T to Dyre Avenue

On 1/15/2023 at 10:29 PM, Vulturious said:

That's exactly what I'm saying.

As shown here while sorta hard to see, this would most likely be how the connection would work with the track connection bypassing Columbus Circle Station entirely going straight to 72 St. 

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. 

On 1/15/2023 at 11:09 PM, MTA Researcher said:

So we get a scenario similar to 21 St Queensbridge - Queens Plaza where the  express and  local stop at 59 St - Columbus Circle and  local merging with the  coming from 57 St/7 Av. 

 

Looking at QBL it’s similar in the sense that you have  express and  local at Queens Plaza and  local at 21 St Queensbridge merging with the  going east.

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.

On 1/27/2023 at 10:17 AM, TMC said:

I don't like branching lines off of Queens Blvd, it'd be reducing service to Forest Hills, and the RBB at that point becomes a mere branch with the sole purpose of coverage. That'd why I'd just go with no-build or a dogbone past Forest Hills, extending both locals, and sending all s to Lefferts, while QBL locals go to each terminal on the peninsula, likely running 20 TPH total, 10 TPH per branch. 

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.

13 hours ago, mannysoloway said:

Send the M up Second Avenue and the G back to Forest Hills

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.

On 1/24/2023 at 2:12 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Sorry if this has already been discussed a while ago, but the question of how SAS Phase II would practically work in terms of service patterns has plagued me for quite a while.

A  train once every 6-8 minutes to serve the entire line to 125th is insufficient, even if you throw in an  train here and there. One could just dedicate both the and  up SAS full time, but then the  would be left to serve Astoria all by itself. You could take the  off of QBLVD and send it up to Astoria, but then you need to find a replacement for the , and are beginning to dive into pretty dramatic service changes with much of the IND.

The other underrated option is to send a 6th avenue train up 2nd avenue to help the Q, but adding in a whole other service would be hard.

To me, it really seems like they should do phase III first to avoid this problem, even though the tunnels for Phase II are mostly there. It'd be really ironic is poor planning leads to overcrowding on the line designed to alleviate overcrowding on a nearby line.

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.

On 1/24/2023 at 5:48 PM, Kamen Rider said:

The problem with that is the space between the Q runs is for the T.

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. 

On 1/23/2023 at 8:07 AM, TMC said:

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). 

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?

On 1/23/2023 at 10:07 AM, TMC said:

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. 

Especially by the LIRR themselves, 😂 

8 hours ago, Lex said:

Because Alon "Pedestrian Observer" Levy said so?

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

Quote

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.

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.

14 hours ago, Reptile said:

QBL re-arrangement that gets rid of the merge and adds 2nd Avenue access

Unchanged

Unchanged

Forest Hills to Metropolitan Av via QBL Local, 63 St, 2nd Av

Forest Hills to Church Av via QBL Local, 53 St, 6th Av

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). 

On 1/11/2023 at 8:05 PM, Vulturious said:

Thought I'd have try my own spin on how a Staten Island connection to the NYC Subway would look like. It's already pretty self-eplanatory going from 95 St down along 4 Av, the  would run north along Bay St with the first stop at Hylan Blvd. From what it looks like, there's an empty lot around Bay St and Willow Av where the curve of the  would be going to/from Clifton station, so I decided to add a portal there for  trains to surface and run along a portion of the  to St. George station.

Obviously platforms needs extensions since they aren't long enough for any normal NYC subway train length. Clifton Station would be possible, but i felt the curve from the southbound tracks would be too right and I didn't want to have an at-grade junction. So I decided to have southbound  trains split before the station using the layup tracks on the left which sees an extension to the rest of the  to hopefully not make operations complicated. The only issue would be St. George's station since if I'm not mistaken, they aren't long lengths so I guess an at-grade junction will have to do going towards Ball Park platform. 

Probably would be better to just let it run underground or maybe beside it continuing along Bay St to St. George.

