mrsman

Most of the traffic coming in from Parsons (and a large number from Sutphin) are transferring from bus. A big help of some sort would be a rerouting of some of those buses to serve Jamaica/Van Wyck or a nearby station along Hillside. That could reduce the demand for the shuttle buses enough to make this workable.

There are pros and cons to running SAS through the Montague tunnel. IMO, a big pro is that it could ultimately save a lot of tunneling costs. If SAS were routed to take over the Nassau line south of Chambers (forcing to terminate at Chambers), you avoid the need to dig a tunnel in the southernmost mile of Manhattan. At that point, SAS would provide a natural connection to Montague and the 4th Ave local service. Just as you (and others) proposed plans to in some way revive "Banker's special" <R> trains along Nassau that do end up in some capacity along the Williamsburg Bridge, something like this would instead route those "Banker's special" along SAS instead. One key downside though is the overall network effect of doing this. There is a limit as to how many trains can run through the Montague tunnel, so an increase in service on SAS would amount to a decrease in service (or cause more trains trains to terminate at Whitehall) along the line. To run as much service as possible for the system as a whole, ideally you want each trunk line to have its own dedicated tunnel/bridge to Brooklyn. Right now, you have six trunk lines and five portals (tunnels/bridges), as follows: 8th Ave express - Cranberry tunnel 8th Ave local - NO TUNNEL. This fact impacts current 8th Ave services and reduces the ability to run more 8th Ave express services as switches tracks at Canal. 6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge North 6th Ave local - Rutgers tunnel* Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge South Broadway local - Montague tunnel * Of course, trains run to the Williamsburg Bridge, but doing so necessarily limits the number of trains through the Rutgers tunnel. SAS would introduce a seventh trunk line. Ideally we would need an additional portal to Brooklyn to get as much as we can out of the SAS line. As mentioned above by others, there are two ways of doing that: a) a new tunnel from SAS to Brooklyn or b) rerouting tracks to make the Williamsburg Bridge a sixth portal connection to Midtown. (b) can be done in several ways. Routing all SAS to the W Bridge would allow an increase in service on Rutgers tunnel, but would prevent SAS from reaching Downtown or Southern Brooklyn. Routing 6th Ave express to W Bridge will allow SAS to be routed to the M Bridge.

They probably don't want to release that information until they have to. Service cuts are unpopular and could especially draw ire if they are seen to have a negative effect on the disadvantaged (poor, POC, disabled). At some level, it would make sense to cut more severely in areas where demand is lower, something along the lines of not servicing the 50 or so least busy stations, but those stations are also likely to be in disadvantaged areas. There certainly are a few threads on here where people speculated as to how they would cut service on the subway (and I'm sure buses and commuter trains as well, but I don't frequent those forums).

I like this too. One thing to keep in mind the problem with the existing isn't just its long length, but all of the interference that it has with other lines. For the most part, passengers from Brooklyn use the Montague tunnel specifically to access Lower Manhattan (below Chambers), there is almost no need to provide direct Bay Ridge services to Midtown because almost all of those passengers will transfer to a line along the Manhattan Bridge. They want a reliable service to Downtown, which it seems like something your can provide. Reworking the Broadway Brooklyn service can also be at play here. If skip stop service ended and were assigned to the full length Jamaica-Broad trains, running express between Marcy and Broadway Jct. can then be extended north of Chambers to be the local service to Broadway Jct.

There is definitely a problem with having any type of service that provides you a unique driver for one passenger for free or for the subway fare. It can very easily be too expensive to run. The one thing about mass transit is that it involves many passengers with one driver.

I'd like to explore some of the discussion with regard to the options for Montague tunnel lines (and by extension the Nassau and Broadway lines) First, it seems wise to avoid interference between Broadway express and local. So all and trains to 96th. With regard to what remains, we can have 7 TPH from Forest Hills and 14 TPH from Astoria can service the Broadway local tracks. [The shortfall in QBL local service can be met by an increase in 6th Ave service, the specifics of that are beyond the scope of this discussion.] Terminate the at Whitehall. This now means 14 TPH in the Montague tunnel all the way to Bay Ridge. To supplement the Bay Ridge service, add 7 TPH along the Nassau line from Chambers to 95th. ----------------- Another possibility seems to suggest having the Nassau line be the main source for Bay Ridge trains. So have 14 TPH from Chambers (or possibly extend 14 TPH of trains) to 95th. This will mean that the Broadway local trains can be divided as such: 7 TPH Forest Hills - Whitehall 7 TPH Astoria - Canal short line 7 TPH Astoria - Bay Ridge long line. Of course helpful to the discussion are the actual limitation of the different chokepoints along the Broadway and Nassau lines. From these forums, I know that the City Hall curves take a max of 21 TPH and there is a max of 15 TPH from Ditmars. I don't know what the max turning capacities are at 95th, Whitehall, Canal, Chambers which would be important for this discussion.

