Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[R68OnBroadway]

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

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

In terms of 2nd connection I would have this: 

72nd  

55th  

42nd  

14th  

Houston  

Grand  ( connection to Bowery   ) 

A stop at south ferry would replace the Hanover Sq stop for more connections.

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Hmm, I like this...

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

On further consideration, I think the Red Hook idea is stronger. There's certainly a market to be served with the Flushing Ave thing, but without a big jog into Downtown Brooklyn, your first subway transfer after the  at Flushing would be City Hall. Maybe not the best for a line that serves the Navy Yard... 

That said, you could probably run 3 services on an integration of these two routes:

-A re-imagination of the B61 and 57, that would go from Red Hook via Columbia (or, hell, the BQE ROW now that that may be on the table) to Atlantic, Boerum or Court, Tillary, Navy, Flushing either as far as Jefferson  or, if we're really gonna go at it here, Grand Ave . 

-A Flushing-Manhattan route via the Brooklyn Bridge, Park Row, Broadway and then Fulton/Vesey (which I guess we'd pedestrianize...?) 

-A Red Hook-Manhattan route 

On the cost side, there was an interesting thread on twitter a few days ago about the Portland Streetcar's construction methods. Basically they used a shallower track slab and thus minimized the need for utility relocation. This brought costs way down -- 25 mil/mile. Whether this'd work with NYC's affinity for digging up streets constantly, I dunno, but certainly worth looking into. The thread:

 

[Harlem Crosstown]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

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.

Hmm that might work and I like the idea. Could be used as Willamsburg relief instead of building a massive trunk line.

[Union Tpke]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

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.

I had thought of the first, and a Bridge–Flatbush route and maybe a Bridge–Myrtle route.

[RR503]

23 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I had thought of the first, and a Bridge–Flatbush route and maybe a Bridge–Myrtle route.

Bridge-Flatbush-Church/Linden could be interesting, too...

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

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.

I don't know that I necessarily buy this. Light rail, despite the name, can be extremely high capacity - Seattle Link has at grade portions and is planning to run LRVs like this in a four-car formation. At 380 feet and 972 passengers that's a half-length subway train that's only really different by virtue of being mostly low floor and able to take tighter turns.

The model of successful trunk light rail in New York would probably be a less shit version of the Boston Green Line or the Philadelphia Subway Surface Trolleys; let's say, a grade separated tunnel from Columbus Circle up to Flushing via Northern, and then go a bit past Flushing's congestion and the line splits off into various branches (similar to say, the Q17/25/27/34/65 setup on Kissena). Four branches running every eight minutes combine to a two minute headway in the shared line.

Depending on how much you're willing to stick it to the driver you can even skip grade separation on Northern and just do four-quadrant gates like they have in Minneapolis. Though then that'd limit frequency.

Edited April 7, 2019 by bobtehpanda

[JeremiahC99]

4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

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

 Metro- Bay Ridge (uses outer tracks past Essex

 

4 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

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

Are you sure these are great ideas because I’m not happy with your planned elimination of the Orange  service between Ridgewood and Midtown.

Honestly, here are some ideal changes for the these lines:

Extensions of Second Avenue to 125th street, Queens Blvd to Springfield Blvd are constructed, and Archer Avenue to SE Queens constructed (hopefully with no cost overruns and delays). New service patterns in effect:

 

 /  : Hollis-188th Street - Bay Ridge-95th Street. Skip stop service from Jamaica AirTrain (Sutphin Blvd) to Myrtle Avenue, then peak direction express Marcy Avenue. Local after that. Nights, and weekends, service makes all stops. No  service.

: Jamaica-179th Street - Metropolitan Avenue. Queens Blvd Local, 6th Avenue Local via 53rd Street. Weekdays only. Weekends: Harlem-125th Street - Metropolitan Avenue via 2nd Avenue Subway and 6th Avenue Local. Nights: Essex Street - Metropolitan Avenue

 : service extended to Jamaica-179th Street with .

: Queens Village-Springfield Blvd - Coney Island. 6th Avenue Local via 63rd St. Express 71st Avenue-179th Street, all times except late nights.

