T to Dyre Avenue

I’m not sure how easy of a connection this would be. If you’re connecting to the local tracks, the connecting tracks have to not interfere with the existing express tracks. At least one connecting trackway will have to dodge the point where the northbound express and local tracks cross over, so that both express tracks are on the park side before they get to 72nd St. The southbound connecting track looks like it might have to go under some of the (very expensive) buildings in order to avoid interfering with the southbound express track before traveling under the park. That would be better than having the Broadway connection be made into the express tracks, which would indeed be another QBL, and potentially turn CPW into another delay-prone mess like QBL, due to a slew of merges in close proximity to each other. I don’t like how the MTA connected the 63rd St tunnel between Queens Plaza and the first local stop, creating a big bottleneck between all four QBL services in that area. This connection has the potential to do exactly the same thing to CPW if not done right. And that’s a very tricky location to make a connection. Though FWIW, I think a CPW Local-Broadway Local connection may have some potential value as a relief line for the which has some of its worst crowding between 42nd and 72nd streets. It also might make the merge at 59th less of a problem because in essence, you’d be replacing the 6th Ave-CPW local service with a Broadway service that would be leaving the line before 59th St. So only the (or the in your scenario, although I’m not sure why) would be using those tracks at 59th, similar to how only the branches off at 36th St in Brooklyn after they eliminated the in South Brooklyn in 2010. I don’t really think it’s such a bad thing if one of the locals branches off Queens Blvd at 63rd Drive. Both locals really don’t need to go to the Rockaways. Only one local station loses service, 67th Ave. Although there would only be three services at 71st Ave, let’s be honest, the overwhelming majority of riders there want the express and trains…which they would still have. Relatively few riders at 71st are taking the or , and that almost certainly wouldn’t change if the or is the only local there.

But then what would run in the 53rd St Tunnel along with the ? The definitely can’t handle 53rd alone. And you can’t put the back in 53rd unless another service replaces it in 63rd. I agree with also running the to 2nd Avenue and having the run solo in Astoria. Of course the would have to run more frequently due to the absence of the , but then we’d be free of the delay-prone merge at 34th St and we would be able to run more frequent service. 34th is just a bad place to merge trains. Ditto for Prince St. The biggest concern I have with running a 6th Avenue service to/from 2nd Avenue is that it will be a very tight squeeze on the 6th Avenue local tracks along with the and . And would likely have to be suspended if the and/or ever have to be rerouted onto 6th. Like @mannysoloway suggested, we could run the to/from 2nd. But like I responded above, another service would then have to take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel, most likely the , which in turn would then have to have another service replace it in the 63rd St Tunnel if the goes onto 2nd Ave. But that’s not going to be a problem for a long time to come. The Jets will likely win a second Super Bowl before the train starts running.

Requires a dogbone past Forest Hills? How so? Wouldn’t one local branch off QBL using the existing turnouts, and the other local continue to turn at 71st as now? Especially by the LIRR themselves, 😂

Because the MTA says it's better to have more service Uptown than in Midtown/Downtown? http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/feis/figures-01.pdf Unfortunately, look how long we had to go just to get Phase 1. Meanwhile, they haven't even broken ground on Phase 2 yet. At the very least, we need to get Phase 2 built. We've got to figure out a way to make what we've already got work before we can start on another line one avenue block parallel to the existing line (and in between two existing lines between 63rd and 96th Streets). I do agree that the current four-phase MTA plan is shit and forces the line to run well below capacity below 63rd St. There's nothing good about spending many billions of dollars over many decades only to be forced to run a new line well below capacity. I'm more than happy to have Phases 3 and 4 sent back to the drawing board for reevaluation so we don't wind up with a line running at only half-capacity that requires long (and expensive) passageways to connect with the nearest crosstown line stations in Midtown. This is in part why I like the idea of having a second SAS service to/from Queens. The old 2nd Ave El had one (via the Queensboro Bridge). Because if you already have a service from Queens like an or a ( V ), then you don't need those long passageways because riders to and from Queens will already be on a Second Ave service, negating the need to transfer from the or to the . It's either that or we figure out a way to have the subway shift from 2nd to 3rd Ave south of 63rd St, which will definitely require new EIS/FEIS studies and add more time that we'll be waiting to see it in operation. Because having Phases 3 and 4 of the current plan run at only 50 to (maybe) 60 percent capacity is both an expensive and a bad option.

But you're making the merge at 36th St much worse. Not only do you have the and still merging there, you now also have the merging with the there to go to 63rd St. And you still have a merge at QP between the and . The delays will be terrible. Why not run both the and express via the 63rd St and the and local via 53rd? Then cut the back to Forest Hills and have either the or replace it to/from Jamaica Center (with the other line operating to/from 179th).

