Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Armandito]

30 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Demand on the  is extremely heavy; adding more people onto already-crowded trains moving through some of the few NYC neighborhoods that are legitimately growing is a recipe for lots of pain down the line. We're better off doing a connection to Eastern Pkwy. 

Quite ironic to know that more than three decades ago, ridership on the was so low that the MTA was looking to abandon it and let it go the way of the dodo. It would've been a different story talking about connecting a Utica Avenue corridor to the Canarsie Line back then.

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Demand on the  is extremely heavy; adding more people onto already-crowded trains moving through some of the few NYC neighborhoods that are legitimately growing is a recipe for lots of pain down the line. We're better off doing a connection to Eastern Pkwy.

Isn’t Eastern Parkway just as busy though? It could work as a stop-gap measure, but it really needs to be built for B-division equipment so that when an extension to Williamsburg and Manhattan are ready, then it can be disconnected from the IRT (or used for non-revenue moves). We should not be building out more lower-capacity IRT ROWs (like the Flushing extension to Hudson Yards).

[Lex]

34 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Isn’t Eastern Parkway just as busy though? It could work as a stop-gap measure, but it really needs to be built for B-division equipment so that when an extension to Williamsburg and Manhattan are ready, then it can be disconnected from the IRT (or used for non-revenue moves). We should not be building out more lower-capacity IRT ROWs (like the Flushing extension to Hudson Yards).

Considering ridership patterns and deficiencies in infrastructure, I'm most open to even considering building Utica Avenue (connected to Eastern Parkway) if we have invasive reconstruction of Broadway-7th Avenue (higher-speed switches and a lower level that ends at Chambers Street for potential bumps in  and  service from the Bronx and points north of 110th Street in Manhattan) and a complete reconfiguration of Eastern Parkway to improve flexibility and throughput while still keeping ridership patterns in mind (no longer stacked, trains can be slotted for Nostrand Avenue, branches are accessible from all tracks, Utica Avenue can reasonably short-turn trains from the east when necessary, routes can change based on ridership patterns more easily).

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

Isn’t Eastern Parkway just as busy though? It could work as a stop-gap measure, but it really needs to be built for B-division equipment so that when an extension to Williamsburg and Manhattan are ready, then it can be disconnected from the IRT (or used for non-revenue moves). We should not be building out more lower-capacity IRT ROWs (like the Flushing extension to Hudson Yards).

I am pretty sure that all new construction, like New South Ferry or the 7 Line extension, is built to B-Division standards other than platform width.

The capacity difference between a 10-car IRT and a 10-car B Division train is not extremely large, especially when comparing to what it would actually be replacing, which is a 60 foot bus.

To me the obvious plan is to connect to Eastern Parkway in the (relatively) short term, then in 2500 we can connect it to something like the SAS via Williamsburg.

Edited August 14, 2020 by bobtehpanda

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

I am pretty sure that all new construction, like New South Ferry or the 7 Line extension, is built to B-Division standards other than platform width.

I thought I remembered reading that the bored tunnels would be smaller to save on money. Not sure when and where I read it. Also read something about early plans for 3 tracks at 34 Street–Hudson Yards which also got cut back.

[RR503]

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

Isn’t Eastern Parkway just as busy though? It could work as a stop-gap measure, but it really needs to be built for B-division equipment so that when an extension to Williamsburg and Manhattan are ready, then it can be disconnected from the IRT (or used for non-revenue moves). We should not be building out more lower-capacity IRT ROWs (like the Flushing extension to Hudson Yards).

Nope. Let's do some math. 

The  today runs 20 trains per hour into Manhattan between 8 and 9AM. For Eastern Parkway:

• The  runs 9tph
• The  runs 8tph
• The  runs 12tph (with another 1tph turning in at Bowling Green)
• The  runs 10tph (with another 1tph turning in at Bowling Green)

The maximum capacity of the  without spending to increase traction power is 22tph; the maximum if you don't spend the untold billions to add tail tracks at 8th Avenue is 26tph. On Eastern Parkway, Lex and 7th Avenue will be capable of 30tph operation after CBTC. Only Lex CBTC is funded at this point, so we'll run with a 26tph capacity on 7th for argumentation's sake (so 13tph for each of the  and ). Looking just at train volumes, we get:

