Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[JeremiahC99]

2 minutes ago, Deucey said:

20 minutes from St George to the VZ to 86th St  - or wherever it was supposed to connect. 30 minutes on  to Whitehall.

The yacht takes 25 minutes from St George to Whitehall.

50 minutes on a train vs 25 minutes on the yacht.

32 minutes from Tottenville to Grasmere; add 5 minutes to get to 86th St or wherever, then 30 minutes on  to Whitehall.

42 minutes total to St George, 25 minutes on the yacht. Only time saved is the 10 minutes waiting in the St George lobby - and oftentimes the wait is less than 5 .

Direct line from St George to Red Hook to Manhattan makes more sense, but the tunnel depth could mess that up.

Okay, though my SI rail plans do not call for having the subway go to St. George, since that would still force people to go there, especially if their destination is Lower Manhattan. The subway would go elsewhere on the island to serve areas with no rail service. I would save St. George for another train line. I’ll have the details  for both soon.

[Deucey]

11 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Okay, though my SI rail plans do not call for having the subway go to St. George, since that would still force people to go there, especially if their destination is Lower Manhattan. The subway would go elsewhere on the island to serve areas with no rail service. I would save St. George for another train line. I’ll have the details  for both soon.

But without a train connection to St George, we're still reliant on a ferry that'll be subjected to service cuts.

If it wasn't for cruise ships leaving Chelsea Piers and rampant money mismanagement we could do a tunnel from St George, create a "Roosevelt Island in the harbor that could have housing or some attraction, and then build a causeway or bridge to Governor's Island or Red Hook to connect with  or , respectively.

But NY will never be like Dubai.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/6/2020 at 10:48 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

I was thinking of the same thing for the LIRR branches (except for RBB, as the southern portion is already used by subway service). However, there could be some issues with getting bus passengers to use some of the stations, specifically one on the PW line: Auburndale. That station sits at 192nd Street halfway between two major thoroughfares, Utopia Pkwy and Francis Lewis Blvd, the latter of which is served by the Q76. Since it's located hidden away from major areas like Francis Lewis, Utopia, and other areas, many residents and bus riders through the area don't even know that the station exists. This phenomenon also appears at some other LIRR stations, such as Laurelton on the Atlantic Branch, which also is hidden from major streets. In contrast, busier stations are located just off the main streets. For example, Bayside is located at 41st Avenue and 213th Street, which is just off Bell Blvd. Bell Blvd is service by two bus routes from other areas of Northeast Queens, and is easily walkable from the commercial and residential areas of the neighborhood. It is also one of the busier stations on the line.

If they really want to get more people on the LIRR, more will be needed than fare restructuring via OMNY and increased service. Another recommendation is to relocate stations to more accessible areas. The Auburndale station could be moved from its current location at 192nd Street to a better location at Francis Lewis Blvd, where bus riders on the Q76 could easily transfer to the LIRR. Other LIRR stations within the city limits could also be evaluated for such a move.

Speaking of fares, I also recommend completely restructuring the fare system. Under my plan, the base fare for the subway and bus is $1.50, with free transfers maintained. LIRR and Metro North fares would also be restructured. New zones for the LIRR would be as follows (all fares would be counted as one way):

• Zone 1: All New York City stations, including Bellerose and Floral Park on the Hempstead Branch. Fare: $1.50
• Zone 2: All Nassau County stations except Bellerose and Floral Park. Fare: $3.00
• Zone 3: All Suffolk County stations. Fare: $4.50

Metro North zones would be as follows:

• Zone 1: All New York City stations. Fare: $1.50
• Zone 2: All Westchester County stations. Fare: $3.00
• Zone 3: All Putnam County and Fairfield County, CT stations. Fare: $4.50
• Zone 4: All Duchess County and New Haven County, CT stations. Fare: $6.00

Free transfers would be available between the LIRR/MNRR and the subway/bus system. There could either be fare capping or unlimited passes like today, with One-day passes at $3.00, 7-day passes at $21, 14-day passes at $42, and one month passes at $84, though I think fare capping could be more fairer.

As for the SAS to Tottenville, I would rather have this line go along the Fulton IND local to eliminate the merge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and allow for more frequent service east of Hoyt-Schermerhorn. I may have other plans for SI.

