Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Right, that was the point of said proposal, that not everything in Lower Manhattan needs to run within a block of each other anymore.

So are you talking about never building them, or demolishing them and stopping the running of service?

For the most part the latter has already happened to the extent possible. Only the northern half of Nassau is in service and only two out of four tracks. But it doesn't really save any sort of meaningful amount of money.

[CenSin]

Quote

⚠️ Planned Work

TUNNEL REHABILITATION

Feb 5 - 6, Fri 9:45 PM to Sat 11:59 PM

No Brooklyn-bound service at 21 St-Queensbridge, Roosevelt Island, Lexington Av/63 St and 57 St

Trains run via the in both directions between Roosevelt Av and Canal St and via the to/from Jay St-MetroTech

Jamaica-bound replaces the at 57 St, Lexington Av/63 St, Roosevelt Island and 21 St-Queensbridge.

trains replace the in both directions between 47-50 Sts and Delancey St-Essex St.

Kinda wished the IND built the junction to connect 57 Street with the 8 Avenue tracks. Would've made this switcheroo unnecessary.

Kinda wished the IND built the junction to connect 57 Street with the 8 Avenue tracks. Would've made this switcheroo unnecessary.

Edited February 6, 2021 by CenSin
[/quote] didn't work.

[mrsman]

Vanshnookenraggen has tweeted more of his deinterlining plan.  For the believers, this plan seems to check all of the boxes to provide a consistent service pattern without train interferences.  I like it and I think a lot of the ideas have merit.

 

[Vulturious]

16 hours ago, mrsman said:

Vanshnookenraggen has tweeted more of his deinterlining plan.  For the believers, this plan seems to check all of the boxes to provide a consistent service pattern without train interferences.  I like it and I think a lot of the ideas have merit.

 

I also like these ideas, some that I personally don't agree with but there's a lot of reasoning behind this and changes that can make it work. I'll include some of his other tweets you didn't post here:

There are a few things I would personally change, like the  for starters is just the  at this point which can easily be changed to that and then there's the . As cool as it is to having the  operating outside and being able to run more trains without any interference whatsoever, people are more used to the  both in Astoria and West End technically speaking. I've seen a lot of reroutes that had the  run along West End, the  rarely ever is rerouted and if it was, it was not in service throughout the line except for 9th Av.

The  and  being local while the  and  being express solves so many merging issues.  trains taking over 207 St while  trains are probably still based out of Concourse would help alleviate all the trains that are based out of Coney since the  at this point is only rush hour service. It would probably be better to have it running more during the week.

Having the  solely operate to the Rockaways with the  to Lefferts wouldn't really hurt much, but then there would be that merging issue along Fulton since both split up and then merge back together once entering Queens. Although, the  is already a long line as is so it kind of makes sense.

 

[LGA Link N Train]

18 hours ago, mrsman said:

Vanshnookenraggen has tweeted more of his deinterlining plan.  For the believers, this plan seems to check all of the boxes to provide a consistent service pattern without train interferences.  I like it and I think a lot of the ideas have merit.

 

I saw this a few days ago, and the rationale for each idea is pretty clear. Vanshnook and A320Lga said they're working on a full report so I'm interested to see how that'll look like once its finished. Also, I wonder how many people are aware that there are provisions for X-overs north of 45th Street/4th Avenue. Also, it's pretty obvious that while some of these ideas are very beneficial, they would also be a very hard sell. 

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

There are a few things I would personally change, like the  for starters is just the  at this point which can easily be changed to that and then there's the . As cool as it is to having the  operating outside and being able to run more trains without any interference whatsoever, people are more used to the  both in Astoria and West End technically speaking. I've seen a lot of reroutes that had the  run along West End, the  rarely ever is rerouted and if it was, it was not in service throughout the line except for 9th Av.

Having the  solely operate to the Rockaways with the  to Lefferts wouldn't really hurt much, but then there would be that merging issue along Fulton since both split up and then merge back together once entering Queens. Although, the  is already a long line as is so it kind of makes sense.

