Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[TDL]

3 hours ago, TMC said:

If we were planning the subway based on current needs and not the NYC of the future, your argument would work. Midtown subways are still overcrowded by the MTA's metrics and are important for leisure travel, which has increased due to remote work. Midtown, in addition to having a high job concentration, also has a high concentration of other destinations. It's also easier to transfer in Manhattan to travel between secondary CBDs, and probably faster. So yes, we do need more core capacity because of the growth of CBDs outside of Midtown.

Or those CBDs could be better connected by lines of their own. If Queenslink doesn't work even though it uses existing ROW, have a  train with an express variant take over the JFK Airtrain from Howard Beach to Jamaica (airtrain is cut back to Federal Circle), and via the between Jamaica, Flushing, and Parkchester. Lower Montauk would connect Jamaica to LIC. And yes, it would go across 34th Street, but it still would have most of the same transfer connections as a line on 50th Street (actually it would have more given the  do not stop on 50th Street). A train can run between Downtown Brooklyn and Flushing via Lafayette Ave/Harman Street/Elliot Avenue.

[TDL]

3 hours ago, TMC said:

It isn't, you just have to run a consistent base frequency of 6 minutes, as well as a running every 6 minutes from Ditmars to Whitehall. That way, you can deadhead the trains only just before the morning rush, and just after the evening rush. It shouldn't affect late night service too much.

Or use a Wallyhorse idea of using Nassau Street to service Bay Ridge, I wouldnt do it with a divided train though.

-unchanged. During rush hours, express in peak direction between Marcy Ave and Brodaway Jct. No skip stop service.

-unchanged

--During rush hours-Broadway Jct to Bay Ridge via Bway-Bklyn Local. Other times, Essex St-Bay Ridge.

[TMC]

8 minutes ago, TDL said:

Or those CBDs could be better connected by lines of their own.

Depends on how much traffic runs in between them, and how well other modes of transit can serve those trips. You also have to consider that lines like the kind you propose, won't perform well on ridership without many connections to other lines, because the amount of non-Midtown traffic can't justify those lines on their own. 

FYI, the airports and Parkchester are not CBDs, nor should anything aim to connect them to anything else other than Midtown. Your proposed Lower Montauk alignment also misses the core of LIC, and almost every single transfer there (Unless you have some short tunnel up to Queens Plaza, then snaking back down to Hunters Point). Travel between Jamaica and LIC could also be handled by better LIRR service that's integrated with the subway. If anything, that and through-running commuter rail kill the value of most direct lines between secondary CBDs, because transferring elsewhere would almost always be quicker.

[TMC]

16 minutes ago, TDL said:

Or use a Wallyhorse idea of using Nassau Street to service Bay Ridge, I wouldnt do it with a divided train though.

-unchanged. During rush hours, express in peak direction between Marcy Ave and Brodaway Jct. No skip stop service.

-unchanged

--During rush hours-Broadway Jct to Bay Ridge via Bway-Bklyn Local. Other times, Essex St-Bay Ridge.

I'd rather not interline along 4th Ave, especially using the connection from Nassau into Montague, knowing how lightly used that will be.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

4 hours ago, TMC said:

I'd rather not interline along 4th Ave, especially using the connection from Nassau into Montague, knowing how lightly used that will be.

Pre-2010, the  train was carrying air in Brooklyn, and the  coming too/from Bay Ridge is really never busy, even when there's a big problem

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

10 hours ago, mrsman said:

Thank you for your wonderful comments.  I was in a rush to get this out, so I did not have the time to adequately explain my ideas.  So here it goes:

I am a de-interlining believer since it would reduce a lot of the entanglements that produce delays.  It also allow for increased frequency and would provide in some cases even provides that all trains to your destination will meet at the same platform (as opposed to service being split to two or more platforms).  The downsides, though, are that some (or many) may have increased walking and/or increased transfers in order to complete their journeys.  So it is wise to implement something that will reduce delays, yet a pure deinterlining system would not be practical as it will make some current trips very difficult.

The exercise is meant to run the system in the most efficient manner with as little capital expense as possible.