Note: the $1.50 value came from finding the value of $0.05, the fare in 1904, in 2020 money. The fare could rise in line with inflation, but not faster than that.

Agreed that the Auburndale and Laurelton stations are in terrible locations and would get more ridership if moved to the nearest major cross street with a bus route. But this is the MTA we’re talking about here.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

On 11/6/2020 at 10:48 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

I was thinking of the same thing for the LIRR branches (except for RBB, as the southern portion is already used by subway service). However, there could be some issues with getting bus passengers to use some of the stations, specifically one on the PW line: Auburndale. That station sits at 192nd Street halfway between two major thoroughfares, Utopia Pkwy and Francis Lewis Blvd, the latter of which is served by the Q76. Since it's located hidden away from major areas like Francis Lewis, Utopia, and other areas, many residents and bus riders through the area don't even know that the station exists. This phenomenon also appears at some other LIRR stations, such as Laurelton on the Atlantic Branch, which also is hidden from major streets. In contrast, busier stations are located just off the main streets. For example, Bayside is located at 41st Avenue and 213th Street, which is just off Bell Blvd. Bell Blvd is service by two bus routes from other areas of Northeast Queens, and is easily walkable from the commercial and residential areas of the neighborhood. It is also one of the busier stations on the line.

If they really want to get more people on the LIRR, more will be needed than fare restructuring via OMNY and increased service. Another recommendation is to relocate stations to more accessible areas. The Auburndale station could be moved from its current location at 192nd Street to a better location at Francis Lewis Blvd, where bus riders on the Q76 could easily transfer to the LIRR. Other LIRR stations within the city limits could also be evaluated for such a move.

The LIRR stations in those areas were built with the intention of serving the people directly in the neighborhoods. For the people in those neighborhoods, it works for them. Also, if such a system is implemented, you could divert the Q76 to the Auburndale station if you really wanted to. It's cheaper than building a new station, and you wouldn't inconvenience too many existing riders. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

19 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The LIRR stations in those areas were built with the intention of serving the people directly in the neighborhoods. For the people in those neighborhoods, it works for them. Also, if such a system is implemented, you could divert the Q76 to the Auburndale station if you really wanted to. It's cheaper than building a new station, and you wouldn't inconvenience too many existing riders. 

But that was decades ago. It may have worked well then. Auburndale's ridership is also noticeably lower than Broadway and Bayside, because it's mostly walk-on ridership. Yes, it is possible to divert the Q76 down 192nd, then left onto Northern to get back to Franny Lew, and way cheaper than relocating Auburndale closer to Franny Lew. But given that 192nd is a rather narrow, residential street and that Northern Blvd is a very heavily trafficked street, that could wind up being one slow ride down 192nd, like the Q28 on Crocheron. And it would add to the Q76's already long run-time. And likely anger residents who live along 192 who haven't had the bus running there before.

Edited November 9, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Kurtis]

On 11/6/2020 at 10:48 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

I was thinking of the same thing for the LIRR branches (except for RBB, as the southern portion is already used by subway service). However, there could be some issues with getting bus passengers to use some of the stations, specifically one on the PW line: Auburndale. That station sits at 192nd Street halfway between two major thoroughfares, Utopia Pkwy and Francis Lewis Blvd, the latter of which is served by the Q76. Since it's located hidden away from major areas like Francis Lewis, Utopia, and other areas, many residents and bus riders through the area don't even know that the station exists. This phenomenon also appears at some other LIRR stations, such as Laurelton on the Atlantic Branch, which also is hidden from major streets. In contrast, busier stations are located just off the main streets. For example, Bayside is located at 41st Avenue and 213th Street, which is just off Bell Blvd. Bell Blvd is service by two bus routes from other areas of Northeast Queens, and is easily walkable from the commercial and residential areas of the neighborhood. It is also one of the busier stations on the line.

If they really want to get more people on the LIRR, more will be needed than fare restructuring via OMNY and increased service. Another recommendation is to relocate stations to more accessible areas. The Auburndale station could be moved from its current location at 192nd Street to a better location at Francis Lewis Blvd, where bus riders on the Q76 could easily transfer to the LIRR. Other LIRR stations within the city limits could also be evaluated for such a move.

