Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Disagree with a good bit of what's here.

The bypass concept only works because of the presence of those two extra trackways along the LIRR; if it weren't for the ease of building in them, we'd be better off relieving QB by hitting demand centers that feed the corridor rather than duplicating the corridor itself. Even with their presence, there's certainly an argument to be made that we shouldn't build in them, one to which I don't subscribe, but one that is present and justifiable nonetheless.

At any rate, using the bypass for the RBB is a pretty objectively poor idea. The Rockaways already have the potential for good core-bound service via the Fulton corridor with the extension of the (C) to Lefferts or the construction of a Whitehall-Hoyt Schermerhorn tunnel, whereas the entirety of Eastern Queens has only the QB corridor to serve its future subway needs. There's certainly a crosstown market to be had on the RBB, but I've yet to see an analysis that demonstrates it is of a size that warrants (expensive) subway construction, and that the provision of a subway on that corridor won't significantly affect QB's ability to provide capacity to those as of yet unserved areas of Queens. 

I do not understand your other two proposals, either. Sending a subway down the Van Wyck is frankly a waste of precious capacity, given that such a line would miss Jamaica itself and would duplicate an existing service (AirTrain, to which stops could easily be added). If you want to serve that area of Queens better, why don't we try buying/adding stops to AirTrain? Or developing a LRT/BRT network for the area? 

To the bypass proposal, running it under QB is a waste given the presence of space along LIRR/the difficulty of underpinning existing subways. I also fail to see the reasoning behind extending the (R) beyond Forest Hills (literally zero benefit, especially given the ease of tying the bypass into the local tracks beyond Forest Hills). 

As for what I think we should do to Queens, efforts must begin with leveraging existing capacity to the greatest extent possible. That means reforming terminal ops at Forest Hills, rebuilding the Astoria terminal, building a 63-59 passage, reworking the Williamsburg Bridge, grade separating Myrtle, and deinterlining. When the dust settles, we'd end up with:

- (F)(M) via QB express, 63, 6th local to Parsons/179

- (E)(K) via QB local, 53, 8th (local or express; both have their merits) to Forest Hills

- (R) via Broadway local, 60th to Astoria

- (M), run at 15tph, to Metropolitan

- (J), also run at 15tph, to Jamaica, with half of all trains running express from Marcy to Broadway Junction and the other half full local (skip stop would be eliminated). 

- All (A) trains to Far Rockaway, save from some rush hour trips from Lefferts/Rock Park

- (C) extended to Lefferts

In the medium term, a Whitehall-Fulton local tunnel really should be looked at. As proposals go, it's a really simple way of solving the Lefferts/Rockaways issue while providing better O/D opportunities and capacity on the Fulton corridor itself. 

After that, we plan true expansions. Lower SAS is the most immediate means of providing more capacity to Queens and needs to be reworked anyway, so we'd start there. Assuming we're keeping SAS at 2 tracks, we'd need to maintain connectivity with upper SAS, so you'd run it either to a 72 lower level or over onto 3rd where it could hit Lex-63, and then to Queens. There, it could become the Bypass, which you could branch to send 15tph to the LIE or some other East-Central Queens corridor, and 15tph via QB local from Forest Hills to the east. 

And after that, it's anyone's guess. (L) via 10th/Northern? (L) via 10th/Astoria Boulevard? 50th St Crosstown to NJ? 

 

I presume you now have the (M) at 15 to allow for even merges with the (J). You had proposed an 8/16 split. What would you do if express service were implemented?

Do you plan on an express stop at 36th?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I do not understand your other two proposals, either. Sending a subway down the Van Wyck is frankly a waste of precious capacity, given that such a line would miss Jamaica itself and would duplicate an existing service (AirTrain, to which stops could easily be added). If you want to serve that area of Queens better, why don't we try buying/adding stops to AirTrain? Or developing a LRT/BRT network for the area? 

