Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[KK 6 Ave Local]

21 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

I want NYC Subway Lines to be Long as F**k, look at China they making Subway Lines Long.

Same
from Paterson-Market St to Cambria Heights-234th St or Perhaps JFK Airport.
from WTC to Queens Village-Springfield Blvd

from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Bellerose/Floral Park-Little Neck Pkwy
Middle Village-Metropolitan Ave to Floral Park-263rd St, Middle Village-Metropolitan Ave to Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Ave

from Fort Hamilton-92nd St to Oakland Gardens-Bay Blvd

from Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy to UWS-72nd St

from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Little Neck-Little Neck Pkwy
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Bay Ridge-95th Street to Floral Park-263rd St, From Bay Ridge-95th Street to Woodrow-Bloomingdale Rd (Woodrow-Bloomingdale Rd to Floral Park-263rd St)
from Tottenville-Craig Ave to College Point-7th Ave

from Hanover Sq to Whitestone-7th Ave
from Cambria Heights-234th Street to Broadway-125th Street
from JFK Airport or Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck-Harding Ave

from Red Hook-Bay St to Yonkers-Prospect St
from Wakefield-241st to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave
from East NY-Flatlands Ave to Moshulu Pkwy-Van Cortland Park

from Woodlawn to Floyd Bennett Field
from Eastchester-Dyre Ave to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave
Same or from Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Co-Op City, Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Newark Liberty Airport

from Little Neck-Marathon Pkwy to Elizabeth-Grand St

It's not about making them long, it's about making them reliable.

[Jemorie]

1 hour ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

It's not about making them long, it's about making them reliable.

Don’t mind him.

[Jemorie]

@BM5 via Woodhaven and @RR503, entering Essex Street in Manhattan between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., according to the printed schedule and the trip planner, the  is maintaining service at 8 tph. Four to six additional round trips should be scheduled during this time around, to properly “mesh” with the  /  and the . Obviously, Forest Hills cannot handle the additional round trips, but WillyB can eventually. Also, because the  is severely overcrowded entering the 6th Avenue corridor, as both you and @Around the Horn pointed out a while ago. These extra morning rush hour trips will be put-ins from Fresh Pond Yard.

They have enough cars to do it now that all four-car R179s are here and all four-car R160s are back at ENY following the end of the  /  swap. Currently, the  is mostly maintaining a 10-minute headway for much of the AM Rush out of Metro. This is not acceptable.

Edited December 18, 2019 by Jemorie

[SubwayFan3000]

3 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said:

It's not about making them long, it's about making them reliable.

Yes Exactly, But Also I Prefer to Build Subway Lines to Desert Areas like Eastern Queens, South-Eastern Brooklyn, Staten Island and Co-Op City

[JeremiahC99]

3 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Yes Exactly, But Also I Prefer to Build Subway Lines to Desert Areas like Eastern Queens, South-Eastern Brooklyn, Staten Island and Co-Op City

Yes, but your proposed lines would end up being WAY too long. 
 

If I were you, I’d rather build into parts of the desert, with integrated bus service picking up the gaps. For example, I’d just extend the  to Springfield Blvd, and have increased Q43 bus service pick up the slack from there to Little Neck Pkwy and eventually, 268th Street. Little Neck Pkwy service can be built later.
 

For the  extension, I actually proposed 3-track extension to 254th Street at the county border via Northern Blvd. For my revised plan, rather than building out to 254th Street, I am proposing shortening the extension by 1 mile, terminating the line at Springfield Blvd and Northern Blvd in Bayside. Local service would terminate at 162nd Street and express service would run local from 162nd Street to Springfield. I would recommend you look into something similar. 
 

I am against the  going to Floral Park. The line is already long and unreliable enough, and making it even longer would add fuel to fire. It should be removed from Queens Blvd entirely. 
 

The  extension is okay. 
 

Also, any extension of the  and  in Brooklyn (or anywhere) would be impractical without dealing with Rogers Junction.