• The  is at 91% of traction power capacity, or 77% of infrastructure capacity
• The  is at 69% of capacity
• The  is at 62% of capacity
• The  is at 80% of capacity
• The  is at 66% of capacity 
• The Eastern Parkway line is at 70% capacity

But train volumes fail to capture how many people are actually aboard those trains. For that we must turn to NYMTC's hub bound data. NYCT defines "at capacity" as being equivalent to 3 sq ft of space/standee. The current NYMTC values for space/rider during the AM peak hour (8-9AM) are:

• 3.9 sq ft/rider on the  
• 5.0 sq ft/rider on the  
• 5.9 sq ft/rider on the  

These values are all measured at these lines' first stops within the Manhattan CBD. NYMTC defines the CBD as being all of Manhattan below 60 St, so the figures we're looking at are for 1 Av, Wall St, and Bowling Green respectively. Given that 2 peak-hour trains arriving at Bowling Green are entering service, it's probably wise if we multiply the  figure by (22/24), or .9167. That yields an average crowding level of 5.4 sq ft/rider.

Putting this in percentage terms, to find the ratio between current loads and the load that would make the line be at capacity (so ridership/(delivered square footage/3.0 sq ft/person)):

• The  is at 78% capacity 
• The  are at 61% capacity
• The  are at 56% capacity

And putting it all together, which really just means multiplying the values immediately above with the track capacity values at top:

• The  is at 71% of traction power capacity, or 60% of infrastructure capacity 
• The  are at 40% capacity
• The  are at 41% capacity

Now, this above analysis probably overstates available capacity on all these lines because their peak load points are not = to the river crossings, but without high precision data on peak loading points and levels, it's difficult to say how bad this gap is. Just something of which we should be cognizant. Even with that equivocation, however, it's pretty clear here that the route with the most available capacity is...Eastern Parkway. It's not even close. 

For our final analysis segment, we've gotta look at some trends. Capacity doesn't exist in a vacuum; a route may have available capacity but if its ridership has been growing strongly over the past x years, it's reasonable to expect that the capacity will be consumed by existing service areas. Below is a chart showing ridership growth at all stations on the Eastern Parkway Line and Canarsie Lines from 2000-present; for all transfer stations on both lines (except for Franklin ) I've split loads equally across corridors serving the stop (so at Barclays, where you have Brighton, 4th and EPW, each would get 1/3). This is an indexed chart, so 2000 = 1 and changes in ridership since 2000 are divided by 2000 ridership to get a multiple of the earlier figure.

...so the only line with a plausible claim of ridership growth constraints is Canarsie. 

The thrust of this analysis should be clear, but if it isn't: the Canarsie Line cannot handle a Utica branch. 

Edited August 15, 2020 by RR503

[EvilMonologue]

46 minutes ago, RR503 said:

...so the only line with a plausible claim of ridership growth constraints is Canarsie. 

The thrust of this analysis should be clear, but if it isn't: the Canarsie Line cannot handle a Utica branch. 

So how would the Eastern Parkway be split up?

[RR503]

3 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

So how would the Eastern Parkway be split up?

It would depend on how much of Nostrand's demand Utica would soak up. You would probably either end up doing  Nostrand/ Utica or  Nostrand  Utica  New Lots, with  >  in tph. 

[bobtehpanda]

6 hours ago, CenSin said:

I thought I remembered reading that the bored tunnels would be smaller to save on money. Not sure when and where I read it. Also read something about early plans for 3 tracks at 34 Street–Hudson Yards which also got cut back.

Realistically speaking most of the project cost is stations, not tunnel; the balance on SAS IIRC was 75/25. And in a station you're not really saving that much excavation volume switching to a *slightly* smaller size (remember, the track gauge is the same)

Three-track terminals aren't really much better than two-track ones, because trains now have to get in each others' way to leave and exit from the farthest tracks. And some of the busiest rail lines in Japan get turned on two track terminals.

[LGA Link N Train]

Since optimizing the current infrastructure is more important than building new lines, I tried to make a map that combines all of the ideas discussed within the last 3-5 pages of this thread, please note that I used a large-scale deinterlined subway map as a template to present this "master plan" for the lack of a better term. I also did not prioritize any infrastructure upgrade in any specific order, so if anyone here is able to shed some light as to which upgrades should be prioritized over others, I would appreciate the help. 

