Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[KK 6 Ave Local]

The RPA is proposing a T-REX (Trans-Regional Express) service and an idea I'm putting into consideration is their Metro:

http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Trans-Regional-Express-T-REX.pdf 

(page 39-41)

Not saying i support it or not.

[LGA Link N Train]

18 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

The RPA is proposing a T-REX (Trans-Regional Express) service and an idea I'm putting into consideration is their Metro:

http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Trans-Regional-Express-T-REX.pdf 

(page 39-41)

Not saying i support it or not.

This would be more accurate for the MTA Railroads and NJT forums. I'm not entirely in support of it but at the same time, I'm not against it. Though to admit, part of it just looks like pure fantasy that won't help many people

[KK 6 Ave Local]

3 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

This would be more accurate for the MTA Railroads and NJT forums. I'm not entirely in support of it but at the same time, I'm not against it. Though to admit, part of it just looks like pure fantasy that won't help many people

Yeah, it's a bit of a pipe dream. But hey, maybe corporate interests will be taken over by useful spending of the region's hard-earned money (Conrail Conrail Conrail Conrail (The thru-running part at least.)

I think it could go in either forum so i chose the more popular one.

Edited August 31, 2018 by KK 6 Ave Local

[R68OnBroadway]

Since we are discussing the BQX and how little it will do (only transit desert it will serve is Red Hook), I decided to come up a some proposals for subways to Red Hook:

 train option: The  is revived for a Red Hook line, which would start by branching off the  after Rector. The line would then run under the harbor to Wolcott/Ferris with an intermediate stop at Governor's Island (which would be located right under Fort Jay/Parade ground, with an exit at the Comfort/Clayton/King triangle). Line would run under Wolcott/Lorraine with stops at Van Brunt and Clinton. After Clinton, the tracks would cross the Gowanus and run under 11th Street to 4th-9th Street, where it would terminate and have a passageway to 4th-9th.

 option:  /  Broad layup tracks are extended under the Montague leads to then run under the harbor. Train would follow the same routing as the  option, but it would have a physical track connection to Culver (if possible) for a potential later extension or for easier transfer of equipment between ENY and CI.

Montague jughandle:   branches off Montague to run under Henry Street to Red Hook. Stops at Atlantic Av, and Union St. After Union the line will curve over to run under Columbia St, with s stop at Hamilton. Tracks will curve onto Lorraine shortly before where it intersects Columbia, with a stop at Henry/Lorraine. After this, the line will follow Lorraine and then 13th until 4th, where it will curve onto 4th with Prospect becoming a 6-track local station. Switches after the station will allow the tracks to merge for the  to continue south.

Thoughts on which is best?

 

 

 

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

21 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Since we are discussing the BQX and how little it will do (only transit desert it will serve is Red Hook), I decided to come up a some proposals for subways to Red Hook:

 train option: The  is revived for a Red Hook line, which would start by branching off the  after Rector. The line would then run under the harbor to Wolcott/Ferris with an intermediate stop at Governor's Island (which would be located right under Fort Jay/Parade ground, with an exit at the Comfort/Clayton/King triangle). Line would run under Wolcott/Lorraine with stops at Van Brunt and Clinton. After Clinton, the tracks would cross the Gowanus and run under 11th Street to 4th-9th Street, where it would terminate and have a passageway to 4th-9th.

 option:  /  Broad layup tracks are extended under the Montague leads to then run under the harbor. Train would follow the same routing as the  option, but it would have a physical track connection to Culver (if possible) for a potential later extension or for easier transfer of equipment between ENY and CI.

Montague jughandle:   branches off Montague to run under Henry Street to Red Hook. Stops at Atlantic Av, and Union St. After Union the line will curve over to run under Columbia St, with s stop at Hamilton. Tracks will curve onto Lorraine shortly before where it intersects Columbia, with a stop at Henry/Lorraine. After this, the line will follow Lorraine and then 13th until 4th, where it will curve onto 4th with Prospect becoming a 6-track local station. Switches after the station will allow the tracks to merge for the  to continue south.

Thoughts on which is best?