It’s not so much a phenomenon, as it is the fact that the LIRR right of way in those particular neighborhoods doesn’t align with major roads, which causes them to be inconvenient. Furthermore, the passengers that utilize the nearby Q12/Q13/Q15/Q28/Q31/Q76 aren’t the people who regularly use the LIRR for a multitude of reasons. Demographic travel patterns for those who take the  train and/or NYCT buses is distinct to those who use the LIRR in the same neighborhoods. The people getting off the Q12/Q13 at say, Northern Boulevard & 192nd Street (Near the Auburndale LIRR Station) originate from the Flushing–Main Street  Station, compared to Midtown Manhattan for the people getting off the LIRR at Auburndale Station.

[ActiveCity]

I've heard multiple proposals for the need of a new subway line under Northern Blvd, but here is my ideal Northern Blvd subway alignment. The W would be cut back from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to 57 St-7 Ave. Why? Just north of the 57 St-7 Ave station on the local tracks lies two bellmouths that would have been used for the planned Morningside Ave line as part of the 1939 IND Second System plans. The W would then claim and repurpose these bellmouths that will go under Central Park up until 76 st, then curve east onto 76 st with transfers to the 6, Q, T. Once the W reaches Queens, it'll then run via Broadway with a transfer to the N. However, once the route hits Steinway St via Broadway, the current M and R trains run under that street too, so instead of utilizing the current section, it'll instead be built under both stations with two new track ramp connections to and from both levels in the event of a possible reroute on the Queens Blvd line or the Northern Blvd line. Once the W leaves Broadway, it'll then curve east as a four track line onto Northern Blvd in order to add capacity on the line. The other proposed line would be a Canarsie line that'll run via Northern Blvd local up to College Point-7 Av. Finally, once the W hits Main St via Northern Blvd, it'll then curve south via Main St to a transfer with the 7 line with the possibility of running via the Long Island Expressway. This new line would also help reduce capacity on the existing 59 st tunnels.

[Theli11]

 

On 11/9/2020 at 10:35 PM, ActiveCity said:

I've heard multiple proposals for the need of a new subway line under Northern Blvd, but here is my ideal Northern Blvd subway alignment. The W would be cut back from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to 57 St-7 Ave. Why? Just north of the 57 St-7 Ave station on the local tracks lies two bellmouths that would have been used for the planned Morningside Ave line as part of the 1939 IND Second System plans. The W would then claim and repurpose these bellmouths that will go under Central Park up until 76 st, then curve east onto 76 st with transfers to the 6, Q, T. Once the W reaches Queens, it'll then run via Broadway with a transfer to the N. However, once the route hits Steinway St via Broadway, the current M and R trains run under that street too, so instead of utilizing the current section, it'll instead be built under both stations with two new track ramp connections to and from both levels in the event of a possible reroute on the Queens Blvd line or the Northern Blvd line. Once the W leaves Broadway, it'll then curve east as a four track line onto Northern Blvd in order to add capacity on the line. The other proposed line would be a Canarsie line that'll run via Northern Blvd local up to College Point-7 Av. Finally, once the W hits Main St via Northern Blvd, it'll then curve south via Main St to a transfer with the 7 line with the possibility of running via the Long Island Expressway. This new line would also help reduce capacity on the existing 59 st tunnels.

While i think this plan is *fine* if I ignore the building portions because that's a just a flaw in most plans anyways. This is pretty much adding 4 branch lines on Broadway (2nd, Astoria, QBL, and your Northern Blvd.) It's not really changing anything and the amount of trains is limited due to  service on the Local Tracks. Now the Canarsie line being extended to Northern is something I can get behind (being the is looping via 10th Av.). As long as the  and are on separate tracks I'll be fine. But it'd be better as a two tracked line serving either service or it's own independent service.

[Armandito]

13 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

 

While i think this plan is *fine* if I ignore the building portions because that's a just a flaw in most plans anyways. This is pretty much adding 4 branch lines on Broadway (2nd, Astoria, QBL, and your Northern Blvd.) It's not really changing anything and the amount of trains is limited due to  service on the Local Tracks. Now the Canarsie line being extended to Northern is something I can get behind (being the is looping via 10th Av.). As long as the  and are on separate tracks I'll be fine. But it'd be better as a two tracked line serving either service or it's own independent service.

