TMC

That's not very specific. Repeating your statement doesn't make it more correct...

New thought: If it belongs to the city, then, it is possible if the city carried out the subway->LIRR conversion. Of course, I would only support this if LIRR's operational competence was multiplied by 100, but I don't want to rule it out entirely. The power of the inner LIRR branches is very under-appreciated when it comes to transit expansion.

If nothing can be done, then it's best to leave it alone. Rockaways ridership is too low to do anything else with, let alone Queenslink (Which I don't like, because building it well requires a dogbone past Forest Hills, and I think the ROI on that is too low).

I'm not saying LIRR service should be brought back, the corridor from Rego Park to the Rockaways is quite weak today, filled with low density housing and auto-centric commercial facilities. I do think the idea of building that connection just for the sake of serving the Rockaways was a bad idea. My belief is that the LIRR should retake the tracks in the peninsula, and the existing line south of Liberty Avenue should be left for history. Run the new LIRR-takeover like an S-Bahn Branch with properly integrated fares (free transfers to other modes of transit, higher frequency, etc.). The rest of the B Division likely suffers with how sloppy the branching situation is at Rockaway Blvd.

Those stations carry ridership numbers in the hundreds, building it was a mistake...

I have problems with Queenslink, the corridor itself is not that impressive in terms of its built environment, bus ridership is pretty mediocre, considering it’s split across 4 routes, away from the line itself. I’m not sure how making it into a shuttle helps, or if running subway service into the Rockaways is even justifiable at current ridership levels.

I agree with this, but I also believe that Phases 3 and 4 should be canned until we maximize capacity on Lexington Ave (which is at about 80% capacity in terms of throughput right now) through signal upgrades and de-interlining in the Bronx and Brooklyn. Most of the congestion is between 59th-42nd Streets, as most riders have to transfer west. This is solved by Phase 2 and the Cross-125th Street Extension. Congestion elsewhere would be addressed through boosting service by removing the express (Yes, I know, I will explain.). The express really isn’t that much faster than the local according to schedules, and high dwell times contribute to longer runtimes as well. By running a single service, every 2 minutes, short-turning half at Parkchester, you would likely see faster travel times, because dwell times would be lower, waiting time is cut down, and trains would pass north of Parkchester much faster. This allows 30 TPH , 30 TPH .

No, I didn't even need them to figure that out.

This is what I mean when I say people here don't really understand the call for de-interlining, and why reverse-branching is bad.

I don't think access to 2nd Ave is strictly necessary, but that's also because of my views on 2nd Ave as a whole. I'd want to see the system free of reverse-branches, 100%, no exceptions, which is where I take issue with 2nd Ave. It doesn't add any new core capacity, which is a huge part of the push to build it, relieving IRT Lexington Ave: - It's too far east to do so, it misses the Midtown Core by a block, traveling through mostly residential development, and the E-W transfers will be very long, longer than ideal. This is bad, because I believe that every line should connect to every other line in a system with the best possible transfer facilities. You'd likely force more crowding at transfer points due to it being so far east. - It's reverse-branched, meaning the southern section only runs half-capacity. You could argue that branching would give it full capacity, but that just comes with the issue of cascading delays, which the line should be future-proofed against by operationally isolating it. Phase 3 needs to be a separate trunk, 3rd Ave is the edge of the Midtown Core, so it should be built there, giving it better transfers, as most of the lines intersecting it have exits at 3rd Ave at present. - Running it as separate trunks through Midtown and the UES solves the core capacity issue, instead of throwing money at a glamour project that is 2nd Ave at present, by alleviating congestion where it is most needed, and not bending backwards to provide what's essentially a branch line through East Midtown, solely for coverage purposes, where spending billions is not even remotely worth it.

That's not a supply issue, it's just a fact that jobs are more densely packed on the West Side, rather than the East Side. That's why crowding on Lex is extremely high, everyone on the UES is transferring to go west, and it decreased with the Q, now that they have a one-seat option.

Valid argument. I argue that you would add more flexibility making the system de-interlined. I guess an argument could be made for it as a non-revenue connection, though it seems lengthy for that.

Not to beat a dead horse with these kinds of proposals, but I really dislike adding more reverse-branches into the system. I am in favor of removing the Lex-WPR connection, because demand is much more geared towards the West Side almost everywhere in the city, especially on White Plains Rd. This also obviates the need for reverse-branching on Jerome, as service would be able to be increased with such a setup. It’s still not a bad proposal/crayon though, although I wish the discussion of de-interlining, and transit in general, was higher level in this city.