For the  and Trains in this proposal, you could argue that, but then again, the current day  Train is leterally a Local Train and the  is a local Train, especially when the Manhattan Bridge Reconstruction from 2001-2004 was occuring. I do agree with you on the line though, though I think Vanshnook chose to keep the designation because its been around longer. 

As for the  and via Fulton, the fact that Bed-Stuy and East New York are Gentrifying in addition to 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd CBTC being Implemented/built soon does justify the change since you'd be connecting 3 very busy markets together. 

[Vulturious]

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I saw this a few days ago, and the rationale for each idea is pretty clear. Vanshnook and A320Lga said they're working on a full report so I'm interested to see how that'll look like once its finished. Also, I wonder how many people are aware that there are provisions for X-overs north of 45th Street/4th Avenue. Also, it's pretty obvious that while some of these ideas are very beneficial, they would also be a very hard sell. 

For the  and Trains in this proposal, you could argue that, but then again, the current day  Train is leterally a Local Train and the  is a local Train, especially when the Manhattan Bridge Reconstruction from 2001-2004 was occuring. I do agree with you on the line though, though I think Vanshnook chose to keep the designation because its been around longer. 

As for the  and via Fulton, the fact that Bed-Stuy and East New York are Gentrifying in addition to 8th Avenue and Queens Blvd CBTC being Implemented/built soon does justify the change since you'd be connecting 3 very busy markets together. 

I wasn't actually aware that were were provisions for X-overs north of 45 St. When you say X-overs, do you mean 3 of them with one for relaying and the other two for switching between local and express or the two X-overs between express and local like south of 59 St/4 Av currently has? It's interesting to know they had them, but how long has these provisions been around? Personally, I hope they've looked at Vanshnook's plan of deinterlining Dekalb if they ever go through with those provisions.

It might be true that the  was around for much longer, but I think people would mind not seeing the  as it's usually shafted wherever it goes anyways. 

I forgot to mention the downside to the  and  on QBL, both of the stop at Queens Plaza, but there are no local trains running at all to Queens Plaza at all. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Vulturious

[mrsman]

There certainly is a lot that he is proposing.  

First, the nomenclature issues are really a minor thing.  I don't think its a big deal wheher to call an Astoria-Bwy local-West End train the  or the  or the  or what have you.  I think the point is that all of the merging delays that currently plague the Broadway line can be gotten rid of with some rerouting and the addition of some switches in Southern Brooklyn.  The plan eliminates all merging delays at 36st/4 Av, DeKalb, and whatever nonsense in happening at Herald Square.  The express trains stay express and the local trains stay local.  Yes, the West End riders will lose their direct express to Manhattan, but a plan like this will allow for more frequent trains along the West End line, meaning less time waiting at the elevated station on a cold winter morning.  Plus, enough trains are running to allow for <R> trains that skip some of the trains on the West End.  The only thing we ask of the West End riders is an additional cross-platform at 36th to transfer to  to continue onto the 6th Ave express.

THe issues along Fulton line in Brooklyn/Queens are not trivial.  One could replicate current service by having  to Lefferts or Far Rock with <E> to Rock Park and  being the local that only goes to Euclid.  Other than the change of train letters, it would be no change at all to 8th Ave services south of Manhattan's Fulton street.  I think the reasoning is that to adequately serve three separate terminals (Lefferts, Far Rock, Rock Park) you need to increase the service and not allow any train to terminate at Euclid.  Yes, some delays will occur at Euclid, but you can get more trains to service the ends of the lines here.

A construction project could mitigate this, perhaps an el over Conduit Ave to connect Euclid to Howard Beach without interfering with the local tracks to Lefferts.  [Vanshnook did propose something similar on his second thread for the  express over Jamaica Ave.]  But construction is costly, and probably beyond the scope of his main plan which involves rerouting with MINIMAL construction.