The PW branch is definitely a good corridor for conversion to subway like service. I am definitely a fan of utilizing existing infrastructure where its available. I can imagine some level of "scoot" shuttle service between PW and Great Neck at additional fare, and then subway style service at the stops that you suggest. Building it as an (8) service means IRT standards but it will effectively replace the albeit at a slightly different right of way. If there is no money for a new East River tunnel and crosstown, it would make sense to have the (8) follow the route in Manhattan and through the Steinway tunnels and then split off from the to follow the PW line to Great Neck. If this is to be built as part of a 50th street crosstown, then in my mind it would make more sense under BMT/IND standards with the stops that you suggest for maximum transfes to all the local lines on the main Manhattan trunk lines. Can the Flushing yard handles BMT type trains, or are they relegated to only handling IRT trains.

Is that necessary? Let's say that all CPW expresses run to 8th Ave and all CPW locals run to 6th Ave. Starting from Columbus Circle, heading south, once the migrates onto 53rd, can the merge onto the upper level local track to then serve 50th street and then along the upper tracks merge back to the express before 42nd so as not to interfere with the train. There may not be switches for this operation right now, but if you are going through the trouble of a new crosstown subway at 50th, you might as well add some switches if it will allow for transfers to the 8th Ave express.

I think this was a unique experience, but a product of its time. As we all know, MTA was quite happy to get rid of underperforming lines in minority neighborhoods that would be too costly to modernize. In the 1960's and 1970's, these were the Bronx Third Ave line, The Myrtle Ave el, and the eastern end of the Jamaica el. So it is a testament to the changing times that MTA now has to consider impacts to minority communities. This is why the Franklin el did not suffer the same fate as those other cancelled lines. In its current form, the has very little utility. Hopefully, an extension along the lines of Armandito's plan could make it off the drawing board.

I do like this idea for the . A true circumferential line should meet each radial line in the system and provide a transfer to those lines at a reasonable distance from the CBD. What this will be would be a closer (and probably more useful) version of the Triboro Rx line.

While I favor streamlining the system to avoid conflicting train movements, which would mean no longer having regular QBL service on the 60th street tunnel, I can certainly appreciate the redundancy that is built into the system for emergency reroutes.

I find it sort of interesting that a service cut will be mixed in with a partial deinterlining. In my view, deinterlining's purpose is to allow for more trains to be able to be accommodated on any given line segment, at the expense of an additional transfer. While an additional transfer is inconvenient, the fact that more trains can run will reduce th waiting time at the transfer and allow for better operations for the system as a whole, even if it is less convenient for a specific passenger. For instance, disconnecting 60th street from Queens Blvd will necessarily allow for more trains for both Queens Blvd local as well as Astoria and Broadway BMT segments. But if you have less money to run trains, then why go through with it? If you are now running trains less frequently, one seat rides are more important since the waits at transfers will be longer. The most likely budget cut scenario would be expansion of the late night service to a bigger part of the day. And midday service will run during peak hours, with midday service at reduced headways during the actual midday. It is very unlikely that anything dramatically different from an existing low frequency pattern will actually be implemented.

I agree. The additional utility of a transfer between the Broadway BMT and the lines to the Upper West Side would be to save on the walking distance that exists between 8th Ave and Times Square and to cut a number of stops. 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 7th Ave downtown already has Times Square and 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 6th Ave downtown already has Herald Square. But to get from 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to the Broadway-7th uptown and the CPW lines uptown , you do save some time by making the transfer here. And you save considerable walking if need to get from 2 Ave/Astoria/QBL to 8th Ave downtown.

Some of the above would really make a lot of sense in moving the trains better without as much blocking. A partial deinterlining in the right places. Just so I'm clear, is your plan more or less the following for Division B: As current, Inwood - 8th Ave Express - Fulton Express Concourse Express - 8th Ave Express - Fulton Local QBL Express - 53rd street - 8th Ave local - WTC QBL Local - 53rd street - 8th Ave local - WTC Washington Heights - CPW local - 6th Ave express - Brighton Express Concourse Local- CPW local - 6th Ave express - 4th Ave express - West End As current, QBL Express - 63rd street - 6th Ave local - Culver QBL Local - 63rd street - 6th Ave local - Willy Bridge - Myrtle 2nd Ave - Broadway Express - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach As current, 2nd Ave - Broadway Express - Brighton Local Astoria - 60th - Broadway Local - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge Jamaica - Broad Street It is not a bad suggestion, although there may be some merging issues that come up in Queens. It does keep things moving well on the Broadway BMT and isolates the so that it doesn't share tracks at all. Also, an estimate of how much TPH on each line would also help envision this.