I think the current level of density on the island would best be served by a long regional rail tunnel under New York Harbor. New deep stations would be needed at St. George and Fulton Center, with the tunnel running up to Grand Central Lower Level, stopping at Union Square on the way. I see this as an extension of the Harlem Line, as proposed by Alon Levy:

I want to point out the express bus argument as an especially bad one. I, for one, believe that subway extensions and regional rail improvements could make them obsolete. They already have very low fare-box recovery ratios, which would likely lower once rail becomes more attractive, due to its higher ride quality and perceived comfort. They're already duds now, and will be even more of a dud if any expansion of this nature happens.

I think the ideal scenario for Staten Island would be linking the SIRT and North Shore Branch into a new S-Bahn tunnel under New York Harbor, running all the way to Grand Central Lower Level, continuing north as the Harlem Line. As for a subway extension from Bay Ridge, running along SI Expwy and Forest Ave might be a good option.

It’s not strictly necessary, most riding QBL would retain one seat options, regardless of them taking a local or express. 6th Ave and 8th Ave serve the same destinations in the Midtown CBD, and Lex-63 could have a passageway built to Lex-59. It’s perfectly doable right away.

I know him from YouTube comments sections, that is precisely his proposal. I'm honestly very torn about how valuable such a project is, considering the amount of investment sunk into transfers, affording the same kind of access.

No idea yet, I don't see a connection into 8th Ave being valuable, the cost would be in the 10 figure range, for such a short connector. 2nd Ave (3rd Ave really, I'm more influenced by Levy's ideas) is a possibility, but I prefer that going via Williamsburg into Utica. In the meantime, all Broadway El service, including service from the Myrtle Ave El, should go downtown. 6th Ave is hard without a major reconfiguration of Chrystie, that would also involve 2nd Ave (Again, 3rd Ave technically). They seem to both be equally popular, especially areas around Canal Street, which both the Sea Beach and West End Lines would get service towards. I wouldn't discount data from 2019,

I question the value of the current M service, because it doesn't do much to decongest the L, which was part of its original goal. It misses the development in Williamsburg, which clusters along the L, not the J/M. Long term, There needs to be a connection from the Broadway El that sends all its trains into Midtown. For now, I'm on the side of reinstating the M service from Metropolitan Ave to Broad (or Chambers) Street, to alleviate that reverse-branch, and allow more overall capacity into Midtown. The Broadway El and Myrtle Ave El don't have so many riders that other lines and transfers would be overwhelmed, and it will be a while until serious gentrification reaches farther eastward (Bushwick is currently gentrifying, but along the L mostly, not along the J and M). Add tail tracks on the L past 8th Ave, and the Seaview extension proposed earlier would provide for tail tracks at the other end. Upgrading the substations, would allow for a potential 36-40 TPH under CBTC, and the system is also fit for driverless operation, meaning 40+ can be obtained (Paris Line 14 uses a similar system to the Canarsie Line, and is able to run 42 TPH). The last part is mostly fantasy land, however. This ^. I envision it traveling in a quad-track tube with the 7, then running west through Hoboken in a tunnel, with a portal just before Secaucus Junction, platform adjacent to the upper level tracks.

Right away, the idea isn't bad, I'll give it that, but here are some criticisms: - Not a criticism, but the Seaview extension is good, it would be relatively cheap to build, so why not? - Up 10th Ave isn't bad, per se, I just don't like the crosstown on 86th Street. My belief is that the only new crosstowns should be along 125th Street, as an outer-circumferential segment, and 50th Street, as a radial line going into Queens and across into New Jersey. I say 50th, because it most directly relieves the 7, and it's the most northerly core hit. 125th acts as an outer circumferential, on an otherwise radial line, so it's quite natural of an extension. - I don't see the appeal of running trains on Astoria Blvd, vs. Northern Blvd, which is a corridor denser than Utica Ave. Northern also has a natural path towards Eastern Queens, most likely terminating at Crocheron Ave. - For a western L extension, I'd rather send the L to Secaucus, not the often proposed 7, as the 7 duplicates regional rail services that could be improved upon to be more rapid-transit like, and the L is the other logical option.

This actually isn't bad, given the goal, I just question the need to access every trunk, which is something that people here will get on my ass for...

I don't think the loss of express service to Queens Plaza is that important, most passengers aren't heading there from far east, the densest collection of jobs from the Queens Blvd is in Midtown. There are jobs in LIC that passengers on QBL would be going to, but they are much more spread out, and not necessarily concentrated at Queens Plaza, so the inconvenience is limited to very few people. I personally think Broadway-QBL service is extremely redundant, and a terrible reverse-branch when both IND trunks parallel Broadway through the CBD.

That's from https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/, you can quite accurately see where residents along a particular line work using this tool. I decided that after certain railfans kept regurgitating the same information about why de-interlining isn't in line with current ridership patterns, that I would research this myself, and lots of myths have been dispelled.

I don't think Union Square and Washington Square matter as much because the jobs aren't as densely packed coming from Brighton. The "core" ends near Herald Square, where both trunks meet, though most are still clustered near Times Square.