IIRC, the complicated thing about this is that the Port Authority funded the AirTrain construction using airline passenger ticket fees, which according to the FAA can only be used for aviation related purposes. It's why American airport people movers tend not to have intermediate stops useful for people other than airport travelers, and was a factor in why the original crazy Airtrain proposal (JFK - Jamaica - LGA - Midtown via QB) did not happen. I have no idea what kind of legal maneuvering you'd need to buy the AirTrain and make it useful for commuters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I presume you now have the (M) at 15 to allow for even merges with the (J). You had proposed an 8/16 split. What would you do if express service were implemented?

Do you plan on an express stop at 36th?

Yes, the idea was even merges. It’d be possible to do 8/16 or 10/20, but induced demand will only get you so far with the (J) — on some level you’re gonna have to deal with (M) crowding. Very much on the fence on this one though... 

If (J) express were to be implemented before the bridge capacity issue got fixed, I’d run 8/16 or 12/12 depending on whether or not projections show (M) at 8 causing issues on the (M) or at the (J)’s Manhattan stops (which need a thorough rebuild, if I may say so). 

I would not have an express stop at 36. You end up penalizing riders timewise, but given Queens’ capacity issues with current infrastructure, making sure that available space is being used to the fullest takes precedent over time concerns imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bobtehpanda said:

IIRC, the complicated thing about this is that the Port Authority funded the AirTrain construction using airline passenger ticket fees, which according to the FAA can only be used for aviation related purposes. It's why American airport people movers tend not to have intermediate stops useful for people other than airport travelers, and was a factor in why the original crazy Airtrain proposal (JFK - Jamaica - LGA - Midtown via QB) did not happen. I have no idea what kind of legal maneuvering you'd need to buy the AirTrain and make it useful for commuters.

IINM it was financed with bonds backed by that revenue, which means that buying it legally is a relatively simple matter of retiring those bonds. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me the only benefit of the LGA to Citi Field is that it allows for a (R) / (W) extension later; here is a proposal:

The Astoria line would be extended to Willets Point via 31st St, 19th Av, a tunnel under LGA to the GCP and then a portal to the Airtrain ROW. Stops at:

Steinway Street- Ditmars

LGA Terminal A

LGA Terminal B

LGA Terminal C/D

portal in GCP median 

Willets Pt (7) 

This extension would give a connection to LGA and give immense relief to the (7) . However, a new service pattern would be adopted:

(N)(Q) 125th/96th - CI

(R) Willets - Bay Ridge

(W) Willets - 86th

(E) unchanged

(F) express past FHills

(K) FHills - WTC via QBL local, 53rd and 8th local

(M) extended to 179; rerouted via 63rd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ignore; posted before ready. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Has there even been a plan to add a new SB platform at Aqueduct Racetrack? It would be great if they could chop down the trees to the west of the ROW and build a SB side platform; you could easily add new exits at Pitkin Av for both platforms (ADA ramps if possible) and a 135th Drive on for the SB one... you could maybe add a station booth by the NB platform as well and link the two platforms with an overpass.

You could also just build over the express tracks but you wouldn't be able to add new exits under that plan.

Edited by R68OnBroadway

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I know I shouldn't feed trolls, but there's some masochistic part of me that can't let this level of illogicality float by....so here goes. I pinky swear I won't engage further. 

-LIRR: we're not touching LIRR infrastructure beyond using two trackways along their main line. No track connections would be built. Think: Orange Line in Boston. 

-The (A) does a terrible job at serving the Rockaways/Lefferts. 20 min headways are unacceptable, and actually play a big role in inducing low ridership on the (A)'s branches -- not just in the Rockaways, but also to/from JFK and Lefferts. So yes, Lefferts would lose express service in the off peak under the (C) plan, but the gain in headway (10 mins vs 16 mins) alone outweighs the trip time impact (+5mins) and that's before you account for the fact that Lefferts (C) riders could transfer to the (A) anywhere. 

