Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[mrsman]

A slight adjustment to my B division partial de-interlining proposal from this past week:

 168th St - CPW local - 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - CI

 Bedford Park Blvd (rush hours) - Concourse local (rush hours) - CPW local - 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle line - Met Ave

 

 will run 24 hours. During late nights it is extended to 207 St.   service will run as an additional service to denote some trains providing express service on the Culver line north of Church Ave.

will run as follows:

Rush hours: BPB - Met Ave

Midday and evening:  145 [or 168 St] - Met Ave

Weekends:  Met Ave - Chambers

Late nights: Met Ave - Myrtle on J line. 

 

 207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local

 205 St - Concourse line all stops (rush hour express in commuting direction) - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local.

 207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express

 

Rush hours and mid-day:   and  operate

Evenings and weekends:   and  operate

Late nights: Only  operates

 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Ave local - W 4 switches - WTC

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall

 

Here, we see the first interline.  and run services that are independent of their respective express services, but are connected to each other by the hybrid service.  W provides QBL local connection to Queens Plaza, Broadway services, and an easier transfer to  at Lexington. At the same time,  makes use of some of the excess capacity of the Broadway local that the Astoria service cannot provide on its own.  F and R will each run 14 TPH during rush hours and W will run 7 TPH.  F and R will be 24 hour services and W will not run weekends or late nights.  This matches with many of the existing constraints of the system (physical or beuractratic):  Forest Hills will need to turn 21 TPH, Astoria, Bay Ridge, and WTC will turn 14 TPH, and Whitehall will turn 7 TPH.  14 and 7 were chosen (2 to 1 ratio) as they match up well with a FFW or a RRW pattern.  F and R should run at the same frequency as each other to make it easier for W to merge between the gaps.

 

 96th - 2nd Ave - Broadway express- Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach

 96th - 2nd Ave - Broadway express- Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - West End

 

N and Q will both run 24 hours and will run a 50/50 service alternating N and Q.  THe only difference is how the train connects 36 St Brooklyn to Coney Island.

 

 Jamaica Center - Hillside local - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway

 179 St - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local - Lefferts

 179 St - Hillside express - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express- Lefferts

 179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid

 

 

Last, but not least, the triplex along the 8th Ave express.  Each service operates at 10 TPH during rush hours and generally slightly less at other times.

Rush hours, middays and evenings:   run.  is meant as a service that provides people from Eastern Queens a faster way to the QBL express by skipping all stops east of Forest Hills except Union Turnpike and Parsons.

Weekends and late nights:   and  run.  service is meant as a substitute service to provide more local service when isn't operating to connect QBL local to Queens Plaza, LIC, and more of midtown.  It also effectively provides a Fulton local service that is extended to Lefferts during the times when  and don't operate.  

 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

5 hours ago, mrsman said:

A slight adjustment to my B division partial de-interlining proposal from this past week:

 168th St - CPW local - 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Rutgers tunnel - Culver line - CI

 Bedford Park Blvd (rush hours) - Concourse local (rush hours) - CPW local - 8 Ave local - W4 switches - Houston St - Williamsburg Bridge - Myrtle line - Met Ave

 

 will run 24 hours. During late nights it is extended to 207 St.   service will run as an additional service to denote some trains providing express service on the Culver line north of Church Ave.

will run as follows:

Rush hours: BPB - Met Ave

Midday and evening:  145 [or 168 St] - Met Ave

Weekends:  Met Ave - Chambers

Late nights: Met Ave - Myrtle on J line. 

 

 207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local

 205 St - Concourse line all stops (rush hour express in commuting direction) - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton local.

 207 St - CPW express - 6 Ave express - Manhattan Bridge - Brighton express

 

Rush hours and mid-day:   and  operate

Evenings and weekends:   and  operate

Late nights: Only  operates

 

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 63rd - 6 Ave local - W 4 switches - WTC

 Astoria - 60th - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - Bay Ridge

 Forest Hills - QBL local - 60th - Broadway local - Whitehall

 

Here, we see the first interline.  and run services that are independent of their respective express services, but are connected to each other by the hybrid service.  W provides QBL local connection to Queens Plaza, Broadway services, and an easier transfer to  at Lexington. At the same time,  makes use of some of the excess capacity of the Broadway local that the Astoria service cannot provide on its own.  F and R will each run 14 TPH during rush hours and W will run 7 TPH.  F and R will be 24 hour services and W will not run weekends or late nights.  This matches with many of the existing constraints of the system (physical or beuractratic):  Forest Hills will need to turn 21 TPH, Astoria, Bay Ridge, and WTC will turn 14 TPH, and Whitehall will turn 7 TPH.  14 and 7 were chosen (2 to 1 ratio) as they match up well with a FFW or a RRW pattern.  F and R should run at the same frequency as each other to make it easier for W to merge between the gaps.

 

 96th - 2nd Ave - Broadway express- Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - Sea Beach

 96th - 2nd Ave - Broadway express- Manhattan Bridge - 4th Ave express - West End

 

N and Q will both run 24 hours and will run a 50/50 service alternating N and Q.  THe only difference is how the train connects 36 St Brooklyn to Coney Island.

 

 Jamaica Center - Hillside local - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express - Far Rockaway

 179 St - Hillside local - QBL local - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local - Lefferts

 179 St - Hillside express - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton express- Lefferts

 179 St - Hillside local - QBL express - 53rd - 8th Ave express - Cranberry Tunnel - Fulton local - Euclid

 

 

Last, but not least, the triplex along the 8th Ave express.  Each service operates at 10 TPH during rush hours and generally slightly less at other times.