[RR503]

Re: this express-on-the-local proposal, as the old saying goes, the difference between a local and an express on the local is one stops at stations while the other stops between them. You can make this operation work with super coordinated schedules and low frequencies, but on the , where peak headway is 3 minutes, skipping more than 2-3 stops will put you hot on your leader's tail. Merging is unfun, but if we're going to do an express, we should do it properly. 

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’ve been wondering if it might be possible to run  trains peak direction express on the two-track el between Woodhaven and Broadway Junction with a stop at Crescent. Meanwhile,  trains would run local and each  would depart a couple minutes after each  to minimize the risk of an express  getting stuck behind a local . Then after Broadway Jct, the  would switch onto the middle track the rest of the way through Brooklyn. Maybe this might be a bit more palatable than building a bypass el. 

To this specific proposal, assuming ~30 seconds of savings per stop, you'd be gaining about 3.5 mins of runtime against your leader. At 12tph frequencies, that leaves about 90 seconds of buffer between you and the train in front of you, or the absolute minimum headway achievable on the densest of fixed block systems -- assuming everything goes right. And FWIW, the Jamaica el hardly has the most capable signal system.

You'd _maybe_ (and a strong maybe at that) be able to do express on the local from Crescent to Bway Jct (2 mins of savings/4 mins of buffer), but even then I do wonder whether the inevitable variability makes it a better alternative to just build out the express track above the current el. 

[SubwayFan3000]

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Yes, but your proposed lines would end up being WAY too long. 
 

If I were you, I’d rather build into parts of the desert, with integrated bus service picking up the gaps. For example, I’d just extend the  to Springfield Blvd, and have increased Q43 bus service pick up the slack from there to Little Neck Pkwy and eventually, 268th Street. Little Neck Pkwy service can be built later.
 

For the  extension, I actually proposed 3-track extension to 254th Street at the county border via Northern Blvd. For my revised plan, rather than building out to 254th Street, I am proposing shortening the extension by 1 mile, terminating the line at Springfield Blvd and Northern Blvd in Bayside. Local service would terminate at 162nd Street and express service would run local from 162nd Street to Springfield. I would recommend you look into something similar. 
 

I am against the  going to Floral Park. The line is already long and unreliable enough, and making it even longer would add fuel to fire. It should be removed from Queens Blvd entirely. 
 

The  extension is okay. 
 

Also, any extension of the  and  in Brooklyn (or anywhere) would be impractical without dealing with Rogers Junction.

I Prefer and Would Love to see NYC Subway Lines to be Long, But I Respect your Opinion.

Why to remove Line from QBL?

Edited December 19, 2019 by subwayfan1998

[SubwayFan3000]

On 12/17/2019 at 7:16 PM, subwayfan1998 said:

I want NYC Subway Lines to be Long as F**k, look at China they making Subway Lines Long.

Same
from Paterson-Market St to Cambria Heights-234th St or Perhaps JFK Airport.
from WTC to Queens Village-Springfield Blvd

from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Bellerose/Floral Park-Little Neck Pkwy
Middle Village-Metropolitan Ave to Floral Park-263rd St, Middle Village-Metropolitan Ave to Jackson Heights-Roosevelt Ave

from Fort Hamilton-92nd St to Oakland Gardens-Bay Blvd

from Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy to UWS-72nd St

from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Little Neck-Little Neck Pkwy
from Coney Island-Stillwell Ave to Co-Op City
from Bay Ridge-95th Street to Floral Park-263rd St, From Bay Ridge-95th Street to Woodrow-Bloomingdale Rd (Woodrow-Bloomingdale Rd to Floral Park-263rd St)
from Tottenville-Craig Ave to College Point-7th Ave

from Hanover Sq to Whitestone-7th Ave
from Cambria Heights-234th Street to Broadway-125th Street
from JFK Airport or Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck-Harding Ave

from Red Hook-Bay St to Yonkers-Prospect St
from Wakefield-241st to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave
from East NY-Flatlands Ave to Moshulu Pkwy-Van Cortland Park

from Woodlawn to Floyd Bennett Field
from Eastchester-Dyre Ave to Sheepshead Bay-Voorhies Ave
Same or from Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Co-Op City, Brooklyn Bridge-City Hall to Newark Liberty Airport

from Little Neck-Marathon Pkwy to Elizabeth-Grand St

Also I'm Missing the and

from Broad St to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd
from Chambers St to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd

from WTC to Rockaway Park-Beach 116 St via Queensway

[JeremiahC99]

7 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Why to remove Line from QBL?