 : Rosedale-Brookville Blvd - World Trade Center. Queens Blvd Express, 8th Avenue Local via 53rd St. Express 71st Av-Van Wyck all times except late nights.

[RR503]

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't know that I necessarily buy this. Light rail, despite the name, can be extremely high capacity - Seattle Link has at grade portions and is planning to run LRVs like this in a four-car formation. At 380 feet and 972 passengers that's a half-length subway train.

The model of successful trunk light rail in New York would probably be a less shit version of the Boston Green Line or the Philadelphia Subway Surface Trolleys; let's say, a grade separated tunnel from Columbus Circle up to Flushing via Northern, and then go a bit past Flushing's congestion and the line splits off into various branches (similar to say, the Q17/25/27/34/65 setup on Kissena). Four branches running every eight minutes combine to a two minute headway in the shared line.

Depending on how much you're willing to stick it to the driver you can even skip grade separation on Northern and just do four-quadrant gates like they have in Minneapolis. Though then that'd limit frequency.

Eh. Even if they can eke out 40tph, they're still only at 39000 people per hour, whereas a fully loaded set of 160s * 30 tph gets you 73,000. Also keep in mind that for reasonable dwell times (and thus consistent service speed/delivery) you don't want to be operating anywhere near your capacity limit. That's the lesson of pre-63rd Queens Boulevard -- you *can* get 50k people per hour under the river on a single pair of tracks, but your dwell times will give system operators a heart attack. 

All of that said, I tend to agree with your assessment of the 'optimal application' scenario for LRT, or at least core-bound LRT. LRT lives and dies on its ability to move in core congestion, which is essentially the purpose statement for an isolated or otherwise separated line. 

[R68OnBroadway]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

 

Are you sure these are great ideas because I’m not happy with your planned elimination of the Orange  service between Ridgewood and Midtown.

Honestly, here are some ideal changes for the these lines:

Extensions of Second Avenue to 125th street, Queens Blvd to Springfield Blvd are constructed, and Archer Avenue to SE Queens constructed (hopefully with no cost overruns and delays). New service patterns in effect:

 

 /  : Hollis-188th Street - Bay Ridge-95th Street. Skip stop service from Jamaica AirTrain (Sutphin Blvd) to Myrtle Avenue, then peak direction express Marcy Avenue. Local after that. Nights, and weekends, service makes all stops. No  service.

: Jamaica-179th Street - Metropolitan Avenue. Queens Blvd Local, 6th Avenue Local via 53rd Street. Weekdays only. Weekends: Harlem-125th Street - Metropolitan Avenue via 2nd Avenue Subway and 6th Avenue Local. Nights: Essex Street - Metropolitan Avenue

 : service extended to Jamaica-179th Street with .

: Queens Village-Springfield Blvd - Coney Island. 6th Avenue Local via 63rd St. Express 71st Avenue-179th Street, all times except late nights.

 : Rosedale-Brookville Blvd - World Trade Center. Queens Blvd Express, 8th Avenue Local via 53rd St. Express 71st Av-Van Wyck all times except late nights.

While I do agree the elimination of the  in favor of the  could be considered a step back; there are a few reasons for it:

• elimination of the  allows for a  which could allow the  to run express on Culver
• So long as the  and  are on QBL you will be unable to reconfigure it as Broadway service on QBL mucks up everything and the  cannot run express given it only having 8 cars
• A  would prevent the delay-prone Jamaica lines from afflicting the 6th Av ones
• A transfer between the  at Grand and  at Bowery would make be able to permit continued easy access to 6th Av

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

While I do agree the elimination of the  in favor of the  could be considered a step back; there are a few reasons for it:

• elimination of the  allows for a  which could allow the  to run express on Culver
• So long as the  and  are on QBL you will be unable to reconfigure it as Broadway service on QBL mucks up everything and the  cannot run express given it only having 8 cars
• A  would prevent the delay-prone Jamaica lines from afflicting the 6th Av ones
• A transfer between the  at Grand and  at Bowery would make be able to permit continued easy access to 6th Av

Deinterlining Essex really comes down to a question of off-peak service quality, potential impact on the , developmental priorities (Culver express would unequivocally encourage development in South Brooklyn), whether or not we can rebuild Essex/Bowery/Canal to handle transfer loads, and whether or not QB express loads, after deinterlining, could be handled on 12 x 9 car s and 18 x 10 car trains. All of these questions are up for debate, IMO. 