I think it would be better if a subway didn't interline with the , but rather ran on its own r-o-w with a transfer to the in or near Grasmere. And the is already too long of a line, so I'd prefer if another line were to be extended to Staten Island. Maybe something like this... https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2022/02/a-tunnel-too-far-part-2-hylans-dream/ Scroll down to the paragraph titled "Grasmere-95th St Local-Express," which suggests running the there as an extension of his 2020 deinterlining proposal - https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2020/10/deinterlining-with-one-switch/

Agreed that it should be open-gangway R211s on Jamaica. I really don't think it would be an improvement over the R160s if the closed gangway-trains run there, because the R211s have wider doors and thus, fewer seats than the R160s. This will force more people to have to stand and result in more crowding. Given these post-Covid times we're in, I don't think we should be pushing people closer together. You should have seen the complaints on here a few years ago when the 's R142As were sent over to the line and line riders got back the R62As.

For street-running stops, yes. But it appears that the IBX line will be almost entirely off-street running (as it should be). And for that, I think high floor vehicles will work better. It seems like they can potentially resemble A-Division cars, but with bullet-shaped noses, pantographs and articulated joints. It might make it quicker to learn maintenance on them versus a low-floor car. And you still have the required accessibility pursuant to ADA because the IBX line stations will still have ramps and possibly elevators. FWIW, LA Metro, Muni and C-Train do have high platforms with long ramps at either all (Metro, C-Train) or some of their on-street surface stations (Muni). I’m definitely not saying we should copy them on that. I don’t know if any of the stops are planned to be on-street. If not, then I say go with high floor. Although there certainly are more options for low floor cars.

It can still be called the train if it’s light rail. My preference would have have been for modified subway trains too, a la SIR, but they eliminated that option back in the earlier feasibility study (from last January). I honestly don’t think the choice of light rail is bad (I’m sure glad they didn’t choose BRT!) SIR is light rail? Since when? I’ve always considered its modified R44s to be heavy rail same as their NYC Transit counterparts. Same with the R211 cars which will be replacing them and the R46s.

Honestly I don’t see the choice of light rail as a dealbreaker (some folks on Transit Twitter and the NYC Rail subreddit do). Thankfully the MTA didn’t choose bus rapid transit. I would’ve preferred either modified commuter or subway trains, but I think LRVs can work, even though the MTA has no experience operating them (gotta start somewhere, yes?) and completely lets project costs skyrocket into the stratosphere. With Nippon Sharyo having pulled out of the North American market a couple years ago, I doubt they’ll be interested in offering their DMU vehicles as an option, unless they’re small enough to be considered LRVs, like the Stadler GTW trains that run on NJT’s Riverline. Btw, welcome back! The vast majority are low-floor, it’s true. Mostly because low platforms in the middle of streets are seen as less unsightly versus high platforms in the street, like you see in LA and on Muni’s T Line on Third Street in San Francisco and the C-Train in Calgary (I think we can include Canadian cities as examples here). All three have recently ordered new high-floor LRVs for their systems - LA with P3010s from Kinki Sharyo and SF and Calgary with S200s from Siemens - so the MTA have at least a couple builders to choose from as long as they don’t let their bureaucratic baloney get in the way as they usually do. I honestly think high-floor LRVs may be a better choice for this project because it will run almost entirely off-street, so “unsightly” high platforms in the street will probably not be that big of an issue, unless they’re already planning to have some street-level stops.

I feel like these and other areas near the and the BQE/Gowanus Expwy would benefit tremendously from a more frequent , which together with an extended might be a way to entice drivers off the expressway. This would be especially helpful if the city ever put forward a real plan to address the future of the BQE, instead of repeatedly kicking the can down the road.

I would think the ones accessed street-level station houses (Sea Beach, Dyre Ave line, most of Brighton, etc.) would be because those station houses are often flanked by other properties with addresses, unlike most underground stations accessed by stand-alone stairways in the sidewalks or mezzanine-level el stations.

I remember the discussion about your plan from a few years back. I do like it, but I’ve always wondered if it was necessary to swap the and in Upper Manhattan? It would be good to have a real Culver express service.

From how I played around with OnTheMap, the areas around Canal Street were especially popular with the areas surrounding both Sea Beach and West End, while Herald Sq seemed to be more popular with the area surrounding Brighton. But I did it with zip code destinations and maybe that doesn’t tell the whole story. We had a poster on here in 2018/19 (?) who was big into doing an 8th Avenue connection. Would have been between Bowery and Spring St. I didn’t think it would be any better than the current 6th Ave connection. We also had some pretty good discussion here in early 2020 about extending the and to Jamaica and Myrtle, but like you said, that would require a major reconfiguration of Chrystie. I wonder if the can play some sort of role towards relieving traffic on the nearby BQE should the City finally step up with a real plan to address its future.

