CenSin

Because the will require a higher frequency after extending to the Upper East Side, it's pretty much written in stone that it will be the Broadway express. However, will Astoria residents let their express service go to another neighborhood?

The 60 Street tunnel should be on a deeper level at this point, unless it rises after leaving Lexington Avenue.

How much money/assistance would someone take to be convinced it's better to deal with the inconveniences of moving? Your answer to that question may tell you how cost-effective this strategy is.

Actually, he's right. The MTA did propose such a connection for phase 4. They determined that the soil type would make it difficult to make such a connection without special equipment, but it's still a possibility. As for a connection to the Jamaica line over the Williamsburg Bridge, they might have to sever the Christie Street connection to Jamaica to make it possible.

This is the current problem with how we expand. We cut too many corners just like how we reduced a full line going across Queens to the less useful Archer Avenue spur and 63 Street connector—zero capacity was added for moving trains across Queens. (just a comment about the way things are planned…)

Two lines v three lines

I don't think it does. There are way too many delays all the time. Think DeKalb Avenue, 34 Street (before service cuts), and Prince Street (now).

It's not as simple as addition. In fact, the more routes that share a line, the lower its capacity. Switching reduces capacity.

They don't link up to the rest of the system though. Transfers are a must since they don't integrate.

I thought I shouldn't have mentioned the ...:tdown:Anything out of the ordinary (relative to current service patterns) or uses track connections that should probably be left alone will seem like a good idea. Putting the in like that is going to cause extra delays from merging in both directions. Just curious… what headways do you propose for the other 6 Avenue locals if the runs? ()

Someone didn't get the memo… Genting will only be willing to pay for "improved" service to the Rockaways, and not build any new lines. This was yesterday's news. I apologize for not putting up a link to the article (because I'm tipsy/drunk from Friday night), but if you want the link to the news article, I will look for it and put it up.

I said in an earlier post that the (Q)'s frequency might be ramped up. In that situation, your service pattern (which I suggested already), TwoTimer says Sea Beach service would have to take a substantial cut.

We are not talking about making connections to existing tracks, but using the extra space or airspace along the right-of-way. If you thought that were the case, why did you not assume the same about using the Amtrak's northeast corridor right-of-way? The right-of-way along the southern edge of Bronx is quite wide, by the way. Someone with expertise in the rules and regulations might want to step in a say something about this here. And you saw my reply, which you responded to, and my reply to that is at the very bottom of this post. Please take the effort to properly unquote your own passages. I can't quote those for reference; nested quotes don't seem to be enabled by default. The U.S. Census does not look at how nice the house looks. It looks at numbers. Either way, I'd trust the classification used in the publication; I'm sure they chose the correct thresholds for the "low-income" category.

I'm reading the RPA's 1998 report, and it does show large areas of low income between the Pelham line and Throggs Neck. Maybe not at the tip of Throggs Neck, but there are 4 islands of high density along the way within the low income area stretching from southeast Bronx to Throggs Neck. Maybe 14 years made a difference in the demographics. We'll have to locate new statistical figures to find out :\

True. Less service would suck a lot. I use it all the time over the . It's quite a drastic change, but appears to work, though you forget that people from 8 Avenue, Chinatown, and Flushing often make use of the Queensboro Plaza transfer. This forces an extra transfer or a transfer at Times Square (which is difficult to navigate). I use the at night to Coney Island, but usually from Queens or Manhattan, and the is the fastest route during the night.

No U-turn has to be made. There's a right-of-way along southern Bronx that goes straight across and connects with the northeast corridor. Check with the rail track maps or use Google Maps' satellite view. They call the option the "south Bronx bypass." Fair assumption, considering the fact that the MTA has established a track record for wasting money on the most trivial things. We don't know if a fence is required though. What we do know is that a direct track connection to a railroad would be forbidden. True. Co-op city is high density, but not low income while Central Bronx (along 3 Avenue) is both high density and low income. They could use a subway more. I never argued for the use of the northeast corridor over Central Bronx's 3 Avenue though. However, an extension to Throggs Neck appears to be the second best use of the 2 Avenue extension into the Bronx since it's also high density and low income. Running a line via the Amtrak right-of-way until Longwood Avenue before tunneling or building an elevated line would be much cheaper than doing it from Central Bronx. (The streets don't exactly line up nicely for this purpose.)