Rush hours, middays and evenings:   run.  is meant as a service that provides people from Eastern Queens a faster way to the QBL express by skipping all stops east of Forest Hills except Union Turnpike and Parsons.

Weekends and late nights:   and  run.  service is meant as a substitute service to provide more local service when isn't operating to connect QBL local to Queens Plaza, LIC, and more of midtown.  It also effectively provides a Fulton local service that is extended to Lefferts during the times when  and don't operate.  

 

This would probably be pretty ideal, though I would make the  (or whatever trains go to Jamacia Center) the Hillside Express while the  operates as Hillside Local (but still QBLVD express). I'm pretty sure from a de-interlining standpoint, this doesn't really matter, but Jamacia Center and Stuphin Blvd are both high-ridership bus feeder stations and making the  local would just be a middle finger to those riders.

I also think a few trains between the  and  should short-turn during rush hour as operating 30tph through Cranberry might be annoying and Fulton doesn't need that much service as things stand today.

[mrsman]

6 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

This would probably be pretty ideal, though I would make the  (or whatever trains go to Jamacia Center) the Hillside Express while the  operates as Hillside Local (but still QBLVD express). I'm pretty sure from a de-interlining standpoint, this doesn't really matter, but Jamacia Center and Stuphin Blvd are both high-ridership bus feeder stations and making the  local would just be a middle finger to those riders.

I also think a few trains between the  and  should short-turn during rush hour as operating 30tph through Cranberry might be annoying and Fulton doesn't need that much service as things stand today.

The idea of making the Jamaica Center train a Hillside local (i,e. stopping at Briarwood and 75th Ave) is to accommodate the respectfully heavy ridership at Briarwood.  While not as much of a bus terminal as Parsons/Archer, Briarwood is a significant bus to subway transfer point for the Q44 and Q20 buses on Main Street.  Also, it does make it somewhat easier

In some ways, I hope that more buses from Eastern Queens will be relocated to service 179th as opposed to Parsons/Archer.  179th is almost a whole mile further east and for those who are making the transfer, it would be a lot quicker trip overall, even if a bus has to divert from Jamaica Ave to Hillside Ave.  Granted, 179th borders a residential area who may not be thrilled with more buses stopping in front of their station, but it would be more helpful to riders overall.  And if the subway service at 179th were a significant deal faster than other subways, it could justify a bus reroute to that station or to Parsons/Hillside, which would be another Hillside express station.

The main reason for heavy service through the Cranberry tunnel and the Fulton corridor is more for the heavily branched nature of the Fulton terminals than the heavy travel along the corridor itself.  Fulton is the only corridor that current service divides up to three separate terminals, and with some operational improvements and service expansion could potentially serve up to five separate terminals.  

To provide each of the three terminals (as well as each service segment) with a train minimum every 6 minutes would require 10 TPH on each branch and 30 TPH overall.  The three service segments are: a) local stations between Hoyt and Euclid, b) three stations on the Lefferts branch, and c) Broad Channel and all stations leading to Far Rockaway, directly and those transferring from the Rockaway Park shuttle.

{If we were to expand the serive to four branches, meaning that Rockaway Park is regularly served by its own branch during rush hours, than each of the four service segments (locals to Euclid, Lefferts branch, Far Rockaway, Rockaway Park) would see 7.5 TPH or a train mimimum every 8 minutes.

And if we were to expand to five branches serving my pipe dream of a direct connection from the Fulton express to JFK airport, than each branch would only get 6 TPH or a train every 10 minutes.  Five branches is really unfeasible, even if the combined service were 30 TPH, so even if a direct subway link were established to JFK, I envision that at least one of the other services would remain a shuttle or that the Euclid locals would combine with the Lefferts service or that some type of Queenslink service would serve the Rockaways with a transfer to the Lefferts train at the Rockaway Blvd station. }

In any event, the only way to adequate provide service (not capacity) to three separate sets of stations (as in the current service plan) would require maximizing the number of trains servicing Fulton.  IMO, this is why many people's proposals provide somthing along the lines of having all Cranberry tunnel trains servicing the Fulton express and providing some kind of unique tunnel connection for the Fulton local to Lower Manhattan.   [The most popular of these seems to be  Fulton express divided betweeen Rockaway and Lefferts with  service from Montague tunnel connecting to Court street to the Fulton local or an tunnel connecting WTC via new tunnel under the river to Court street.]  I don't think that a new tunnel's cost and disruption is justified before we try a service rearrangement to maximize the exisiting throughput through the Cranberry tunnel, which means sending 30 TPH there.

For the most part, my plan doesn't really change Fulton service at all.  Today's service divides Cranberry tunnel trains to three terminals: locals to Euclid, expresses to Lefferts, and expresses to Far Rockaway.  I keep this service pattern, but increase the overall number of trains to decrease watining time along the branches.  The other change, of course happens on the northern end as the 8th Ave expresses head to Queens instead of Columbus Circle and CPW.  There is also no direct serivce to Spring or 23rd stations under my plan, but those are easily reachable with a cross platform transfer.

 

 

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

Why isn't an  train extension via the LIRR ROW to Laurelton more discussed?

This was originally part of the whole Queens Superexpress/Archer Avenue plan but due to a variety of problems it never materialized. With that being said, the MTA still built tail tracks that basically go right up to where the portal would've been that would've connected it to the LIRR.