The A division is already partially deinterlined, so I am not recommending any changes.   and  runs completely separate from other trains at all times except late nights and certain GOs, and these train lines run very reliably, even as the express counterparts face delays.  In the B division there is no line (except the shuttles and  ) that isn't affected by other lines, so the delays propagate.  A problem with  can affect  which in turn can affect which in turn can affect   .  

 

 

168th St - CPW / 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Rutgers Tunnel - Culver Line .  

Bedford Park Blvd [rush hours] - Concourse local [rush hours] - CPW / 8 Ave local - W 4 switches - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle Ave line 

For the 8th Ave locals, I make use of the W4 switches to continue to allow Midtown service for the Myrtle Ave line.  Since the platforms are short along this line, I felt it would be better to connect it with the CPW locals instead of the very busy QBL.  Utilizing the switches allow 8th Ave locals to turn onto Houston to serve the Rutgers tunnel and Williamsburg Bridge while allowing 6th Ave locals to continue south on 6th Ave toward the WTC without interfering with each other.   is a 24 hour service that is extended to 207 St late nights.   operates to Bedford Park Blvd rush hours, to 168th St mid-day and evenings, to Chambers Street weekends, and as a Myrtle Ave shuttle late nights.  For rush hours, I anticipate 18 TPH  service and 12 TPH  service.  With that service level, there should be enough capacity for several rush hour  to provide express service through Park Slope for some Culver passengers.

 

Jamaica Center - QBL express - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Far Rockaway 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Express - Lefferts 

Forest Hills - QBL local - 53rd street - 8 Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton Local - Euclid 

For the 8th Ave express service, I do allow a partial intermingling to make things work better.  When looking at QBL deinterlining, there are a lot of hard choices to be made.  53rd hits more midtown destinations than 63rd, so it would make sense for expresses to take 53rd and locals to take 63rd, but doing that would mean that QBL locals would have a very dificult trip to reach the LIC area.  Making all expresses take 63rd and all locals take 53rd would also be problematic, since Forest Hills is limited to 20 TPH, so we are limiting the trains on 53rd (and by extension the Cranberry Tunnel), while at the same time not providing enough capacity for the expresses on 63rd.   63rd feeds into the 6th Ave local which has only two destinations:  WTC (with less than 30 TPH capacity for turning) or Houston, which will send some trains to Williamsburg Bridge where capacity is limited due to the short platforms along this line in Brooklyn.  So some form of hybrid is necessary, which is what I propose above.   is a 24 hour service and will run at 10 TPH at rush hours.   is also 24 hours service and will also run at 10 TPH during rush hour.  will run at all times, except late nights, and will run at 10 TPH during rush hour.  During late night hours,  will run local in Brooklyn.  Running three services on Fulton will better distinguish between Far Rockaway, Lefferts, and Euclid destinations 

 

 

 

The  only running at 10 tph seems very problematic to me, especially given how crowded the line is already at 15tph. I don't understand why this extra  service is necessary and why you can't just have an  at 15 tph serving as the sole Fulton Express and the  at 10 tph or so as the sole Fulton local. The Fulton line tends to not be very busy and wouldn't need 30 tph. This would obv force the  down to like 15 tph, but as is the  seems slightly favored over the  with current ridership patterns, so running more QBLVD express via 63rd than 53rd is a net negative.

The main issue here would be the  on it's own at 10 tph would be insufficient as the sole QBLVD local, so I think the best thing to do is have Broadway assist.

Overall the rest of your proposal balances "both ends" of lines pretty well so they have roughly even ridership. 18 tph on the  might be a bit overkill imo, but that's me being knit-picky.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

23 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

A Republican trifecta would likely either mean a very different local Republican party or some sort of fascist crazy that disenfranchises most of NYC; if we ignore the latter case (in which the subway system would be the least of our problems) then we're left with a Republican party that looks very different from what we have now, and a lot would depend on in what ways the Republican party had shifted. The most likely worst case scenario for the MTA would be a Republican party that was truly committed to privatizing everything that turned around and broke up and privatized the MTA the way the UK broke up and privatized British Rail during the Railtrack era; you'd get a slow and steady degradation of infrastructure and fare hikes until things become completely untenable in 10-20 years. Alternately, a right-wing populist party that was able to be racially reasonable enough to actually compete and win in the outer boroughs might wind up in a weird spot where they promise massive improvements to service but all the money actually goes into the pockets of people politically connected to the ruling government (so similar to now, except with a whole lot less transparency, and fewer homeless people because the homeless just disappear).

