Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Lex]

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

• to 149 Street–Grand Concourse for a connection to 7 Avenue (), Lexington Avenue (), and Central Park West () which provides the broadest coverage of Manhattan all the way down to South Ferry

Then you're advocating for the  to be truncated and the  standing in for it. (The only connection between the  and  is in Brooklyn, whereas the  also connects in the Bronx. Moreover, turning  trains from the lower level is much more work than turning  trains on the upper level, all without any real benefit, to boot.)

[CenSin]

14 minutes ago, Lex said:

Then you're advocating for the  to be truncated and the  standing in for it. (The only connection between the  and  is in Brooklyn, whereas the  also connects in the Bronx. Moreover, turning  trains from the lower level is much more work than turning  trains on the upper level, all without any real benefit, to boot.)

Whoops! My mix-up. Only the connects to all 3. The shuttle could only connect to the and . I’m surprised I hadn’t caught this sooner. 🤔 

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

• to Whitehall Street (as it already is) to maintain broadest selection of connections in Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn ()
  • In consideration for transfer opportunities, choice of service, and congestion avoidance, the should remain local, the should run express and over the bridge, and the should run via the tunnel serving lower Manhattan. DeKalb Avenue will continue to get both Broadway and 6 Avenue access that way. And the won’t all be sharing a stretch of track between DeKalb Avenue and Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center.

Priorities should probably be clarified as well when two trains show up at a junction:

• Manhattan-bound priorities:
  1. enters 36 Street first; the will have additional transfer opportunities with the and anyway
  2. enters DeKalb Avenue first unless a just preceded it in which case the will enter first
• Brooklyn-bound priorities:
  1. leaves Whitehall Street before
  2. Either or leaves DeKalb Avenue first according to schedule unless a is right behind the in which case the will leave first

These rules are suggested for passenger-centric (as opposed to schedule-centric) operation to minimize frustration of missed connections.

Edited July 18, 2020 by CenSin

[Bay Ridge Express]

10 hours ago, danig1220 said:

I have many questions.

How good is this current system? How can it be better? Is it okay to “maximize” all subway routes?  

If by maximize, you mean increase tph, that can be done through a combination of deinterlining, proper management, added short turns, speed increases, and centralized planning. Of course, deinterlining does have its caveats, however. And whether the system is good or not and how it could be improved is very subjective, since not all people agree on the same issues/rely on the same transit patterns. If you scroll through some of the 393 pages of this forum, you should be able to get some answers.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Bay Ridge Express

[LGA Link N Train]

Recently, I've been noticing that there were a lot of missed opportunities that could've been done that would've benefited the subway system as we know it. For example, many of us on here would agree that the Myrtle Line south of Broadway shouldn't have been demolished. Now there have been certain circumstances as to why it was demolished, but after reading an article about some contest to redesign the Brooklyn Bridge, it got me thinking:

Back when the IRT, IND and BMT unified in 1940, why did nobody think to Modernize the Myrtle El and connect it to the 8th Avenue Local Bellmouths at Worth Street via Chambers Street?

- I know that Chambers Street was supposed to be a Transit Hub for downtown Manhattan, with the intention of trains coming from the 3 Bridges and 1 tunnel. SO I wonder why nobody capitalized on the idea of connecting 8th Avenue to Chambers Street and the Brooklyn Bridge. Other than the fact that planners couldn't get their S*** together, Could it have been that they were too focued on demolishing EL,s and trying to build the 2nd Avenue Subway? Could have been that Robert Moses took advantage of the power he had? 

Had the idea of connecting the 8th Avenue Local Tracks to Chambers and Myrtle along with Strengthening the Foundations of the Brooklyn Bridge and Myrtle El been executed, I think that the Subway would've been in a better shape in terms of connections. Service would also probably look like this, given we didn't do anything else differently:

8th Avenue/CPW Express. (20  10 ) 

 6th Avenue Express/CPW Local. (12  12 )

 6th Avenue/Culver Local/Express (18 )

 8th Avenue Local/53rd Street. (12  8 ) 

Other Services would've been unchanged. 

Trains would've Branch off at Worth Street, Stop at Chambers Street (Using the Western Most Tracks) then turn to run via the Brooklyn Bridge and Myrtle Avenue. The  would've used the Eastern Most tracks.  