Not sure how many people would benefit from a  revival considering little people did under it's latest configuration, not to mention being A division. The  extension seems not too bad in my opinion, though I do question the need for a Culver connection on those lines, the trains also don't go to Midtown either and only serve Lower Manhattan. The  extension seems the most logical for this reason in my opinion (even if it's local), so long as it's main terminus is extended from Whitehall to Red Hook.

Edited September 1, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I think the  would be the easiest to construct thanks to the existing provisions at Whitehall originally intended for a tunnel to Atlantic Avenue (the ones @RR503 suggested for connecting the  to the Fulton St IND). If they eliminate the  switching from express to local after 34th St, then any issue with frequency would be eliminated. Right now, a  service would have better frequency, but it would be harder to construct, even if the connection is made at Rector. The  is too far north and it would have to weave around the other lines in the South Ferry area as well as the connecting tracks from Broad St to the Montague Tunnel. The only issue with the  would be a yard. But if the  is given space for a storage yard in Sunset Park, it can go to Astoria and the  can then take the ’s place in Queens.

Edited September 1, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

22 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Since we are discussing the BQX and how little it will do (only transit desert it will serve is Red Hook), I decided to come up a some proposals for subways to Red Hook:

 train option: The  is revived for a Red Hook line, which would start by branching off the  after Rector. The line would then run under the harbor to Wolcott/Ferris with an intermediate stop at Governor's Island (which would be located right under Fort Jay/Parade ground, with an exit at the Comfort/Clayton/King triangle). Line would run under Wolcott/Lorraine with stops at Van Brunt and Clinton. After Clinton, the tracks would cross the Gowanus and run under 11th Street to 4th-9th Street, where it would terminate and have a passageway to 4th-9th.

 option:  /  Broad layup tracks are extended under the Montague leads to then run under the harbor. Train would follow the same routing as the  option, but it would have a physical track connection to Culver (if possible) for a potential later extension or for easier transfer of equipment between ENY and CI.

Montague jughandle:   branches off Montague to run under Henry Street to Red Hook. Stops at Atlantic Av, and Union St. After Union the line will curve over to run under Columbia St, with s stop at Hamilton. Tracks will curve onto Lorraine shortly before where it intersects Columbia, with a stop at Henry/Lorraine. After this, the line will follow Lorraine and then 13th until 4th, where it will curve onto 4th with Prospect becoming a 6-track local station. Switches after the station will allow the tracks to merge for the  to continue south.

Thoughts on which is best?

 

 

 

These are all interesting ideas and I especially like the and one. The exentsion to Red hook in my opinion might require some alteration to another part of the subway (Canal Street came into mind as my first thought). The option to me is unnecessary and not feasible whatsoever. And I over all don't see a benefit on extending that line. As for the BQX itself, Red Hook and Navy Yard are the only "exceptions" or "saving grace" to this proposal in my opinion since they're Transit Deserts. 

My overall opinion is to just leave Red Hook alone when it comes to subways but give that area better bus service. I remember one committee where one guest advocated for the return of the B71. 

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

8 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

My overall opinion is to just leave Red Hook alone when it comes to subways but give that area better bus service. I remember one committee where one guest advocated for the return of the B71. 

Not a bad idea either, considering the price and lack of funding for such a subway expansion. The B71 definitely needs to come back, and it would be a good idea especially if it was rerouted to Lower Manhattan. The BQX is too pricey and useless for where it serves in my opinion to where both subway and bus are more viable options. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by NoHacksJustKhaks

[RR503]

I think I'm with LGA on this one -- a subway to Red Hook is unjustifiable. The entire neighborhood has a population of about 35,000 -- hardly a blip by NYC standards -- and moreover lies in a flood zone, raising the important question of whether it is wise to induce demand in the area. I think the only reason that it's getting so much attention is because all the white yuppie types are moving there, creating the appearance that it has non-negligible population while inputting a population generally afraid of buses. I think the best solution for the area would either be enhanced bus service (B71+, bus lanes/stop rationalization/TSP/better left turns on Atlantic for the 61, splitting the 57) or a shuttle streetcar to Downtown Bk or the Navy Yard (the latter via the former area). 