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/ 

11 hours ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

The D will get NTTs due to CBTC on 8th Avenue. Only time will tell if the gets r211's or r160's. It will also depend on whether the 2nd option order will be open gangway trains or not. It makes more sense for Jamaica to get open gangway trains.

The comments on the A/C being bombarded with old equipment are so spot on and accurate. Thank you for speaking up.

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. 

Quote

They can live, Again the  and  riders has has old shit for 30 plus years and  never gave a shit until a certain group of people starting moving into brooklyn.  and  riders had to watch other lines get new equipment throughout the years. R160B 9803-9942 were planned to go to the  line in 2009 and they were training  crews to be R160 qualified back in 2009 until they decided to just give that batch to Jamaica. Still to this day that I still think Rockaway power bullshit was just a way to keep the tech trains off the  until they were forced to get them (R179s).

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.

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Unsightly is not the issue. ADA compliance is.

For the most part, low floor LRVs are basically flush with the curb, or a little bit higher. The ADA limits slope, so a high floor platform needs a longer, more expensive ramp. Not to mention the cost of the additional concrete and whatnot.

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. 

13 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

Sigh, and in the largest city in this country as well.

13 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The IBX should've been a subway line and it would've been called the train. We lost another one.

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!)

11 hours ago, JustTheSIR said:

The SIR, which has been forgotten multiple times by redditors as well:

*sad Staten Island noises*

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.

15 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm very disappointed that the project is moving forward with Light Rail, I mean I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest. However, the project is on the more expensive side, yet another thing I shoudn't be surprised about, but it doesn't really make sense. That budget seems to be too high, cost per rider is much higher than the SAS iirc. A lot of the wrong steps are being taken here, only thing I'm hoping from here on is the MTA looks at other examples of Light Rail everywhere else. Still very disappointed, oh well.

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.

9 hours ago, Roadcruiser1 said:

I am hoping that the Nippon Sharyo DMU’s get used on the Interborough Express. They are FRA compliant. It makes it useful so that future extensions can cross the Hells Gate Bridge into the Bronx.

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! 

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

It's probably going to be low platform. They specifically mention using off-the-shelf rolling stock, and all of that in the US is low-floor.

You can have flat cross platform transfers between light rail and subway, the light rail trackbed would just be higher.

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.

On 1/8/2023 at 12:25 AM, Around the Horn said:

Three of the top ten "hottest" neighborhoods in NYC in terms of both housing searches and transactions (Red Hook, Gowanus & Fort Greene) are served by the . I doubt it would be empty for long.

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.

On 1/7/2023 at 6:25 PM, Lawrence St said:

Do subway stations have address's?

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.

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I will come forward to admit that the guy on YouTube with that plan is me, and that’s precisely my plan. Essentially a version of the 1931 Worth Street Line plans and what I consider the successor to the Chrystie Street connection, the intentions to my plan is to support additional deinterlining (beyond what can already be done) while retaining the Midtown connection for Williamsburg Bridge riders. Albeit this will be via 8th Avenue instead of 6th Avenue, which does increase capacity on both lines and clears the way on 6th Avenue for a proper Culver Express, providing an alternative to the Sea Beach Line without sacrificing the North Brooklyn-Midtown direct service.

With this alone, the  would simply be moved to the 8th Avenue Line (recolored to blue and potentially redesignated), requiring the  and  to be swapped to make the former express through Midtown and Upper Manhattan, and this in itself would also require Queens Blvd service to be rearranged. I do also have this paired with another set of projects that involve alterations to the Fulton Street, Broadway, and Jamaica Lines to provide more frequent service on the Fulton Street and Rockaway Lines, speed service to Lower Manhattan for Jamaica riders, and provide an alternative to the Eastern Pkwy Line for Brooklyn riders. 

Admittedly, this is merely a long term projects given the costs, but it’s something that’s honestly worth considering. To this day, these are some of my favorite proposals.

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.

6 hours ago, TMC said:

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, 

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.