This map describes the scenario of what could've been: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1gzDg2qyMxKpl_4WEYLZSEG21Qpnxj8sU&usp=sharing

 

[Armandito]

If the  ever comes to life, could that pave the way for a Queens Boulevard bypass? While a lofty goal, the big doubt is the cost of building the line along the LIRR right-of way to Forest Hills.

[Lex]

57 minutes ago, Armandito said:

If the  ever comes to life, could that pave the way for a Queens Boulevard bypass? While a lofty goal, the big doubt is the cost of building the line along the LIRR right-of way to Forest Hills.

At this point, you'd be better off with something not tied to QB...

[Armandito]

7 minutes ago, Lex said:

At this point, you'd be better off with something not tied to QB...

As in somewhere unserved by existing subways like Southeast Bronx or Utica Avenue in Brooklyn?

[JeremiahC99]

5 minutes ago, Armandito said:

As in somewhere unserved by existing subways like Southeast Bronx or Utica Avenue in Brooklyn?

More like connecting it to the Fulton Street Line local tracks, allowing for:

 Express to Rockaways

 express to Lefferts Blvd

 local to Euclid Avenue

This should increase capacity on the Fulton Street Line.

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

If the  ever comes to life, could that pave the way for a Queens Boulevard bypass? While a lofty goal, the big doubt is the cost of building the line along the LIRR right-of way to Forest Hills.

Between Woodside and Rego Park, two trackways already exists for the new subway trains, so at least you won’t be building new tunnels between those points. Outside of those points you will have to build new tunnels.

In addition, a Queens Bypass would be beneficial if all 63rd Street trains where rerouted on here (I.e, no service to Queens Blvd), with other services replacing 63rd Street service on Queens Blvd. Additional stations on the bypass should also be built to attract local traffic alongside traffic from Jamaica. All interlines on the QBL west of Roosevelt would then be a thing of the past.

5 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Recently, I've been noticing that there were a lot of missed opportunities that could've been done that would've benefited the subway system as we know it. For example, many of us on here would agree that the Myrtle Line south of Broadway shouldn't have been demolished. Now there have been certain circumstances as to why it was demolished, but after reading an article about some contest to redesign the Brooklyn Bridge, it got me thinking:

Back when the IRT, IND and BMT unified in 1940, why did nobody think to Modernize the Myrtle El and connect it to the 8th Avenue Local Bellmouths at Worth Street via Chambers Street?

- I know that Chambers Street was supposed to be a Transit Hub for downtown Manhattan, with the intention of trains coming from the 3 Bridges and 1 tunnel. SO I wonder why nobody capitalized on the idea of connecting 8th Avenue to Chambers Street and the Brooklyn Bridge. Other than the fact that planners couldn't get their S*** together, Could it have been that they were too focued on demolishing EL,s and trying to build the 2nd Avenue Subway? Could have been that Robert Moses took advantage of the power he had? 

Had the idea of connecting the 8th Avenue Local Tracks to Chambers and Myrtle along with Strengthening the Foundations of the Brooklyn Bridge and Myrtle El been executed, I think that the Subway would've been in a better shape in terms of connections. Service would also probably look like this, given we didn't do anything else differently:

8th Avenue/CPW Express. (20  10 ) 

 6th Avenue Express/CPW Local. (12  12 )

 6th Avenue/Culver Local/Express (18 )

 8th Avenue Local/53rd Street. (12  8 ) 

Other Services would've been unchanged. 

Trains would've Branch off at Worth Street, Stop at Chambers Street (Using the Western Most Tracks) then turn to run via the Brooklyn Bridge and Myrtle Avenue. The  would've used the Eastern Most tracks.  

This map describes the scenario of what could've been: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1gzDg2qyMxKpl_4WEYLZSEG21Qpnxj8sU&usp=sharing

 

The map shows the  as local to WTC and  to Brooklyn instead of the other way around as you planned.

Also, wouldn’t you be better off just not using the WTC station entirely and route all 8th Avenue local service to the Myrtle Avenue Line to Metropolitan Avenue to increase service there?

[Armandito]

7 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

More like connecting it to the Fulton Street Line local tracks, allowing for:

 Express to Rockaways

 express to Lefferts Blvd

 local to Euclid Avenue

This should increase capacity on the Fulton Street Line.