The only factor that would make a subway to RH even mildly defensible in my eyes would be if you could recapture a BMT South Brooklyn corridor (say, West End) with its capacity. As we all know, the amount of branching involved in 4th Ave makes it unreliable, to say nothing of crowded. So while I don't think its branches merit new Manhattan-bound connections nearly as much as other Brooklyn (or, hell, Queens/Bx) corridors, it's certainly a fun idea to think about. 

If one were to build such a line, though, I would actually opt for the  connection. The Whitehall provisions are far too valuable for Fulton's future function -- especially given the growth projected along the line -- so I'd be loath to waste them on a neighborhood whose population is 1/8 corridor ridership.  is indeed tempting, but alas its relays run too shallow to make it under the river -- leaving us with the . Yes, the  isn't provisioned, but I have no problem (in this fantasy world) with abandoning the SF terminal and using its track connections to dive deep enough to clear the river. Then you're off to Red Hook and beyond, I guess... 

[MysteriousBtrain]

I wonder how the IND World's fair would work today? Elevated between Jamaica Yard and Jewel Av (above Van Wyck exp; the former line was originally on Van Wyck ROW) then at-grade when reaching the World's Fair Station which I would rename Corona-Horace Harding. Would be a great way to keep service in Queens.

Edited September 2, 2018 by MysteriousBtrain

[EphraimB]

Here is my 2058 Subway Map:

[Wallyhorse]

8 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

Here is my 2058 Subway Map:

Your train has two very long crossings to Staten Island and then to Brooklyn.  That part might not be feasible.

If you could somehow have another of the B division lines come south then it might be more season to do that connection to Rockaway Park that I do like.

 

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

The  to Reads wasn't enough?

Edited September 6, 2018 by BM5 via Woodhaven

[CenSin]

11 hours ago, EphraimB said:

Here is my 2058 Subway Map:

This is a 🖕 to Staten Island. Sending a trunk to Staten Island and then pulling capacity from it to be diverted to Brooklyn after 4 stops? Why?!

[Coney Island Av]

17 hours ago, EphraimB said:

Here is my 2058 Subway Map:

I see a pattern with trains swimming under the ocean here...

[LGA Link N Train]

@EphraimB you could've simply used the Rockaway Beach Branch for your . It would be cheaper and more cost effective in this particular case. 

I'd also suggest to make some adjustments to some of your other routes

Also, I'd suggest to update your map. The one you use is outdated 

Edited September 6, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[LGA Link N Train]

I remember seeing a fact that the Broadway line was supposed to be a trunk line north of 57th and up to Washington Heights to compete with CPW. Even though that proposal never came to pass for obvious reasons, would some type of trunk to Lexington Avenue - 63rd Street be possible, leaving Astoria to be truly a branch? (I known this idea wouldn't be great). The service pattern would be: 

-express tracks via SAS

- Local tracks via 63rd

- Astoria Branch

- via 53rd

SAS - via 63Rd only 

(Queens Plaza rebuilt to terminate  trains or connect to a new route or something else) 

57th Street is closed and maybe turned into a Transit Museum 

Note: this doesn't include deinterlining. 

[Yeti]

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I remember seeing a fact that the Broadway line was supposed to be a trunk line north of 57th and up to Washington Heights to compete with CPW. Even though that proposal never came to pass for obvious reasons, would some type of trunk to Lexington Avenue - 63rd Street be possible, leaving Astoria to be truly a branch? (I known this idea wouldn't be great). The service pattern would be: 

-express tracks via SAS

- Local tracks via 63rd

- Astoria Branch

- via 53rd

SAS - via 63Rd only 

(Queens Plaza rebuilt to terminate  trains or connect to a new route or something else) 

57th Street is closed and maybe turned into a Transit Museum 

Note: this doesn't include deinterlining. 

Would the 6 Av 57th Street station close it the Broadway Line station? If you could make a map or a visual representation it would be a little clearer. On that note: 

If you are proposing the 63rd Line have express service under the East River, then then everything around the tunnels must be checked for structural stability. Also, with the addition of service at Lex/63, capacity is more evenly distributed throughout the system dispite the close proximity and reverse-branching of the Broadway and 6 Av Lines. I don't think that the demand would be there, let alone spending all that money. 

Please note that I am still unclear of your specific outline for the new trunk. 