[R68OnBroadway]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

Deinterlining Essex really comes down to a question of off-peak service quality, potential impact on the , developmental priorities (Culver express would unequivocally encourage development in South Brooklyn), whether or not we can rebuild Essex/Bowery/Canal to handle transfer loads, and whether or not QB express loads, after deinterlining, could be handled on 12 x 9 car s and 18 x 10 car trains. All of these questions are up for debate, IMO. 

I personally think that removing 6th-Metropolitan service would be best as it would encourage more development in south Brooklyn with a second service and remove all the service woes Jamaica inflicts on the  :

-frequent delays

-8 car trains

- robbing Culver of an express/ preventing the awful  from becoming quicker

-limited capacity 

 

 

[JeremiahC99]

11 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I personally think that removing 6th-Metropolitan service would be best as it would encourage more development in south Brooklyn with a second service and remove all the service woes Jamaica inflicts on the  :

-frequent delays

-8 car trains

- robbing Culver of an express/ preventing the awful  from becoming quicker

-limited capacity 

 

 

Instead of removing the beneficial 6th Avenue-Metropolitan Avenue service (a service that is really popular, with the rapidly growing ridership as the proof) in favor of inefficiently serving Southern Brooklyn, a better idea would be to extend the  /  to Bay Ridge - 95th Street with the , permanently extending weekend  service to 96th street and having skip-stop service on the  and  between Church Avenue and Bergen street. That way, the 22,000+ riders who benefit from the 6th Avenue-Metropolitan service can continue to happily use it (and use it mor), service is more frequent on 4th Avenue, and allow for faster service north of Church Avenue for Southern Brooklyn riders without the inconvenience to Carroll Gardens and Boreum Hill passengers the express service inflicts on them.

Skip-Stop service on the : 

Church Avenue

Fort Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street  

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carrol Street

Bergen St

Edited April 7, 2019 by JeremiahC99

[LGA Link N Train]

2 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Skip-Stop service on the : 

Church Avenue

Fort Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street  

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carrol Street

Bergen St

Wouldn't this Limit Capacity on the and ? If so, then train Riders (Including us QBL Riders) wouldn't Like that at all. As a Compromise to this, Some trains should Short Turn at Second Avenue. 

[Around the Horn]

2 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Instead of removing the beneficial 6th Avenue-Metropolitan Avenue service (a service that is really popular) in favor of serving Southern Brooklyn, a better idea would be to extend the  /  to Bay Ridge - 95th Street with the , definitely extending weekend  service to 96th street and having skip-stop service on the  and  between Church Avenue and Bergen street. That way, the 22,000+ riders who benefit from the 6th Avenue-Metropolitan service can continue to happily use it (and use it mor), service is more frequent on 4th Avenue, and allow for faster service north of Church Avenue for Southern Brooklyn without the inconvenience to Carroll Gardens and Boreum Hill passengers the express service inflicts on them.

Skip-Stop service on the : 

Church Avenue

Fort Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street  

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carrol Street

Bergen St

Are you out of your mind?!

"faster service north of Church Avenue for Southern Brooklyn without the inconvenience to Carroll Gardens and Boreum Hill passengers the express service inflicts on them"

Not having the at 4th Avenue and Carroll Street is a HUGE inconvenience and I shouldn't even have to explain why this is a terrible idea but here we are...

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Wouldn't this Limit Capacity on the and ? If so, then train Riders (Including us QBL Riders) wouldn't Like that at all. As a Compromise to this, Some trains should Short Turn at Second Avenue. 

 and  train frequencies would remain the same for the most part This is a compromise from the  express situation to allow for faster service for Southern Brooklyn riders without inconveniencing riders at Bergen Street.

