Street if you deem it such a high priority.

I can understand the D to Co-Op City, but it is overkill to have it loop to go to Dyre Avenue. By the way, a  extension would be cheaper.

You are going to make the  so much more unreliable with this. Just cut-back the extension to LGA.

Also, there is no need for Nassau–Fourth Avenue service. Stop foaming.

 

In many respects, this is like my old fantasy maps with lines drawn all across the city. However, drawing random lines on the map that might follow plans from the 1920s and 1930s won't indicate what should be built. Subway construction is expensive, so it should be done in moderation, and there are other factors to consider, including the height of water tables, local communities, difficulty of construction, practicality, cost-effectiveness, and so on. Just keep this in mind. Keep thinking!

 train: The only cheap way to even go to SI via subway is from bklyn since building it from the harbor is very expensive. Also, SI is very underserved so it would be great for central SI citizens living on Castleton. And any line going to SI will still be long due to the island's enormous size. 

 train: Well TBH Red Hook is in planned development but this extension won't be needed for a while. And you could say extend another train, but there would be better demand for it to go somewhere else.

 train: I originally wanted to send the  to Dyre but expanding into the underserved neighborhoods is more important. The  is more of a cheaper version of this Dyre bypass, and also they would have the  as an exp option so they wouldn't really lose out. As for Pelham it would see less traffic due to the Throgs Neck extension of SAS. 

LIE and Canarsie lines: The  is indirect cuz it is meant to give riders near the edge of the city a faster commute. Plus thats the only way you could do it without interfering with normal service. The Canarsie Line was intended to be relocated to the Bay Ridge ROW. New stations could be built to replace the el stops. 

College Point M: Plz explain how it is a roundabout route. This  would connect Flushing with Lower Manhattan in a ONE-SEAT RIDE. Not some disgraceful two to three legged transfer. They will also have the faster  train as well. 

Union Tpke Line: I originally conceived it branching off of QB- however I thought that the QB locals stay where they're at so I extended the P. It would also serve eastern queens neighborhoods but I put it in last min. I might scrap this line given the LIE and Hillside subways are nearby. 

Hillside Extension: I extended it to the City Line because it would also serve Little Neck and give more subway access. 

Riverdale  Extension: Riverdale is virtually underserved. So I extended the 1 train there cuz it would better serve the neighborhood and reduce bus transfers. FYI Pelham Bay Park would ALSO have to be reconfigured. 

Broadway EL: A third track would be added between Broadway Jct and Jamaica, and the Myrtle bottleneck would be fixed. The Jamaica EL is relocated because all the lines B, C, P all head into Bklyn via tunnels so relocating the EL would make transfers easier and fix the bottleneck at Myrtle. This would make 8 Av Exp trains more faster to Manhattan.  trains are on Bway-Bklyn to give midtown access to those living there. Again, the Cambria Hts extension was put in there because it is underserved and it would be better if a train ran there. 

J to Hollis: ??? Why would you deny such a thing? It would replace the old EL and would be very beneficial to the neighborhood. 

10 Av/Northern Blvd extension: I do know about costs but this line would really take relief off of the  and QB. Even allowing a shortcut across Central Park to Queens without backtracking, serving the Far West Side, it should be high, but at the bottom high list. 

 train to Dyre: I sent it to Dyre to provide more express service and better serve Eastchester. It could be cut back tho. As for the , the  would be much faster than the  to Manhattan. Cost doesn't ALWAYS be the sole reason. 

 train to Bayside: I extended it to Bayside cuz that neighborhood is underserved. It would also give riders in Flushing access to LGA. But now service on the R would be good and more reliable, since there will be no interaction with the  and . In terms of line length, it mainly has support from the  and (W). 

 to 9 Av/Bay Pkwy: This would be for additional rush hr service, since service on 4 Av was very lacking since the latter left in 2010. I originally intended the to do such a thing but there would be no capacity due to Dekalb. This also has to do with Broad St lacking terminal capacity for both lines. Now you could cut the  to Chambers but that would be detrimental. 

Thanks for your response. I'll take this into consideration for the next map. 

This is my fantasy subway map- i brought it here so more people can critique it. 

Enmodal link: http://app.enmodal.co/?id=bee7a31886ae8a71

RR503 the  would run via Worth St/East Broadway to Union Av. The Jamaica EL from Marcy Av to Myrtle Av will be fully demolished. In its place a new S 4 St-Bway subway will have stops at the following:

Marcy Av   

Union Av    

Manhattan Av 

Flushing Av 

Myrtle Av  

After the tracks will ascend and continue along the existing trackage. 

As for Dekalb we could either send the  or  to Bay Pkwy or Bay Ridge-95 St 

And building a tunnel from Bklyn is the only affordable option since constructing it from the harbor is very expensive. 

LGA Link N Train

The problem is whether fixing Dekalb will be feasible. Flatbush may have to be torn up. 

It terminates at 168 St because it could continue across the GWB to Fort Lee. 