This project would serve a huge transit desert in Souhteast Queens and relatively easy to construct, especially relative to other hypothetical projects like a full SAS, Utica Av subway, and even the Queenslink. Another underrated benefit is it could create a higher capacity terminal for the  (Jamacia Center kinda sucks). It would also provide a new opportunity for a yard at Gwen Ifill park (which was a former yard for LIRR and is now just overgrown greenery).

The MTA already has the whole ROW, all they'd need to do is construct the portal and connect to the LIRR tracks, convert the LIRR tracks to subway, and add any infill stations they choose.

Sure, it's not the sexiest or even most important transit project, but it still has clear benefits and should be far easier/cheaper/faster than some of these other regularly discussed projects which to me seem like they should be lower priority on the benefits alone. Seriously pisses me off that MTA has stuff like a  extension past New Lots or  to Redhook but not this in their 2025-2044 needs assessment.

Here's Vanshnookenraggen's track map for what the line could look like:

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Why isn't an  train extension via the LIRR ROW to Laurelton more discussed?

This was originally part of the whole Queens Superexpress/Archer Avenue plan but due to a variety of problems it never materialized. With that being said, the MTA still built tail tracks that basically go right up to where the portal would've been that would've connected it to the LIRR.

This project would serve a huge transit desert in Souhteast Queens and relatively easy to construct, especially relative to other hypothetical projects like a full SAS, Utica Av subway, and even the Queenslink. Another underrated benefit is it could create a higher capacity terminal for the  (Jamacia Center kinda sucks). It would also provide a new opportunity for a yard at Gwen Ifill park (which was a former yard for LIRR and is now just overgrown greenery).

The MTA already has the whole ROW, all they'd need to do is construct the portal and connect to the LIRR tracks, convert the LIRR tracks to subway, and add any infill stations they choose.

Sure, it's not the sexiest or even most important transit project, but it still has clear benefits and should be far easier/cheaper/faster than some of these other regularly discussed projects which to me seem like they should be lower priority on the benefits alone. Seriously pisses me off that MTA has stuff like a  extension past New Lots or  to Redhook but not this in their 2025-2044 needs assessment.

Here's Vanshnookenraggen's track map for what the line could look like:

Hate to break it to you, but there's a reason most people don't bother discussing about this extension in the first place. That ROW is still currently used right now by the LIRR, building the connection would for the most part be useless. Right now, those tracks are used by the Far Rockaway and Long Beach trains. 

Stuff that the MTA has in it's Needs Assessment is mainly because there's nothing that should (hopefully) get in the way of constructing and whatever else they plan on doing. The  past New lots is definitely something that should be looked into at least to Gateway Mall which would be rather beneficial to a lot of New Yorkers. I had to take a car every time I went there and it would be nice to finally not have to do so for once, especially with how much of a bitch the Belt can be when leaving. As for the , I'm not going to lie, that's definitely something I don't think is worth the bother. Service to Red Hook would be great since it's already so close to Manhattan and the only lines close by is the  at Smith-9 Sts so fair enough for them. However, it really shouldn't be the  since that would just make service for that line worse along with other lines, then again it's not like they can send the  with how South Ferry terminal is currently.

[Lawrence St]

For SAS, I propose the following:

 Coney Island - Gun Hill Road via 2nd Ave/3rd Ave.

Hanover Sq - 125th St/Broadway

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

21 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Hate to break it to you, but there's a reason most people don't bother discussing about this extension in the first place. That ROW is still currently used right now by the LIRR, building the connection would for the most part be useless. Right now, those tracks are used by the Far Rockaway and Long Beach trains. 

Stuff that the MTA has in it's Needs Assessment is mainly because there's nothing that should (hopefully) get in the way of constructing and whatever else they plan on doing. The  past New lots is definitely something that should be looked into at least to Gateway Mall which would be rather beneficial to a lot of New Yorkers. I had to take a car every time I went there and it would be nice to finally not have to do so for once, especially with how much of a bitch the Belt can be when leaving. As for the , I'm not going to lie, that's definitely something I don't think is worth the bother. Service to Red Hook would be great since it's already so close to Manhattan and the only lines close by is the  at Smith-9 Sts so fair enough for them. However, it really shouldn't be the  since that would just make service for that line worse along with other lines, then again it's not like they can send the  with how South Ferry terminal is currently.

Yeah a subway to Red Hook and  extension to Gateway Mall certainly aren't useless, it's just that on the laundry list of potential subway expansion that's what the MTA decides to invest time into researching?

Also I don't see how it's useless. Even if the LIRR uses that ROW, the LIRR is never going to be the same as the subway. Also the LIRR only has 2 stops along that branch; Locust Manor and Laurelton so even though you have that distinct section of track for the LIRR, it's not like it's adding much to the LIRR network and there's still a huge transit desert between Locust Manor and Jamacia. The Far Rockaway and Long Beach LIRR services can just use the West Hempstead Branch tracks to get to Jamacia.

And even if the line is low ridership, making the  terminal high capacity and having a very direct opportunity for a new train yard are 2 more benefits.

Edited February 24, 2023 by ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ

[Vulturious]

10 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Yeah a subway to Red Hook and  extension to Gateway Mall certainly aren't useless, it's just that on the laundry list of potential subway expansion that's what the MTA decides to invest time into researching?

Also I don't see how it's useless. Even if the LIRR uses that ROW, the LIRR is never going to be the same as the subway. Also the LIRR only has 2 stops along that branch; Locust Manor and Laurelton so even though you have that distinct section of track for the LIRR, it's not like it's adding much to the LIRR network and there's still a huge transit desert between Locust Manor and Jamacia. The Far Rockaway and Long Beach LIRR services can just use the West Hempstead Branch tracks to get to Jamacia.