Just my opinion.

[LGA Link N Train]

5 minutes ago, Yeti said:

Would the 6 Av 57th Street station close it the Broadway Line station? If you could make a map or a visual representation it would be a little clearer. On that note: 

If you are proposing the 63rd Line have express service under the East River, then then everything around the tunnels must be checked for structural stability. Also, with the addition of service at Lex/63, capacity is more evenly distributed throughout the system dispite the close proximity and reverse-branching of the Broadway and 6 Av Lines. I don't think that the demand would be there, let alone spending all that money. 

Please note that I am still unclear of your specific outline for the new trunk. 

Just my opinion.

Oh (my bad for not being clear) I'm not making a new trunk, I'm just connecting the Broadway Local tracks to where the currently runs on 63rd Street. The stays the same. Obviously, there would need to be structural tests for this. 

I'm currently unable to give you a visual presentation, but to clarify a bit more. 57th St/6 Av currently served by the would be closed. 57th St/7th Av would not be altered in terms of service. My would be routed under 53rd with the and my would use this new tunnel connection to Lexington Avenue and continue via the 63rd Street tunnel, then continue local on QBL with a secondary SAS route (also on 63rd) 

As for the , that would play out as presented in Vanshnookenraggern's Future of the Second Avenue Subway article he did a little over a year ago. 

If there's one thing you're right about is that there would not be enough demand for something like this. I was just experimenting. 

 

 

[Yeti]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Oh (my bad for not being clear) I'm not making a new trunk, I'm just connecting the Broadway Local tracks to where the currently runs on 63rd Street. The stays the same. Obviously, there would need to be structural tests for this. 

I'm currently unable to give you a visual presentation, but to clarify a bit more. 57th St/6 Av currently served by the would be closed. 57th St/7th Av would not be altered in terms of service. My would be routed under 53rd with the and my would use this new tunnel connection to Lexington Avenue and continue via the 63rd Street tunnel, then continue local on QBL with a secondary SAS route (also on 63rd) 

As for the , that would play out as presented in Vanshnookenraggern's Future of the Second Avenue Subway article he did a little over a year ago. 

If there's one thing you're right about is that there would not be enough demand for something like this. I was just experimenting. 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification. It's an interesting idea.

 

[R68OnBroadway]

Modified version of my earlier proposal for a SE Queens line to Cambria Heights:

The Fulton Street line would be extended under the current Liberty Avenue El to Lefferts, where it would then continue to run down until the Van Wyck. At the Van Wyck the line would turn (I'd make it a gentler IND style one though) under the Van Wyck and then turn onto Linden Blvd, where it would continue to run all the way to Springfield Blvd. 

Note: The  would be connected to Fulton and be the Fulton local, allowing the  to run express. 

Stops from Euclid:

Euclid Avenue  

Grant-Glenmore Aves   (stop would be rebuilt as the Liberty El would be torn down)

80th St  

88th St  

(  tracks diverge shortly after here)

Cross Bay Blvd  -  and  stop on a lower level with a standard express-local design while the  stops on a separate upper level with an island platform. The  would now curve off and connect to the current Rockaway ROW from here.

108th-111th Streets  

Lefferts Blvd  

130th St  

109th Avenue-Van Wyck  

Sutphin Blvd  

Guy R. Brewer Blvd  

Merrick Blvd  

(I would look to combine these two stations into one if possible)

Farmers Blvd  

Springfield Blvd-Cambria Heights  

Construction:

The line would be built as a 4-tracked cut and cover line the entire route. All stations west of Lefferts or 130th would be 4-tracked on the same level (minus Cross Bay). East of here, the eastbound tracks will merge under the Manhattan-bound tracks, allowing for a CPW-style setup. 130th would have a design like 110th. Springfield Blvd would have a terminal setup like that of Crown Heights. 

Most local stations on the line will have small mezzanines at the center parts of the stations for free transfers between directions. Express stations would have longer mezzanines but ones the size of the ones at 14th/Canal/etc. Exceptions would be Merrick/Brewer, which would have a large full-length mezzanine if combined into one station, and Cross Bay which would have a full-length mezzanine between the  and  platforms like that at Lex/59th for the  and  . 