The service would operate akin to the /  between the Jamaica AirTrain (Sutphin Blvd) and Myrtle Avenue.

Yes some trains should terminate at Second Avenue, and I agree to that, but either way, this would eliminate the need to bring back the  and brown M line, since bringing the  back would only unnecessarily back up the  through the 53rd Street Tunnel, and the  through the Rutgers tunnel, and bringing the Brown M back would do nothing but back the  line in Manhattan  in Brooklyn.

[RR503]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Instead of removing the beneficial 6th Avenue-Metropolitan Avenue service (a service that is really popular) in favor of serving Southern Brooklyn, a better idea would be to extend the  /  to Bay Ridge - 95th Street with the , definitely extending weekend  service to 96th street and having skip-stop service on the  and  between Church Avenue and Bergen street. That way, the 22,000+ riders who benefit from the 6th Avenue-Metropolitan service can continue to happily use it (and use it mor), service is more frequent on 4th Avenue, and allow for faster service north of Church Avenue for Southern Brooklyn without the inconvenience to Carroll Gardens and Boreum Hill passengers the express service inflicts on them.

 Skip-Stop service on the : 

Church Avenue

Fort Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street  

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carrol Street

Bergen St

The  and  run a combined 22.5 trains per hour (15 , 7.5 ) during the peak. There is no way even in the best of systems that skip-stop would work at those frequencies, nor is it in any way a good idea given the quantity of intraline O/D on Culver and the fact that the  is not even an approximate substitute for the . This is to say that the only way Culver is getting faster is through express service, whether that be  or . (in other words, what ATH said)

The  plan is fraught (cutting frequency means cutting ridership, even if some folks are gaining in speed; express/local on a high volume corridor at relatively low frequencies = massive dwells; the net gain in rider minutes is exceedingly small), so really if you want Culver express you've gotta kill 6th Ave . But should we? I don't know.  has certainly been popular, but South Brooklyn does indeed suffer, and  express could mitigate that to the tune of seven minutes per direction. So this, again, comes down to the fine details. Can we rebuild Essex? Can we add a passage at Bowery? Can we rebuild Canal? What does the rider minutes equation look like assuming  to 96 gets preserved? What's the impact on reliability? What's the impact on the ? Etc. I do not believe, though, that train length should be a part of this discussion. We really should lengthen E div plats to 600 regardless of what happens in Queens, and with the possible exception of Myrtle/Broadway, that doesn't strike me as all that difficult to do. 

(An aside:  to Bay Ridge and Culver exp are wholly orthagonal moves -- they serve different areas, different O/D types, the one cannot replace the other) 

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, Around the Horn said:

Are you out of your mind?!

"faster service north of Church Avenue for Southern Brooklyn without the inconvenience to Carroll Gardens and Boreum Hill passengers the express service inflicts on them"

Not having the at 4th Avenue and Carroll Street is a HUGE inconvenience and I shouldn't even have to explain why this is a terrible idea but here we are...

Oh. I did that since the  would provide an alternative service to Manhattan in place of the  from that station, while no such alternative exists for  passengers. However, I will modify the pattern to have the  stop there as well.

Church Avenue

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carroll St

Bergen Street

[RR503]

5 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Yes some trains should terminate at Second Avenue, and I agree to that, but either way, this would eliminate the need to bring back the  and brown M line, since bringing the  back would only unnecessarily back up the  through the 53rd Street Tunnel, and the  through the Rutgers tunnel, and bringing the Brown M back would do nothing but back the  line in Manhattan  in Brooklyn.

So much wrong here.  and  are the same as far as 53 is concerned, a  would probably go to 95, and Rutgers/Culver are fully capable of handling . 

2 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Oh. I did that since the  would provide an alternative service to Manhattan in place of the  from that station, while no such alternative exists for  passengers. However, I will modify the pattern to have the  stop there as well.

Church Avenue

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carroll St

Bergen Street

I suspect  and  riders would, uh, take issue with the statement that  and  are interchangeable. 