Reliability issues on the  are caused by the line's routing on Queens Blvd. As others have said, it should be removed from the line entirely.

A solution to this is to reroute the  back to Astoria (the would be folded into the ), with the  going to 96th Street with the . All three services would run at 12 trains per hour. To replace the  on Queens Blvd, a new  route would be created. Using existing track infrastructure, the  would run between 71st Avenue and World Trade Center via Queens Blvd Local and 8th Avenue Local. In addition to replacing the  on Queens Blvd, it would also allow for the  to go via 63rd Street with the , increasing service through that tunnel. It would also allow for the  route to be express in Manhattan. Also, the  and  would swap places north of 145th Street, with the  going to the Concourse Line to Norwood-205th Street and the  going via 8th Avenue Local from 59th Street to 168th Street. Though the obvious fault of this plan is that it creates a new merge at 36th Street, it allows for the elimination of several other bottlenecks at 59th Street, Queens Plaza, 53rd Street, and Canal.

In addition, the  has no direct yard with this plan. However, the 36th Street Yard nearby would mitigate this. In the long term however, there should be a new tunnel connecting the Whitehall Street station (using existing provisions) and the Court Street station on the IND Fulton Street Line, and then to the Fulton Local Line, with another connection to the BMT Jamaica Line at Cypress Hills (also using existing provisions). This would also replace the elevated structure over Fulton Street. With this, the  and  would be rerouted onto the Fulton Local tracks, with the  going to Euclid and the taking over the  route to Jamaica Center. The  would terminate at Broadway Junction, and also replace  service to 95th Street. At this point, the  would be based out of Pitkin Yard and the  out of East New York Yard. The  route would be express to Lefferts Blvd, and the  would only travel to the Rockaways. To allow Astoria to handle both the  and , the Astoria Line would be extended to LaGuardia Airport.

Originally, I wanted the  to service the Fulton Line, but this was scrapped due to interlining concerns. the  would instead travel into Brooklyn via Pierrepoint Street, and then merge with the  to go to 95th Street, and eventually, a new terminal at 101st Street. Another option could be to route the line via Atlantic Avenue and take over the LIRR Atlantic Branch to Jamaica. What should I pick?

Future changes to the ,, , , and  would also be affected by a connection to the Nassau-8th Avenue Lines

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours ago, RR503 said:

Re: this express-on-the-local proposal, as the old saying goes, the difference between a local and an express on the local is one stops at stations while the other stops between them. You can make this operation work with super coordinated schedules and low frequencies, but on the , where peak headway is 3 minutes, skipping more than 2-3 stops will put you hot on your leader's tail. Merging is unfun, but if we're going to do an express, we should do it properly. 

To this specific proposal, assuming ~30 seconds of savings per stop, you'd be gaining about 3.5 mins of runtime against your leader. At 12tph frequencies, that leaves about 90 seconds of buffer between you and the train in front of you, or the absolute minimum headway achievable on the densest of fixed block systems -- assuming everything goes right. And FWIW, the Jamaica el hardly has the most capable signal system.

You'd _maybe_ (and a strong maybe at that) be able to do express on the local from Crescent to Bway Jct (2 mins of savings/4 mins of buffer), but even then I do wonder whether the inevitable variability makes it a better alternative to just build out the express track above the current el. 

My original idea for express-on-the-local for the Jamaica el was for it to start at Crescent. Maybe that is better after all. Maybe. Before that, I agreed with past suggestions to just have peak  express service from Broadway Jct to Marcy. But I feel like an express starting at Broadway Jct wouldn’t really be any more popular than the current skip-stop service is. Though your points about the Jamaica el signal system and variability (delays due to door holding, mechanical failure) certainly would be strikes against an express-on-the-local operation, especially given how often these happen system-wide. Though I wonder how appealing it will be to build an express track structure above the current el between Cypress Hills and Broadway Jct to residents, riders and businesses in the area.