Leave the alone. Extending it in any way, shape, or form will doom the entire line to become unreliable and serpentine like the currently is. Doesn't help the fact that the has already been overcrowded thanks to the gentrification of Bushwick and Williamsburg.

[Theli11]

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

Leave the alone. Extending it in any way, shape, or form will doom the entire line to become unreliable and serpentine like the currently is. Doesn't help the fact that the has already been overcrowded thanks to the gentrification of Bushwick and Williamsburg.

You're right, but CBTC and it having no other trains on the line definitely helps. The  It won't be like the and perhaps half the trains can short turn at 8th Av. I think the furthest the  should go to is 72 St - Amsterdam/Broadway. I'll backtrack on that previous comment.

[ActiveCity]

7 hours ago, Theli11 said:

 

While i think this plan is *fine* if I ignore the building portions because that's a just a flaw in most plans anyways. This is pretty much adding 4 branch lines on Broadway (2nd, Astoria, QBL, and your Northern Blvd.) It's not really changing anything and the amount of trains is limited due to  service on the Local Tracks. Now the Canarsie line being extended to Northern is something I can get behind (being the is looping via 10th Av.). As long as the  and are on separate tracks I'll be fine. But it'd be better as a two tracked line serving either service or it's own independent service.

The IND 6th avenue line also has 4 branches FYI, the F and M go via 53 St or 63 St while the B, D go through the same tunnel up to 59 St colombis circle where it will switch from the local track or the express track, vice-versa. Same scenario will happen on Broadway, the Q and W will go via 63 St or 76 St, while the N and R go through the same tunnel for a short distance and will split off at lex 59 st bound for Astoria or Forest Hills.

[Reptile]

Northern Blvd would best be served by a 34th Street crosstown line (if that proves to be impossible then 86th or 50th Streets would be good as well) from New Jersey to Clearview Expy. It would be two tracks east from New Jersey then 3 tracks at 39th St/Sunnyside.

Edited November 12, 2020 by Reptile

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, Reptile said:

Northern Blvd would best be served by a 34th Street crosstown line (if that proves to be impossible then 86th or 50th Streets would be good as well) from New Jersey to Clearview Expy. It would be two tracks east from New Jersey then 3 tracks at 39th St/Sunnyside.

Pretty sure all those LIRR/NJT/Amtrak tracks take up a good chunk of the area where a 34th St Line would go.

The next viable corridor would be 23rd Street.

[Lex]

8 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Pretty sure all those LIRR/NJT/Amtrak tracks take up a good chunk of the area where a 34th St Line would go.

The next viable corridor would be 23rd Street.

And I'd repurpose Lower Montauk for that one (with some changes to do a better job of serving some of the more residential areas in Queens).

[Reptile]

15 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Pretty sure all those LIRR/NJT/Amtrak tracks take up a good chunk of the area where a 34th St Line would go.

The next viable corridor would be 23rd Street.

23rd St is a little too far south and would be in an area well served already by the so I prefer 50th Street/86th Street. 

[GojiMet86]

42 minutes ago, Lex said:

And I'd repurpose Lower Montauk for that one (with some changes to do a better job of serving some of the more residential areas in Queens).

 

I've done the same with my fantasy map. I would have a Northern Blvd-34 Street line and a Lower Montauk-23rd Street line, but they would continue to New Jersey (34 to Staten Island via Bayonne and 23 to Fort Lee via Bergenline).

[Theli11]

10 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The IND 6th avenue line also has 4 branches FYI, the F and M go via 53 St or 63 St while the B, D go through the same tunnel up to 59 St colombis circle where it will switch from the local track or the express track, vice-versa. Same scenario will happen on Broadway, the Q and W will go via 63 St or 76 St, while the N and R go through the same tunnel for a short distance and will split off at lex 59 st bound for Astoria or Forest Hills.