That is certainly a good service plan to start, especially since Fulton's capacity is currently underutilized at present-day service levels even before the pandemic began. Better yet, have  trains replace the  to Lefferts overnight and extend the route beyond the planned northern terminus for the SAS (125th Street and Lex) to operate crosstown to the     station at Saint Nicholas. From there a new junction to the outer express tracks at 135th Street could also be built to allow for  trains to continue via the  to Dyckman Street where it will gain access to the 207th Street Yard. During overnight hours the  would make all  stops north of 125th Street.

Meanwhile, I would have the  branch off after 116th Street (Second Avenue) into a new line serving the Bronx. However, I'm unsure whether it's better to route it to Fordham Plaza or along Lafayette Avenue to Throggs Neck.

[LGA Link N Train]

29 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The map shows the  as local to WTC and  to Brooklyn instead of the other way around as you planned.

Also, wouldn’t you be better off just not using the WTC station entirely and route all 8th Avenue local service to the Myrtle Avenue Line to Metropolitan Avenue to increase service there?

1) I probably forgot to Change the Descriptions under the  and  so disregard any descriptions that are underneath Certain lines. 

2) Nah. As much as I’d like to extend the platforms along Myrtle, this scenario only focuses on if we strengthened the Infrastructure along Myrtle and the Brooklyn Bridge. Besides, the platforms south of Myrtle-Broadway would’ve probably have only been able to fit 8 car trains. In addition, WTC still provides a connection to the  and   whereas an 8th Avenue connection to Myrtle via Nassau provides connection to the  and . Now you could make the argument about the  and  connecting with the  and , but I also want to keep transfers at a minimal.  

Edited July 18, 2020 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[JeremiahC99]

34 minutes ago, Armandito said:

Meanwhile, I would have the  branch off after 116th Street (Second Avenue) into a new line serving the Bronx. However, I'm unsure whether it's better to route it to Fordham Plaza or along Lafayette Avenue to Throggs Neck.

One of my favored plans is going north via 2nd Avenue 3rd Avenue to 149th Street, then head east on 149th Street and cut across East Bay Avenue to the Food Market. From here, the line would then cut across the Bronx River and head over via Randall Avenue to Castle Hill Avenue, where it would curve Northeast, cross Westchester Creek, and continue via Lafayette Avenue to Dean Avenue. This routing adequately serves Hunts Point, and the Bronx below the Bruckner Expressway, and would relieve train traffic on the Pelham Line, and buses that feed into it. However, with the current design for SAS, the whole SAS would be two tracks, which could only mean two tracks for both a branch via 125th and the Randall-Lafayette Bronx corridor. Since the Pelham Line has three tracks for peak direction service, and the new line would have two tracks for all local service, this could limit its ability to alleviate crowding on the Pelham Line.

A Fordham Plaza route could also be palatable but its local only service may not be attractive. Just my opinion.

48 minutes ago, Armandito said:

Better yet, have  trains replace the  to Lefferts overnight and extend the route beyond the planned northern terminus for the SAS (125th Street and Lex) to operate crosstown to the     station at Saint Nicholas. From there a new junction to the outer express tracks at 135th Street could also be built to allow for  trains to continue via the  to Dyckman Street where it will gain access to the 207th Street Yard. During overnight hours the  would make all  stops north of 125th Street

Continuing the conversation from above, what I would suggest is putting SAS expansions on hold until we can find a way to expand the whole SAS north of 63rd Street and instead build the 125th Street Crosstown route first. I would possibly build it out to Broadway to provide connections to all lines that stop at 125th.

40 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

2) Nah. As much as I’d like to extend the platforms along Myrtle, this scenario only focuses on if we strengthened the Infrastructure along Myrtle and the Brooklyn Bridge. Besides, the platforms south of Myrtle-Broadway would’ve probably have only been able to fit 8 car trains. In addition, WTC still provides a connection to the  and   whereas an 8th Avenue connection to Myrtle via Nassau provides connection to the  and . Now you could make the argument about the  and  connecting with the  and , but I also want to keep transfers at a minimal.  

That's true, though I still see kind of a bug opportunity to do so and accommodate ridership growth, though this should be a medium term proposal.