[mrsman]

I had another idea regarding the Fulton line - Lefferts shuttle.  Similar to Vanshnook's idea with regard to  in Harlem, Lefferts can be connected to Rockaway Blvd via shuttle.  If that were done,  could still terminate at Euclid and  could serve the Rockaways.  Obviosuly, some construction at the Rockaway Blvd station will be needed to allow for this to happen, but if the statoin were reconstructed as an island platform, with middle track trains going to Lefferts, this can be done.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

I had another idea regarding the Fulton line - Lefferts shuttle.  Similar to Vanshnook's idea with regard to  in Harlem, Lefferts can be connected to Rockaway Blvd via shuttle.  If that were done,  could still terminate at Euclid and  could serve the Rockaways.  Obviosuly, some construction at the Rockaway Blvd station will be needed to allow for this to happen, but if the statoin were reconstructed as an island platform, with middle track trains going to Lefferts, this can be done.

Unless there's going to be some amount of through service, scrap Lefferts service and hand Rockaway Park some resources.

[LGA Link N Train]

17 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I wasn't actually aware that were were provisions for X-overs north of 45 St. When you say X-overs, do you mean 3 of them with one for relaying and the other two for switching between local and express or the two X-overs between express and local like south of 59 St/4 Av currently has? It's interesting to know they had them, but how long has these provisions been around? Personally, I hope they've looked at Vanshnook's plan of deinterlining Dekalb if they ever go through with those provisions.

It might be true that the  was around for much longer, but I think people would mind not seeing the  as it's usually shafted wherever it goes anyways. 

I forgot to mention the downside to the  and  on QBL, both of the stop at Queens Plaza, but there are no local trains running at all to Queens Plaza at all. 

1. 2 X-Overs for Local-Express merges and 1 for relays on the express tracks. As for how long they’ve been there, IDK. Now as for wether or not the have looked at Vanshnook and A320Lga’s plan, we’ll just have to wait until they release the full report, which I’m sure will get the attention of 2 Broadway at some point. 

2. I guess.  or  as the Astoria-West End Route, I wouldn’t mind. Although, you could throw in the brown  as a special service (its not necessary though) 

3. I guess the issue of no Local Service at Queens Plaza would be an issue, but it would also justify the conversion of Woodhaven Blvd from a Local to an Express Station and a potential Transfer between the Queens Plaza Stations. I’m not sure how feasible the latter would be. 

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

I had another idea regarding the Fulton line - Lefferts shuttle.  Similar to Vanshnook's idea with regard to  in Harlem, Lefferts can be connected to Rockaway Blvd via shuttle.  If that were done,  could still terminate at Euclid and  could serve the Rockaways.  Obviosuly, some construction at the Rockaway Blvd station will be needed to allow for this to happen, but if the statoin were reconstructed as an island platform, with middle track trains going to Lefferts, this can be done.

I don’t really see a point in doing this but I wouldn’t mind converting Rockaway Blvd into a station with 2 Island Platforms. However the big obstacle would be how to reconfigure the junction east of the station in case of any emergency reroutes.  

[bobtehpanda]

I'm not quite sure how I feel about 6th Av services going down only 4th. Brighton loses not only direct 6th Av transfers, but the transfer at Atlantic requires significant walking.

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm not quite sure how I feel about 6th Av services going down only 4th. Brighton loses not only direct 6th Av transfers, but the transfer at Atlantic requires significant walking.

Yeah I feel what you mean. It sucks both lines don't have any direct transfers until deep Manhattan at 34 St-Herald Square, although there aren't any other better alternatives. Sure, we technically have Broadway service on 4th Av, but that's a local train all the way. If you were to transfer at Atlantic to later transfer at Dekalb for a direct service, that's just extra regardless of the service frequency increasing. Another simple solution would be to swap them, but that still leaves the issue of either no 6th Av service or Broadway service on whichever line. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

A transfer between Prince St  and Broadway-Lafayette/Bleecker  might help to mitigate the Atlantic transfer issue. 

It’s true that many riders ditch the  4th Ave Local in favor of a faster service. But if the  services both go down the 4th Ave express, at least there would still be direct service to both Broadway and 6th on the 4th Ave Line between 59th and Pacific/Atlantic. Maybe it’s possible that a local  (  in Vanshnook’s plan) with a <W> West End peak express might mitigate the travel time via Lower Manhattan vs the current . If the  go down Brighton, that would leave the 4th Ave Line with only Broadway services. Given the preference for the Broadway Line from Brighton riders, that would likely produce more people transferring at Atlantic. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[mrsman]

15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

A transfer between Prince St  and Broadway-Lafayette/Bleecker  might help to mitigate the Atlantic transfer issue. 

