Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Wallyhorse]

13 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I have a new proposal for all of you.

Rebuilding the Franklin Avenue Shuttle along with Franklin Station on the and . Botanic Garden Station is extended to be 480-600' and north of it, the Shuttle becomes buried. The hard part is to build either side platforms or an island Platform above or below Franklin Avenue station on the at Fulton Street. Once that is complete, the new south bound track goes underneath the current crosstown tracks to connect with the at Bedford Nostrand while the Northbound track just turns to meet up with the . A third track is built at Classon Avenue in case of anything. The whole purpose of this is to connect the Crosstown line with the Brighton line.

This sort of is like my previously proposed Myrtle-Brighton line, except in that version, the line stays elevated with the current shuttle line converted back to two tracks and all stations becoming 600 feet.  After Franklin Avenue the line continues to first Beford-Nostrand and a transfer to the and then Sumner Avenue in approximately the old spot of the old Myrtle Avenue El, with such leading into a rebuilt upper level of Myrtle Avenue before connecting with the existing Myrtle El and running to Metropolitan with the .  On the other end, the line (that I had dubbed a "Black " a while back actually becomes a 24/7 local between Metropolitan and Coney Island while the becomes a second Brighton local (19/5) to Coney Island and the becomes a 24/7 Brighton Express to Brighton Beach.

This would require all of the existing Myrtle El stations to be lengthened to 600 feet as well. 

Not sure if your line is feasible but I see why you would like to connect the Crosstown to Brighton.  Mine would essentially be a second crosstown line.

Edited August 10, 2018 by Wallyhorse

[R68OnBroadway]

Recently we have been discussing much about relieving Queens, mainly by talking about Queens trunk lines. However, I believe that we could use one line to help relieve some areas: Fulton. Currently the line dead-ends at Lefferts or runs down to the Rockaways, which have very low ridership. The Liberty Av El's poor design of just 3 tracks (really 2) limits the ability to increase frequencies and forces the  to end at Euclid. However, in my proposal, we would build a new 4-track cut and cover line to replace the El and expand further; as shown in the map:

The line would mimic the Liberty El until Rockaway Blvd, where it would then turn south on Rockaway Blvd until Linden, where it will then run under all the way to the Nassau County border.

Stops for this line would be as follows (Shepard and Euclid are the two stops in the far left corner). This map shows service with the  now on Fulton local.

Grant Av (would be rebuilt to a 4-track local, services ) .

80th St  

88th St  

Cross Bay-Woodhaven Blvd  . Just past this station the  will diverge and connect to the Rockaway ROW using flying junctions. The  will continue express while the  runs local. 

109th Av

Linden-Rockaway Blvd  

Lefferts Blvd  

130th St  

Van Wyck  

Sutphin Blvd

Linden- Guy Brewer Blvd  

Merrick Blvd  

115th Av  

Farmers Blvd  , potential transfer to  if it is extended down Liberty/Farmers

Springfield Blvd  

226th St  

Cross Island Pkwy  

If SAS Phase 4 is not complete by the time this line is finished, then the  will run in the 's place as a local until it arrives, leaving the express tracks unused. Considering that it will be built using cut-and-cover and runs through low density areas, I could estimate completion in 15-23 years (counting studies).

Another part of this project would involve replacing the RPK  with a service called the  . This would run via the RPK  route until Broad Channel, where it will then run north, making all stops. After Aqueduct where the  branches off, it will stay on the ROW until Liberty Av where it will have a separate turnback terminal that connects to the Cross Bay Blvd station.

As part of these changes, the Aqueduct Racetrack Station will have a new island platform rather than side ones, and it would be renamed Aqueduct. Aqueduct-N Conduit would be renamed to North Conduit Ave and receive ADA accessibility.

 

[Wallyhorse]

6 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Recently we have been discussing much about relieving Queens, mainly by talking about Queens trunk lines. However, I believe that we could use one line to help relieve some areas: Fulton. Currently the line dead-ends at Lefferts or runs down to the Rockaways, which have very low ridership. The Liberty Av El's poor design of just 3 tracks (really 2) limits the ability to increase frequencies and forces the  to end at Euclid. However, in my proposal, we would build a new 4-track cut and cover line to replace the El and expand further; as shown in the map:

The line would mimic the Liberty El until Rockaway Blvd, where it would then turn south on Rockaway Blvd until Linden, where it will then run under all the way to the Nassau County border.