And even if the line is low ridership, making the  terminal high capacity and having a very direct opportunity for a new train yard are 2 more benefits.

Yes, the LIRR isn't the same as the subway and they don't run service as frequent as metro trains normally would. Except, that's exactly issue, your argument is a double-edged sword. You'd end up having to make sure  trains are FRA compliant. Actually scratch that, if I'm not mistaken the entire system at that point needs to be converted to be FRA compliant. There's also the issue of the voltage output the 3rd rails have as well between the LIRR and the subway. Let's also not forget how wide the subway cars are compared to LIRR cars, they're narrower. LIRR trains are too wide for the subway to be able to stop at, last I checked, they're 6 inches wider on both sides. That'll be one hell of a gap for passengers and a huge issue for both NYCT and LIRR.

I honestly couldn't care whether or not it's got high or low ridership from the extension, direct service would be provided to an already developed ROW. I doubt anyone would complain as it gives them quite the huge alternative and cheaper option accessing Manhattan. The only thing I can think of is making it so the extension is separate from the LIRR, meaning it'll operate on a separate level, either underground or elevated above. This makes it more difficult as people are already stubborn when it comes to making ELs even if it meant trains will run quieter, plus the MTA and underground aren't good combos. They'll inflate the price to an unreasonable scale the same way they did with the RBB.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

8 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

Yes, the LIRR isn't the same as the subway and they don't run service as frequent as metro trains normally would. Except, that's exactly issue, your argument is a double-edged sword. You'd end up having to make sure  trains are FRA compliant. Actually scratch that, if I'm not mistaken the entire system at that point needs to be converted to be FRA compliant. There's also the issue of the voltage output the 3rd rails have as well between the LIRR and the subway. Let's also not forget how wide the subway cars are compared to LIRR cars, they're narrower. LIRR trains are too wide for the subway to be able to stop at, last I checked, they're 6 inches wider on both sides. That'll be one hell of a gap for passengers and a huge issue for both NYCT and LIRR.

I honestly couldn't care whether or not it's got high or low ridership from the extension, direct service would be provided to an already developed ROW. I doubt anyone would complain as it gives them quite the huge alternative and cheaper option accessing Manhattan. The only thing I can think of is making it so the extension is separate from the LIRR, meaning it'll operate on a separate level, either underground or elevated above. This makes it more difficult as people are already stubborn when it comes to making ELs even if it meant trains will run quieter, plus the MTA and underground aren't good combos. They'll inflate the price to an unreasonable scale the same way they did with the RBB.

That's the point though; the LIRR ROW would be converted to subway, the tracks would be rebuilt, new stations would be added, and LIRR service would no longer run. Basically, think of it like proposed Queenslink except this branch of the LIRR hasn't been abandoned for decades.

Actually, your different level idea is interesting as well if you really want to keep the LIRR operating on these tracks; I don't see why the Far Rockaway and Long Beach branches couldn't just go via St. Albans though? I wonder if building under/over existing LIRR tracks generally may be something for the MTA to look to when it comes to expansion since that should be a lot logistically easier than building a whole new tunnel or elevated subway line.

[Vulturious]

21 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

That's the point though; the LIRR ROW would be converted to subway, the tracks would be rebuilt, new stations would be added, and LIRR service would no longer run. Basically, think of it like proposed Queenslink except this branch of the LIRR hasn't been abandoned for decades.

Actually, your different level idea is interesting as well if you really want to keep the LIRR operating on these tracks; I don't see why the Far Rockaway and Long Beach branches couldn't just go via St. Albans though? I wonder if building under/over existing LIRR tracks generally may be something for the MTA to look to when it comes to expansion since that should be a lot logistically easier than building a whole new tunnel or elevated subway line.

Well, good luck having to deal with the LIRR, they'll for sure put up one hell of a fight.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

1 minute ago, Vulturious said:

Well, good luck having to deal with the LIRR, they'll for sure put up one hell of a fight.

Idk how the MTA and it's branches function, but since it controls both the NYC Subway and the LIRR, wouldn't it be able to theoretically make an executive decision to covert to subway if it thought it were a good idea? We've seen the subway take over LIRR branches before like the  train to Rockaway, but at that time the MTA didn't exist and the subway was able to buy it up due to LIRR having financial troubles. It's not like the LIRR would lose much by ceding that stretch of track to the subway, and perhaps as part of the deal the project could be a bundle of extending the  and doing smtg the LIRR wants.

[engineerboy6561]

10 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Idk how the MTA and it's branches function, but since it controls both the NYC Subway and the LIRR, wouldn't it be able to theoretically make an executive decision to covert to subway if it thought it were a good idea? We've seen the subway take over LIRR branches before like the  train to Rockaway, but at that time the MTA didn't exist and the subway was able to buy it up due to LIRR having financial troubles. It's not like the LIRR would lose much by ceding that stretch of track to the subway, and perhaps as part of the deal the project could be a bundle of extending the  and doing smtg the LIRR wants.