It’s true that many riders ditch the  4th Ave Local in favor of a faster service. But if the  services both go down the 4th Ave express, at least there would still be direct service to both Broadway and 6th on the 4th Ave Line between 59th and Pacific/Atlantic. Maybe it’s possible that a local  (  in Vanshnook’s plan) with a <W> West End peak express might mitigate the travel time via Lower Manhattan vs the current . If the  go down Brighton, that would leave the 4th Ave Line with only Broadway services. Given the preference for the Broadway Line from Brighton riders, that would likely produce more people transferring at Atlantic. 

It seems that the main reason that Vanshnook's plan prefers 6th Ave - 4th Ave and Broadway-Brighton is more operational, than customer preference.  By sending the 6th Ave trains to the 4th Ave express, you provide Bay Ridge with access to the Concourse Yard or the yards in Upper Manhattan.  If there is an actual customer preference for this configuration, that can only be a plus.

For any who favor deinterlining the BMT southern division lines (all the lines that stop or bypass DeKalb), you will necessarily be restricting 4th Ave to EITHER 6th Ave or Broadway expresses (but not both).  Similarly you will necessarily be restricting Brighton trains to the other service.  Even though there is no easy transfer between the two services, doing this is largely viewed as acceptable because:

1. In Midtown, Broadway line stops and 6th Ave line stops are generally only about an avenue away from each other.  If you are on a 6th Ave express, and you are willing to make a cross-platform transfer to a 6th Ave local if needed, every stop from 23rd street to Columbus Circle or Lex/63rd is close to a local or express stop on the Broadway BMT from 23rd street to Lex/60 or Lex/63.  The vast majority of passengers are headed to Midtown.

2.  There is still the ability to transfer at Herald Square and/or Lex/63rd for trips going beyond Midtown to Upper West Side, Upper East Side, or Queens

3. Transferring will be easier than is the case now because there will be more trains running

4. For anyone old enough to remember the period from 1990-2004 (I think??) when the tracks on the Manhattan Bridge were under construction, trains were restricted to only using one side of the bridge.  For a long time, Brighton and West End passengers only had access to the 6th Ave express and Bay Ridge and Sea Beach passengers were forced onto the Montague tunnel.  Then, Brighton and West End passengers only had access to the Broadway express and Bay Ridge and Sea Beach passengers were forced onto the Montague tunnel.  The experience illustrates that while there may have been grumbling, Brighton and West End passengers were able to manage having access to only one side of the bridge during those years.  It was a real shame that MTA did not implement deinterlining in southern Brooklyn in 2004 once both sides of the bridge became usable once again.  Brighton passengers will just continue on the Broadway express, as they have been previously doing for the previous three years.  West End passengers will get their service to 6th Ave restored to what it was in the 1990's.  Sea Beach customers will get new express service to 6th Ave after being relegated to the local for 15 years.  Bay Ridge maintains their local service to Montague as always.  It was politically more feasible to have done that service change then while the memory of those commuting patterns was still fresh.  If that were the pattern, it would be easier to make Vanshnook's proposal to connect Bay Ridge to 6th Ave express and West End to Broadway local to ensure that Astoria and Bay Ridge trains each have access to a yard without the need of sending Bay Ridge trains to Queens Blvd or sending Astoria trains to the Broadway express.

 

[Theli11]

On 2/15/2021 at 6:16 PM, Vulturious said:

I forgot to mention the downside to the  and  on QBL, both of the stop at Queens Plaza, but there are no local trains running at all to Queens Plaza at all. 

Is it possible to convert 36th St to an express stop? It'd probably have to be bi-level, that way people can transfer at 36th Street for Queens-Bound local service. It might be a stretch but what's the chances of there being better running if the  and were local via 53 St (w/ 36 St), and the  were the ones extended (with all the adjustments, the  would be at full length and could end at either 179th or Jamaica Center.) [I'm just asking if swapping the local to express would be better than previously or if there would be an equal amount of change/pos. neg.]