Stops for this line would be as follows (Shepard and Euclid are the two stops in the far left corner). This map shows service with the  now on Fulton local.

Grant Av (would be rebuilt to a 4-track local, services ) .

80th St  

88th St  

Cross Bay-Woodhaven Blvd  . Just past this station the  will diverge and connect to the Rockaway ROW using flying junctions. The  will continue express while the  runs local. 

109th Av

Linden-Rockaway Blvd  

Lefferts Blvd  

130th St  

Van Wyck  

Sutphin Blvd

Linden- Guy Brewer Blvd  

Merrick Blvd  

115th Av  

Farmers Blvd  , potential transfer to  if it is extended down Liberty/Farmers

Springfield Blvd  

226th St  

Cross Island Pkwy  

If SAS Phase 4 is not complete by the time this line is finished, then the  will run in the 's place as a local until it arrives, leaving the express tracks unused. Considering that it will be built using cut-and-cover and runs through low density areas, I could estimate completion in 15-23 years (counting studies).

Another part of this project would involve replacing the RPK  with a service called the  . This would run via the RPK  route until Broad Channel, where it will then run north, making all stops. After Aqueduct where the  branches off, it will stay on the ROW until Liberty Av where it will have a separate turnback terminal that connects to the Cross Bay Blvd station.

As part of these changes, the Aqueduct Racetrack Station will have a new island platform rather than side ones, and it would be renamed Aqueduct. Aqueduct-N Conduit would be renamed to North Conduit Ave and receive ADA accessibility.

I would actually make Aqueduct a station with the existing side platform and an island platform.  This way, Aqueduct can be used when needed as a short-turn terminal, especially if more service is warranted to/from the casino.

As for the extension, I would have that continue past the Cross Island Parkway to a new station inside what will by then be the Belmont Park complex that will by then include the new arena for the Islanders, possibly also extending the there and having all three lines go there. 

[R68OnBroadway]

Here is an idea on how take congestion off the B82, allowing for it to be split or cut back, and also potentially alleviating the need for SBS:

The  would be extended down 4th, but rather then head to Bay Ridge, it will split off from the  right after Bay Ridge Av and run under Bay Ridge Pkwy/Kings Hwy. 

(ignore the other yellow Cross-Brooklyn line, that is Triboro RX)

After splitting off from the  , the  would stop at 5th Av and Bay Ridge Pkwy, where a passageway will connect the new stop to 77th on the  . After this, the  will stop at Ft. Hamilton, 14th Av, New Utrecht Av (passageway to 79th St ), 19th Av and Bay Pkwy. From here, the line curves onto Kings Hwy, where it will run under the rest of the way. Stops at Kings Hwy  , McDonald Av  , Coney Island Av, 16th St  , Avenue P, Nostrand Av  , Flatbush Av, and Utica Av  . 

This line would be built using cut-and-cover and would consist of 2 tracks. 

 

[Yeti]

This is my first post.

 

Here is my proposal: an extension of the Second Avenue Subway (SAS) from 116 St in Manhattan to Fordham via the Bronx's Third Av. Stations would be at 3 Av-138 St (interchange with 6), 3 Av-149 St (interchange with 2,5), 163 St, 168 St, Claremont Pkwy, Tremont Av, 184 St, and Fordham (interchange with Metro-North). A potential future extension would be to Gun Hill Rd on the 2 and 5 via Webster Av with stops at Botanical Garden (Bedford Park Blvd), 204 St, and Gun Hill Rd.

Please tell me what you think.

 

Also if someone could tell me how to add the line symbols into posts it would be much appreciated. Still a noob.

[RailRunRob]

6 hours ago, Yeti said:

Also if someone could tell me how to add the line symbols into posts it would be much appreciated. Still a noob.

 

Sure all you have to do is put the letter or number in parentheses with spacing between the parentheses make sure there space between the word before or after  ie:   ()  <-- 3 inside =     for express routes Instead of parentheses use the Greater or lesser  angle brackets  <>   <-- 4 inside  =    hope that helps..