Edited December 19, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Jemorie]

26 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Reliability issues on the  are caused by the line's routing on Queens Blvd. As others have said, it should be removed from the line entirely.

Work under traffic after the PM Rush and all weekend until CBTC comes into play. Not necessarily just only its route on Queens Blvd.

[Around the Horn]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Reliability issues on the  are caused by the line's routing on Queens Blvd. As others have said, it should be removed from the line entirely.

There is a lot wrong with the on a daily basis that has nothing to do with Queens Blvd.

[Union Tpke]

4 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

There is a lot wrong with the on a daily basis that has nothing to do with Queens Blvd.

You can say that again.

[JeremiahC99]

9 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

There is a lot wrong with the on a daily basis that has nothing to do with Queens Blvd.

I thought it was that. Wasn’t it the reason why everyone wanted the  rerouted back to Astoria, or is it something else?

[RR503]

3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

My original idea for express-on-the-local for the Jamaica el was for it to start at Crescent. Maybe that is better after all. Maybe. Before that, I agreed with past suggestions to just have peak  express service from Broadway Jct to Marcy. But I feel like an express starting at Broadway Jct wouldn’t really be any more popular than the current skip-stop service is. Though your points about the Jamaica el signal system and variability (delays due to door holding, mechanical failure) certainly would be strikes against an express-on-the-local operation, especially given how often these happen system-wide. Though I wonder how appealing it will be to build an express track structure above the current el between Cypress Hills and Broadway Jct to residents, riders and businesses in the area.

Thing with doing Bway Jct-Marcy express is through eliminating skip stop w/o eliminating runtime gains, you'd make boarding  at stops in Woodhaven/Richmond Hill much more appealing than taking the bus to QB. Crescent-Bway Jct would make that even more true, but honestly is icing on the cake -- big ticket item is getting peak headways below 10 mins. 

Re: the , Queens Boulevard is certainly part of the issue, but it's by no means the whole issue. Beyond the runtime issues with the 11 St cut merge and approaching Forest Hills, QB's biggest impact on  service is making its schedule incredibly complicated. You're not only weaving the  through Astoria traffic, but you're now tying it to the IND as well -- makes it impossible to schedule even, hold-free service and ridiculously hard to implement any schedule remedy for service issues because you'd basically have to rewrite the entire B division timetable to do so. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

15 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

I Prefer and Would Love to see NYC Subway Lines to be Long, But I Respect your Opinion.

You might be fond of long, winding subway lines, but adding length comes with a host of factors that have a bad habit of destroying reliability on said lines when pressure is applied on them. What we want is for our subway lines to run as efficiently as possible, period. Some of the longest lines in the system fall victim to a mutual problem in particular: merging. An easy way to maintain that issue along a line is to ensure it's long enough to suffer through multiple "choke points."

[Jemorie]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I thought it was that. Wasn’t it the reason why everyone wanted the  rerouted back to Astoria, or is it something else?

Why would you think that is the only reason though. You know the merges it also makes with the , , and  along its run so if those 3 other lines aren’t running on time, it negatively impacts the  as well. Like @T to Dyre Avenue told me a little while ago, the  does not necessarily have to do triple duty (as an all local service) on three trunk lines (Queens Blvd, Broadway, and 4 Av).

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, Jemorie said:

Why would you think that is the only reason though. You know the merges it also makes with the , , and  along its run so if those 3 other lines aren’t running on time, it negatively impacts the  as well. Like @T to Dyre Avenue told me a little while ago, the  does not necessarily have to do triple duty (as an all local service) on three trunk lines (Queens Blvd, Broadway, and 4 Av).

