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

3 hours ago, engineerboy6561 said:

I took a few of the ideas from the last couple pages and combined them with some of my own thoughts to produce this service pattern:

(D): Bay Plaza-Coney Island via Concourse local, CPW/6 Av/ 4 Av express

(N): LaGuardia Airport-Coney Island via Astoria Blvd/2 Av local, Broadway/4 Av express

(Q): Norwood-205 St-Coney Island via 3 Av/2Av local, Broadway express, Brighton local

(W): Ditmars Bl-Whitehall St via 31 St/Broadway local

(J): Broad St-Jamaica Center via Jamaica local

(Z): LaGuardia Airport-Jamaica Center via Astoria Blvd/2 Av/Jamaica express

(T): Norwood-205 St-Kings Plaza via 3 Av/2Av/Jamaica express, Utica Av local

(P): Bayside-Whitehall St via Northern Blvd/2 Av local

 

We could accomplish this by connecting the 2 Av line to the LES-2Av express tracks on the south end and then running the result as a four-track trunk under the East River according to something similar to the Second System plan/ You'd basically run four tracks under the East River, and you'd need to drop the (J)(Z) down enough to stay underground and curve north under Houston before diving under the river. I'm not sure whether to suggest four or six tracks for the trunk (four is easier to build, but also limits branching and total flow down to 60tph peak. The trunk would basically replace the existing Jamaica El, with express stops at Marcy Av and Union Av, then a local stop at Flushing Ave before an express stop at Myrtle Av. From Myrtle Av the (M) could branch off and serve the existing line to Metropolitan Av, while one of the 2 Av lines could run under Malcolm X Blvd/Utica Av down to Kings Plaza, while the main trunk continued along Broadway/Fulton St/Jamaica Av with express stops at Broadway Junction, Cypress Hills, Woodhaven Blvd, and Sutphin/Archer and an option to extend the line out into southeast Queens?

Under this setup the (M) would run basically its current routing at all times, the (J) could operate as the Jamaica local, while the (T) and (Z) operate down the corridor as expresses. The (T) would turn off at Myrtle Av to serve Utica, while the (Z) would run from Jamaica Center through Manhattan as a 2 Av local service. That would give you room for four services on 2 Av; the (N)(Q) running as 2 Av local trains above 63 St, the (T) and (Z) running as 2 Av expresses from 125 St to Houston and Jamaica/Bushwick expresses from Houston to Myrtle Av (for the (T) ) or Jamaica Center (for the (Z) ). The (W) would be rerouted to serve Astoria-Ditmars under this plan, which would completely deinterline the Broadway express and local service. 

In the Bronx/northern Queens we could split the trunk into two additional trunks carrying 30tph each; one trunk would split off at 86 St before heading under the water to Astoria Blvd, running to LaGuardia Airport with express stops at 31 St, 82 St, and LGA main terminal, and local stops at 21 St, Steinway St, and Hazen St.

The other trunk would run up 3 Av to Fordham Plaza, with the (T) making express stops at 125 St, 149 St/3Av, Tremont Av, Fordham Plaza, and Norwood-205 St; the Q would make all local stops between 86 St and Norwood-205 St. From there, the (Q) would terminate and the (T) and (D) would continue under Gun Hill Rd to Bay Plaza.

The local service below 63 St would be provided by a new Northern Blvd relief line running from Bayside-Bell Blvd down to Whitehall St via Northern Blvd (from Bayside to 36 Av), 36 Av (from Northern Blvd to the East River), and 2 Av (from the East River to Whitehall St). I mapped all of this out in a Brand New Subway map; the link to see it is here: https://ufile.io/hs2ypzit

I would extend the LGA trains to Flushing in this proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we’re going to be cost effective with the SAS then we should construct it with two tracks with provisions for two more express tracks, this is how they built the 6th Ave line and maybe other lines in other cities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Ideas I wanna put out there

 

Teal (M)1

Metropolitan Av- Forest Hills 71 Av

Via 2nd Av

After Essex St The (M) runs on 2 Av line from Houston St - 55 St

then runs on the (F) line via 63 St stopping on Roosevelt Island & 21 St Queens Bridge Then runs local from 36 St- Forest Hills 71 Av

Teal (M) 2

Metropolitan Av- 2nd Av/125 St

Restore (V) line and extend to Euclid Av

 

Teal (B)

Brighton Beach- 2 Av/125 St

 

Teal (Z)

Broadway Junction - 2 Av/125 St

After Essex St via Chrystie St Connection run on the 2 Av line phases 1-3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

I would extend the LGA trains to Flushing in this proposal.