I think it'd be pretty hard for Republicans to gain a trifecta without dramatic re-alignment as you said, and even if they did, it'd likely be very chaotic as they'd be relying on 3 key types of bases:

1. Rural upstate districts disconnected from the city

2. "White flight" seats out on Long Island and Staten Island

3. Ethnic Enclaves of NYC, most notably, heavily Jewish communities in South Brooklyn, and Asian Communities in Southern Brooklyn and outer Queens.

This combination would be really hard to keep together to actually function as a majority (I mean just look at how hard it is for Ds to stay united with a supermajority). The likely dependence on at least a few seats whose constituents rely heavily on the subway (mainly group 3) would likely kill any plan to kill the subway. Also, the 3rd group would likely have a lot of very specific wants/asks tailored to their communities (especially the Orthodox Jewish community) that would need to be satisfied to get other legislation done; basically, the same thing Ds do to get Simcha Felder on board when they need to break a Supermajority.

The latter idea would certainly be interesting, and we have seen Republicans overall turn a bit more towards "populists" messaging, however, in practice, we haven't seen them actually implement any of that messaging to make many effective changes for the common man when it comes to infrastructure and such. Heck, Trump said he wanted SAS, but that was all talk and no substance.

[engineerboy6561]

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

I think it'd be pretty hard for Republicans to gain a trifecta without dramatic re-alignment as you said, and even if they did, it'd likely be very chaotic as they'd be relying on 3 key types of bases:

1. Rural upstate districts disconnected from the city

2. "White flight" seats out on Long Island and Staten Island

3. Ethnic Enclaves of NYC, most notably, heavily Jewish communities in South Brooklyn, and Asian Communities in Southern Brooklyn and outer Queens.

This combination would be really hard to keep together to actually function as a majority (I mean just look at how hard it is for Ds to stay united with a supermajority). The likely dependence on at least a few seats whose constituents rely heavily on the subway (mainly group 3) would likely kill any plan to kill the subway. Also, the 3rd group would likely have a lot of very specific wants/asks tailored to their communities (especially the Orthodox Jewish community) that would need to be satisfied to get other legislation done; basically, the same thing Ds do to get Simcha Felder on board when they need to break a Supermajority.

The latter idea would certainly be interesting, and we have seen Republicans overall turn a bit more towards "populists" messaging, however, in practice, we haven't seen them actually implement any of that messaging to make many effective changes for the common man when it comes to infrastructure and such. Heck, Trump said he wanted SAS, but that was all talk and no substance.

Yeah; there's a particular American thing that likely grew out of slavery and the aftermath of Jim Crow that makes it hard to run the playbook that's working so well for Viktor Orban and co. in Hungary, which makes it harder, and honestly a coalition that could hold all of those seats together would be weird as hell and extremely fragile.

Edited February 15, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[TDL]

16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

The  only running at 10 tph seems very problematic to me, especially given how crowded the line is already at 15tph. I don't understand why this extra  service is necessary and why you can't just have an  at 15 tph serving as the sole Fulton Express and the  at 10 tph or so as the sole Fulton local. The Fulton line tends to not be very busy and wouldn't need 30 tph. This would obv force the  down to like 15 tph, but as is the  seems slightly favored over the  with current ridership patterns, so running more QBLVD express via 63rd than 53rd is a net negative.

The main issue here would be the  on it's own at 10 tph would be insufficient as the sole QBLVD local, so I think the best thing to do is have Broadway assist.

Overall the rest of your proposal balances "both ends" of lines pretty well so they have roughly even ridership. 18 tph on the  might be a bit overkill imo, but that's me being knit-picky.

is necessary to eliminate multiple Fulton express branches

[TDL]

16 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Pre-2010, the  train was carrying air in Brooklyn, and the  coming too/from Bay Ridge is really never busy, even when there's a big problem

True. However, there has to be a way to terminate the Bay Ridge stub in Manhattan without negatively affecting Astoria service, and mitigating the yard access issue. The Nassau connection resolves that, no matter how unused it will be, it solves the yard access problem and makes the more reliable. 