[LGA Link N Train]

New Proposal for all of you

Lenox-Jerome connection: The Junction between 135th Street and 145th Street is rebuilt to allow for better switching on the  and  lines. 135th Street station is rebuilt with 2 island platforms since it already has 3 tracks. New interlockings are connected North of the Station and a 145th Street Lower level is built with FULL Side platforms, this would be for the  train. One of the tubes used by the  train would have to be reconstructed under this project. As for the train, new tunnels would go into the Bronx and 161 Street-Yankees Stadium would have to be partially rebuilt, along with Jerome Avenue in which new tracks will be built in place of the old 9th Avenue EL trackbed spur to allow for  trails to connect to the  during rush hours. Other times, the  would terminate at Yankee Stadium.

Any thoughts?

[RR503]

To bring the subject of Queens expansion over from the SAS topic, one opportunity that I think is too frequently discounted is the Queensboro Bridge. Both the upper and lower roadways of it once carried rapid transit (2nd Ave El and trolleys, respectively), and thus strike me as a cheap way of expanding cross-river capacity. To give some context, using the Queensboro for a Queens subway was seriously considered in the late '90s when the 'how do we get to the airport?' discussion was raging, so it is not completely without precedent. Such a line could pretty easily feed into a 57th St crosstown, and then into a Bypass route or some other (north)eastern Queens corridor. Just wanted to throw the idea out there... 

[R68OnBroadway]

28 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

New Proposal for all of you

Lenox-Jerome connection: The Junction between 135th Street and 145th Street is rebuilt to allow for better switching on the  and  lines. 135th Street station is rebuilt with 2 island platforms since it already has 3 tracks. New interlockings are connected North of the Station and a 145th Street Lower level is built with FULL Side platforms, this would be for the  train. One of the tubes used by the  train would have to be reconstructed under this project. As for the train, new tunnels would go into the Bronx and 161 Street-Yankees Stadium would have to be partially rebuilt, along with Jerome Avenue in which new tracks will be built in place of the old 9th Avenue EL trackbed spur to allow for  trails to connect to the  during rush hours. Other times, the  would terminate at Yankee Stadium.

Any thoughts?

Here's my take on it using my response to another similar proposal:

"I don't know why people keep on bringing up the idea of tying the  into Jerome... the last thing we need is more reverse branching, and if we do this, we just limited gained capacity from fixing Rogers. For now I think we should leave the alone and wait until demand is needed in an underserved area, but if feasible in the future, we could extend it north to be a crosstown line, or we could do something nuts like extend it across 161st/ 163rd and then Bruckner to Throgs Neck or something like that."

In terms of capacity in the Bronx, the  is like the last wish of 3 from a genie (the other 2 are the  , which is great for Fordham, and the  for 3rd/Webster)... it can be used to do something grand, but we have to use it wisely as if we miss an opportunity, we are stuck with it... I think that if anything, we should leave the  alone for now.

[R68OnBroadway]

Sorry for double-posting here, but wanted to separate this from my last post:

Why hasn't there been anything done with Utica/Fordham recently? They would both be relatively easy to do, especially Utica as you could built it as an El since it is so wide and the buildings on the street are mainly commercial/industrial... the biggest problem would be ripping up the street to build a portal ( I would place one between Snyder and Beverly/Tilden so that there could be room for an elevated stop by Av D... that and Nostrand are probably the only extension you could get done with in 10-15 years...

[P3F]

47 minutes ago, RR503 said:

To bring the subject of Queens expansion over from the SAS topic, one opportunity that I think is too frequently discounted is the Queensboro Bridge. Both the upper and lower roadways of it once carried rapid transit (2nd Ave El and trolleys, respectively), and thus strike me as a cheap way of expanding cross-river capacity. To give some context, using the Queensboro for a Queens subway was seriously considered in the late '90s when the 'how do we get to the airport?' discussion was raging, so it is not completely without precedent. Such a line could pretty easily feed into a 57th St crosstown, and then into a Bypass route or some other (north)eastern Queens corridor. Just wanted to throw the idea out there... 