Sorry if this is long winded of me. 

[bobtehpanda]

44 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Is it possible to convert 36th St to an express stop? It'd probably have to be bi-level, that way people can transfer at 36th Street for Queens-Bound local service. It might be a stretch but what's the chances of there being better running if the  and were local via 53 St (w/ 36 St), and the  were the ones extended (with all the adjustments, the  would be at full length and could end at either 179th or Jamaica Center.) [I'm just asking if swapping the local to express would be better than previously or if there would be an equal amount of change/pos. neg.]

Sorry if this is long winded of me. 

Would be way too expensive to convert. The original interconnection would have to be totally reconfigured. And that cost $654M in 1994 money.

Another baseline would be the recent study for a QBL-RBB connection. Just the tunnel to connect the right of way was at least a billion or two.

I'm also not sure that it'd be feasible. Keep in mind the 63 St tunnel has two levels. QBL is above the 63rd St connector, but you can't really go lower because you'd hit the LIRR tunnels for East Side Access.

Edited February 18, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 2/15/2021 at 1:37 PM, Vulturious said:

I also like these ideas, some that I personally don't agree with but there's a lot of reasoning behind this and changes that can make it work. I'll include some of his other tweets you didn't post here:

 

There are a few things I would personally change, like the  for starters is just the  at this point which can easily be changed to that and then there's the . As cool as it is to having the  operating outside and being able to run more trains without any interference whatsoever, people are more used to the  both in Astoria and West End technically speaking. I've seen a lot of reroutes that had the  run along West End, the  rarely ever is rerouted and if it was, it was not in service throughout the line except for 9th Av.

The  and  being local while the  and  being express solves so many merging issues.  trains taking over 207 St while  trains are probably still based out of Concourse would help alleviate all the trains that are based out of Coney since the  at this point is only rush hour service. It would probably be better to have it running more during the week.

Having the  solely operate to the Rockaways with the  to Lefferts wouldn't really hurt much, but then there would be that merging issue along Fulton since both split up and then merge back together once entering Queens. Although, the  is already a long line as is so it kind of makes sense.

 

The Harlem  proposal is going to get a lot of pushback and it won’t be cheap to do because fare control at 135th St is at platform level - like most of the original local stations on the IRT - so there’s no mezzanine at that station.

I’m fine with using  for his Astoria/Bway/4th Ave/West End proposal, since  does have some familiarity with riders on both the Brooklyn and Queens ends. Though I still have mixed feelings over the CPW, Fulton and Queens Blvd proposals. The , in particular, would be a super-long line with a ton of stops during overnight hours.

Edited February 19, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[T to Dyre Avenue]

21 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Is it possible to convert 36th St to an express stop? It'd probably have to be bi-level, that way people can transfer at 36th Street for Queens-Bound local service. It might be a stretch but what's the chances of there being better running if the  and were local via 53 St (w/ 36 St), and the  were the ones extended (with all the adjustments, the  would be at full length and could end at either 179th or Jamaica Center.) [I'm just asking if swapping the local to express would be better than previously or if there would be an equal amount of change/pos. neg.]

Sorry if this is long winded of me. 

Unlike Woodhaven, 36th wasn’t designed to be converted to an express stop. It’s too bad the MTA made the decision to locate the 63rd Street Tunnel where they did. An earlier proposal called for the tunnel to be under East 61st Street, which would have made transfers to the  way easier. But they didn’t and then made it worse by connecting 63rd to the Queens Blvd Line north of Queens Plaza. If the  are the QB locals, that would cut off QB local riders west of Roosevelt Ave from Long Island City. That wouldn’t be the case if the  were the locals because they’d use 53rd St and make stops at Queens Plaza and Court Square en route. That’s really the only straight-railing plan that can work for Queens Blvd, thanks to where the junction for 63rd is. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The Harlem  proposal is going to get a lot of pushback and it won’t be cheap to do because fare control at 135th St is at platform level - like most of the original local stations on the IRT - so there’s no mezzanine at that station.