You're right, but the 6th Av Line goes to two places. You can take both and to concourse, and both to QBL. You have four separate branches going to four separate places. It's not as much as an issue, but on Broadway, you'd have full time services since they have to serve their respective lines. As said before, the train going to Northern isn't as good as an idea. train don't have to run to Concourse all the time because it can be replaced by service. Same with the train since there is extra local service and trains to QBL. There are no alternative trains to Northern Blvd, Astoria, or Second Avenue. 

[darkstar8983]

7 hours ago, Theli11 said:

You're right, but the 6th Av Line goes to two places. You can take both and to concourse, and both to QBL. You have four separate branches going to four separate places. It's not as much as an issue, but on Broadway, you'd have full time services since they have to serve their respective lines. As said before, the train going to Northern isn't as good as an idea. train don't have to run to Concourse all the time because it can be replaced by service. Same with the train since there is extra local service and trains to QBL. There are no alternative trains to Northern Blvd, Astoria, or Second Avenue. 

Another problem you have is the  Express crossing over to the local track for Astoria and the local  crossing over to the express track for 63 St - 76 St - Broadway - Northern Blvd, which cuts capacity on the Broadway line tremendously 

Edited November 13, 2020 by darkstar8983

[Armandito]

50 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Another problem you have is the  Express crossing over to the local track for Astoria and the local  crossing over to the express track for 63 St - 76 St - Broadway - Northern Blvd, which cuts capacity on the Broadway line tremendously 

Better yet, you should only consider a Northern Boulevard subway line as its own route as I mentioned earlier. You'll undermine use of its full capacity if you choose to have it as a trunk line serving multiple routes.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 11/9/2020 at 10:35 PM, ActiveCity said:

I've heard multiple proposals for the need of a new subway line under Northern Blvd, but here is my ideal Northern Blvd subway alignment. The W would be cut back from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to 57 St-7 Ave. Why? Just north of the 57 St-7 Ave station on the local tracks lies two bellmouths that would have been used for the planned Morningside Ave line as part of the 1939 IND Second System plans. The W would then claim and repurpose these bellmouths that will go under Central Park up until 76 st, then curve east onto 76 st with transfers to the 6, Q, T.

I may be mistaken, but I do believe those bellmouths are at the same level as the present  tracks. So if they were to be used as you described, then you’d be looking at a big jam due to all the merging that would be taking place in that area.

[ActiveCity]

21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I may be mistaken, but I do believe those bellmouths are at the same level as the present  tracks. So if they were to be used as you described, then you’d be looking at a big jam due to all the merging that would be taking place in that area.

Or another option could be using the Morningside avenue line bellmouths, but would not be on the same level as the Q. Instead, the bellmouths could be used to eliminate the sharp curve on the 60th st tube and to allow space for the new Northern line which would have the option for the express tracks or local tracks rather than just the local tracks. If you take a look at vanshnookenraggen's track map, you'll have a very clear observation on where the tracks go. It would also improve efficiency on the Broadway line. And now that I think about it the should be the northern line cuz the and are express and should not interfere with the local tracks.

Edited November 14, 2020 by ActiveCity

[Theli11]

On 11/13/2020 at 8:58 PM, ActiveCity said:

Or another option could be using the Morningside avenue line bellmouths, but would not be on the same level as the Q. Instead, the bellmouths could be used to eliminate the sharp curve on the 60th st tube and to allow space for the new Northern line which would have the option for the express tracks or local tracks rather than just the local tracks. If you take a look at vanshnookenraggen's track map, you'll have a very clear observation on where the tracks go. It would also improve efficiency on the Broadway line. And now that I think about it the should be the northern line cuz the and are express and should not interfere with the local tracks.

Having the train on Northern isn't as.. messy, but it does make the route long at full Northern Blvd length. The  is a local route, but it's considerably shorter. Only going to Whitehall. With the Northern Blvd line, you have many opportunities to fix current problems with routing. Your Northern Blvd Line isn't doing much about anything and feels like adding an extra merge. You could've removed the from Queens Blvd and put it on Northern Blvd. You can create a yard for service and increase service to Bay Ridge. You can even remove the from Astoria and move it to 96th St. That way the and have 60th and the had 63rd St. What you suggest doesn't correct anything and is just a removal and extension. The best expansion plans of the subway fix issues while being extensions. There aren't many issues with the  and  train itself, but it's counterpart has plenty due to QBL and that Lower Manhattan/4th Avenue Local sections and the overall length of the line. Your idea with the going to Northern is also fine, but it leaves the needing more service to Astoria (because it shares capacity with the and can only run 21 TBH through Lower Manhattan combined. [The arguably needs more service because it's running to both Bay Ridge and QBL though you can extend the train, you'll still be having less service on QBL since the train runs 12 TBH and has shorter cars..]