I would as well, but slightly differently. Past LGA I'd send the (N) under Flushing Bay to serve College Point, the Mitchell-Linden Apartments and Bayside because most of those areas are populous enough to be able to use a subway, while I'd send the (Z) to Bayside as an express alongside the (P) with stops at Mets-Willets Pt, Flushing, 162 St, Francis Lewis Blvd and Bayside/Bell Blvd. That way the (Z) could relieve some of the congestion from northeastern Queens and Flushing on the (7)<7>, while the (P) provides local relief along Northern Blvd for the (7)<7>. That combination should take a fairly large load off of Roosevelt the way the Concourse was supposed to take a load off Jerome Av.

2 hours ago, Harlem Crosstown said:

If we’re going to be cost effective with the SAS then we should construct it with two tracks with provisions for two more express tracks, this is how they built the 6th Ave line and maybe other lines in other cities.

Definitely; they really should have built the damn thing with reasonable stop spacing and four tracks to begin with instead of placing stops every 15-18 blocks and planning the line as an orphan. If you put express tracks under the existing pair, add an infill stop at 79 St, and build it in a tradition four-track layout down to LES-2 Av then that would do us a lot of good.

 

1 hour ago, subwaykid256 said:

Some Ideas I wanna put out there

 

Teal (M)1

Metropolitan Av- Forest Hills 71 Av

Via 2nd Av

After Essex St The (M) runs on 2 Av line from Houston St - 55 St

then runs on the (F) line via 63 St stopping on Roosevelt Island & 21 St Queens Bridge Then runs local from 36 St- Forest Hills 71 Av

Teal (M) 2

Metropolitan Av- 2nd Av/125 St

Restore (V) line and extend to Euclid Av

 

Teal (B)

Brighton Beach- 2 Av/125 St

 

Teal (Z)

Broadway Junction - 2 Av/125 St

After Essex St via Chrystie St Connection run on the 2 Av line phases 1-3

I'm not sure the teal (M) makes a ton of sense there. The big issue is that you're introducing two new merges on QBL, which is already running at pretty close to capacity on the express end. By running the (M) along 63 St and then along QBL you're probably going to f**k people relying on the (F) because the brief merge is likely to cause delays on the (F). Furthermore, the southbound (M) would need to be timed to hit the Queensbridge interlocking exactly as an (E) train does so that the (F) doesn't get held up by an (M) merging and the northbound (M) is going to need absolute priority over the (R), so any error could back up QBL express and 6 Av local services.

The variant where the (V) returns and serves Euclid is interesting but isn't going to work on existing trackage; the issue is that the (A) and (C) share one track pair coming into Jay St-MetroTech and so there aren't really open slots on the 8 Av/Fulton tracks there. Furthermore, even if you do get it working any small f**kup is gonna wind up causing conga lines on the (A)(C)(F). If you want to add service on the Fulton local the thing that would make the most sense would be to extend both the 8 Av and 2 Av local tracks down to Whitehall St, then build a four-track terminal station at Whitehall with two tracks to turn the (E) and two through tracks to Court St. That would free up the 8 Av-Fulton tracks to their full 60tph capacity, and if you structured the track layout at Whitehall St well you'd be able to keep the (E) running cleanly; I put a track map for the station below.

3Yu7WjC.png

The (Z) train idea is solid, but is there a reason you want to end it in Harlem? If you run it as an express you can tie 2 Av to Queens or the Bronx with it while still keeping end-to-end time reasonable.

Edited by engineerboy6561
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 7:47 PM, engineerboy6561 said:

I'm not sure the teal (M) makes a ton of sense there. The big issue is that you're introducing two new merges on QBL, which is already running at pretty close to capacity on the express end. By running the (M) along 63 St and then along QBL you're probably going to f**k people relying on the (F) because the brief merge is likely to cause delays on the (F). Furthermore, the southbound (M) would need to be timed to hit the Queensbridge interlocking exactly as an (E) train does so that the (F) doesn't get held up by an (M) merging and the northbound (M) is going to need absolute priority over the (R), so any error could back up QBL express and 6 Av local services.