The problem with that right now is that internally the MTA is badly disorganized and different departments tend to feud back and forth a lot. Also, the MTA is controlled by a state as the whole, and the LIRR suburbs are populous enough to include a lot of legislative districts, historically fairly swingy, and at least somewhat provincial while the city itself is rock-solid Democratic, which means the governor is heavily incentivized to focus on the needs of the suburbs rather than the city (at least when they're focused on making the MTA do things at all instead of appointing their friends and raiding the cash box, which doesn't happen all that often). To be honest, if we want the MTA to be a place where things like handing an in-use LIRR ROW to the subway actually happens we would likely need to reorganize the MTA the way I outlined a few pages back. Right now, the only way I see the current MTA being willing to give up that ROW would be if we could fund quad-tracking of the ROW via St. Albans, construction of an all-stop Laurelton station on the St. Albans branch to use as a transit center with connections to the new , a flyover somewhere along that ROW to get the Far Rock/Long Beach tracks on the outside of the West Hempstead tracks, and a widening/rearrangement of the Main Line ROW between Hillside Yard and Jamaica Station to make room for those two new tracks. 

Personally I think it's worth costing that out alongside costing out 2- and 4-track subway extensions under Merrick Blvd out to Springfield Gardens and seeing what's most affordable and quickest to do; I'd argue that the subway extension might well be faster even if it's a bit more expensive to implement. This is also part of why I was arguing for a four-track rebuilding of the Jamaica line earlier; if you send the current  to Springfield Gardens everyone's going to take the  and crowding on QBL will get even worse, whereas a four-track Jamaica line would be able to provide QBL-comparable travel time to Midtown on the express service, and would thus pull a good chunk of passengers off QBL while simultaneously improving the lives of people in southeastern Queens significantly. That said, to make that viable you'd probably wind up doing a fair amount of reverse branching in order to offer fast one-seat rides to the relevant parts of Midtown; my preferred option would be to combine that with a four-track Second Avenue Subway, send one of the 2 Av expresses to Coney Island via West End, and then send the and the other 2 Av express to Springfield Gardens with stops at Marcy Av, Myrtle Av, Broadway Junction, 75 St, Woodhaven Blvd, Sutphin Blvd, Jamaica Center, and then local stops the rest of the way.

Like ideally Metro-North and LIRR would be integrated with the city enough that we could use Metro-North and LIRR spare capacity to supplement for subways the way London uses the Overground network, but that would likely require a fairly heavy overhaul of the MTA in a way that runs counter to the incentives of most of the folks that choose MTA board members at the moment. I'm down to overhaul it in the way I talked about with the long-term goal of driving down construction costs and expanding total system capacity in a way that can comfortably accommodate the sort of long-term population growth NYC needs to have in order to mitigate the housing crisis; I just don't know if we can get that done.

Edited February 24, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

The problem with that right now is that internally the MTA is badly disorganized and different departments tend to feud back and forth a lot. Also, the MTA is controlled by a state as the whole, and the LIRR suburbs are populous enough to include a lot of legislative districts, historically fairly swingy, and at least somewhat provincial while the city itself is rock-solid Democratic, which means the governor is heavily incentivized to focus on the needs of the suburbs rather than the city (at least when they're focused on making the MTA do things at all instead of appointing their friends and raiding the cash box, which doesn't happen all that often). To be honest, if we want the MTA to be a place where things like handing an in-use LIRR ROW to the subway actually happens we would likely need to reorganize the MTA the way I outlined a few pages back. Right now, the only way I see the current MTA being willing to give up that ROW would be if we could fund quad-tracking of the ROW via St. Albans, construction of an all-stop Laurelton station on the St. Albans branch to use as a transit center with connections to the new , a flyover somewhere along that ROW to get the Far Rock/Long Beach tracks on the outside of the West Hempstead tracks, and a widening/rearrangement of the Main Line ROW between Hillside Yard and Jamaica Station to make room for those two new tracks. 

Personally I think it's worth costing that out alongside costing out 2- and 4-track subway extensions under Merrick Blvd out to Springfield Gardens and seeing what's most affordable and quickest to do; I'd argue that the subway extension might well be faster even if it's a bit more expensive to implement. This is also part of why I was arguing for a four-track rebuilding of the Jamaica line earlier; if you send the current  to Springfield Gardens everyone's going to take the  and crowding on QBL will get even worse, whereas a four-track Jamaica line would be able to provide QBL-comparable travel time to Midtown on the express service, and would thus pull a good chunk of passengers off QBL while simultaneously improving the lives of people in southeastern Queens significantly. That said, to make that viable you'd probably wind up doing a fair amount of reverse branching in order to offer fast one-seat rides to the relevant parts of Midtown; my preferred option would be to combine that with a four-track Second Avenue Subway, send one of the 2 Av expresses to Coney Island via West End, and then send the and the other 2 Av express to Springfield Gardens with stops at Marcy Av, Myrtle Av, Broadway Junction, 75 St, Woodhaven Blvd, Sutphin Blvd, Jamaica Center, and then local stops the rest of the way.

Like ideally Metro-North and LIRR would be integrated with the city enough that we could use Metro-North and LIRR spare capacity to supplement for subways the way London uses the Overground network, but that would likely require a fairly heavy overhaul of the MTA in a way that runs counter to the incentives of most of the folks that choose MTA board members at the moment. I'm down to overhaul it in the way I talked about with the long-term goal of driving down construction costs and expanding total system capacity in a way that can comfortably accommodate the sort of long-term population growth NYC needs to have in order to mitigate the housing crisis; I just don't know if we can get that done.

Thank you for this detailed and insightful response.

Lowkey, it is really frustrating that despite only having about 200k daily riders each, the LIRR and Metro North are treated as almost an equal to the NYC Subway which has close to 6 million riders; 200k is the daily ridership of a low-usage branch lol. Both the LIRR and Metro North are important, but the subway just serves a ton more people, so the LIRR and/or Metro North being able to filibuster a project that's in the best interest of the subway seems questionable. Also, Long Island and Upstate already get more robust road infrastructure than NYC, especially at a per-capita level.