Yes, something like that can work. Extra trains from Bay Ridge to Chambers. The fact that no longer serves Nassau Street should make it easier to run a train like this. I think reinstituting the bankers' special is far better than having a super long from Jamaica to Bay Ridge. I think we have to realize that the in Brooklyn has certain roles. It serves as a local "shuttle" for most passengers. If they board in Bay Ridge or along the 4th Ave local, the vast majority of passengers will transfer to trains at the earliest opportunity to make the trip to most of Manhattan that much quicker. For those passengers, they want a reliable , not so much a fast and certainly not a long . Nobody will stay on the so long even if their ultimate destination is a midtown local stop or Queens. This explains why a Brooklyn only worked for so many passeengers during the Montague tunnel closure. Passengers boarding the in northern Brooklyn, are likely headed into Lower Manhattan, and the ability of serving both Church street and Nassau steet should be helpful. THe Montague tunnel serves all of the southern BMT as their connection to Lower Manhattan with their transfer to , regardless of which of the CI lines they start from. The more trains through the Montague tunnel the better, and if is limited by City Hall extra runs from Brooklyn should go to Chanmbers, not Whitehall.

I also like your plan for the Jamaica el. Consistent service without skip stop. Well spaced lines. More frequency and fewer stops and thus better overall reliability. Better transfers with stops at Williamsburg Bridge bus plaza and Union Ave for The line is so old they might as well make these types of changes in a full rebuild. It can work.

There are no stations on the trains south of the Upper West Side that are not within the walkshed of another train line. Most are within the walkshed of the 8th Avenue line, although there are some that are within the walkshed of the Broadway BMT or 6th Ave line. The Brooklyn lines will be serviced by or all the way to New Lots and Brooklyn College. Brooklyn IRT passengers who need to go to West Midtown can transfer to the at Fulton or shortcut away from Downtown by transferring to via Manhattan Bridge Having trains service until 34th street will allow all the Bronx passengers on the line full access to the busier parts of Midtown, Penn Station, and transfers to all trunk lines except the Lexington line. The transfers available at Colubmus Circle and Times Square. Not a perfect plan by any means, but we're talking about a key funding problem where we simply won't be able to have service everywhere.

I see that some of the plans for a 57th street line involve a superstation in northeast midtown. That is a good thing. Basically, combining the following five platforms into one station with free transfers: * 59 Street on the Lexington line * Lexington on the 60th street line (Broadway BMT local) * Lexington-63rd on the 63rd street line * 55th street on the SAS * 3rd Ave/Lexington station on the new 57th street line Even without the 57th street line, something like this could be extremely useful. If the transfers are good enough, you could make real improvements to service operations and separate the services better. For example, with a better connection for the 63rd street line to , we can fully eliminate the need for Broadway BMT service to the Queens Blvd line allowing all Broadway locals to Astoria and also separating the Broadway locals from the Broadway expresses (i.e. no more shifting from local to express in Midtown). Transfers like this may also allow for a deinterlined SAS.

Is this where to talk about doomsday scenarios, or is that for the proposals thread? Anyway, I was thinking that doomsday scenario would basically be an extension of the late night service pattern. Fewer expresses, but some very key ones are maintained. Also, certain local stops are to be skipped and closed down, for example if you close 75th Avenue on the Queens Blvd line, you save some money on some security/lighting/staffing at the station. Customers at that stop will have to walk to Union Turnpike or 71-Continental. This should happen on each line. The choices should be based on ridership, close down the stations with the lowest ridership. But at the same time, don't close down two stations in a row, don't close down stations that have ADA access, don't close down stations that serve as transfer points to key bus lines or subway stations, don't close down most end of the line stations. On top of that, I would close the lines south of 34th street. The would be totally shut down. The would turn around at 14th street, but would not serve passengers south of 34th street. Since there are subways along 8th and 6th, passengers on 7th Ave have an option to take those lines, using transfers at 59th or 42nd. Also, Brooklyn IRT will connect to the Lexington Ave trains, so for those people on the Brooklyn IRT looking to reach the West Side, you can take or (or an extended ) to train to make a similar journey. What the above does is provide significant cuts, but still preserving service all over the city. I had a full plan with even more cuts posted in April:

What would be helpful to this discussion is if someone knew about the numbers of trains that could be turned back at Brighton Beach and at Coney Island and then to see if additional train service can be accommodated. Does anyone know of these numbers? It would seem to me that some trains can run as , express along the Brighton line. The express trains, and would run from Brighton Beach and the locals, and (X) would run from CI. Obviously, would all merge at Prospect Park on their way to DeKalb and Manhattan and (X) would continue up Franklin. The question is how many trains can reasonably be accommodated and the chokepoint is likely the number of trains that can turn back at BB and CI.