Skip stop on Culver is a bad idea operationally and demographically. Full stop. 

[Around the Horn]

3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Oh. I did that since the  would provide an alternative service to Manhattan in place of the  from that station, while no such alternative exists for  passengers. However, I will modify the pattern to have the  stop there as well.

Church Avenue

Ft. Hamilton Pkwy

15th Street

7th Avenue

4th Avenue

Smith-9th Street

Carroll St

Bergen Street

Please read RR503's post above because I'm not spending any more of my time explaining why this is stupid.

[MysteriousBtrain]

8 minutes ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

Let's shift over to this Utica Avenue Subway thing that is being talked about (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing?fbclid=IwAR03YM611S3bVybCJZIod4qXdUD98q3t9g8nPNn9weELjZPTX-qjPCocNDc). Unless the  starts a new Breezy Point to Kings Plaza (where the  is slated to terminate) bus line, you can pretty much say that a Subway line would be too much for the corridor, yet a Light Rail may be more feasible.

[LGA Link N Train]

From what I can understand, If we return the  and , then the Following Benefits and Disadvantages would exist, Assuming that we don't build a Bowery-Grand Street Transfer or Rebuild Essex: 

Advantages: 

1.    Culver Would gain More Service. ( Express. 15  7.5  8 Local, Creating a good 30.5 TPH) This would also make South Brooklyn More Attractive
2.    Delays on 6th Avenue will not be inflicted easily on Nassau (same is vice versa)
3.    You can Run More Service along the Nassau Corridor with the , and the bottleneck of Myrtle Junction wouldn't be as Impactful as it is now.
4.    In terms of Train Length (assuming we talk about 160') You've increased Passenger capacity on Queens Blvd. 
5.    We can re-purpose the as a Nassau Bay Ridge Service if Necessary. 

Disadvantages:  

1.           You'd Be Getting rid of a Popular service (our Current day )
2.           The and would get worse in terms of Crowding (I guess) 

[RR503]

-Provided you fix flagging rules (which slaughter weekends), there's no rule, regulation or logical reason for you to be running less than 12tph/service during the off peak. That's where ridership increasingly is, and thus its there that we need service. 

A quick sidenote about capacity: NYC has run as many as 36tph on a single track in the past; I wouldn't rule out >30tph for the future.

-Let's try reading posts before repling to them, ya? I said:

22 hours ago, RR503 said:

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

If you're unfamiliar with the RX proposal, see here. If not, I suggest glasses. A trip from SE Queens to Bensonhurst could be done via -RX-, LIRR-RX-, --RX-, --. Bronx commuter would be better off doing  to . 

14 minutes ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

You're facing the NIMBY community of Laurelton and Rosedale plus the LIRR community who wants their 35 minute ride to Midtown. Bye bye  train. See you along Guy R. Brewer.

Let's shift over to this Utica Avenue Subway thing that is being talked about (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing?fbclid=IwAR03YM611S3bVybCJZIod4qXdUD98q3t9g8nPNn9weELjZPTX-qjPCocNDc). Unless the  starts a new Breezy Point to Kings Plaza (where the  is slated to terminate) bus line, you can pretty much say that a Subway line would be too much for the corridor, yet a Light Rail may be more feasible.

Oh by the way: As congested the Queens Blvd line is, no one in Southeast Queens wants to be bothered with the  when going to Lower Manhattan. They would use the  trains with some transferring to the  at Broadway Junction. So that stands for my argument to extend the Lefferts Blvd  to Rosedale as well as the  to Rosedale.

Regarding the rest, replies are in red.

So lemme get this straight: NIMBYs will be okay with an elevated rail line, but they somehow won't be with a line following existing ROW? That's some real n-dimensional chess you're playing there; maybe you should consider a cabinet post. 

LIRR, FWIW, would not be affected by this. ROW is for the most part wide enough for  to run alongside, and where it's not, you'd use a little eminent domain to sort things out. 

I'm not even gonna touch what you said about Utica, except to say that the Utica/EPW station has just a little less ridership than the entire Dyre Ave line. 