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1Ph4tk1R3GC3cTK6q5zkAj2mYcKUvsdOl&usp=sharing

To further explain, here are the "new" projects that are being proposed:

 - The Aqueduct Stations should be Consolidated into 1 singular Station. I think this should happen regardless of whether or not RBB gets reactivated as part of the LIRR. 

 - 2 Stop reroute up 21st Street. The stops are Court Square and Queens Bridge. Connections to the  and surrounding bus lines along 21st Street would be enhanced. However, those from Brooklyn trying to access the would see a downgrade as they would have to pass through the Train platforms just to reach the . This could be compensated by running a huttle between Queens Plaza and the current  trains Court Square Platform. Part of 21st Street-Van Alst is demolished as Discussed, but a track connection from Crosstown to Court Square should be Preserved.  If anything, the current Mezzinane of 21st Street could be an employee facility while the abandoned part of the mezzanine could be some sort of NYTM Exhibit. 

 - Space should be added Southwest of Bedford-Nostrand in provision of a junction that'll bring Franklin Avenue trains to Crosstown.

 - The BMT Eastern Division should have most of its platforms extended to 10 cars. Some stations (such as Crescent Street) will gain new ADA-accessible entrances/exits. A handful of Stations will be consolidated while the rest would gain ADA-accessibility. To accommodate this "expansion", East New York and Fresh Pond Yards would have to be expanded and that'll require eminent domain which thankfully, isn't a whole lot of it. As for station consolidations, the following would occur:

• Marcy Avenue ---> Williamsburg Plaza
• Hewes and Loimer Streets ---> Union Avenue 
• Alabama and Van Siclen Avenues ----> Pennsylvania Avenue
• Cleveland Street and Norwood Avenue ---> Highland Place. 

The reasons for consolidating these stations should be quite obvious to everyone at this point. If not, then its to provide wider stop spacing and better transfer opportunities. These stations will obviously be ADA accessible. As a bonus, 8th Avenue-14th Street should gain tail tracks to at least 9th Avenue. 

 - 75th Street-Elderts Lane and Cypress Hills will be abandoned along with the demolition of the current Crescent Street Curve, in its place, the Jamaica EL should continue down Fulton Street, then turn up 75th Street and stop at Rockaway Blvd. This station will be ADA-accessible. Getting the EL back to Jamaica Avenue via its current route will unfortunately, require eminent domain. On the bright side, this new alignment will generate higher ridership for the Jamaica Line. 

- Central Avenue and Knickerbocker Avenue stations should be rebuilt as Island Platforms with ADA Accessibility. The way I envision it is similar to the way other posters on here envision converting local stations into peak express stations on lines that have 3 tracks. This however, would require a closure of the Myrtle Line between Broadway and Wycoff Avenue. As a bonus, a new track could be added between Knickerbocker and Myrtle-Wycoff in case a train needs to be laid up or short turn. 

 - Braodway Junction and Atlantic Avenue stations should be rebuilt along with the infrastructure being rebuilt in between them. Atlantic Avenue station should be 4 tracks with 2 island platforms. The inner 2 tracks will be for short turns or put-ins for Nassau Trains while the outer tracks should continue to serve the Canarsie  line. In between the inner and outer tracks should be 2 additional tracks that lead to an expanded East New York Yard (which I mentioned earlier). Broadway Junction will have its platform's extended to 610' in expense to the current middle track. 

A transfer will be added between 57th Street-7th Avenue  and 7th Avenue-53rd Street . IMO, I see this as a more feasible option as opposed to building a transfer from 57-7 to Columbus Circle. 

Low-Priority, but swapping the Express-Local Alignment along Brighton at either Neck Road or Sheepshead Bay would be nice for  and riders. 