TL;DR Fix stuff while you expand to make the expansion have more of a payoff. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

11 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Having the train on Northern isn't as.. messy, but it does make the route long at full Northern Blvd length. The  is a local route, but it's considerably shorter. Only going to Whitehall. With the Northern Blvd line, you have many opportunities to fix current problems with routing. Your Northern Blvd Line isn't doing much about anything and feels like adding an extra merge. You could've removed the from Queens Blvd and put it on Northern Blvd. You can create a yard for service and increase service to Bay Ridge. You can even remove the from Astoria and move it to 96th St. That way the and have 60th and the had 63rd St. What you suggest doesn't correct anything and is just a removal and extension. The best expansion plans of the subway fix issues while being extensions. There aren't many issues with the  and  train itself, but it's counterpart has plenty due to QBL and that Lower Manhattan/4th Avenue Local sections and the overall length of the line. Your idea with the going to Northern is also fine, but it leaves the needing more service to Astoria (because it shares capacity with the and can only run 21 TBH through Lower Manhattan combined. [The arguably needs more service because it's running to both Bay Ridge and QBL though you can extend the train, you'll still be having less service on QBL since the train runs 12 TBH and has shorter cars..]

TL;DR Fix stuff while you expand to make the expansion have more of a payoff. 

The  would be a very long line if it runs via Northern Blvd for the full length, unless you terminate the  at Whitehall and have the  replace it in Brooklyn. With a yard in Queens, that wouldn’t be a problem. They really need to fix that City Hall curve. There really shouldn’t be any reason to continue having that limit of 21 tph on the Broadway Local tracks. Especially if we want to have two Broadway local services going to different locations in Queens, such as a Northern Blvd  with an Astoria . How would you split 21 tph between those two services without them getting quite crowded because a sharp curve in Lower Manhattan puts a limit on how many trains can run?

[R10 2952]

On 11/12/2020 at 12:01 PM, GojiMet86 said:

 

I've done the same with my fantasy map. I would have a Northern Blvd-34 Street line and a Lower Montauk-23rd Street line, but they would continue to New Jersey (34 to Staten Island via Bayonne and 23 to Fort Lee via Bergenline).

On 11/12/2020 at 11:17 AM, Lex said:

And I'd repurpose Lower Montauk for that one (with some changes to do a better job of serving some of the more residential areas in Queens).

In fact, the MTA genuinely considered routing the Queens Blvd express bypass from 63rd to Lower Montauk back in the early '80s, but the NIMBYs along the line in Ridgewood, Middle Village, Glendale, and Kew Gardens derailed it.  Just another example of uppity middle class folks ruining things for the rest of us.

Would love to see a subway run there as I think it could work really well, but the best I can ever see the MTA doing in the long-term is maybe bringing back peak-direction commuter service on Lower Montauk.  But even that would be a long shot due to lack of PTC, the cost of refurbishing the abandoned stops to current standards, excessive amount of grade crossings... not to mention they'd have to renegotiate with NY&A RR, line's not electrified, so on and so forth.

Of course with the budget situation being as bad as it is, now they might try to pull the same old abandonment card with the Atlantic Branch in Brooklyn.  Who knows. 

Edited November 17, 2020 by R10 2952

[Deucey]

16 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Of course with the budget situation being as bad as it is, now they might try to pull the same old abandonment card with the Atlantic Branch in Brooklyn.  Who knows. 

Well that is an interesting question: what to do with the Atlantic Branch when East Side Access opens instead of a LIRR shuttle.

Like is it feasible to reroute  or  onto it to Jamaica so the Rogers Junction choke point isn't as much of one? Or run  or  on it?

Could it be connected to the Atlantic Street railroad tunnel and create a new trunkline to Manhattan or Staten Island via Redhook?

Possibilities.