The variant where the (V) returns and serves Euclid is interesting but isn't going to work on existing trackage; the issue is that the (A) and (C) share one track pair coming into Jay St-MetroTech and so there aren't really open slots on the 8 Av/Fulton tracks there. Furthermore, even if you do get it working any small f**kup is gonna wind up causing conga lines on the (A)(C)(F). If you want to add service on the Fulton local the thing that would make the most sense would be to extend both the 8 Av and 2 Av local tracks down to Whitehall St, then build a four-track terminal station at Whitehall with two tracks to turn the (E) and two through tracks to Court St. That would free up the 8 Av-Fulton tracks to their full 60tph capacity, and if you structured the track layout at Whitehall St well you'd be able to keep the (E) running cleanly; I put a track map for the station below.
 

The (Z) train idea is solid, but is there a reason you want to end it in Harlem? If you run it as an express you can tie 2 Av to Queens or the Bronx with it while still keeping end-to-end time reasonable.

 

Thanks for the feedback. I had in mind that the  (Z) could serve as a replacement for the (T) up until Phase 4 is introduced 

 

But now that you mentioned it can the 2 Av handle the (Q)(T)(Z) though 

because if so I could run the (Z) from Fordham Rd- Broadway Junction as a local via 2 Av/3 Av

or have it go from Jamaica Center to Broadway-125 St

The (Q) can go from Coney Island- Bay Plaza 3 Av Express

The (T) can go from Kings Plaza via Utica Av to Bay Plaza via 2 Av/3 Av/ Pelham Pkwy local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

 

Thanks for the feedback. I had in mind that the  (Z) could serve as a replacement for the (T) up until Phase 4 is introduced 

 

But now that you mentioned it can the 2 Av handle the (Q)(T)(Z) though 

because if so I could run the (Z) from Fordham Rd- Broadway Junction as a local via 2 Av/3 Av

or have it go from Jamaica Center to Broadway-125 St

The (Q) can go from Coney Island- Bay Plaza 3 Av Express

The (T) can go from Kings Plaza via Utica Av to Bay Plaza via 2 Av/3 Av/ Pelham Pkwy local

Yeah; I'm assuming we eventually get a four-track SAS in that proposal. I chose to leave the (N)(Q) as the locals there because they're already routed on what would have to be the local tracks the way the stations are currently arranged, and I chose to route the (N) up 2 Av as well to free up capacity on QBL; if the 59 St tracks are used only by the (R)(W) then you've deinterlined the 57 St-Queens Plaza section of the BMT which is useful. I set the (Z) up as an express that looped through Queens because a four-track Jamaica line that runs all the way out to Jamaica Center could conceivably make the Jamaica line competitive with QBL for lower midtown and downtown travelers, which would take a solid load off the (E) and (F) trains and QBL in general.

The Bayside and Bay Plaza expresses are reasonably interchangeable (they're about the same number of stops), but I didn't want to have the Q switch from 2 Av local to 3 Av express because that's going to either require some pretty creative trackwork to make work or you're gonna have the (Q) and the 2 Av express crossing past each other at a level crossing (which is gonna back everything up). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an idea to run (T)(H)(K) trains with 4 tracks, 2 to Fulton and one to Utica via Bushwick Ave. In the Bronx/Queens the Utica train and a Fulton train would run to Bway 125 Street via the express ((Q)(N) take local) while another Fulton train would run to the Bypass and Laurelton. North Queens would be served by an extension of the Astoria Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was wondering if it'd be feasible to connect SAS to Myrtle Ave south and north running on the (M) tracks north of Broadway. This connects North and South Brooklyn, provides new service, and totally eliminates the (J)/(M) merge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I was wondering if it'd be feasible to connect SAS to Myrtle Ave south and north running on the (M) tracks north of Broadway. This connects North and South Brooklyn, provides new service, and totally eliminates the (J)/(M) merge.

The question would be where and how you make the connection. If you relocate the Broaday (Williamsburg-Broadway Junction) el underground then you could just build Myrtle as a two-level station, put the (M) on the upper level and then put a portal somewhere between Troutman St and Evergreen Ave. If you want to serve Myrtle Av SW of Broadway then this gets a bit different. You could turn southeast after Grand St and run under the Manhattan Bridge, with a stop at a new York St lower level and one more on Flatbush between Tillary and Myrtle (passageways to DeKalb and the MetroTech (R) platform would be added, creating a MetroTech complex serving the (A)(C)(B)(F)(Q)(R)(T) trains (plus potentially other 2 Av trains) before turning east and emerging through a new portal on the north end of Fort Greene Park  and making stops at Vanderbilt Av, Classon Av, Bedford Av, Marcy Av (connection to (G)), Throop/Marcus Garvey, and Myrtle Av/Broadway before coming onto the (M) tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This piggybacks on some of T to Dyre Avenue's ideas, but since Bay Ridge is in need of better service, wouldn't the easiest stepping stone be to run the (Z) to Bay Ridge in peak directions during peak hours? The peak direction of the northern (Z) is opposite that of the peak direction of the here proposed southern (Z), so they shouldn't ever come into conflict.