I do think your point about increased crowding on QBLVD is def very fair, especially as the  is the most crowded QBLVD line as things stand today; in an ironic sense you'd want this new extension to be low ridership but still provide the benefits of a higher capacity terminal and a yard. Frankly, the Jamacia line sucks not only because it's old, but the lack of any quick express service, and I like your idea of somehow using SAS to create an express alternative; would be amazing if South 4th street was finally utilized. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything to indicate the MTA is really serious about even fixing the Jamacia el itself, so this is a long long long ways off.

One piece of hope I have long term is that NYC will eventually become close to a majority if not an outright majority of NY's population; NYC held up surprisingly well in the last census, and the 4 boroughs have 8.3 million compared to 20.2 million statewide. If NYC became a majority, then you become less dependent on convincing legislators from long island and upstate to support your projects for the city. So much of NY politics isn't D vs R but NYC vs everywhere else, and usually in those battles everywhere else tends to win.

[engineerboy6561]

46 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Thank you for this detailed and insightful response.

Lowkey, it is really frustrating that despite only having about 200k daily riders each, the LIRR and Metro North are treated as almost an equal to the NYC Subway which has close to 6 million riders; 200k is the daily ridership of a low-usage branch lol. Both the LIRR and Metro North are important, but the subway just serves a ton more people, so the LIRR and/or Metro North being able to filibuster a project that's in the best interest of the subway seems questionable. Also, Long Island and Upstate already get more robust road infrastructure than NYC, especially at a per-capita level.

I do think your point about increased crowding on QBLVD is def very fair, especially as the  is the most crowded QBLVD line as things stand today; in an ironic sense you'd want this new extension to be low ridership but still provide the benefits of a higher capacity terminal and a yard. Frankly, the Jamacia line sucks not only because it's old, but the lack of any quick express service, and I like your idea of somehow using SAS to create an express alternative; would be amazing if South 4th street was finally utilized. Unfortunately I haven't seen anything to indicate the MTA is really serious about even fixing the Jamacia el itself, so this is a long long long ways off.

One piece of hope I have long term is that NYC will eventually become close to a majority if not an outright majority of NY's population; NYC held up surprisingly well in the last census, and the 4 boroughs have 8.3 million compared to 20.2 million statewide. If NYC became a majority, then you become less dependent on convincing legislators from long island and upstate to support your projects for the city. So much of NY politics isn't D vs R but NYC vs everywhere else, and usually in those battles everywhere else tends to win.

The sad thing is that the MTA isn't even the worst when it comes to this sort of thing; the parts of WMATA's subway system that basically function as commuter rail in from the MD and VA suburbs got built long before the Green Line (even though the Green Line was actually within DC and served a bunch of black working-class and poor neighborhoods, which are the people the subway system was supposed to be for in the first place) because DC city appointees only make up a fourth of WMATA's board (VA, MD, and the feds make up the other 3/4), and the only way construction eventually got started ahead of yet another suburban extension was when the DC mayor threatened to veto WMATA's budget if something wasn't done.

I think that building the things I'd like to see built (four-track trunks on 2 Av/3 Av in Manhattan, Northern Blvd in northern Queens, 3 Av in the Bronx, Broadway/Jamaica Av/Merrick Blvd in Brooklyn and southeastern Queens, with two-track extensions on Gun Hill Rd to Bay Plaza, Northern Blvd from Flushing to Bell Blvd, Boston Rd/Amtrak ROW from Bay Plaza to 169 St/3 Av, Junction Blvd from Northern Blvd to LaGuardia Airport, Merrick Blvd from Springfield Blvd to Hook Creek Blvd and Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Av from Broadway to Kings Plaza, plus a funky rearrangement of the  that would replace the Franklin Shuttle and pull it out of DeKalb Junction) would constitute a 30- to 50-year plan if the MTA was actually serious about doing proper design and construction in-house, but I think that building that stuff out is worth what it would buy us. 

Edited February 24, 2023 by engineerboy6561

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

4 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

The sad thing is that the MTA isn't even the worst when it comes to this sort of thing; the parts of WMATA's subway system that basically function as commuter rail in from the MD and VA suburbs got built long before the Green Line (even though the Green Line was actually within DC and served a bunch of black working-class and poor neighborhoods, which are the people the subway system was supposed to be for in the first place) because DC city appointees only make up a fourth of WMATA's board (VA, MD, and the feds make up the other 3/4), and the only way construction eventually got started ahead of yet another suburban extension was when the DC mayor threatened to veto WMATA's budget if something wasn't done.

I think that building the things I'd like to see built (four-track trunks on 2 Av/3 Av in Manhattan, Northern Blvd in northern Queens, 3 Av in the Bronx, Broadway/Jamaica Av/Merrick Blvd in Brooklyn and southeastern Queens, with two-track extensions on Gun Hill Rd to Bay Plaza, Northern Blvd from Flushing to Bell Blvd, Boston Rd/Amtrak ROW from Bay Plaza to 169 St/3 Av, Junction Blvd from Northern Blvd to LaGuardia Airport, Merrick Blvd from Springfield Blvd to Hook Creek Blvd and Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Av from Broadway to Kings Plaza, plus a funky rearrangement of the  that would replace the Franklin Shuttle and pull it out of DeKalb Junction) would constitute a 30- to 50-year plan if the MTA was actually serious about doing proper design and construction in-house, but I think that building that stuff out is worth what it would buy us. 