-Yes, the (R) once served 179. The (1) also once ran express on Broadway, the (J) to the Brighton Line, and the (G) to Forest Hills. Does the past existence of any of these service permutations mean we should replicate them today? Abso-f*cking-lutely not. A proposal needs to be made on merit, not on precedent. And here, there is simply no merit -- as the precedent shows. The (R) was cut back from 179 not as part of some evil scheme, but because its extension to that stop was deemed to be negative for riders. (F) via local from 75-179 means all those local stops in between get direct express service to Manhattan, whereas with the (R) they're forced to suffer transfers and related waits. So sure, 179 has to suffer an extra 2 mins of runtime, but 169, Supthin, Briarwood and 75th all get halfway decent service, which is good not just from a rider perspective, but also from an operational one -- encouraging use of all stations equally means less crowding at express stations. 

-This notion of train 'belonging' somewhere or another is adorable...and wrong. I'll grant you that lines that don't look like Us or Os or Cs are good in that they facilitate commutes through the core, but to privilege the needs of the few who actually make those commutes over the volume of (M) line passengers who want to go to Midtown is, at best, indicative of misguidedness. 

-Using existing conditions to argue against a proposal that seeks to change said conditions is quite the circularity. Put less verbosely, the whole idea of the (E) via local proposal is that you're spreading loads. People like expresses better, yes, but they also like 53 better. So you get a choice -- local via 53, or express via 63. Thus, in making the choice between express and local one of destination as well as one of speed, you affect in increase in real capacity, as people now have a reason to stay on/take the local.

As to the (K), the point isn't that it's called the (K), it's that we have a new service from 8th Ave to 53 to Queens. You can call it the (AA) for all I care. 

-Ditto here. You call it whatever you want; the salient point is that we're running all Broadway local trains to Astoria (and all expresses to 96). 

-The (M) is at >90% guideline over the Williamsburg Bridge, and is really the only thing standing between the (L) and utter pandemonium. 15tph is absolutely a justifiable service level. I'd strongly recommend 9 car trains, too. 

-Don't even begin to understand what you're saying about the (J)(Z), so I'm just gonna go ahead and rehash my logic. The thought is this: the (J)(Z) (especially beyond Broadway Jct) run through some of the most underdeveloped land in NYC, land which could play a big role in solving some of this city's housing issues if it had halfway decent transit. Killing skip stop is a great start; running an express to Manhattan at some operable/tangible frequency makes it even more attractive. 

-God forbid we run frequent transit! The Rockaway peninsula is, first of all, not the only thing on the Rockaway branch of the (A), and second is absolutely in need of more/better service. To the first point, JFK could be a not insignificant ridership generator for the (A), but with the bare bones service run today, people trying to catch flights are not going to subject themselves to 20 mins of schedule variability unless they're truly at leisure. To the second: there is a not-insignificant demographic that today uses the Q52/53 to get on/off the peninsula instead of the (A) because one simply cannot rely on the (A) to come, which is poor use of resources, and affects a loss in rider time. More (A) to Far Rockaway kills these two birds with one stone. 

-(A) to Rosedale is a poor idea for several reasons. First, building els over local roads just won't fly these days. Second, giving people the less direct route to Midtown via an extension of an already long route strikes me as nonsensical, especially given that (third) you have capacity that can easily be pulled down to Rosedale in the form of the (E). If you want Lower Manhattan, get the (J) at Archer, or ride through on the (E)

-Brooklyn SAS should go via Bridge to BMT South. SAS and Fulton already suffer from a lack of transfers; SAS to Fulton would just preserve the existing issue. SAS via Bridge, conversely, gets it all the transfers available at Barclays, gives the (4)(5) reliever the best route from Brooklyn to Manhattan, and gives Fulton a train that gives it a good link with the BMT/areas along Broadway. 