Transfers:

1. Lexington 59th - Lexington 63rd
2. Broadway Lafayette - Prince Street
3. Queens Plaza - Queensboro Plaza
4. Grand Street - Bowery

Local-Peak Express Station Conversions (some of these could work but I find Questionable):

1. Westchester Square  
2. Bedford Park Blvd
3. Fordham Road
4. 161st-Yankee Stadium Train Platforms
5. 161st-Yankee Stadium  Train Platforms 

Everything Else:

• Expanding 149th-GC on the and to allow for deinterlining
• Expanding 135th-Lenox in order to add a Harlem Shuttle and to send the and  to the Bronx.
• Adding new Switches at Burnside, 18th Avenue (Culver) and South of 36th Street-4th Avenue to allow for flexible operations.
• Fixing the terminal issues at Astoria, Jamaica Center, and Coney Island by modifying the interlocking's or signals just before the stations themselves
• Re-Signalling Broadway Local and the Williamsburg Bridge to increase Capacity.
• Expanding Essex Street to allow for better operations. 
• Converting Part of Chambers into a new NYTM. 
• Fixing Rogers (Nostrand) Junction

So, any thoughts on  anything that I could add or remove?

[Armandito]

33 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 - Space should be added Southwest of Bedford-Nostrand in provision of a junction that'll bring Franklin Avenue trains to Crosstown.

 

33 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Low-Priority, but swapping the Express-Local Alignment along Brighton at either Neck Road or Sheepshead Bay would be nice for  and riders.

These plans would work out very well for my X proposal, indeed.

[EvilMonologue]

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 - 2 Stop reroute up 21st Street.

I wouldn't reroute the  in a way that necessarily removes the possibility of a transfer to the Astoria line.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

- Central Avenue and Knickerbocker Avenue stations should be rebuilt as Island Platforms with ADA Accessibility. The way I envision it is similar to the way other posters on here envision converting local stations into peak express stations on lines that have 3 tracks. This however, would require a closure of the Myrtle Line between Broadway and Wycoff Avenue. As a bonus, a new track could be added between Knickerbocker and Myrtle-Wycoff in case a train needs to be laid up or short turn. 

 Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't see much of a need to have peak express stations on the Myrtle Av Line, especially when the space for the third track is only for three stops. I do think that converting the platforms on Central Av, Knickerbocker Av, and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs into island platforms, filling in the space where the third track would be, and adding ADA accessibility would be good, though. Adding the upper level to the Myrtle Av station to make merges easier with the  is also something I'd do there.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Local-Peak Express Station Conversions (some of these could work but I find Questionable):

1. Westchester Square  
2. Bedford Park Blvd
3. Fordham Road
4. 161st-Yankee Stadium Train Platforms
5. 161st-Yankee Stadium  Train Platforms 

I wouldn't do #1 or #2, I think a  would work better in a similar way to the , where trains don't move onto the third track until after stopping at several stations. In this case, the  could make all stops until a converted Fordham Rd stop, and then continue until Yankee Stadium, which would also be converted.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Transfers:

1. Lexington 59th - Lexington 63rd
2. Broadway Lafayette - Prince Street
3. Queens Plaza - Queensboro Plaza
4. Grand Street - Bowery

I know it isn't in a particular order, but I'd say #1 and #3 are the most pressing. Also, regarding Queens Plaza, someone posted the idea of using the 11th St Cut for the , making it able to stop at Queens Plaza. I think that would be a good idea, making Queens Blvd de-interlining more palatable.

[LGA Link N Train]

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

I wouldn't reroute the  in a way that necessarily removes the possibility of a transfer to the Astoria line.

I added this proposal based on the general consensus. IMO, I don't think that Crosstown will ever connect with Astoria in any way unless you add a Northern Blvd line via Queens Plaza and 36th Street. That in itself would force Queens Blvd to deinterline anyway.

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

 Unless I'm misunderstanding, I don't see much of a need to have peak express stations on the Myrtle Av Line, especially when the space for the third track is only for three stops. I do think that converting the platforms on Central Av, Knickerbocker Av, and Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs into island platforms, filling in the space where the third track would be, and adding ADA accessibility would be good, though. Adding the upper level to the Myrtle Av station to make merges easier with the  is also something I'd do there.

The part in bold is exactly what I'm trying to say, so yea. I guess you misunderstood.

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

I wouldn't do #1 or #2, I think a  would work better in a similar way to the , where trains don't move onto the third track until after stopping at several stations. In this case, the  could make all stops until a converted Fordham Rd stop, and then continue until Yankee Stadium, which would also be converted.