Sure, and people can still transfer to the  when going to Lower Manhattan. But let's go back to the map I posted above. Was Lower Manhattan in that top 10?

[JeremiahC99]

25 minutes ago, RR503 said:

So much wrong here.  and  are the same as far as 53 is concerned, a  would probably go to 95, and Rutgers/Culver are fully capable of handling . 

I suspect  and  riders would, uh, take issue with the statement that  and  are interchangeable. 

Skip stop on Culver is a bad idea operationally and demographically. Full stop. 

If we are to have an express service in any form, then I would only support it if elimination of the Orange  in favor of the old M service were dropped from this plan, as it would only hurt the growing and more important North Brooklyn and Central Queens demographic. In the Culver Express review from 2016, it has stated that the  ridership has grown very rapidly since 2010, and is expected to grow again. Service was increased to 9 tph and will be raised again in the future. This shows that the service is too popular to eliminate. 

What would I propose: I propose that the  express service be implemented north of Church Avenue, as in the 2016 review. To offload crowds, I propose comprehensive advertisement of alternative service from affected stations, along with beefed up service on the bus alternatives to take them to other stations able to handle the additional load, such as the ones on the Brighton Line  . This way, the passengers can make an choice on what to take and avoid the crowds at the local stations. More specifically:

• Fort Hamilton Pkwy -> Church Avenue   via B16 Bus
• 15th Street -> 7th Avenue  via B67 and B69 on 7th Avenue, or B61 to 7th Avenue  via B61.
• 4th Avenue ->  at 4th Avenue and B103 to Atlantic-Barclays
• Smith-9th Street -> Jay Street-MetroTech  via B57
• Carroll Street -> Union Street  or Grand Army Plaza  via restored B71
• Bergen Street -> Bergen Street  via B65.

In addition, I propose adding a fare free bus shuttle between 18th Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech to offload the crowds further. Stops include:

• 18th Avenue: McDonald Avenue and 18th Avenue
• Ditmas Avenue: McDonald Avenue and Cortelyou Road
• Church Avenue: McDonald Avenue and Church Avenue
• Fort. Hamilton Pkwy: Caton Avenue and East 5th Street.
• 15th Street: Prospect Pk SW and Prospect Pk W
• 7th Avenue: 9th Street and 7th Avenue
• 4th Avenue: 9th Street and 4th Avenue
• Smith-9th Street: 9th Street and Smith St 
• Carroll Street: Smith/Court Streets and President St
• Bergen St: Smith/Court Streets and Bergen St
• Jay Street-MetroTech: Smith Street and Livingston St.

Another question: Do we really need a Culver Express service? I feel that demand for it is only up due to recent construction on other subway lines that has forced people on those other lines to use the  to avoid the construction, such as the station rehab on the  and  that occurred 10 years ago, and the current Sea Beach rehabilitation that has affected  service to a point that people are piling on to the  all the time. That is what is causing the demand for the express service to be inflate. I would also propose waiting for the  renovations to finish up, and see the true demand for the express service.

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If we are to have an express service in any form, then I would only support it if elimination of the Orange  in favor of the old M service were dropped from this plan, as it would only hurt the growing and more important North Brooklyn and Central Queens demographic. In the Culver Express review from 2016, it has stated that the  ridership has grown very rapidly since 2010, and is expected to grow again. Service was increased to 9 tph and will be raised again in the future. This shows that the service is too popular to eliminate. 

What would I propose: I propose that the  express service be implemented north of Church Avenue, as in the 2016 review. To offload crowds, I propose comprehensive advertisement of alternative service from affected stations, along with beefed up service on the bus alternatives to take them to other stations able to handle the additional load, such as the ones on the Brighton Line  . This way, the passengers can make an choice on what to take and avoid the crowds at the local stations. More specifically:

• Fort Hamilton Pkwy -> Church Avenue   via B16 Bus
• 15th Street -> 7th Avenue  via B67 and B69 on 7th Avenue, or B61 to 7th Avenue  via B61.
• 4th Avenue ->  at 4th Avenue and B103 to Atlantic-Barclays
• Smith-9th Street -> Jay Street-MetroTech  via B57
• Carroll Street -> Union Street  or Grand Army Plaza  via restored B71
• Bergen Street -> Bergen Street  via B65.