[RR503]

Bringing this discussion over from the 14th St thread...

@Around the Horn, here are the maps regarding what I think should be done on Nassau. 

What's here now:

What I'd do (includes  tunnel to Hoyt Scherm.). Red means new/reopened/realigned stuff. 

______________________

The only reason I wish to abandon the north platform is to kill that terribly sharp (and heavily timed) curve coming off the bridge. If we're building new stuff in the area, we might as well address one of its capacity constraints....

This map, of course, neglects to show other changes I'd make in the area. I would, for example, invest in new passageways and increased mezzanine space at Canal St., more/wider stairs to/from the  platform at Delancey, and a connection to the  at Grand from Bowery. 

Edited September 15, 2018 by RR503

[Union Tpke]

6 hours ago, RR503 said:

Bringing this discussion over from the 14th St thread...

@Around the Horn, here are the maps regarding what I think should be done on Nassau. 

What's here now:

What I'd do (includes  tunnel to Hoyt Scherm.). Red means new/reopened/realigned stuff. 

______________________

The only reason I wish to abandon the north platform is to kill that terribly sharp (and heavily timed) curve coming off the bridge. If we're building new stuff in the area, we might as well address one of its capacity constraints....

This map, of course, neglects to show other changes I'd make in the area. I would, for example, invest in new passageways and increased mezzanine space at Canal St., more/wider stairs to/from the  platform at Delancey, and a connection to the  at Grand from Bowery. 

Reopening entrances at these stops should be done as well. Great track plan!

[LGA Link N Train]

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

Bringing this discussion over from the 14th St thread...

@Around the Horn, here are the maps regarding what I think should be done on Nassau. 

What's here now:

What I'd do (includes  tunnel to Hoyt Scherm.). Red means new/reopened/realigned stuff. 

______________________

The only reason I wish to abandon the north platform is to kill that terribly sharp (and heavily timed) curve coming off the bridge. If we're building new stuff in the area, we might as well address one of its capacity constraints....

This map, of course, neglects to show other changes I'd make in the area. I would, for example, invest in new passageways and increased mezzanine space at Canal St., more/wider stairs to/from the  platform at Delancey, and a connection to the  at Grand from Bowery. 

I like your proposal, but there are a few things that I would've done differently. 

Essex Street: If I were you, I'd choose between 2 options for the westernmost track. 

1. Extend the side platform if feasible so that you could have an easier time extending the stairways that lead toward the platforms 

2. Keep that track open to allow the of the inner 2 tracks to be used as terminal tracks for a potential new route

For Bowery, you can potentially rebuild it from the ground up to allow it to be a true local station (middle island platform and the outer 2 tracks bypassing the station) but I can see why you didn't do that. 

The track layout at Chambers I think you shoul've rebuilt to allow full utilization for all four tracks between Bowery and Chambers. Is that feasible or no? If not, then you could extend the platform at Canal Street if feasible. 

I like how you showed the to Euclid extension and I'm an advocate for it! A few days ago, I was talking about it with some of my friends while coming home from school, but they didn't agree with it because it forces the closure of the NYTM, (in which they initially thought that a new tunnel would have to be built until I clarified to them that it wouldn't), so can you review the benefits of rerouting the to Euclid? 

Edited September 16, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra

[RR503]

4 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Reopening entrances at these stops should be done as well. Great track plan!

Completely agree. And thank you! It's part of a much larger map set I'm working on...

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I like your proposal, but there are a few things that I would've done differently. 

Essex Street: If I were you, I'd choose between 2 options for the westernmost track. 

 1. Extend the side platform if feasible so that you could have an easier time extending the stairways that lead toward the platforms 

 2. Keep that track open to allow the of the inner 2 tracks to be used as terminal tracks for a potential new route

Option 1 is honestly a good idea under this plan -- the lost cross platform transfer between Essex and Jamaica Line trains is recreated at Bowery. 

I would have preferred to keep the north track open if only for simplicity's sake, but as I said before, that curve entering Manhattan-bound is a not-insignificant capacity penalty. I'm sure it could be traversed faster than it is today, but I can't imagine it ever being done at more than 15. With all the growth along the , I think those sorts of incremental improvements are going to be crucial to the line's future function. 