[TMC]

1 hour ago, TDL said:

However, there has to be a way to terminate the Bay Ridge stub in Manhattan without negatively affecting Astoria service

So just run the  from Astoria to Bay Ridge? You don't need yard access if your timetable isn't heavily peak-focused (which it shouldn't be). You'd get service every 3 minutes down to Whitehall Street, and every 6 minutes down to Bay Ridge.

[TDL]

23 hours ago, TMC said:

Depends on how much traffic runs in between them, and how well other modes of transit can serve those trips. You also have to consider that lines like the kind you propose, won't perform well on ridership without many connections to other lines, because the amount of non-Midtown traffic can't justify those lines on their own. 

FYI, the airports and Parkchester are not CBDs, nor should anything aim to connect them to anything else other than Midtown. Your proposed Lower Montauk alignment also misses the core of LIC, and almost every single transfer there (Unless you have some short tunnel up to Queens Plaza, then snaking back down to Hunters Point). Travel between Jamaica and LIC could also be handled by better LIRR service that's integrated with the subway. If anything, that and through-running commuter rail kill the value of most direct lines between secondary CBDs, because transferring elsewhere would almost always be quicker.

LIRR already has an abadoned branch line between Lower Montauk and Queens Plaza along Dutch Kills

[TMC]

15 minutes ago, TDL said:

LIRR already has an abadoned branch line between Lower Montauk and Queens Plaza along Dutch Kills

You can use it, it's just circuitous, and too much work for an area that shouldn't be developed in the near future, and definitely doesn't have the development to justify reactivating Lower Montauk.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

21 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

Yeah; there's a particular American thing that likely grew out of slavery and the aftermath of Jim Crow that makes it hard to run the playbook that's working so well for Viktor Orban and co. in Hungary, which makes it harder, and honestly a coalition that could hold all of those seats together would be weird as hell and extremely fragile.

Mhm. I also think in a weird way, Hector LaSalle's nomination officially failing today will make it even harder for Republicans as Democrats may attempt to successfully redraw the legislative maps with a more favorable court (though from my understand, the Special Master map already favors Democrats). It'd also be interesting to see if they do redraw, if they try and incumbent protect against primaries in Safe D seats, particularly in NYC and the implications that has in terms of transit and the political corruption/negligence surrounding it. Gerrymanders tend to protect those who are the most entrenched.

[darkstar8983]

21 hours ago, TMC said:

So just run the  from Astoria to Bay Ridge? You don't need yard access if your timetable isn't heavily peak-focused (which it shouldn't be). You'd get service every 3 minutes down to Whitehall Street, and every 6 minutes down to Bay Ridge.

Whitehall St would only be able to turn a train every 10 minutes when you have a second service running thru to Brooklyn, so that would mean either short-turns at Canal St in addition to the Whitehall St short turns, or more service to Bay Ridge. The only time Whitehall St turned more than 6 TPH, was during the Montague St closure, when it turned 7 TPH (the MTA had scheduled the  every 7.5 minutes in the AM and every 8.5 minutes in the PM, but in the AM, some  trains had to turn around at Canal St). If that closure had happened today, the MTA would have had to either revert the Broadway Line to its 2010-2016 configuration, or short-turn the  at Canal St, with most  trains ending at Whitehall St (and excess trains also terminating at Canal St). 

[ActiveCity]

Just now, darkstar8983 said:

Whitehall St would only be able to turn a train every 10 minutes when you have a second service running thru to Brooklyn, so that would mean either short-turns at Canal St in addition to the Whitehall St short turns, or more service to Bay Ridge. The only time Whitehall St turned more than 6 TPH, was during the Montague St closure, when it turned 7 TPH (the MTA had scheduled the  every 7.5 minutes in the AM and every 8.5 minutes in the PM, but in the AM, some  trains had to turn around at Canal St). If that closure had happened today, the MTA would have had to either revert the Broadway Line to its 2010-2016 configuration, or short-turn the  at Canal St, with most  trains ending at Whitehall St (and excess trains also terminating at Canal St). 

The MTA should re-open the lower level of City Hall as a terminal station.

[mrsman]

On 2/15/2023 at 3:21 PM, TMC said:

So just run the  from Astoria to Bay Ridge? You don't need yard access if your timetable isn't heavily peak-focused (which it shouldn't be). You'd get service every 3 minutes down to Whitehall Street, and every 6 minutes down to Bay Ridge.