-I'm congesting Manhattan...? More core capacity means less crowding, better coverage, and more capacity with which we can build in the outer boroughs. I want to stress, too, that Manhattan isn't fully covered -- the far west side, which is today completely reliant on the already-stressed (7), needs a second line to serve the development slated. It seems you're pushing circumferentials, which I think is an honorable goal, just not one that should come at the expense of core build out. 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Has there even been a plan to add a new SB platform at Aqueduct Racetrack? It would be great if they could chop down the trees to the west of the ROW and build a SB side platform; you could easily add new exits at Pitkin Av for both platforms (ADA ramps if possible) and a 135th Drive on for the SB one... you could maybe add a station booth by the NB platform as well and link the two platforms with an overpass.

You could also just build over the express tracks but you wouldn't be able to add new exits under that plan.

The southbound platform at North conduit at the north end has an exit only a few ft away from the racetrack station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to notice a trend here and that is the troll (while also living in his own fantasy world) is incapable of considering future ridership trends when making his proposals.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

It's only coverage. Southeast Queens does not need HIGH FREQUENCY Subway service. The (A) happens to run every 8 to 12 minutes at Peak Hours and every 15 to 25 minutes at Off Peak Hours on the Lefferts Blvd Branch.

You have got to be kidding me...

The Lefferts branch has the density to potentially require <10 minute headways and you're telling me that 15-25 off peak is fine?

Induced demand works both ways...

In the same way that more frequent service encourages more ridership, less frequent service encourages people to find other more convenient ways of travel and this is why the subway is losing ridership.

These are people who could take the train (and probably want to take the train) but because of the idiotic schedule have to find other alternatives that fit their needs and you think that's fine.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

I'm starting to notice a trend here and that is the troll (while also living in his own fantasy world) is incapable of considering future ridership trends when making his proposals.

I was only proposing these as "nice-to-have" proposals, never really meant these to be too serious...

Edited by R68OnBroadway
spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, R68OnBroadway said:

I was only proposing this as "nice-to-have" proposals, never really meant these to be too serious...

You're not the troll, Mr Wells is.

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About Aqueduct: I would love to see at least some of the racetrack/related parking made into housing, which could provide impetus for changing the station layout in the area. There’s so much potential...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RR503 said:

About Aqueduct: I would love to see at least some of the racetrack/related parking made into housing, which could provide impetus for changing the station layout in the area. There’s so much potential...

That was one thing I was looking to do in the SB platform proposal; I'd like to see the parking lots by N. Conduit be used as housing and trying to upzone some other areas nearby (having the racetrack stop be two way and maybe even moving the platforms a bit further north to Linden might help spur this). 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Has there even been a plan to add a new SB platform at Aqueduct Racetrack? It would be great if they could chop down the trees to the west of the ROW and build a SB side platform; you could easily add new exits at Pitkin Av for both platforms (ADA ramps if possible) and a 135th Drive on for the SB one... you could maybe add a station booth by the NB platform as well and link the two platforms with an overpass.

You could also just build over the express tracks but you wouldn't be able to add new exits under that plan.

yeah... not the best idea 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Maxwell179 said:

yeah... not the best idea 

Chopping down a few trees wont make climate change effects come any sooner frankly. It's a minuscule trade-off for a proposal with theoretical potential to work. 

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

About Aqueduct: I would love to see at least some of the racetrack/related parking made into housing, which could provide impetus for changing the station layout in the area. There’s so much potential...

Frankly there's a lot of areas around the system with TOD potential...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-You gotta love a guy who cites service levels in the 1980s to prove that we don't need as much off-peak service. Let's just say that I suggest you do some reading on the system's history.

Generally though, serving the off peak is in some ways more important than the peak. The off peak has actually contributed over 100% of ridership growth over the past three or so decades, and it's during that time period that transit faces the stiffest competition from cars. So yeah, we shouldn't run trains every 5 to 12 mins, we should run all of them every 5-6.