With #1 and #2, it allows trains (local trains in particular) to terminate, then deadhead to the yard while Peak Express Stations would take over the local stations north. This allows for a greater flexibility in Transit operations. Thing about #1 is that the  is only skipping 2 more stops. 

1 hour ago, EvilMonologue said:

I know it isn't in a particular order, but I'd say #1 and #3 are the most pressing. Also, regarding Queens Plaza, someone posted the idea of using the 11th St Cut for the , making it able to stop at Queens Plaza. I think that would be a good idea, making Queens Blvd de-interlining more palatable.

Connecting the  to the 11th Street cut would give it access to Queens Plaza in place of the , but would also make it considerably slower in that area. So is that really a good trade off?

[EvilMonologue]

17 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Connecting the  to the 11th Street cut would give it access to Queens Plaza in place of the , but would also make it considerably slower in that area. So is that really a good trade off?

Well if the  would be made the local, then I'd say connectivity is more important than speed.

20 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

With #1 and #2, it allows trains (local trains in particular) to terminate, then deadhead to the yard while Peak Express Stations would take over the local stations north. This allows for a greater flexibility in Transit operations. Thing about #1 is that the  is only skipping 2 more stops. 

I guess if it improves operations for terminals, that's good, I hadn't thought about it in that regard. I think I'd still have the peak express  and  trains make the local stops until Fordham and Parkchester, respectively, though.

[Lawrence St]

19 hours ago, EvilMonologue said:

I wouldn't do #1 or #2, I think a  would work better in a similar way to the , where trains don't move onto the third track until after stopping at several stations. In this case, the  could make all stops until a converted Fordham Rd stop, and then continue until Yankee Stadium, which would also be converted.

Or, you could modify Burnside Av to be like Parkchester, so local trains terminate at Burnside Av while expess trains run local after Burnside Av. This is the low cost option as you would just be adding a switch.

[Armandito]

29 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Or, you could modify Burnside Av to be like Parkchester, so local trains terminate at Burnside Av while expess trains run local after Burnside Av. This is the low cost option as you would just be adding a switch.

One big problem is that the local stations along Jerome have too much ridership to justify running expresses even in a service pattern similar to the . A decade back when the MTA tried running select 's as expresses on an experimental basis, reactions to the service were mixed at best. AFAIK, there were complaints about bypassed stations getting more crowded along with locals suffering the same fate. The best thing to do would be a extension to Jerome instead--and readjust the connection to the Bronx so both trains could stop at 145th Street. In addition, the 145th Street station would get lengthened for full-length trains and the 148th Street station would be permanently closed.

[loveofelevators]

Line: Worth St Shuttle

Street that goes under: Worth St, East Bdwy

Stations:

Canal St:

Foley Sq:

East Bdway:

Lower East Side-Grand St

 

[loveofelevators]

Line: (X) *grey like *

{station name here} = station skipped

Street that goes under: Amsterdam Av/10 Av, 14 St, N 7 St, Metropolitan Av, Bushwick Av, Stuyvesant Av and Utica Av

Stations:

[10 Av Line] [Makes express stops between 14 St-8 Av and 168 St with  running local] [Makes All  stops between 8 Av-14 St and Montrose Av]

207 St:

Dyckman St:

191 St:

181 St:

168 St:

{163 St: }

{157 St}

145 St:

{137 St-City College}

125 St:

{116 St-Columbia University}

{Cathedral Pkwy-110 St}

{103 St}

96 St:

91 St:

{86 St}

{79 St}

72 St:

{66 St-Lincoln Center}

{59 St-John Jay College}

{50 St}

42 St:

34 St-Hudson Yards:

{28 St}

{23 St}

{18 St}

[14 St Line]

{Washington St}

8 Av:

6 Av:

Union Sq:

3 Av:

1 Av:

[Canarsie Line]

Kent Center:  (BQX)

Bedford Av:

Lorimer St:

Graham Av:

Grand St:

Montrose Av:

[Bushwick Av]

Flushing Av

Myrtle Av-Bdwy:

[Stuyvesant Av]

Gates Av

Fulton St:

[Utica Av Line]

Eastern Pkwy:

E NY Av

Church Av

Avenue D

Kings Hwy

Flatlands Av

Avenue N

Marine Park-Kings Plaza

 