That was in 1964. It shouldn’t have taken nearly 40 years before they started the automation process again.

I'm trying it out now. Unfortunately, I need a real computer to draw the polygons and do the analysis (OnTheMap doesn't really work well on a phone), so I'm doing it on my work computer - I have a little downtime, lol. I'm still figuring it out. But one result I got made it seem like Midtown is more popular with Brighton riders and Downtown is more popular with both Sea Beach and West End riders. At least according to 2019 data, the most recent year they have. It is an interesting finding, to say the least.

What sort of connection do you have in mind? I only ask because wouldn't any new connection that sends all trains from the Broadway El into Midtown cut the el off from the Nassau Street Line? Or would you favor reinstating the old M service to Chambers/Broad while rerouting the up 6th Avenue?

London and Paris also run much shorter (but more frequent) trains than NYC. I think Toronto still uses conductors too, except on the Scarborough and Sheppard lines, which run 4-car trains (the other lines run 6-car trains). We could have had subway automation if it hadn't been for the half-assed way MTA management went about it over the decades.

I considered the possibility of a semi-deinterlined QBL with access to three trunk lines - 8th, 6th and 2nd. Like this… 71st Ave to WTC via QBL local, 53rd St and 8th Ave local unchanged in Queens and Manhattan. Express between Jay St and Church Ave in Brooklyn Jamaica Center to Metro Ave via QBL express, 63rd St and 2nd Ave 71st Ave to Church Ave via QBL local, 53rd, 6th Ave local and South Brooklyn IND However, because the is unable to run more than eight 60-footers per train, this would be a problem for running a 2nd Ave via the QB express tracks, so I’ve since reconsidered this idea in favor of leaving the as is and having the V operate via 63rd and 2nd and (initially) terminating wherever the does. I’d strongly consider an extension to Secaucus as well. As long as it makes intermediate stops in Hoboken and Jersey City and construction is paid for and operations funded by the State of New Jersey. Has to be much more effective than Gov. Murphy spending $10 billion to widen I-78 in the same area, yes?

Before 1993, the late night ran almost exactly like this, except it started and ended at Euclid Ave. Service ran very infrequently, even by late night standards.

The can terminate at Broad with or without another Nassau St service running through to South Brooklyn. It did so for decades. It doesn’t need to be cut back at all.

Excellent map. Where did you find it?

We should be exhausting every other possible way to either raise enough revenue to properly fund Transit operations or cut excess staffing in the ‘s very extensive ranks of management before we turn to cutting bus and subway services. You can’t run a military with too many generals and not enough soldiers. A public transit agency is no different in that regard. And like you said, the aren’t looking very hard to save money anyway, so all this talk of cutting services is moot…for now. And how far ahead did the come out anyway after cutting the Bay Pkwy and the and the to Court Sq in 2010?

Definitely all good points. Really, the only places where the Broadway and 6th Ave trunk lines aren’t all that close are Union Square (Broadway) and Washington Square (6th Ave).

Could be. After all, the has always been a QBL express service (outside of late night service, and even that was a fairly recent change). It’s all riders have ever known. And had the 63rd St tunnel not been connected to the QBL between an express and a local station, it wouldn’t make sense to change the . But they did make the connection in that location and now it causes big delays by creating an extra merge between the and , as well as another merge between the and at Queens Plaza on weekdays. My concern with sending all local QBL trains to the 63rd St tunnel is that the local stations from 65th Street to 36th Street would be cut off from Queens Plaza and the rest of LIC. So essentially, you wouldn’t be able to travel locally between those stations and LIC, which has become somewhat of a “downtown” for all of Queens. I’m now starting to see more people favor Broadway Exp -> 4th Ave and 6th Ave Exp -> Brighton. I can understand why. That option is a much simpler swap between the and lines and you can have a cross-platform transfer at DeKalb Ave between 6th Avenue and Broadway trains. But not so long ago in this very thread, there was some very good discussion about how the Broadway Line was heavily preferred by Brighton Line riders over 6th Avenue and that if Brighton had only 6th Avenue services, there would be tons of riders exiting the trains at Atlantic Avenue and crowding through the passageways either to get Broadway services on the 4th Avenue platform or to get on the already crowded and trains. Though that seems to be the reason given no matter what option is suggested for decongesting DeKalb Jct. I’ll have to check it out when I’m back in the office on Tuesday and have access to a regular computer. Because it seems like Google Maps doesn’t want to let me see your map on my phone.