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

"Golden age", right. You should see the second tweet with the extension that goes to Manhattan. I personally am not against it, but it just cannot be done with the current set up. The  would have to be rerouted via 21 St either right after the 21 St station or get rid of the station entirely. I don't really know why it's running underneath 86 St in Manhattan either.

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.

4 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Wasn't it because a fire took out the entire Grand Central Shuttle automated sets?

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

On 12/31/2022 at 5:46 PM, TMC said:

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'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.

On 1/3/2023 at 11:36 AM, TMC said:

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. 
 

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?

14 hours ago, texassubwayfan555 said:

I still don't get why people think NYC is so special that it needs to have conductors on all the subway trains. London and Paris have old systems but have been using one person operation for over 20 years!

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).

12 hours ago, U-BahnNYC said:

It doesn't. We could have fully automatic trains with 21st century technology. But the transit unions will get very touchy if anyone dares suggest even having OPTO, always pitching the same tired old line about "safety" and how "unique" the NYC system is. 

The R211 order could be the perfect opportunity to start implementing OPTO system wide. 

We could have had subway automation if it hadn't been for the half-assed way MTA management went about it over the decades.

2 hours ago, TMC said:

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 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.

2 hours ago, TMC said:

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. 

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?

1 hour ago, JustTheSIR said:

For the Rockaway Park shuttle why don’t they make it a triangle, Broad Channel to Rockaway Park, Rockaway Park to Far Rockaway, Far Rockaway to Broad Channel, and vice versa, while cutting the Rockaway A trains to Broad Channel 

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.

On 12/30/2022 at 4:14 AM, Wallyhorse said:

And the only way I would do that is if the  was moved to Nassau (with the becoming full-time) to help it in Brooklyn. 

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.

16 hours ago, TMC said:

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. 

 

Excellent map. Where did you find it? 

13 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

Well to be fair, you have a expected budget shortfall, you have to do two things to balance the budget, either increase the revenue, such as a government bailout. The congestion pricing goes to MTA's capital projects, not operations, that fare increase or reduce expense. 

Reducing expense without increasing the productivity of the workers (both managements and unions) means service reductions is probably the only option. It doesn't look like the MTA is looking very hard to save money anyways

 

But when there is service reductions, something has to go, hard decisions will have to be made

Not saying the  isn't needed or the weakest link in Brooklyn, but if there is a budget hole, the weakest link is the first one to go. 

 

The 2010 cuts was also because of budget shortfalls not R44 retirement

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?

1 hour ago, TMC said:

Sending Broadway via 4th benefits off-peak service, because in case of any maintenance activity, trains on 4th Ave can be rerouted via the tunnel or bridge depending on the work being done, only affecting service on Broadway, and not 6th Ave. The center of Brighton's job density, and really all of the city, is covered well by both, BMT Broadway and IND 6th Ave are the best hits on the Midtown as I think I stated previously. 

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). 

23 hours ago, Reptile said:

Maybe people want the on the QBL express more, perhaps it could run like this:

QBL Express via 53rd St

or Local via 63rd St

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. 

16 hours ago, TMC said:

1 - I prefer Broadway Exp->4th Ave Exp and 6th Ave Exp->Brighton to limit effects during maintenance periods and emergencies, as it separates both lines completely. 

2 - Red Hook is heavily marginal when it comes to subway extensions, I'd rather it be the  to avoid branching unnecessarily. 

3 - Keeping the on QBL isn't really de-interlining, I don't see a point for it on there. 

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.

43 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

Interlined NYC Subway Map of 2167 by ActiveCity
https://goo.gl/maps/PSPLpskSPHkJJALF6

Y'all should check this subway map out. It serves pretty much all the transit deserts we know today and it even includes Staten Island. The fantasy map was made by me. It took hours of research to put together the final result. Now, all I need to do is straighten the lines and add some few finishing touches. Before you click on this, you should click on the legend button to remove everything except the subway routes because it gives you a clear idea of where all subway lines branch out.

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.