To the point of cost: cost scales largely with crews (so whether a train is less than or greater than 300') not so much with consist length within those ranges. Even still, the marginal cost of adding new service -- especially after you account for marginal ridership increases, which the MTA does not do today -- is actually quite low. To give some perspective, the entire Canarsie subway service plan was to cost a net of 27 million or so. So yeah, this'll cost some money, but it isn't like the MTA can't find 30-50 mil in its 16 billion dollar ops budget...  

-I'd suggest you look at real world travel patterns before making claims about rider behavior. I'm sure some people do what you say, but if you look at LEHD data, the top ten work destination zip codes for private sector workers in SE Queens are:

CtUNSZT.png

...which basically means that priority 1 for SE Queens should be Midtown/LIC. 

Now, we should absolutely be sensitive to non-plurality commuters, but those commutes should be the realm of transfers, not purpose-built expansions. (E) to (J), (E) to (G) or (E) to some future RX gets you a lot of Brooklyn, Central Queens and Lower Manhattan with ease, while (E) to various buses gets you most of the rest of Queens. 

Just a quick aside: my inner pedant compels me to provide you with some links where you can actually analyze these things for yourself. I'd try here:

https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ (be careful of data on Downtown Brooklyn; it seems DOE reported all their jobs in one place) 

and here:

http://data5.ctpp.transportation.org/ctpp1216/

This latter program is a LOT harder to use (take the time to watch a tutorial before you attempt) but is extremely powerful, in that it can give you granular modeshares and the like. 

-Rockaways: so, what you're saying is that we should forgo making a 10 million dollar improvement so we can make a five billion dollar one? There are arguments to be made for the RBB, but this ain't it. 

-I once again love the concern for non-conventional commutes, but to plan subway extensions around the 55 people that commute between Rosedale and Bensonhurst daily seems...odd. Yeah, we should allow for that sort of thing, but not at the expense of the plurality flow -- especially not when something like the RX could do a better job facilitating that sort of trip than some jury-rigged solution with the (A) (the (A), btw, does not connect with any line that goes to Bensonhurst until W4 St -- just some food for thought). (E) to Rosedale follows an existing corridor and has the benefit of innately hitting a big work destination for Rosedale residents (Jamaica). This seems like a no brainer to me. 

-Manhattan needs capacity. Variety is great, but let's return to cabbage: would you rather have 8 types of shitty cabbage or 2 or 3 types of really good cabbage? This, of course, is to say that modal diversity does not change the basic equation of transit quality, one which, in Manhattan, is largely driven by our (in)ability to get people to the core. So sure, LRT on some crosstown corridors would be great, but to propose that in the place of subway expansions whose reach and potential benefit is magnitudes larger than LRT misses the whole point of planning. 

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, RR503 said:

-Manhattan needs capacity. Variety is great, but let's return to cabbage: would you rather have 8 types of shitty cabbage or 2 or 3 types of really good cabbage? This, of course, is to say that modal diversity does not change the basic equation of transit quality, one which, in Manhattan, is largely driven by our (in)ability to get people to the core. So sure, LRT on some crosstown corridors would be great, but to propose that in the place of subway expansions whose reach and potential benefit is magnitudes larger than LRT misses the whole point of planning. 

BINGO! I was trying to find a good way of saying this, but you've got it. 

The only scenario where Light Rail makes sense in Manhattan is where we replace the crosstowns on 14th, 23rd, 34th and 42nd, maybe 57th too and maybe the M15 on 1st and 2nd. It doesn't really make sense elsewhere and it definitely shouldn't be in lieu of a subway corridor which can carry an order of magnitude people more.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

The only scenario where Light Rail makes sense in Manhattan is where we replace the crosstowns on 14th, 23rd, 34th and 42nd, maybe 57th too and maybe the M15 on 1st and 2nd. It doesn't really make sense elsewhere and it definitely shouldn't be in lieu of a subway corridor which can carry an order of magnitude people more.