Also, not to nitpick, but I think a Vanderbilt Avenue and a Washington Avenue stop is a bit overkill, since they're only three blocks apart. I'd keep the Vanderbilt stop for the bus connection, and expand the Vanderbilt stop to include entrances at both Vanderbilt and Waverly Avenues, similar to how the Clinton-Washington Avenue stations on both the  and  lines have entrances to both Clinton and Washington Avenues. I would also like to add both Tompkins Avenue and a Marcus Garvey Blvd as station stops on the new line to maximize connectivity with north-south bus routes (or just do a Throop Avenue station with entrances to all three).

[LGA Link N Train]

3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Also, not to nitpick, but I think a Vanderbilt Avenue and a Washington Avenue stop is a bit overkill, since they're only three blocks apart. I'd keep the Vanderbilt stop for the bus connection, and expand the Vanderbilt stop to include entrances at both Vanderbilt and Waverly Avenues, similar to how the Clinton-Washington Avenue stations on both the  and  lines have entrances to both Clinton and Washington Avenues. I would also like to add both Tompkins Avenue and a Marcus Garvey Blvd as station stops on the new line to maximize connectivity with north-south bus routes (or just do a Throop Avenue station with entrances to all three).

I know that, I was relying on a Historical map so that's why the stops are close to each other. 

[Armandito]

24 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Continuing the conversation from above, what I would suggest is putting SAS expansions on hold until we can find a way to expand the whole SAS north of 63rd Street and instead build the 125th Street Crosstown route first. I would possibly build it out to Broadway to provide connections to all lines that stop at 125th.

One issue with building it all the way to Broadway: the high altitude of the  station could make it too expensive to build a transfer passageway from the . One reason I suggested an interlocking with the  at 125th and St. Nicholas is to make better use of spare track capacity along the northernmost portion of the 8th Avenue Line. In addition to this, a  to Dyckman could provide a one-seat ride to the east side of Manhattan for residents of Washington Heights and Inwood without having to transfer.

[CenSin]

2 minutes ago, Armandito said:

One issue with building it all the way to Broadway: the high altitude of the  station could make it too expensive to build a transfer passageway from the . One reason I suggested an interlocking with the  at 125th and St. Nicholas is to make better use of spare track capacity along the northernmost portion of the 8th Avenue Line. In addition to this, a  to Dyckman could provide a one-seat ride to the east side of Manhattan for residents of Washington Heights and Inwood without having to transfer.

There’s ample space under the structure to build an enclosed ramp connecting the two sets of platforms/mezzanines. In contrast, turning the up the west side and connecting it to the existing tracks would be much more work and is one of those cases where the benefits are massively outweighed by the costs.

Washington Heights and Inwood residents who want access to the east side can: transfer to the for stations north of 53 Street; transfer to the for stations along 53 Street; transfer to the for stations along 42 Street; or transfer to the for streets south of 23 Street. They are all one transfer except for 34 Street and 23 Street which require two train transfers or one transfer to a crosstown bus.

[Armandito]

8 minutes ago, CenSin said:

There’s ample space under the structure to build an enclosed ramp connecting the two sets of platforms/mezzanines. In contrast, turning the up the west side and connecting it to the existing tracks would be much more work and is one of those cases where the benefits are massively outweighed by the costs.

Washington Heights and Inwood residents who want access to the east side can: transfer to the for stations north of 53 Street; transfer to the for stations along 53 Street; transfer to the for stations along 42 Street; or transfer to the for streets south of 23 Street. They are all one transfer except for 34 Street and 23 Street which require two train transfers or one transfer to a crosstown bus.

That could work out well too, if building a transfer to the would not be as difficult as I originally thought. What are your thoughts on a to the Bronx? JeremiahC99 suggests an extension to Throggs Neck via Hunts Point is the way to go, while my suggestion is to extend it to Fordham Plaza along the Metro-North ROW.

[CenSin]

2 minutes ago, Armandito said:

What are your thoughts on a to the Bronx?

My belief is that routes should be no longer than necessary to extend adequate service to the outer boroughs. The being a Manhattan-exclusive would force the to span 3 boroughs, decreasing its reliability. Instead, the could be sent across 125 Street and the could be sent to the Bronx. That way, both routes only serve 2 boroughs.

(If there were terminal facilities and track capacity within Manhattan, I’d also chop up the , , , , and . The split routes would overlap in the central business district below 60 Street.)

[Armandito]

1 minute ago, CenSin said:

My belief is that routes should be no longer than necessary to extend adequate service to the outer boroughs. The being a Manhattan-exclusive would force the to span 3 boroughs, decreasing its reliability. Instead, the could be sent across 125 Street and the could be sent to the Bronx. That way, both routes only serve 2 boroughs.