 

7 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

Whitehall St would only be able to turn a train every 10 minutes when you have a second service running thru to Brooklyn, so that would mean either short-turns at Canal St in addition to the Whitehall St short turns, or more service to Bay Ridge. The only time Whitehall St turned more than 6 TPH, was during the Montague St closure, when it turned 7 TPH (the MTA had scheduled the  every 7.5 minutes in the AM and every 8.5 minutes in the PM, but in the AM, some  trains had to turn around at Canal St). If that closure had happened today, the MTA would have had to either revert the Broadway Line to its 2010-2016 configuration, or short-turn the  at Canal St, with most  trains ending at Whitehall St (and excess trains also terminating at Canal St). 

While it is certainly desirable to have a yard for that is on the route to eliminate deadheading, it isn't actually necessary.  BRT/BMT ran an Astoria-Bay Ridge service for years via Broadway local. 

There are already many physical constraints on the line that will limit the number of trains heading to Bay Ridge.  15 TPH turning capacity at Ditmars and 21 TPH limited capacity through the curves of Lower Manhattan.  

If there were only one service running on this track,  from Ditmars to Whitehall at 15 TPH during rush hour (service every 4 minutes).  One-third of every rush hour train will terminate at Whitehall and two-thirds of the trains continuing to 95th.  This means that one train every 12 minutes (5 TPH) runs short to Whitehall and two trains every 12 minutes (an uneven  gap with some trains running 4 minutes after the previous and some trains running 8 minutes after the previous) running along the 4th Ave local.

[mrsman]

On 2/14/2023 at 9:41 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

The  only running at 10 tph seems very problematic to me, especially given how crowded the line is already at 15tph. I don't understand why this extra  service is necessary and why you can't just have an  at 15 tph serving as the sole Fulton Express and the  at 10 tph or so as the sole Fulton local. The Fulton line tends to not be very busy and wouldn't need 30 tph. This would obv force the  down to like 15 tph, but as is the  seems slightly favored over the  with current ridership patterns, so running more QBLVD express via 63rd than 53rd is a net negative.

The main issue here would be the  on it's own at 10 tph would be insufficient as the sole QBLVD local, so I think the best thing to do is have Broadway assist.

Overall the rest of your proposal balances "both ends" of lines pretty well so they have roughly even ridership. 18 tph on the  might be a bit overkill imo, but that's me being knit-picky.

 

On 2/15/2023 at 2:02 PM, TDL said:

is necessary to eliminate multiple Fulton express branches

 

A pet peeve of many of my suggested plans is assigning a different letter to distinguish Lefferts and Rockaway services.  Even if no other change was made to today's system, I would have both an  207 St - Far Rockaway and an  207 St - Lefferts service for purposes of paseenger clarity.  The combined number of and trains would be the same as today's total  service, just named differently.

With my above plan, you have 10 TPH service to Lefferts, 10 TPH service to Far Rockaway, and 10 TPH service to Euclid.  Every segment of the line will have at least a 6 min rush hour frequency.  It's true that the Fulton line isn't that busy, but it needs the service because it is currently divided into so many different terminals (and we aren't even thinking of providing much dedicated service to Rockaway Park, just the existing division of trains coming out of the Cranberry tunnel ending at either Euclid, Lefferts, or Mott.

Ideally, the three Fulton services can match with three QBL express services on the north end: Hillside express to 179, Hillside local to 179, and a service to Jamaica Center.  The reason why I did not recommend that was because it would cut off QBL local trains from LIC.  So there needs to be a QBL local train to Queens Plaza.

The only significant place for merges in western Queens are where the train merges into  [QBL local - 8th express] westbound and where the train merges into  [QBL express - 6th local] eastbound.  The beauty of the way this merge works out is that even though  is a hybrid train from the QBL local-8th express line to the QBL express-6th local line is that is on its own at the Queens Plaza stop.   can wait for an appropriate gap at Queens Plaza without disrupting the other trains.

The merge of the 63rd tracks into the QBL mainline would be far worse if there were merges from the 63rd line into both QBL express and QBL local.  63rd merges with  to the express and the QBL local does not merge with 63rd at all.