1) The (Z) is underused and only plays a role northeast of Essex.

2) The Montague tunnel is underused.

3) The 4th Avenue corridor is underused.

4) Bay Ridge needs more service.

Edited by Porter
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This piggybacks on some of T to Dyre Avenue's ideas, but since Bay Ridge is in need of better service, wouldn't the easiest stepping stone be to run the (Z) to Bay Ridge in peak directions during peak hours? The peak direction of the northern (Z) is opposite that of the peak direction of the here proposed southern (Z), so they shouldn't ever come into conflict.

1) The (Z) is underused and only plays a role northeast of Essex.

2) The Montague tunnel is underused.

3) The 4th Avenue corridor is underused.

4) Bay Ridge needs more service.

I will come back to this thread with a more detailed proposal later, but for now here's just some parameters that a rejiggled (Z) should meet in this case:

-peak service in both directions for at least two hours in both directions

-arriving in Manhattan in the AM from 7:30 to 9:30 and departing Manhattan in the PM from 4:30 to 6:30 and/or 5 to 7, in both directions

-In order to be most effective in Bay Ridge, trains to Manhattan should leave from 7 to 9 AM (the only question is how those trains get down there)

-every ten minutes or less (this is where signal reform comes in and/or redesign of Essex and Marcy; more of a long term goal than an immediate short term goal)

-to my last point, there needs to be a policy goal in place to get to 30 TPH over the Williamsburg Bridge (15 (M), 7.5 (J), 7.5 (Z)) through either managerial fixes, signal fixes and/or capital projects to handle growth.

 

  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My Idea is Extending (Q) Line to 125th Street, Extending the (M) and (R) through Union Turnpike to Floral Park-263rd Street, Extending the (F) Train to Little Neck Parkway, (E) to Queens Village - Springfield Boulevard, (J) and (Z) to Laurelton, (C) through Pitkin Ave to Cambria heights - 234th Street, (L) to Upper West Side-72nd Street, (4) to Floyd Bennett Field, (2) and (5) to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave, (W) to Travis Avenue at Staten Island via New Tunnel from 59th Street at Sunset Park, Brooklyn, (7) From 14th Street-10th Avenue to Little Neck-Marathon Parkway, (D) to Co-Op Cit and (T) from Broadway-125th Street to Cambria heights - 234th Street

Also Extend the (G) to Rockaways as well via Abandoned LIRR Tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Worst Crumbling Stations like Chambers St, Bowery, East Broadway, Steinway Street, 36th Street and 68th Street/Hunter College needs full repair and modernization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (Q) train could be extended into the Bronx (3 Av subway then

2 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

My Idea is Extending (Q) Line to 125th Street, Extending the (M) and (R) through Union Turnpike to Floral Park-263rd Street, Extending the (F) Train to Little Neck Parkway, (E) to Queens Village - Springfield Boulevard, (J) and (Z) to Laurelton, (C) through Pitkin Ave to Cambria heights - 234th Street, (L) to Upper West Side-72nd Street, (4) to Floyd Bennett Field, (2) and (5) to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave, (W) to Travis Avenue at Staten Island via New Tunnel from 59th Street at Sunset Park, Brooklyn, (7) From 14th Street-10th Avenue to Little Neck-Marathon Parkway, (D) to Co-Op Cit and (T) from Broadway-125th Street to Cambria heights - 234th Street

Also Extend the (G) to Rockaways as well via Abandoned LIRR Tracks.