On 11/1/2017 at 12:57 PM, LGA Link N train said:

I found a proposal that brings the BMT 4th Avenue line to Staten Island under 67 Street.  I thought of reviving it to serve the then continue under Victory Blvd. I guess it could cost up to $20 Billion  (I could be wrong though). Anyways, let me know your feedback 

I would do the branch on the Culver Line since dekalb cant spare a lot of trains. In this plan, a new  train would run from 168 St to Staten Island via 8 Av Exp, and Culver Exp. The line will run via the proposed Cross-Harbor Tunnel to St. George, where the line could either continue on Victory Blvd, or run along Castleton Av before swinging south and terminating at Victory Blvd. The  would get diverted to Jamaica to make room in the Cranberry Tubes, as well as to provide Midtown service along the Jamaica EL and Bway-Bklyn. The  would replace the  on Fulton.  Getting back to Staten Island, I feel it should be not very important compared to major projects such as SAS and the RBB because those areas are more demanding. But eventually, it should be considered. 

Guys keep in mind there is a proposal using the abandoned trolley terminal at Essex St for a "Low Line." These hipsters should just throw support for that since there's no real use for the terminal. and if they don't support it? Renovate forest park instead. 

However there's just one problem for using the terminal lol   

27 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

This  plan would serve a large transit desert of Queens! Why would it be detrimental? Plus, I would build both this Bushwick-LIE line and the 10 Av-Northern Blvd  crosstown. If building along freight lines was illegal than how come this isn't a problem for the Triboro RX? But if it really was, then the tracks would be built UNDER the freight line and emerge on an elevated viaduct just east of College Point Blvd. 

I guess I should clarify:

 Bedford Park Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy via Concourse Lcl, 6 Av Exp, and Bushwick-LIE Exp.

 168 St to 234 St-Cross Island Blvd via 8 Av Lcl and Jamaica Exp.

 Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp, Concourse Exp, and Brighton Exp.

 Hollis-193 St to Broad St via Jamaica Lcl and Nassau St Lcl. 

 College Point-20 Av to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Lcl, QB Lcl, and Rockaway Lcl.*Could return to Nassau St since  trains provide 6 Av service to Midtown in Bushwick, Middle Village, and Maspeth*.

 is eliminated and replaced by the .

There could also be a potential Lafayette Av Line, as a spur off of the  train. 

The reason why it so-called got low ridership was because it only went there LATE AT NIGHT when not much people are demanding for extra service. COST-CUTTING was the #1 reason why it got cut back. If they really wanted another service on QB on weekends, then the  would've not been the sole QB service on wkends as we know today. The reason they kept it is because it offered more transfers at 4 Av-9 St to the , plus better layup capacity at Church as opposed to Smith-9 Sts. The  isn't really popular because of the lack of transfer to the  at Hewes/Lorimer(both should be demolished with a new Union Av stop in between to allow for this transfer),  at Queens Plaza, and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr on the . If all those transfers were built then there would be more demand for it go to additional areas, one being QB.

For SAS it would be the following:

(P) E Tremont Av to Lefferts Blvd via 2 Av Exp, Throgs Neck Lcl, and Fulton St Exp.

 Gun Hill Rd to Euclid Av via 2 Av Lcl, 3 Av Lcl, and Fulton St Lcl.

(U) Bartow Av to Euclid Av via 2 Av Lcl, Co-op-City Lcl, and Fulton St Lcl.

 Jamaica-179 St to Coney Island-Stillwell Av via 2 Av Exp, Queens Blvd Bypass, and West End Exp. 

extended to BAy Pkwy via West End Lcl.

This  plan would serve a large transit desert of Queens! Why would it be detrimental? Plus, I would build both this Bushwick-LIE line and the 10 Av-Northern Blvd  crosstown. If building along freight lines was illegal than how come this isn't a problem for the Triboro RX? But if it really was, then the tracks would be built UNDER the freight line and emerge on an elevated viaduct just east of College Point Blvd. 

I guess I should clarify:

 Bedford Park Blvd to Little Neck Pkwy via Concourse Lcl, 6 Av Exp, and Bushwick-LIE Exp.

 168 St to 234 St-Cross Island Blvd via 8 Av Lcl and Jamaica Exp.

 Norwood-205 St to Coney Island via 6 Av Exp, Concourse Exp, and Brighton Exp.

 Hollis-193 St to Broad St via Jamaica Lcl and Nassau St Lcl. 

 College Point-20 Av to Rockaway Park via 6 Av Lcl, QB Lcl, and Rockaway Lcl.*Could return to Nassau St since  trains provide 6 Av service to Midtown in Bushwick, Middle Village, and Maspeth*.

 is eliminated and replaced by the .

There could also be a potential Lafayette Av Line, as a spur off of the  train. 

The reason why it so-called got low ridership was because it only went there LATE AT NIGHT when not much people are demanding for extra service. COST-CUTTING was the #1 reason why it got cut back. If they really wanted another service on QB on weekends, then the  would've not been the sole QB service on wkends as we know today. The reason they kept it is because it offered more transfers at 4 Av-9 St to the , plus better layup capacity at Church as opposed to Smith-9 Sts. The  isn't really popular because of the lack of transfer to the  at Hewes/Lorimer(both should be demolished with a new Union Av stop in between to allow for this transfer),  at Queens Plaza, and Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr on the . If all those transfers were built then there would be more demand for it go to additional areas, one being QB.