Thank you for the map. I actually like this, the routing for this is nearly a straight line., And there is capacity along the Brighton line to accommodate an additional train, since it is 4 tracks. So I see this line as being supplemental to existing Brighton service. Another benefit is that it will necessarily reduce service on the Culver line to allow more room for [and maybe even some express trains].

Given that the Manhattan Bridge saves so much time and distance, nobody on the 4th Ave local bound for Canal Street (or any station to the north of there) would stay on the but would transfer to or at first opportunity. This is one reason why the Montague tunnel closing was not so bad, most of the riders transferred to bridge trains anyway. Riders boarding from Downtown Brooklyn may want to go to Midtown, but as others said, they have the option of the IRT lines within reasonable walking distance. For 4th Ave local riders heading to Downtown, it remains to be seen whether the line or the line is better. would have more connections (Fulton, Chambers) and would seems to service the center (and Centre) of Lower Manhattan. does service the ferry terminal to SI. Ideally, service can be expanded on the 4th Ave local to service both lines - an for the Broadway local and perhaps a SAS service that takes over the Nassau line from the

Is there political will to build new elevated trackage? I believe that even in poorer neighborhoods, NIMBYs will oppose new elevateds and demand that expansions on the system happen underground. But if there is political will, go for it. Elevateds are far cheaper as they avoid tunnelling.

I would think the opposite. If ran to Culver, the only changes to routing will be in the southern parts of Manhattan and Brooklyn. Riders from Queens to Manhattan won't have to rethink their routes. Why would somoene who travels from Queens to Manhattan worry about the Rutgers tunnel (and keep track of which weekends the Rutgers tunnel are closed) to determine whether they should take the or the that day? For those on the Culver line, even if they are confused, as there is normally only one Manhattan bound train that runs on the line, they will simply take the train that comes and make a transfer at W4th for 6th Ave service, if needed. For people traveling from Manhattan to Brooklyn, it's true that people have to remember to board on the 8th Ave platforms to head to Culver, but they would have to do that regardless of what we named the trains. So if ran to Culver: would run normally except for no service south of Essex, would run to all of its stops (except WTC) and then be extended along the to Jay and then down the Culver. Culver bound riders in Manhattan (and Queens) would need to take the , but if they forget, they can be reminded to transfer at W4th. Inbound riders in Brooklyn will take whatever train comes without worry and transfer in Manhattan if needed.

This is a nice idea. I felt that part of this line could be used as an extension of the IRT line. to Brooklyn College (with possible extension down to Kings Plaza. to New Lots to Broadway Junction down Utica Ave. Once at Broadway Junction, can provide added connections for the trains that are there. For the inbound commute, some travelers on the could transfer and thereby make their lines less crowded. To take it one step further, it would be nice to have an express subway that connects Jamaica-Broadway junction- Flatbush/Atlantic-Lower Manhattan-Midtown. Ideally, this should be an LIRR route connecting to Downtown and Grand Central via Brooklyn. But to the extent that it is not feasible given costs, then have the formerly Lefferts trains run on the LIRR Atlantic branch east of Pennsylvania Avenue to Jamaica. [The Rockaway will also run on the former LIRR but then make a new transfer to the Rockaway line in Ozone Park.] will take over the Pitkin/Liberty routing (at IRT scale) to Lefferts. The idea is that you now have an express line from Eastern Queens - Jamaica - Broadway Junction and then continuing express along the into Manhattan. No stops between Jamaica and Broadway Junction to really speed up trips to/from the east. The Rockaway trains can also take advantage of this routing, no stops between Broadway Junction and Aqueduct. The Lefferts passengers along the Pitkin/Liberty line will be moved to service to accommodate the upgrading of the Rockaway and Jamaica lines. They will still have express service, but along Eastern Parkway instead of Fulton. Yes, I know that IRT cars are narrower, so there will be more crowding, but this seems a feasible way to accommodate Jamaica-Downtown Brooklyn traffic that will explode with an express line at subway fares.