Extend the (1) train north to 261 St to serve North Riverdale or even into Yonkers. (Though improbable, it could also be extended south to Governor’s Island)

Extend the (N) and (W) trains to LaGuardia Airport and to College Point and Little Neck. (Better alternative to the Willets Point AirTrain!) (My Opinion, it would be quite hard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2019 at 12:27 AM, Around the Horn said:

I will come back to this thread with a more detailed proposal later, but for now here's just some parameters that a rejiggled (Z) should meet in this case:

-peak service in both directions for at least two hours in both directions

-arriving in Manhattan in the AM from 7:30 to 9:30 and departing Manhattan in the PM from 4:30 to 6:30 and/or 5 to 7, in both directions

-In order to be most effective in Bay Ridge, trains to Manhattan should leave from 7 to 9 AM (the only question is how those trains get down there)

-every ten minutes or less (this is where signal reform comes in and/or redesign of Essex and Marcy; more of a long term goal than an immediate short term goal)

-to my last point, there needs to be a policy goal in place to get to 30 TPH over the Williamsburg Bridge (15 (M), 7.5 (J), 7.5 (Z)) through either managerial fixes, signal fixes and/or capital projects to handle growth.

 

As said before, I think it would be better to make the (Z) its own full-time, 24/7 line from Bay Ridge to Essex Street (with scheduled in-service yard runs that end and begin at Broadway Junction) in what essentially would be a 24/7 extended version of the old "Bankers Special" <RR> trains.   This includes fully replacing the (R) in late nights since anyone specifically looking for Whitehall can make a same platform transfer to the (N) late nights anywhere between 59th and Court.  This might require either a new letter or perhaps going to a J1/J2 setup for skip-stop service.  

As for the last point, yes they need to do something to get the WillyB up to 30TPH.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

On the subject of trying to improve reliability for (R) riders, the best way to relieve it of delays would be to remove it from Queens Boulevard. The following would take place:

(C) express south of 50th

(E) unchanged

(F) express on Hillside at all times. (Yes, I know riders would ditch locals for expresses quickly, but the main goal of this would be to speed up commutes for bus riders at 179th and eliminate the merge at 75th). 

(M) unchanged (maybe extended to Hillside if fumigation is a problem)

(K) WTC-179th via 8th local, 53rd and QBL local. Operates all times. 

(N) rerouted up 96th/125th

(Q) unchanged

(R) Astoria- Bay Ridge (yard at 36th or CI)

(W) eliminated 

Edited by R68OnBroadway
forgot to add the C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

As said before, I think it would be better to make the (Z) its own full-time, 24/7 line from Bay Ridge to Essex Street (with scheduled in-service yard runs that end and begin at Broadway Junction) in what essentially would be a 24/7 extended version of the old "Bankers Special" <RR> trains. 

This is where you and I disagree on this... 

I do think long term that a separate 4th Avenue-Nassau service is necessary however I would leave the (Z) designation alone. A rush hour extension of the (Z) is a good intermediate  measure that can lead to a full time service later once capital improvements are completed. That separate service should just be K or R or something along those lines rather than giving it a letter already in use.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In preparation for a future SAS "Phase 5" to Brooklyn, might it serve as a good intermediate stage to construct a short connection between the Montague Tunnel and the unused Court Street station (currently the Transit Museum) leading to the underused Fulton Line via Hoyt–Schermerhorn? This would branch off before normal (R) service reaches the extant northern Court Street station. This would alleviate (W) turnaround issues and make better use of the Montague Tunnel and Fulton Line, all the while getting the southern Court Street station up and running in anticipation of future (T)yD35xgl.png service.

On 4/28/2019 at 10:41 AM, Around the Horn said:

I do think long term that a separate 4th Avenue-Nassau service is necessary however I would leave the (Z) designation alone. A rush hour extension of the (Z) is a good intermediate  measure that can lead to a full time service later once capital improvements are completed. That separate service should just be K or R or something along those lines rather than giving it a letter already in use.

Precisely my thoughts. Changes to service needn't all happen at once, so rush-hour (Z) service to Bay Ridge would indeed be a good provisional stage (serving as a trial period) before permanent 0ZkIOkm.png service is tentatively implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 9:15 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

On the subject of trying to improve reliability for (R) riders, the best way to relieve it of delays would be to remove it from Queens Boulevard. The following would take place:

(C) express south of 50th

(E) unchanged

(F) express on Hillside at all times. (Yes, I know riders would ditch locals for expresses quickly, but the main goal of this would be to speed up commutes for bus riders at 179th and eliminate the merge at 75th). 

(M) unchanged (maybe extended to Hillside if fumigation is a problem)

(K) WTC-179th via 8th local, 53rd and QBL local. Operates all times. 