 

[Kamen Rider]

On 2/15/2023 at 4:11 PM, TDL said:

LIRR already has an abadoned branch line between Lower Montauk and Queens Plaza along Dutch Kills

I would hardly call that a "branch". it was a curve of track to connect the Lower Montauk to the freight yards at sunnyside Yard.

8 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The MTA should re-open the lower level of City Hall as a terminal station.

We use that as storage space, so that's a no. 

[Kamen Rider]

would also like to remind everyone that H is taken.

Yes, you don't call the shuttle that, but we still do. 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, Kamen Rider said:

I would hardly call that a "branch". it was a curve of track to connect the Lower Montauk to the freight yards at sunnyside Yard.

We use that as storage space, so that's a no. 

My guess is  will always continue to be "reserved" for if the Rockaway Beach Branch thing is ever restored.

The only non-problematic letters the MTA has left after that are , , and . I think the  could come back as 8th Avenue if a change in service pattern causes a 4th 8th Av service.  is probably never coming back as 6th Avenue, and may be used for SAS far far off in the future. Also it's possible the  and  free up if service patterns change or they decide to end skip-stop service. I'm pretty sure all the other letters are pretty safe from elimination though.

After that I wonder which letter the MTA would choose, or if they would start moving to something else (Greek symbols, double letters, ect).

[rfecker]

we need to find away to fix the  and  lines its weird and needs to be looked at there was a time i took the train during rush hour and no  during evening rush just  after j 

and it was ridiculous because after the  went local.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 hour ago, rfecker said:

we need to find away to fix the  and  lines its weird and needs to be looked at there was a time i took the train during rush hour and no  during evening rush just  after j 

and it was ridiculous because after the  went local.

The line past B-way junction lacks a 3rd track, so your options for the eastern end of the Jamacia line is either just an all local  or skip stop with the , neither of which are great.

Another thing that constrains the Jamacia line is the notoriously sharp corners between Crescent Street and Cypress Hills, which there isn't an easy fix for.

One proposal I've seen is to do outright station removal, as many of these stops along the Jamacia el are quite close together and low ridership. Alabama Av, Norwood Av, 75 St-Elderts Ln, and Woodhaven blvd could all be eliminated, but ofc there would be intense public backlash and I doubt it would get past being a prposal.

One interesting proposal I've seen by Vanshnookenragger is to connect the eastern part of the Jamacia line to the Fulton Street line, and suggested as a consequence of this rebuild to replace the elevated portion of the line between Cypress Hills and Broadway Junction with an underground straight-shot tunnel with only 2 intermediate stops. This would also mean Jamacia line ridership would have direct access to midtown via the Cranberry Tunnel and 8th Avenue.

That proposal can be found here:

NYC_full_trackmap_2Av-prop (vanshnookenraggen.com)

[Lex]

30 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

The line past B-way junction lacks a 3rd track, so your options for the eastern end of the Jamacia line is either just an all local  or skip stop with the , neither of which are great.

Another thing that constrains the Jamacia line is the notoriously sharp corners between Crescent Street and Cypress Hills, which there isn't an easy fix for.

One proposal I've seen is to do outright station removal, as many of these stops along the Jamacia el are quite close together and low ridership. Alabama Av, Norwood Av, 75 St-Elderts Ln, and Woodhaven blvd could all be eliminated, but ofc there would be intense public backlash and I doubt it would get past being a prposal.

One interesting proposal I've seen by Vanshnookenragger is to connect the eastern part of the Jamacia line to the Fulton Street line, and suggested as a consequence of this rebuild to replace the elevated portion of the line between Cypress Hills and Broadway Junction with an underground straight-shot tunnel with only 2 intermediate stops. This would also mean Jamacia line ridership would have direct access to midtown via the Cranberry Tunnel and 8th Avenue.

That proposal can be found here:

NYC_full_trackmap_2Av-prop (vanshnookenraggen.com)

That is easily the best performer between Jamaica and Broadway Junction. Getting rid of that station would be beyond stupid.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

5 hours ago, Lex said:

That is easily the best performer between Jamaica and Broadway Junction. Getting rid of that station would be beyond stupid.

Mb, I always get the ridership numbers confused, but it's still quite low overall despite being high relative to that segment.