I mean, the current  via Queens Blvd can - in theory - operate express and via 63rd St. But then that would force either the  or  onto the local, a scenario that would please very few Queens Blvd Line riders. But at least if the  goes back to Astoria or is truncated at Whitehall Street with a full-time, higher frequency  taking its place in Brooklyn, you’d still have a three-borough local train. But it would be one with no merges (except - maybe - for a part-time extended  to Bay Ridge). 

2 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

You might be fond of long, winding subway lines, but adding length comes with a host of factors that have a bad habit of destroying reliability on said lines when pressure is applied on them. What we want is for our subway lines to run as efficiently as possible, period. Some of the longest lines in the system fall victim to a mutual problem in particular: merging. An easy way to maintain that issue along a line is to ensure it's long enough to suffer through multiple "choke points."

The current  is a prime example. And I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen posts calling for it to be extended from Bay Ridge to Staten Island. Because it isn’t already long enough and doesn’t have enough merges?  

Edited December 20, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[shiznit1987]

Speaking of Queens Blvd, let's talk about that bypass....

 

I've been thinking about it, and my idea is for the 63rd st line to run under the LIRR all the way to Archer Ave, where it would take over the Archer Ave Subway. There would be stops at 61st-Woodside (Transfer to ), Forest Hills-71st Ave (Passageway to 71st-Continential station), then a new stop at Van Wyck-Archer (To replace Jamaica-Van Wyck, which would close), and then on to the existing Sutphin Blvd/JFK and Parsons-Archer stations. 

The service pattern would look like this:

 Broadway Express to 96st/2nd Ave

 Broadway Express -> 63rd Street -> QB Bypass to Parsons-Archer 

 No change

 Astoria-Whitehall

 6th Ave Local -> 63rd Street -> QB Bypass to Parsons-Archer 

 6th Ave Local -> 53rd Street -> QB Express to 179th St (evenings/weekends cut back to Essex St)

 8th Ave Local -> 53rd Street -> QB Express to 179th St

 Possible reinstatement to 71st-Continental 

This gives 30tph through the 63rd st tunnel, finally living up to it's potential, plus the bonus of maybe being able to bring the  back. 

[RR503]

2 hours ago, shiznit1987 said:

Speaking of Queens Blvd, let's talk about that bypass....

 

I've been thinking about it, and my idea is for the 63rd st line to run under the LIRR all the way to Archer Ave, where it would take over the Archer Ave Subway. There would be stops at 61st-Woodside (Transfer to ), Forest Hills-71st Ave (Passageway to 71st-Continential station), then a new stop at Van Wyck-Archer (To replace Jamaica-Van Wyck, which would close), and then on to the existing Sutphin Blvd/JFK and Parsons-Archer stations. 

The service pattern would look like this:

 Broadway Express to 96st/2nd Ave

 Broadway Express -> 63rd Street -> QB Bypass to Parsons-Archer 

 No change

 Astoria-Whitehall

 6th Ave Local -> 63rd Street -> QB Bypass to Parsons-Archer 

 6th Ave Local -> 53rd Street -> QB Express to 179th St (evenings/weekends cut back to Essex St)

 8th Ave Local -> 53rd Street -> QB Express to 179th St

 Possible reinstatement to 71st-Continental 

This gives 30tph through the 63rd st tunnel, finally living up to it's potential, plus the bonus of maybe being able to bring the  back. 

"Organization before electronics before concrete" should be a saying we all keep in mind. 

The bypass doesn't do anything for capacity that deinterlining couldn't do, and moreover forces the preservation of all sorts of ugly merges. The constraining factor on Queens today is the number of Manhattan-bound tunnels; the Bypass doesn't expand that figure and thus doesn't really get to the heart of Queens' issue. I'd prioritize some new line across the river over it. 

[JeremiahC99]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

The bypass doesn't do anything for capacity that deinterlining couldn't do, and moreover forces the preservation of all sorts of ugly merges. The constraining factor on Queens today is the number of Manhattan-bound tunnels; the Bypass doesn't expand that figure and thus doesn't really get to the heart of Queens' issue. I'd prioritize some new line across the river over it. 