(N) rerouted up 96th/125th

(Q) unchanged

(R) Astoria- Bay Ridge (yard at 36th or CI)

(W) eliminated 

(N) should be extended to LaGuardia Airport even to Little Neck - Little Neck Parkway

(Q) should be extended to Bronx underneath 3rd Avenue and East Gun Hill Road to Co-Op City along with the (B) and (D) Train.

(R) should kept how it is and also extend the (R) line along with the (M) underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park-263rd Street or Langdale Street.

(W) should not be eliminated and should be kept how it is or Extend to LaGuardia Airport even to College Point.

(C) should be Extended along with the (T) underneath Pitkin Avenue to Cambria Heights - 234th Street. 

(E) Extension to Queens Village - Springfield Boulevard

(K) WTC to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street via Rockaway Queensway along with the (G)

(B) extend underneath East Gun Hill Road to Co-Op City

(D) same like the (B) extend underneath East Gun Hill Road to Co-Op City

(F) extension to Floral Park - Little Neck Parkway

(M) same like the (R) extension underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park-263rd Street or Langdale Street

(T) Broadway-125th Street to Cambria Heights - 234th Street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

(N) should be extended to LaGuardia Airport even to Little Neck - Little Neck Parkway

(Q) should be extended to Bronx underneath 3rd Avenue and East Gun Hill Road to Co-Op City along with the (B) and (D) Train.

(R) should kept how it is and also extend the (R) line along with the (M) underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park-263rd Street or Langdale Street.

(W) should not be eliminated and should be kept how it is or Extend to LaGuardia Airport even to College Point.

(C) should be Extended along with the (T) underneath Pitkin Avenue to Cambria Heights - 234th Street. 

(E) Extension to Queens Village - Springfield Boulevard

(K) WTC to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street via Rockaway Queensway along with the (G)

(B) extend underneath East Gun Hill Road to Co-Op City

(D) same like the (B) extend underneath East Gun Hill Road to Co-Op City

(F) extension to Floral Park - Little Neck Parkway

(M) same like the (R) extension underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park-263rd Street or Langdale Street

(T) Broadway-125th Street to Cambria Heights - 234th Street

Lol you wylin with all this. Who's gonna take some slow-ass (R) train from the county line?

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Lol you wylin with all this. Who's gonna take some slow-ass (R) train from the county line?

That is my idea and it is needed, These Extensions would help They would help to serve public transit “deserts” like eastern Queens, a few section of Brooklyn especially in Mills Basin and Floyd Benett Field, North Riverdale and Co-op City in the Bronx, and Staten Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, subwayfan1998 said:

That is my idea and it is needed, These Extensions would help They would help to serve public transit “deserts” like eastern Queens, a few section of Brooklyn especially in Mills Basin and Floyd Benett Field, North Riverdale and Co-op City in the Bronx, and Staten Island.

Needed according to who? Some rando on the internet?

Subway to the county line is way overkill, the eastern edge of Queens will never be extremely dense and is fine with buses. The good people of Glen Oaks would probably have your head if you suggested bringing a subway to their neighborhood, as would the good people of Floral Park and Little Neck. 

Subways should go about as far east as Springfield and no further, and at that point the county line is a 10-15 minute bus ride away. And ain't nobody riding the slow ass (C) to Cambria Heights. People have things to do and places to be, not stewing on some all-local scenic tour of the rat infested subways.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is much more long term, but if the LIRR Atlantic Branch ever gets connected to Manhattan, it might make more sense to convert the Rockaways back to LIRR service, ofc assuming comparable headways and pricing to subway. This would then mean more service to Lefferts, and the C could still terminate at Euclid, you'd also have a kind of super-express in the form of the LIRR. Just a thought.

Share this post


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

Needed according to who? Some rando on the internet?

Subway to the county line is way overkill, the eastern edge of Queens will never be extremely dense and is fine with buses. The good people of Glen Oaks would probably have your head if you suggested bringing a subway to their neighborhood, as would the good people of Floral Park and Little Neck. 

Subways should go about as far east as Springfield and no further, and at that point the county line is a 10-15 minute bus ride away. And ain't nobody riding the slow ass (C) to Cambria Heights. People have things to do and places to be, not stewing on some all-local scenic tour of the rat infested subways.

Every New Yorker would agree with my idea, Not some Rando on the internet. Chill dude, I'm not being harsh. Eastern Queens are desert for Transit, They need Manhattan for Jobs and many from Manhattan to Eastern Queens to see their Family and Friends. I know a lot of my friends who has their friends in Eastern Queens especially Queens Village.

  • LMAO! 1

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.