LGA Link N train IF the LIE line branched off of QB, the  would have to go to the LIE, and  to Rockaways, which is what i meant about why i wouldn't branch it off of QB.

R68onBroadway: When did I say the  would run via 53rd? Seems like you are a bit confused. The  would branch off at Broadway-Lafayette and run via a new Houston-S 4 St Tunnel to Union Av where it would meet up with the , then would run via the Bushwick and Montauk branches to Metropolitan Av, where it would re-join the , and THEN run out to Little Neck. Stops would be at Montrose Av and Maspeth for the Bushiwck-Montauk portion. No elimination of Bronx/CPW service. I'd NEVER do that. Plus, SAS service would run on Fulton and West End to replace the  and  respectively. The  would be for additional rush hr service and run closer in the heart of Midtown, plus it would follow the old  route to Bay Pkwy. Plus, the  on West End would mean SAS service replacing the  tho both services would have to run full-time at the same time. In other words, no matter what you do when you swap them, they both still have to run full-time. Finally SAS service on Brighton would mean losing access to the heart of Midtown. Whereas if SAS service was on the West End and 6 Av on Brighton, you would still have a balanced out levels of service to central Midtown. 

IDK if you know this or not, but the community actually OPPOSED cutting the  to Court Sq back in 2001 when the  was introduced, and because of this, it wasn't cut back until 2010. The only reason why it was cut back most of the time was because 71 Av was at capacity. Late at night is when it is MOST useless but the  isn't like that ALL the time. Rush hrs and middays it isn't that bad. Besides, if the  was really useless it wouldn't have been extended to Church Av. The  would offer transfers to many lines if it went to 71 Av when the  goes to Rockaways. Same logic as the Triboro RX. Just because it doesn't enter MAnhattan doesn't mean it's completely useless. It can actually be a SHORTCUT to avoid overcrowding. Plus you would have to increase  service, which would be impossible due to the congestion in the 60 St Tube. The  and  can both handle 67 Av by themselves. 

On 10/5/2017 at 10:04 AM, LGA Link N train said:

First off, if the  DID run half express then the would obviously have to take over the local service. Yes, there would be merging delays. 

Technically, the Bypass wouldn't necessarily be a waste if it went to Rockaways because there would be Direct Express service that goes straight into midtown. 

As for a QB Local on the RBB, it could just terminate at either WTC or Houston St-2 Av 

And it would ultimately be a wise Decisionto convert Woodhaven Boulevard into an express station of which the would merge onto the local tracks to RBB and an open door for a LIE subway line

Even if you didn't run the  express, you could still fit the  into Forest Hills. But why add merging delays for no good reason? And like it was said before, the express tracks are full. Unless you want to reduce  service, which would be a nightmare. 

The bypass will be a waste. There is better demand for it to connect to east of 71 Av than go to the Rockaways. The  is already direct to Midtown, and the would be the direct express from the Rockaways. Plus, most of the ridership will be north of Aqueduct Racetrack, already close to QB. 

Why have it terminate at either? The  already would almost mimic the route from Rockaway Park to Bway-Lafayette. And do you really think WTC can spare more trains since the  is at 15 TPH? 

I do agree on having Woodhaven converted, but the LIE line should be the  via a new Myrtle Av bypass out to Little Neck Pkwy. The  would take its place on the Brighton Line and the  will take over West End. Branching it off of QB will leave 67 Av as a -only stop. 

3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

If the RBB is reactivated then the idea for a half Express on the could work. But If you wanted to have an efficient express service headed to JFK and the Rockaways then that's where the Queens Bypass would come in with provisions to Forest Hills and Jamaica which I think would be the

The  cannot halve service just so it can run express. It would create merging delays at Roosevelt if the  ran half express. This also reduces service on QB local- unless you extend the  to 71 Av. No one will accept only the  at QB stations due to its delays. The bypass is a waste if it goes to the Rockaways. Extending the local  will suffice. Riders really wanting express service can transfer to the  at Broad Channel, Howard Beach-JFK, and the two Aqueducts. Or they can switch across the platform for the  at Roosevelt or Woodhaven Blvd if its converted. 

On 9/25/2017 at 10:43 PM, Daniel The Cool said:

He was asking Above ground stations not underground ones.

Brighton Beach and I believe the Train stations north of Crescent Street (Excluding Stuphin Blvd and Jamaica Center) and wasn't renovated pre 1998 yet.

121 St and 104 St are being renovated...

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

52nd Street on the 7 is one.

Don't forget 69 St, 82 St, 90 St, 103 St, 111 St, and Mets-Willets Point. Those should receive the same treatment as 74 St-Broadway.

Around The Horn is right. You have to underpin not only LIRR, but also the 8 Av      , 7 Av      , Broadway        , 6 Av        , and even the Lex      , with the 2 Av  as well. And no Amtrak or NJT would not want services in Queens since the LIRR and the subway do that job already and would be redundant.