One thing I think is interesting about the WMATA today is that today the metro doesn't have a clear favoritism towards any side of the city; the only real examples of favoring wealthy areas would be just how far the red and silver lines reach to the north and west, but DC development overall is not symmetrical; development generally tends to favor the north and west. Rmbr that going east, density falls off a cliff once you go outside the 495 ring-road. Glad the DC mayors had the balls to ensure the Green Line was built.

In NYC on the other hand, wealthier/whiter communities tend to get disproportionate subway service compared to poorer and non-white communities. In NYC, I think it works both ways where subways make a neighborhood more expensive, but also there's less incentive to build subways to some of these poorer communities.

This starts to go a bit off topic, but one thing I've noticed across the few actual subway systems in America is it seems like even when adjusted for density, subway stations in largely homogenous black communities have disproportionately lower ridership than subway stations that serve just about anywhere else. I think this is probably for a variety of factors, but it is notable; like the ends of the , , and   trains in Brooklyn/Queens all have super low ridership, insanely low in some cases. Similarly, the red and green lines from the heavily black South Side of Chicago tend to have pretty low ridership.

I wanna try to make another fantasy subway map of what in an ideal world the subway should and could realistically look like in 50 years or so; lmk if you're interested.

 

[engineerboy6561]

3 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

One thing I think is interesting about the WMATA today is that today the metro doesn't have a clear favoritism towards any side of the city; the only real examples of favoring wealthy areas would be just how far the red and silver lines reach to the north and west, but DC development overall is not symmetrical; development generally tends to favor the north and west. Rmbr that going east, density falls off a cliff once you go outside the 495 ring-road. Glad the DC mayors had the balls to ensure the Green Line was built.

In NYC on the other hand, wealthier/whiter communities tend to get disproportionate subway service compared to poorer and non-white communities. In NYC, I think it works both ways where subways make a neighborhood more expensive, but also there's less incentive to build subways to some of these poorer communities.

This starts to go a bit off topic, but one thing I've noticed across the few actual subway systems in America is it seems like even when adjusted for density, subway stations in largely homogenous black communities have disproportionately lower ridership than subway stations that serve just about anywhere else. I think this is probably for a variety of factors, but it is notable; like the ends of the , , and   trains in Brooklyn/Queens all have super low ridership, insanely low in some cases. Similarly, the red and green lines from the heavily black South Side of Chicago tend to have pretty low ridership.

I wanna try to make another fantasy subway map of what in an ideal world the subway should and could realistically look like in 50 years or so; lmk if you're interested.

 

I'd be quite interested to see what you're thinking; I have similar ideas of my own I'd love to share.

[Trainmaster5]

20 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Yes, the LIRR isn't the same as the subway and they don't run service as frequent as metro trains normally would. Except, that's exactly issue, your argument is a double-edged sword. You'd end up having to make sure  trains are FRA compliant. Actually scratch that, if I'm not mistaken the entire system at that point needs to be converted to be FRA compliant. There's also the issue of the voltage output the 3rd rails have as well between the LIRR and the subway. Let's also not forget how wide the subway cars are compared to LIRR cars, they're narrower. LIRR trains are too wide for the subway to be able to stop at, last I checked, they're 6 inches wider on both sides. That'll be one hell of a gap for passengers and a huge issue for both NYCT and LIRR.

I honestly couldn't care whether or not it's got high or low ridership from the extension, direct service would be provided to an already developed ROW. I doubt anyone would complain as it gives them quite the huge alternative and cheaper option accessing Manhattan. The only thing I can think of is making it so the extension is separate from the LIRR, meaning it'll operate on a separate level, either underground or elevated above. This makes it more difficult as people are already stubborn when it comes to making ELs even if it meant trains will run quieter, plus the MTA and underground aren't good combos. They'll inflate the price to an unreasonable scale the same way they did with the RBB.

I'm glad that someone pointed out the obvious problems with this " pie in the sky " dream of a plan. If you add Locust Manor, Laurelton, and Rosedale to this plan where, exactly, does this spur terminate ? It sure as hell can't run to or through Jamaica as you've correctly pointed out the FRA and equipment requirements. Damn sure can't run through/to Valley Stream for the same reason and Valley Stream is located in Nassau County and not Queens. The subway is the property of the City of New York and not the  .I can't believe how many folks are not aware of the distinction. I've noticed the same type of confusion with the old Rockaway Beach Branch. Even when the City took over the southern section of the line they allowed the section from Ozone Park station to be operated by the LIRR from the mainline to Ozone Park station. There's still evidence of the severed connection between the  and the LIRR at Liberty Junction and that remaining trackage was never connected for a reason. Legalities. Look no further than the  between East 180 St and Dyre and the cutoff north of the station. The next stop was in Westchester County. Just wanted to add some background to the conversation. Carry on.

[TMC]

7 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Lowkey, it is really frustrating that despite only having about 200k daily riders each, the LIRR and Metro North are treated as almost an equal to the NYC Subway which has close to 6 million riders; 200k is the daily ridership of a low-usage branch lol. Both the LIRR and Metro North are important, but the subway just serves a ton more people, so the LIRR and/or Metro North being able to filibuster a project that's in the best interest of the subway seems questionable. Also, Long Island and Upstate already get more robust road infrastructure than NYC, especially at a per-capita level.

The commuter railroads would be serving a ton more people if designed and operated correctly, along with through-running. They should be providing subway-level service within the city and inner-suburbs.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

15 minutes ago, TMC said:

The commuter railroads would be serving a ton more people if designed and operated correctly, along with through-running. They should be providing subway-level service within the city and inner-suburbs.