It'd be fairly easy to tie a Queensboro Bridge line into an expanded Queensboro Plaza transfer station, but the main concern is structural integrity and whether or not the bridge can support trains in the long term. Subway cars have only gotten heavier (remember the bridge mainly served the 2nd Avenue El, and the old Manhattan Els tended to use wooden cars).

Tangentially, the Brooklyn Bridge, which used to carry the majority of BMT service, cannot support subway service today.

[RailRunRob]

2 hours ago, P3F said:

but the main concern is structural integrity and whether or not the bridge can support trains in the long term

The Queensboro is a cantilever design shouldn't be an issue. It's many times stronger than the Manhattan or the Williamsburg. Maybe both combined. One of the Strongest bridges in the region load wise after the Hell Gate.

Edited August 11, 2018 by RailRunRob

[bobtehpanda]

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

To bring the subject of Queens expansion over from the SAS topic, one opportunity that I think is too frequently discounted is the Queensboro Bridge. Both the upper and lower roadways of it once carried rapid transit (2nd Ave El and trolleys, respectively), and thus strike me as a cheap way of expanding cross-river capacity. To give some context, using the Queensboro for a Queens subway was seriously considered in the late '90s when the 'how do we get to the airport?' discussion was raging, so it is not completely without precedent. Such a line could pretty easily feed into a 57th St crosstown, and then into a Bypass route or some other (north)eastern Queens corridor. Just wanted to throw the idea out there... 

IIRC, the 60th St tunnel was built because the Queensboro could not handle the weight of subway trains. AirTrain was a different case, since the trains themselves are much lighter and much shorter. (An R160 is one and a half times the weight of a Mark II ART vehicle used on the AirTrain JFK.)

There were historically els on the bridge, but el cars were much lighter than subway cars IIRC.

Edited August 11, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[RR503]

4 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC, the 60th St tunnel was built because the Queensboro could not handle the weight of subway trains. AirTrain was a different case, since the trains themselves are much lighter and much shorter. (An R160 is one and a half times the weight of a Mark II ART vehicle used on the AirTrain JFK.)

There were historically els on the bridge, but el cars were much lighter than subway cars IIRC.

This website suggests it had more to do with the fact that there would have been little road space left with 8 tracks on the bridge. Not saying that weight isn't an issue, but I do think the fact that it carried el + 4 tracks of trolleys says something about its structure... 

 

[RailRunRob]

 

41 minutes ago, RR503 said:

This website suggests it had more to do with the fact that there would have been little road space left with 8 tracks on the bridge. Not saying that weight isn't an issue, but I do think the fact that it carried el + 4 tracks of trolleys says something about its structure... 

 

It could handle it. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/queensboro-bridge.shtml

The bridge was constructed between 1901 and 1909 and was opened to the traffic on June 18, 1909. A collaboration between the bridge engineer Gustav Lindenthal (1850-1935) and architect Henry Hornbostel, the main bridge is 3,725 feet long, the longest of the East River Bridges. The overall length of the bridge including the Manhattan and Queens approaches is 7,449 feet.

The site is an ideal location for a bridge as Roosevelt Island provides a convenient footing for the piers. Seventy-five thousand tons of steel went into the original bridge and its approaches. Its original cost was about $18 million, including $4.6 million for land. At the time of completion, it was not only the longest cantilever bridge in the United States, but also was designed for heavier loads than any other bridges.

 

I had a comparison chart of all the Bridges from some years back can't find it for the life of me. Still looking

 

But IIRC of the East River crossings on total loads.  (Top 5) 

1. Hell Gate  2. Queensboro 3. Manhattan 4. Willy B  5. Whitestone

There was a large build gap between the Hell Gate and Queensboro as well the Queensboro and Manhattan.