The terminal ops side of things doesn't bother me too much. Remember that a train terminating at Essex from the south and one terminating at at Broad/Chambers from the north will have to share track or at least cross paths at some point. Thus, unless you plan a high-density shuttle from Chambers to Essex, that capacity would never be leveraged.

If I may make an addendum to my map, however, I'd add a double crossover between the two middle tracks somewhere between Canal and Essex to provide flexibility in the case something goes wrong at Essex middle, or its terminal function is needed for another service (eg: some shit goes down on 6th, requiring  service to be kept off there).  

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

The track layout at Chambers I think you shoul've rebuilt to allow full utilization for all four tracks between Bowery and Chambers. Is that feasible or no? If not, then you could extend the platform at Canal Street if feasible. 

I'm sure for some indeterminate sum of money you could do it, but I think this goes to my above point -- it doesn't gain you anything. Trains will have to share a track or switch at some point -- there's no way you'd ever be able to truly leverage the built capacity. 

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 I like how you showed the to Euclid extension and I'm an advocate for it! A few days ago, I was talking about it with some of my friends while coming home from school, but they didn't agree with it because it forces the closure of the NYTM, (in which they initially thought that a new tunnel would have to be built until I clarified to them that it wouldn't), so can you review the benefits of rerouting the to Euclid? 

I mean I think its just what I said when I initially proposed it -- it's a relatively simple way of leveraging the strengths of Nassau, Fulton and Broadway Local while deinterlining.

People from 4th Ave never stay on the  unless headed to Lower Manhattan, thus it seems a shame to use its ample Manhattan-bound capacity on the corridor. At the same time, despite the line's excellent coverage of Lower Manhattan destinations/transfers, Nassau's Brooklyn capability lies completely unused. And on the IND side, Fulton's potentially high throughput is constricted by its caveman-like design -- a reality increasingly aggravated by area growth. 

The proposal is, of course, to link Whitehall's provisions with Fulton Local via a new tunnel approximately under State St. Before your friends freak out, I highly doubt that it's possible -- even on a 3% grade -- to dive from the NYTM to a depth sufficient for a sub-aqueous crossing, so I'd imagine such a tunnel would tap into A1/A2 somewhere between NYTM and Hoyt-Scherm. The  would be rerouted through the tunnel, displacing the  onto the express tracks to Lefferts, while a new service from Essex St to Bay Ridge takes its place on 4th (along with, possibly,  service).

And there ya have it, 25-30 new tph into Brooklyn with no more merge at Schermerhorn. 

Beyond these capacital benefits, placing the  on Fulton would (finally) give 8th/Fulton riders convenient access to the BMT. Yes, transfers exist today at Jay and Chambers, but anyone who has traversed those passageways knows they are, frankly, hell. It's like that '80s song -- up, down, turn around, please don't let me hit the ground... 

Anyway, back the first time around, I did a time comparison between current alternatives to key Broadway line points and this expanded  service. I'm going to quote it here: 

On 6/16/2018 at 3:57 PM, RR503 said:

The current transfer at Jay is neither a level change nor simple, and the  platform at Jay is narrow enough to create harrowing crowding situations even in the off-peak. Moreover, a stopless tunnel from Hoyt to Whitehall -- Court is probably not deep enough to avoid eminent domaining a good number of houses beyond the end of Schermerhorn -- would in all likelihood make up for any time penalties caused by the 's serpentine route through Lower Manhattan, making it a competitive alternative for travelers going as far as Midtown. If we assume 5 minutes from Hoyt to Whitehall, and then current train speeds beyond there, the  would take:

-15 mins to Canal/Church, vs 13 via  

-18 mins to Union Square, vs 19 via  to  

-22 mins to Herald Square, vs 23 via  to  

-25 mins to Times Square, vs 22 via  

....

On a final note, moving the  to Euclid makes deinterlining the north end of Broadway (ie local to Astoria, express to 96) a hell of a lot easier. s would have access to Pitkin, while whatever we call this new Nassau/4th Local service would have access to ENY and all the excess trackage along Nassau. Kills the CI/36/reverse issue once and for all...