I hope someone doesn't start with the "If I were king of the MTA, I would do this and that to the routes and build another tunnel to connect here and there. And then there should be a <letter> using the abandoned tracks there (trust me, those school kids really need that service). To fill those extra rusting tracks with trains, I'd bring back the , , , , and (don't worry I'll figure out a way to shoehorn an elevated connection to the airport somewhere). (long wall of text littered with subway bullets)" This might have consequences for all of the routes running on the Broadway line. If service is increased drastically, we might see one of these service changes: continue running as the Broadway local, because there is no room on the express track for the and (N)'s headway's combined. Instead, the (N)'s headway will be reduced for slightly more frequent service. The won't have to deal with the except at DeKalb Avenue and Prince Street if the continues using the Manhattan Bridge. will run express along Broadway, but with a longer headway (meaning less frequent service). The will make up for that in Astoria and become the Broadway local. The increased number of routes on the Broadway line will cause more conflicts at 34 Street–Herald Square or 57 Street–7 Avenue (just like before the service cuts), but instead of letting the train scheduled to go first leave the station first, they might just opt to allow all express trains to go first to keep things moving for the or adopt a first-in-first-out policy; consequently, they'll stop holding trains for connections.

Nobody said there would be no tunnel at all. If you think about it, any option that's not a full tunnel is cheaper than part tunnel and part at-grade/depressed/elevated. And the fence is not going to make any difference in the budget. The other purpose of using the NEC is adding capacity (though I would agree that it's adding capacity in the wrong way). You can only add so many trains before you can't add anymore, but by connecting a new corridor to a new trunk line, you automatically double the capacity of that region (assuming the line isn't split in the Bronx). I believe another study also explicitly admitted that such a route would be close to existing routes, but would serve a large population further away from any routes. This would be akin to building the Queens super-express bypass. It's paralleling the Queens Boulevard line, but it adds capacity. It's already quite pricey to build the Second Avenue Subway, and there is also SBS there. Yet, they're doing it anyway.

The tracks to go to a separate level. It's in the plans already from the 2000s. The tracks are also supposed to fan out underground to provide about 6~8 storage tracks, 2 which are provisioned to continue to the Bronx. They end at 129 Street once built.

I've pretty much completed the basic map: it's the current system and service patterns with all the roads, routes, station markers, and labels for the stations. Any work will proceed from here. New_York_City_Metropolitan_Area_Map.pdf (7.71 MiB) The file opens in Adobe Acrobat X Reader (minimum).

By the way, Amtrak does not use all of its right-of-way. There's room for 6 tracks in the Bronx, but it has been reduced to 2 tracks. What do you do with the space for 4 more tracks? Work things out, and the subway will come really cheap—possibly cheaper than light rail. Of course, not every place has extra space just to plop a subway on top of. The Bronx just so happens to have this. Anyway, the reason subways are claimed to be cheaper in the long run is not the immediate monetary cost, but the effect on the surrounding ecosystem. By building lower capacity transportation, you physically cap the growth of a region to a certain level. Imagine replacing even a single East River tunnel between Queens and Manhattan today with a light rail or BRT line. The ridership was definitely not there when some of these lines were built, but had the city or companies operating the transportation went for cheaper options, Queens would not have grown so much. Stunted growth is a residual, ongoing cost that will make the community pay for a long time. That's why compromising on transportation is such a bad idea.

I think this might take the pressure off to build an actual subway. If light rail is in place, it won't improve transportation as much as a subway, nor integrate as well, and at the same time it will be used as an excuse to not build a subway for a long time to come. It's an all-or-nothing game. Southeastern Brooklyn is a bit more difficult to get subway service to. While the Bronx will have the opportunity to connect new branches to a brand new 2 Avenue line, Brooklyn only has 3 existing (and overcrowded) lines that can be extended to provide coverage (Nostrand Avenue, Eastern Parkway, and Canarsie). If there were a new Brooklyn trunk line (running through the Broadway station on the Crosstown line or via Atlantic Avenue) and a lot less NIMBYism, we'd have two of the prerequisite elements needed for a successful extension into southeastern Brooklyn.

I looked this up while drawing my geographically accurate subway map. There actually are 3 big gaps in the Bronx where coverage is solely by bus. The official map will have you believe otherwise.

According to the article, the tail end would be for the MetroNorth riders. The Lexington riders get the front end.

This is an article from about 2 months ago: Source: The MTA Wants to Deny the Bronx a New Subway | Suite101.com I was under the impression that a station at 125 Street and 2 Avenue wasn't possible due to the water or impediment to future extension to the Bronx. Any comments?