Agree, though I don't think LRT buildout on 1 and 2 should be in place of real SAS.

Another thing that the trolley foamer in me would like to see looked at is putting LRT on the bridges that once carried els but are today not strong enough/well positioned for subways -- so the Queensboro and the Brooklyn. I'd imagine that a Fulton St-Brooklyn Bridge-Atlantic Ave-Red Hook or Bridge-Tillary-Flushing route would be pretty successful.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'd imagine that a Fulton St-Brooklyn Bridge-Atlantic Ave-Red Hook or Bridge-Tillary-Flushing route would be pretty successful.

Hmm, I like this...

I'll have to play around with this idea a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 9/12/2018 at 6:35 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

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

Screen Shot 2018-09-12 at 6.10.05 PM

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 (W) would be connected to Fulton and be the Fulton local, allowing the (C) to run express. 

Stops from Euclid:

Euclid Avenue (A)(C)(R) 

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

80th St (R) 

88th St (R) 

( (A) tracks diverge shortly after here)

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

108th-111th Streets (R) 

Lefferts Blvd (C)(R) 

130th St (R) 

109th Avenue-Van Wyck (R) 

Sutphin Blvd (R) 

Guy R. Brewer Blvd (C)(R) 

Merrick Blvd (C)(R) 

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

Farmers Blvd (R) 

Springfield Blvd-Cambria Heights (C)(R) 

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 (A) and (C)(R)  platforms like that at Lex/59th for the (6) and (4)(5) . 

(under this plan some other changes would take effect)

(A) service split between RPK and Far Rockaway; racetrack stop relocated to be between Pitkin and Linden (would also be rebuilt for both directions)

(C) express south of 50th or 59th

(E) 179th-WTC via QBL/8th local and 53rd

(F) express past Hillside; express on northern Culver (Bergen lower would be reopened and an underpass installed so (G) riders can make an easy transfer to the NB (F) )

(V) Jamaica Center - either Church Av or a new stop in the Church Av yard; via QBL express, 63rd, 6th local and Culver local

(G) extended to 18th Av; gets 8 cars

(J) / (Z) cut back to Chambers (use middle tracks after Essex) ; tracks configured so trains now bypass Marcy during peak 

(brownM) Metro- Bay Ridge (uses outer tracks past Essex

(N) Fordham Plaza- CI via 3rd in Bronx, 2nd in Manhattan and so on

(Q) 125th/St Nicholas - CI via 125th, 2nd and so on

(R) LGA- Cambria Heights

(W) eliminated

(T) 72nd  (on a new lower level) - Tottenville 

 

 

Edited by R68OnBroadway
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

(under this plan some other changes would take effect)

(A) service split between RPK and Far Rockaway; racetrack stop relocated to be between Pitkin and Linden (would also be rebuilt for both directions)

(C) express south of 50th or 59th

(E) 179th-WTC via QBL/8th local and 53rd

(F) express past Hillside; express on northern Culver (Bergen lower would be reopened and an underpass installed so (G) riders can make an easy transfer to the NB (F) )

(V) Jamaica Center - either Church Av or a new stop in the Church Av yard; via QBL express, 63rd, 6th local and Culver local

(G) extended to 18th Av; gets 8 cars

(J) / (Z) cut back to Chambers (use middle tracks after Essex) ; tracks configured so trains now bypass Marcy during peak 

(brownM) Metro- Bay Ridge (uses outer tracks past Essex

(N) Fordham Plaza- CI via 3rd in Bronx, 2nd in Manhattan and so on

(Q) 125th/St Nicholas - CI via 125th, 2nd and so on

(R) LGA- Cambria Heights

(W) eliminated

(T) 72nd  (on a new lower level) - Tottenville 

 

 

I like the idea but Second Ave should maintain good connections with other routes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.