They are commuter railroads, not subways.  People really need to stop with this nonsense.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

7 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They are commuter railroads, not subways.  People really need to stop with this nonsense.

While I generally agree with your point, there are examples where commuter rails are frequent and high capacity, and offer through service in the CBD, most notably Tokyo.

In NYC though, most people who live our of Long Island are pretty disconnected to the city; few have to regularly commute into work from Suffolk County. Japan tends to be a lot more interconnected and denser throughout making their commuter rails play a bigger role.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

While I generally agree with your point, there are examples where commuter rails are frequent and high capacity, and offer through service in the CBD, most notably Tokyo.

In NYC though, most people who live our of Long Island are pretty disconnected to the city; few have to regularly commute into work from Suffolk County. Japan tends to be a lot more interconnected and denser throughout making their commuter rails play a bigger role.

Commuter rail service is frequent in Japan because Japan is a pretty dense and compact country overall.  The suburbs of NYC are not as dense, therefore less ridership. If there was demand for more service, sure.  That said, the suburbs have already been moving to increase housing by commuter stations, so whatever growth is going to happen will happen (organically). The railroads have also been adamantly clear that they cannot compete with the subway, nor do they have the capacity to run service like a subway because they are railroads.

 

 

Edited February 25, 2023 by Via Garibaldi 8

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm glad that someone pointed out the obvious problems with this " pie in the sky " dream of a plan. If you add Locust Manor, Laurelton, and Rosedale to this plan where, exactly, does this spur terminate ? It sure as hell can't run to or through Jamaica as you've correctly pointed out the FRA and equipment requirements. Damn sure can't run through/to Valley Stream for the same reason and Valley Stream is located in Nassau County and not Queens. The subway is the property of the City of New York and not the  .I can't believe how many folks are not aware of the distinction. I've noticed the same type of confusion with the old Rockaway Beach Branch. Even when the City took over the southern section of the line they allowed the section from Ozone Park station to be operated by the LIRR from the mainline to Ozone Park station. There's still evidence of the severed connection between the  and the LIRR at Liberty Junction and that remaining trackage was never connected for a reason. Legalities. Look no further than the  between East 180 St and Dyre and the cutoff north of the station. The next stop was in Westchester County. Just wanted to add some background to the conversation. Carry on.

Thank you for the insightful post; I never really thought about the differentiation between what the MTA and the city actually own/run ect. To answer your first question, it would terminate at Laurelton, which is still within Queens County. See the map a few posts above.

I guess my question is assuming the ROW is can be given from the LIRR to the NYC Subway, would it be a feasible or even good idea to extend the ? You would literally rip up the current LIRR infrastructure and covert it to subway; it would no longer run LIRR services and wouldn't physically connect to the LIRR anymore. The  out to Rockaway doesn't have to deal with the FRA because as you state, LIRR services no longer run there because it physically no longer connects to the LIRR.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

3 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Commuter rail service is frequent in Japan because Japan is a pretty dense and compact country overall.  The suburbs of NYC are not as dense, therefore less ridership. If there was demand for more service, sure.  That said, the suburbs have already been moving to increase housing by commuter stations, so whatever growth is going to happen will happen (organically). The railroads have also been adamantly clear that they cannot compete with the subway, nor do they have the capacity to run service like a subway because they are railroads.

 

 

Growth patterns can change, but recent growth patterns suggest Nassau and Suffolk counties overall are pretty stagnant; the demand is not increasing. NYC proper has a slight growth rate, which seems to be highest in midtown and along the East River in Brooklyn and Kweens.

[TMC]

21 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They are commuter railroads, not subways.  People really need to stop with this nonsense.

I'm not saying we need to send a train every 5 minutes into suburbia. I'm saying that along urban trunk lines, we need frequent service and lower fares to act as pseudo-subways. Run simplified service patterns and give stations like Forest Hills and Kew Gardens a train every 15 minutes all day.

[engineerboy6561]

28 minutes ago, TMC said:

The commuter railroads would be serving a ton more people if designed and operated correctly, along with through-running. They should be providing subway-level service within the city and inner-suburbs.

I mean, I think it's worth pursuing fare integration, through-running, and related services in order to convert MNR/LIRR/NJT from commuter rail into high-frequency regional rail that serves as an express/super-express transport layer within the city. Unfortunately, making that happen would require NY, NJ, and CT to jointly agree to merge their services into a single giant RTA that would cover north and central Jersey rail and bus ops, PATH, NYC subway, NYC buses, NYC subway, MNR, and LIRR. Furthermore, if you kept a similar internal structure to the current MTA and NJT for the new agency you'd get a place where all three governors appoint their friends to the board, raid the cash box, get into jurisdictional food fights, and ram through ribbon cuttings for poorly conceived pet projects in election years and the trains still wouldn't be integrated or run on time. Making integrated regional transit work for NYC in the way you're describing would require a regional agency where nearly all the board members were elected and NYC has a clear majority in its own right, and getting NY, NJ, and CT politicos to cooperatively establish a structure through which a lot of money will flow without being subject to their influence is going to be an absolutely massive uphill battle.

 

14 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

They are commuter railroads, not subways.  People really need to stop with this nonsense.

I mean, high-frequency regional rail is a thing, and would honestly be a thing worth pursuing (4tph per branch off-peak, 8tph per branch peak for LIRR, additional tph for Metro-North where possible, and through-running plus a new tunnel from Atlantic Terminal to Hoboken via Fulton St and West 4th St would be amazing to have. That said, making that possible would require a lot of wild and interesting political things to happen that I'm not sure we could swing.