 

[Armandito]

13 minutes ago, loveofelevators said:

Line: (X) *grey like *

{station name here} = station skipped

Street that goes under: Amsterdam Av/10 Av, 14 St, N 7 St, Metropolitan Av, Bushwick Av, Stuyvesant Av and Utica Av

Stations:

[10 Av Line] [Makes express stops between 14 St-8 Av and 168 St with  running local] [Makes All  stops between 8 Av-14 St and Montrose Av]

207 St:

Dyckman St:

191 St:

181 St:

168 St:

{163 St: }

{157 St}

145 St:

{137 St-City College}

125 St:

{116 St-Columbia University}

{Cathedral Pkwy-110 St}

{103 St}

96 St:

91 St:

{86 St}

{79 St}

72 St:

{66 St-Lincoln Center}

{59 St-John Jay College}

{50 St}

42 St:

34 St-Hudson Yards:

{28 St}

{23 St}

{18 St}

[14 St Line]

{Washington St}

8 Av:

6 Av:

Union Sq:

3 Av:

1 Av:

[Canarsie Line]

Kent Center:  (BQX)

Bedford Av:

Lorimer St:

Graham Av:

Grand St:

Montrose Av:

[Bushwick Av]

Flushing Av

Myrtle Av-Bdwy:

[Stuyvesant Av]

Gates Av

Fulton St:

[Utica Av Line]

Eastern Pkwy:

E NY Av

Church Av

Avenue D

Kings Hwy

Flatlands Av

Avenue N

Marine Park-Kings Plaza

 

 

Connecting a Utica subway to the Canarsie Line is out of the question...because the is already at capacity and the segment along 14th Street cannot handle more crowds coming in from the neighborhoods Utica serves. Also, the West Side of Manhattan is already well-covered by the trains so there's really no need for a third line along Amsterdam.

(PS - I'm already using the X designation [see my profile pic] for my proposed new service between Court Square and Brighton Beach via the Crosstown, Franklin, and Brighton local tracks)

Edited August 17, 2020 by Armandito

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

Also, the West Side of Manhattan is already well-covered by the trains so there's really no need for a third line along Amsterdam.

In the future, as the West Side continues to build out, there will be capacity constraints on the those lines, so you will need an Amsterdam Avenue Line up to at least 72nd Street to deal with the growth.

[loveofelevators]

9 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

In the future, as the West Side continues to build out, there will be capacity constraints on the those lines, so you will need an Amsterdam Avenue Line up to at least 72nd Street to deal with the growth.

And That's Why : Amsterdam Av/10 Av Lcl, and (X) *grey like *: Amsterdam Av/10 Av Exp. Get Used To It!

[JeremiahC99]

1 minute ago, loveofelevators said:

And That's Why : Amsterdam Av/10 Av Lcl, and (X) *grey like *: Amsterdam Av/10 Av Exp. Get Used To It!

Even better, though are you going to add 42nd Street as an express stop? And where would you have the northern ends be (I put mine at 72nd, with provisions to Queens built in)?

[loveofelevators]

1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Even better, though are you going to add 42nd Street as an express stop? And where would you have the northern ends be (I put mine at 72nd, with provisions to Queens built in)?

 trains's 34 St station will have a transfer with  train's 34 St station.

[loveofelevators]

Line: 11th Av Line

Streets run under: 11 Av, Greenwich St

Stations:

Times Sq-42 St:

10 Av:  (X)

34 St-Hudson Yards:

28 St

23 St-Chelsea Piers

14 St:

10 St

Houston St:

Canal St:

Chambers St:

Liberty St:

Rector St:

Battery Park:

[Bay Ridge Express]

3 hours ago, Armandito said:

(PS - I'm already using the X designation [see my profile pic] for my proposed new service between Court Square and Brighton Beach via the Crosstown, Franklin, and Brighton local tracks)

You don't own that designation... especially one that's officially nonexistent... lol

2 hours ago, loveofelevators said:

And That's Why : Amsterdam Av/10 Av Lcl, and (X) *grey like *: Amsterdam Av/10 Av Exp. Get Used To It!

Amsterdam is too close to Broadway north of 72 and I would say your stops parallel the  too much for the line to be that useful...