(If there were terminal facilities and track capacity within Manhattan, I’d also chop up the , , , , and . The split routes would overlap in the central business district below 60 Street.)

As mentioned before, I would also extend the to Brooklyn via the Fulton Street Line as a successor to the local, which would become an express to Lefferts Boulevard and replace trains; the from this point on would become a Rockaways-only route with alternate trains terminating at Howard Beach.

[CenSin]

13 minutes ago, Armandito said:

extend the to Brooklyn via the Fulton Street Line as a successor to the local

: 20 stops in Brooklyn running on the slower BMT-designed alignments

: 16 stops in Brooklyn running on the faster IND-designed alignments

Would probably keep the in the Bronx, but passenger preference might be a consideration as the difference is not that significant.

 

Or perhaps the could terminate by at Hanover Square and not go to Brooklyn. Another route would start from 55 Street (tentatively quadruple-tracked in the plans) and go to Brooklyn.

Edited July 19, 2020 by CenSin

[Armandito]

37 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Or perhaps the could terminate by at Hanover Square and not go to Brooklyn. Another route would start from 55 Street (tentatively quadruple-tracked in the plans) and go to Brooklyn.

A to the Bronx and a new to Brooklyn via Fulton Street could certainly work out, too. The could start at 55th Street and operate fully local to Euclid Avenue with overnight service extended to Lefferts Boulevard.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Armandito

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

My belief is that routes should be no longer than necessary to extend adequate service to the outer boroughs. The being a Manhattan-exclusive would force the to span 3 boroughs, decreasing its reliability. Instead, the could be sent across 125 Street and the could be sent to the Bronx. That way, both routes only serve 2 boroughs.

(If there were terminal facilities and track capacity within Manhattan, I’d also chop up the , , , , and . The split routes would overlap in the central business district below 60 Street.)

This could be resolved with some deinterlining since the merging holds up trains. Some routes (like the ) have one too many merges, and by deinterlining and eliminating some of these merges, you could basically provide increased capacity and more reliable service, since some routes would be shorter, I see this as readying some lines for an extension. For Manhattan-Queens service, deinterlining the crossings and the Broadway service pattern at the minimum would basically mean increased capacity between Manhattan and Queens without constructing new lines.

Edited July 19, 2020 by JeremiahC99

[T to Dyre Avenue]

2 hours ago, CenSin said:

: 20 stops in Brooklyn running on the slower BMT-designed alignments

: 16 stops in Brooklyn running on the faster IND-designed alignments

Would probably keep the in the Bronx, but passenger preference might be a consideration as the difference is not that significant.

 

Or perhaps the could terminate by at Hanover Square and not go to Brooklyn. Another route would start from 55 Street (tentatively quadruple-tracked in the plans) and go to Brooklyn.

 

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

A to the Bronx and a new to Brooklyn via Fulton Street could certainly work out, too. The could start at 55th Street and operate fully local to Euclid Avenue with overnight service extended to Lefferts Boulevard.

I like both of these ideas. As long as there isn’t only the  south of 63rd. The V would be able to operate more frequently with two pocket tracks to turn back on at 55th St.

[Bay Ridge Express]

3 hours ago, CenSin said:

(If there were terminal facilities and track capacity within Manhattan, I’d also chop up the , , , , and . The split routes would overlap in the central business district below 60 Street.)

I know your statement is hypothetical, but I'd like to imagine the possibility of how those routes could be split up:

 I don't see this route getting split anytime soon. Though travel between Brooklyn and the Bronx is better along the Lexington Av line, its overall route is useful and too important since it connects both boroughs to the west side of Manhattan. Reliability could be increased through deinterlining Rogers Junction.

 Ideally, something could be done with one of the three (Queens) terminals. If we had a Queensway, we could have the  end solely at Lefferts and the , going to the Rockaways, share tracks with the Queensway that could connect to the LIRR Main Line/Queens Blvd. Otherwise, Rockaway riders should maintain their express service. Deinterlining the / merge and replacing the  with the  would increase reliability.