In addition, I propose adding a fare free bus shuttle between 18th Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech to offload the crowds further. Stops include:

• 18th Avenue: McDonald Avenue and 18th Avenue
• Ditmas Avenue: McDonald Avenue and Cortelyou Road
• Church Avenue: McDonald Avenue and Church Avenue
• Fort. Hamilton Pkwy: Caton Avenue and East 5th Street.
• 15th Street: Prospect Pk SW and Prospect Pk W
• 7th Avenue: 9th Street and 7th Avenue
• 4th Avenue: 9th Street and 4th Avenue
• Smith-9th Street: 9th Street and Smith St 
• Carroll Street: Smith/Court Streets and President St
• Bergen St: Smith/Court Streets and Bergen St
• Jay Street-MetroTech: Smith Street and Livingston St.

Another question: Do we really need a Culver Express service? I feel that demand for it is only up due to recent construction on other subway lines that has forced people on those other lines to use the  to avoid the construction, such as the station rehab on the  and  that occurred 10 years ago, and the current Sea Beach rehabilitation that has affected  service to a point that people are piling on to the  all the time. That is what is causing the demand for the express service to be inflate. I would also propose waiting for the  renovations to finish up, and see the true demand for the express service.

Generally, I’m unsure as to where I stand on Culver Exp, but that’s only true for the version where we replace  with . I’ve gone over my questions about the issue at least twice in the last page, so I won’t repeat. 

Splitting the  I’m solidly against, though, for the reasons I detailed on the last page — reasons that no number of slow, unnecessarily complex bus-subway transfers will do anything to mitigate. 

The study, btw, adjusted for those disruptions — I believe it used the year before all that work started as the baseline. 

[JeremiahC99]

25 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

From what I can understand, If we return the  and , then the Following Benefits and Disadvantages would exist, Assuming that we don't build a Bowery-Grand Street Transfer or Rebuild Essex: 

Advantages: 

1.    Culver Would gain More Service. ( Express. 15  7.5  8 Local, Creating a good 30.5 TPH) This would also make South Brooklyn More Attractive
2.    Delays on 6th Avenue will not be inflicted easily on Nassau (same is vice versa)
3.    You can Run More Service along the Nassau Corridor with the , and the bottleneck of Myrtle Junction wouldn't be as Impactful as it is now.
4.    In terms of Train Length (assuming we talk about 160') You've increased Passenger capacity on Queens Blvd. 
5.    We can re-purpose the as a Nassau Bay Ridge Service if Necessary. 

Disadvantages:  

1.           You'd Be Getting rid of a Popular service (our Current day )
2.           The and would get worse in terms of Crowding (I guess) 

At this point there is no way that the  will eliminate a popular service (current ) to make room for a service that won’t be popular (the Culver express service). Let’s face it: the Culver Express plan is not really a great idea. It helps one neighborhood (Southern Brooklyn) but hurts another (Carroll Gardens, Boreum Hill), and entailing the elimination of the current  will make things worse. There needs to be a plan that works for everyone, but doing this is not it. Maybe one or two  trains an hour can run express from Church Avenue to Smith-9th Streets would help a bit, but other than that, i may be out of ideas.

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Generally, I’m unsure as to where I stand on Culver Exp, but that’s only true for the version where we replace  with . I’ve gone over my questions about the issue at least twice in the last page, so I won’t repeat. 

Splitting the  I’m solidly against, though, for the reasons I detailed on the last page — reasons that no number of slow, unnecessarily complex bus-subway transfers will do anything to mitigate. 

The study, btw, adjusted for those disruptions — I believe it used the year before all that work started as the baseline. 

Well they may have to make a new study for that, that is if the people up north are okay with it. The impact of the  renovations definitely  made an impact on the  ridership in the area.