I believe the QBB was designed with Rail in mind from the beginning as well with a LIRR link. But I know they changed and scaled the design a bit after a bridge of the same type in Quebec had some major issues in 1906/07  

 

Edited August 12, 2018 by RailRunRob

[R68OnBroadway]

While we are speaking about adding tracks to a bridge, I have a proposal that would involve removing it: sending the   through a tunnel under the East River rather than a bridge. After Marcy Avenue, the El will instead continue down Broadway until Bedford, where it will then run on South 6th and start descending into the ground for a tunnel. After crossing the East River, the subway will run under Grand Street until Columbia Street, where it will then curve onto Delancey Street. This tunnel would have three tracks. The goal of this would be to reduce structural stress on the WillyB from the subway, eliminate the curve from Marcy, remove the 2-track bottleneck, and allow for a faster crossing of the river. This would involve the middle track at Marcy being used again for the  service during rush hour, but to compensate for the loss of service at that stop, a new express stop could be built at Bedford-Berry (the design would be similar to Dyckman, but it would have 3 tracks with an island platform for the center and Manhattan bound tracks on one side, and a side platform for the Queens-bound service on the other. If the stop is too complicated to place it can be removed as most riders are headed for Midtown and do not need the  , and transfers can just be made at Essex. South 6th between Bedford and Wythe (or Dunham) would have to be ripped up for the portal and the buildings removed. A new stop could be built at Columbia St in Manhattan if needed and possible.

Assuming Myrtle has been rebuilt by now, if we built new switches between Essex and Bowery, we could de-interline the  and  /  in the peak direction, which would also help with capacity. 

[bobtehpanda]

13 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

It could handle it. 

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/infrastructure/queensboro-bridge.shtml

The bridge was constructed between 1901 and 1909 and was opened to the traffic on June 18, 1909. A collaboration between the bridge engineer Gustav Lindenthal (1850-1935) and architect Henry Hornbostel, the main bridge is 3,725 feet long, the longest of the East River Bridges. The overall length of the bridge including the Manhattan and Queens approaches is 7,449 feet.

The site is an ideal location for a bridge as Roosevelt Island provides a convenient footing for the piers. Seventy-five thousand tons of steel went into the original bridge and its approaches. Its original cost was about $18 million, including $4.6 million for land. At the time of completion, it was not only the longest cantilever bridge in the United States, but also was designed for heavier loads than any other bridges.

I believe the QBB was designed with Rail in mind from the beginning as well with a LIRR link. But I know they changed and scaled the design a bit after a bridge of the same type in Quebec had some major issues in 1906/07  

 

From the American Society of Civil Engineers:

Quote

After the collapse of the Quebec Bridge during its construction in 1907, another panel of engineers was called in to review the design. The Queensboro Bridge was found to be safe, although they concluded that the structure was under designed and would not be able to accommodate four tracks for elevated railroads as originally intended. Two of these tracks were removed from the design and later built in a parallel tunnel under the East River along to accommodate BRT subway trains. The 60th Street Tunnel opened on August 1, 1920.

So it might be able to handle trains. But els were historically less heavy.

That being said, even if you were to use those el tracks, the tricky thing would be where to connect them on the Manhattan Side. The 2nd Av El is gone, and the BMT is in the way of the underground space.

Edited August 12, 2018 by bobtehpanda

[RailRunRob]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

So it might be able to handle trains. But els were historically less heavy.

Indeed point taken. 25-60% lighter depending on Motor vs Trailer cars.  I'm almost 20 years out of school so I might be a little foggy and out of practice by all mean correct me if wrong I'm coachable. I know bridges are base on weight per linear foot and axle load. So A bridge like the Manhattan might have a maximum axle load of 26,000 lbs. A full train might be around 1500 pound per linear foot x 4.  I believe the QBB was intended to carry a max of 20,000 lbs PLF but scaled back not to push it after the incident in Québec. IIRC the Manhattan Bridge is the neighborhood of 12-16,000 lbs PLF so there probably on par with each other. Looking at the bridges compared I think @RR503 point on space is also a fair assessment The QBB is definitely more cramped with all the inner truss work.  Fair point on the Manhattan connection problem as well.   

[RR503]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

That being said, even if you were to use those el tracks, the tricky thing would be where to connect them on the Manhattan Side. The 2nd Av El is gone, and the BMT is in the way of the underground space.

In this fantasy world, you'd probably use the old tram tracks to facilitate the underground transition. Then you run under 59 (BMT is under 60 to 5th) to, say, Madison and jog down 57, which you follow over to 10th. 

Edited August 12, 2018 by RR503

[RailRunRob]

2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

In this fantasy world, you'd probably use the old tram tracks to facilitate the underground transition. Then you run under 59 (BMT is under 60 to 5th) to, say, Madison and jog down 57, which you follow over to 10th. 