 The main problem here is the Culver Line, which has been slightly relieved by the introduction of the . Additionally, a  extension along Culver could be looked into to allow for more  service.

 imo I don't necessarily think this route should be split since it is basically just used for local coverage along 6 Av and Queens Blvd, otherwise, it is just a shuttle. Perhaps the problem isn't necessarily the length of the route but the circularity? It's essentially a "  " situation... of course, could be easily done with designated terminal facilities in Manhattan somewhere along the .

: this is the easiest one on the list. Terminate the thing at Whitehall, and allow the / to go to 95 from Broad. You miss out on ferry and WTC coverage, but the stops on Broad St are generally just a few blocks away from the ones on the . Ppl that want to go to "upper" Lower Manhattan/Midtown Manhattan can take the  at 59/36 and transfer to the  later for Queens Blvd if necessary.

Edited July 19, 2020 by Bay Ridge Express

[Armandito]

2 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

 Ideally, something could be done with one of the three (Queens) terminals. If we had a Queensway, we could have the  end solely at Lefferts and the , going to the Rockaways, share tracks with the Queensway that could connect to the LIRR Main Line/Queens Blvd. Otherwise, Rockaway riders should maintain their express service. Deinterlining the / merge and replacing the  with the  would increase reliability.

I created a map of the possible service changes that could take place based on suggestions I followed from here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1rQ6IiFv1ENgDzQCErJSQ9MIATRx3X95v&ll=40.71230091871264%2C-73.97304150097146&z=11

 

[CenSin]

19 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

This could be resolved with some deinterlining since the merging holds up trains. Some routes (like the ) have one too many merges, and by deinterlining and eliminating some of these merges, you could basically provide increased capacity and more reliable service, since some routes would be shorter, I see this as readying some lines for an extension. For Manhattan-Queens service, deinterlining the crossings and the Broadway service pattern at the minimum would basically mean increased capacity between Manhattan and Queens without constructing new lines.

That’s partly the problem. But even routes that are independent have delays as a function of length/station stops.

18 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I know your statement is hypothetical, but I'd like to imagine the possibility of how those routes could be split up

I was musing on the hypothetical. There’s obviously no infrastructure to facilitate the splitting of long lines since the system was not built with that in mind for the most part.

But there are examples of existing/obsolete routings which serve only 2 boroughs and overlap in the central business district and that’s pretty much the idea I’m getting at:

• Riverdale/Battery Park and Harlem/East New York
• Jamaica/World Trade Center and Washington Heights/East New York
• Jamaica/Financial District and Civic Center/Bay Ridge (obsolete example)
• Midtown Manhattan/Coney Island and Astoria/Battery Park (obsolete example)

I’m definitely not advocating for a cutting into two segments lines at a single point. Each segment must provide coverage for all of the central business district, meaning that the terminal stations have to be at the periphery.

----------

I was reading the LGA Access Improvement Project documents and came across this proposal:

Quote

C.2.8.5 Alternative 8E: From 36 Street Subway Station: Tunnel Beneath Steinway Street and Grand Central Parkway
This alternative would construct a branch of the and/or Lines from the 36 Street subway station, continuing within and below Steinway Street approximately 1 mile. The alignment would then pass 25 Avenue before curving east, behind TriBoro Beverage Distribution Center, to meet Astoria Boulevard. The alignment would continue beneath Astoria Boulevard crossing St. Michael’s Cemetery before turning north. After the turn, the alignment would continue beneath the GCP to avoid having an elevated subway affect the approach surface of Runway 04. This alternative would continue in a tunnel and end at a subterranean station at LGA. This would create a branch in service for the and Lines wherein some trains would continue to LGA and other trains would remain on the current route for these lines.

It’s interesting, but if this had any remote chance of being built as proposed, it would essentially turn the 36 Street local tracks into another bottleneck for Queens Boulevard. The split should—instead—start as far west as Court Square as an extension of the to a lower level of Queens Plaza, thereby avoiding any reduction in Queens Boulevard capacity. The dead-ends at Court Square anyway, so with a connection to the at Queens Plaza, this would—at the very least—make it more useful to ordinary passengers.

[Bay Ridge Express]

16 hours ago, Armandito said:

I created a map of the possible service changes that could take place based on suggestions I followed from here: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1rQ6IiFv1ENgDzQCErJSQ9MIATRx3X95v&ll=40.71230091871264%2C-73.97304150097146&z=11

For the  in the Bronx, instead of going by Morris Av, I would go by 3 Av for transfers for both the  and , then Melrose Av and Park Av from there.