Alargule

If my grrrandmotherrr had wheels, she'd be a wagon!

'Messy' is the first word that springs to mind when I look at his proposal. Yes, I do like the idea of more lines into Queens, a four-track trunk line underneath Second Avenue and I also like the reasoning behind the various crosstown proposals. But there's so much interweaving/interference going on between all those lines...it would allow for flexible routing options and many one-seat rides. However, all service frequencies of lines running along the same stretch of track would have to be synchronized, which could lead to too many trains along one stretch and too few along another stretch, without any possibility to adjust the frequency of single routes appropiately.

A+ for the effort - once again. The idea of using the current track structure as a blank canvas to see what alternative routes are possible is always a great exercise in thinking what might be possible. Practically though, you really seem to have an interlocking fetish And in daily practice, those interlocking operations would put serious constraints on the operation and overall robustness of the network. You could easily get rid of those by making minor route changes to your Queens Blvd proposal.

Although I do like the idea behind your proposal and truly admire the amount of work you've put in there, I also believe that your network suggestions would cause more problems than they would resolve. Especially the intermixing of local and express services on the IND network would make those lines less robust instead of increasing reliability and robustness. The network would also become less 'readable' than the current configuration is. I believe that many of the issues you point to could easily be resolved within the current network setup, save for a few extra tweaks and realignments.