Right they had a loop on the Manhattan side didn't even think about that. Was that underground like the Willy B?

[RR503]

11 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Right they had a loop on the Manhattan side didn't even think about that. Was that underground like the Willy B?

Yup! See here:

http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/qborobr.html

[ABOGbrooklyn]

On 8/10/2018 at 4:38 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

Here is an idea on how take congestion off the B82, allowing for it to be split or cut back, and also potentially alleviating the need for SBS:

The  would be extended down 4th, but rather then head to Bay Ridge, it will split off from the  right after Bay Ridge Av and run under Bay Ridge Pkwy/Kings Hwy. 

(ignore the other yellow Cross-Brooklyn line, that is Triboro RX)

After splitting off from the  , the  would stop at 5th Av and Bay Ridge Pkwy, where a passageway will connect the new stop to 77th on the  . After this, the  will stop at Ft. Hamilton, 14th Av, New Utrecht Av (passageway to 79th St ), 19th Av and Bay Pkwy. From here, the line curves onto Kings Hwy, where it will run under the rest of the way. Stops at Kings Hwy  , McDonald Av  , Coney Island Av, 16th St  , Avenue P, Nostrand Av  , Flatbush Av, and Utica Av  . 

This line would be built using cut-and-cover and would consist of 2 tracks. 

 

Why would you make the stop at avenues like 14th ave and 19th Ave that are not popular avenues? Those stops would have low ridership, it should be 13th avenue and 18th avenue. Also a transfer from "5th avenue" to 77th street train station is wayy too long of a walk, that would be one avenue and 2 blocks just to connect with the (R), which is pretty unnecessary when Bay Ridge Ave is a more popular station anyway..

 

Also how are you making these maps? I would like to try it out myself.

Edited August 16, 2018 by ABOGbrooklyn

[LGA Link N Train]

I was doing some research yesterday and I found out that the  were the first one's to come up with the "Canal Flip" back when the  was still around, but the idea was scrapped in favor of a full length SAS. The idea according to Wikipedia and the source I linked below was:

125th Street - Bayridge/95th Street (via Second Avenue/Broadway Express/Montague and 4th Av local)

Unaltered (or 2010-2016 style)

a New to run from Forest Hills and Broadway Local via the Manhattan Bridge and to Bay Parkway according to the second link I sent below. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Second_Avenue_Subway

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556031848203;view=1up;seq=83 (pages 76-80)

I'll be honest, while I do like the concept of the Canal Flip and see a few operational benefits behind it. I do not like this proposal. It makes little sense to me. I'll do a full explanation on an experimental proposal involving the Canal Flip later.

[ABOGbrooklyn]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I was doing some research yesterday and I found out that the  were the first one's to come up with the "Canal Flip" back when the  was still around, but the idea was scrapped in favor of a full length SAS. The idea according to Wikipedia and the source I linked below was:

125th Street - Bayridge/95th Street (via Second Avenue/Broadway Express/Montague and 4th Av local)

Unaltered (or 2010-2016 style)

a New to run from Forest Hills and Broadway Local via the Manhattan Bridge and to Bay Parkway according to the second link I sent below. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Second_Avenue_Subway

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=ien.35556031848203;view=1up;seq=83 (pages 76-80)

I'll be honest, while I do like the concept of the Canal Flip and see a few operational benefits behind it. I do not like this proposal. It makes little sense to me. I'll do a full explanation on an experimental proposal involving the Canal Flip later.

I would be so pissed if the ran local again in Manhattan..

[Yeti]

14 hours ago, ABOGbrooklyn said:

Why would you make the stop at avenues like 14th ave and 19th Ave that are not popular avenues? Those stops would have low ridership, it should be 13th avenue and 18th avenue. Also a transfer from "5th avenue" to 77th street train station is wayy too long of a walk, that would be one avenue and 2 blocks just to connect with the (R), which is pretty unnecessary when Bay Ridge Ave is a more popular station anyway..

 

Also how are you making these maps? I would like to try it out myself.

To make the maps go to jpwright.net/subway . It's a "game" that allows you to plan your own Subway.