For that new tunnel across the east river, do you recommend linking it to an expanded Second Avenue Subway phase 3 (4 tracks) so that SAS 3 has an northern end with no destructive interlining? I was thinking of an SAS via Northern Blvd for this new line.

[shiznit1987]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

"Organization before electronics before concrete" should be a saying we all keep in mind. 

The bypass doesn't do anything for capacity that deinterlining couldn't do, and moreover forces the preservation of all sorts of ugly merges. The constraining factor on Queens today is the number of Manhattan-bound tunnels; the Bypass doesn't expand that figure and thus doesn't really get to the heart of Queens' issue. I'd prioritize some new line across the river over it. 

The question is can we get passengers to accept that reality (Deinterlining)? It'd be easy enough to build tail tracks at Parsons/Archer and send 30tph  local and 30tph  express with another 20-30 tph  to Astoria and call it a day, but without that magical passageway at 63/Lex to the  one wonders if you can get buy-in politically. 

[RR503]

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

For that new tunnel across the east river, do you recommend linking it to an expanded Second Avenue Subway phase 3 (4 tracks) so that SAS 3 has an northern end with no destructive interlining? I was thinking of an SAS via Northern Blvd for this new line.

Yes, that'd be what I'd do. There are also a whole number of plans with an  extension via 10th Ave that'd be doable/potentially good. 

1 minute ago, shiznit1987 said:

The question is can we get passengers to accept that reality (Deinterlining)? It'd be easy enough to build tail tracks at Parsons/Archer and send 30tph  local and 30tph  express with another 20-30 tph  to Astoria and call it a day, but without that magical passageway at 63/Lex to the  one wonders if you can get buy-in politically. 

There is fast approaching a day when, even with CBTC, QB express will not be able to take more passengers. That day will bring ridiculous dwells at QB exp stations, unpleasant travel, etc. Deinterlining is the only realistic fix for that, and frankly doesn't end up costing riders that much time if done right, while also, through simplifying train movements, allows for greater overall capacity. 

We can also just build the passageway!

[JeremiahC99]

19 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes, that'd be what I'd do. There are also a whole number of plans with an  extension via 10th Ave that'd be doable/potentially good. 

I have incorporated both into my revised future NYC subway plans, especially the  extension. However, I made the  extension as a short extension from 8th Avenue to as far as 72nd Street and Amsterdam Avenue, with a provision for an extension to Queens) to allow for better service on the West Side of Manhattan, alleviating crowds on West Side trains (hopefully). 
 

I also have this line incorporated into my plans for the Nassau-8th Avenue connections, which have been revised for more optimal operations.

[bobtehpanda]

21 hours ago, RR503 said:

"Organization before electronics before concrete" should be a saying we all keep in mind. 

The bypass doesn't do anything for capacity that deinterlining couldn't do, and moreover forces the preservation of all sorts of ugly merges. The constraining factor on Queens today is the number of Manhattan-bound tunnels; the Bypass doesn't expand that figure and thus doesn't really get to the heart of Queens' issue. I'd prioritize some new line across the river over it. 

 

19 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

For that new tunnel across the east river, do you recommend linking it to an expanded Second Avenue Subway phase 3 (4 tracks) so that SAS 3 has an northern end with no destructive interlining? I was thinking of an SAS via Northern Blvd for this new line.

We already have a new tunnel. It's the lower level of 63rd.

In a more logical world without stupid inter-agency politics, we would have Crossrail type operation from Port Washington, Hempstead and Belmont feed a tunnel from Grand Central to Atlantic via Union Square and Fulton, and then branching out again to serve Far Rockaway, Long Beach and West Hempstead.

As far as I am aware, it's not like there's room for two additional tracks on the six-track portion of the Main Line west of Woodside anyways. It'd be easier to build six tracks from Woodside to Floral Park to segregate this new inner-suburban service.

It'd also provide a lot more wallop than a new subway line given that those services combined are not running anywhere near 24 or 30TPH today, and they operate 12-car trains where the cars are 85 ft.

Edited December 24, 2019 by bobtehpanda