I’m fine with using  for his Astoria/Bway/4th Ave/West End proposal, since  does have some familiarity with riders on both the Brooklyn and Queens ends. Though I still have mixed feelings over the CPW, Fulton and Queens Blvd proposals. The , in particular, would be a super-long line with a ton of stops during overnight hours.

I was thinking the exact same thing with CPW, Fulton, and QBL. Although, I'm not really concerned as much with CPW since of course people still are going to be affected for those that are on 8th Av trying to take an express train uptown or trying to take an express train downtown but cannot access it because it's all local.

However, the reason I'm not really having any mixed feelings is because it solves so many issues,  trains would have direct yard access which is 207 St, so it wouldn't have to share a yard with Concourse if Vanshnook kept it going to the Bronx. Nothing is changing with the  because it's basically still running its current route only rerouted via Sea Beach. The  is still full time, but now it's just running the  route all local and the  is still local, but now running from the Bronx to WTC. It wouldn't hurt the  as much since it only interferes with just that, even the  has it easier than the  because it still has to merge with the . At least the  would be full length guaranteed in this scenario. 

I 100% fully agree with you about the  and especially the  since it also is technically long, but it has to run more stops than the  does. Both lines are super long, I highly doubt it would've been an improvement over the  and . To be fair, there aren't exactly any other improvements that can be made to improve Fulton service, only other way I can think of that doesn't involve too much construction at least would be to connect Montague Tunnel to the old Court St station which is currently a museum. That would probably be the  that goes there with the , but a new switch at just south of 50 St. TBH, I become more convinced that there should be a shuttle from Jamaica Center to Union Turnpike and as horrible of an idea that is, just hear me out. The new Jamaica Center  wouldn't interfere with  service, the  would return to Jamaica-179 St with the  still terminating at Forest Hills, but the  runs local with the  to Forest Hills.  trains would then be able to run via 53 St with the  and of course the  would miss Queens Plaza leaving no express service along that station.  trains would return onto the express tracks south of 50 St with  trains running to WTC with the . A dumb idea I know, but there aren't any better alternatives I can think of, then again I doubt this is any better and probably worse.

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The Harlem  proposal is going to get a lot of pushback and it won’t be cheap to do because fare control at 135th St is at platform level - like most of the original local stations on the IRT - so there’s no mezzanine at that station.

 

The station would probably look something like 110th St (Lenox) with fare control being at the end/middle of the platform. 

 

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I was thinking the exact same thing with CPW, Fulton, and QBL. Although, I'm not really concerned as much with CPW since of course people still are going to be affected for those that are on 8th Av trying to take an express train uptown or trying to take an express train downtown but cannot access it because it's all local.

However, the reason I'm not really having any mixed feelings is because it solves so many issues,  trains would have direct yard access which is 207 St, so it wouldn't have to share a yard with Concourse if Vanshnook kept it going to the Bronx. Nothing is changing with the  because it's basically still running its current route only rerouted via Sea Beach. The  is still full time, but now it's just running the  route all local and the  is still local, but now running from the Bronx to WTC. It wouldn't hurt the  as much since it only interferes with just that, even the  has it easier than the  because it still has to merge with the . At least the  would be full length guaranteed in this scenario. 

I 100% fully agree with you about the  and especially the  since it also is technically long, but it has to run more stops than the  does. Both lines are super long, I highly doubt it would've been an improvement over the  and . To be fair, there aren't exactly any other improvements that can be made to improve Fulton service, only other way I can think of that doesn't involve too much construction at least would be to connect Montague Tunnel to the old Court St station which is currently a museum. That would probably be the  that goes there with the , but a new switch at just south of 50 St. TBH, I become more convinced that there should be a shuttle from Jamaica Center to Union Turnpike and as horrible of an idea that is, just hear me out. The new Jamaica Center  wouldn't interfere with  service, the  would return to Jamaica-179 St with the  still terminating at Forest Hills, but the  runs local with the  to Forest Hills.  trains would then be able to run via 53 St with the  and of course the  would miss Queens Plaza leaving no express service along that station.  trains would return onto the express tracks south of 50 St with  trains running to WTC with the . A dumb idea I know, but there aren't any better alternatives I can think of, then again I doubt this is any better and probably worse.

Whatever services goes down Fulton St is going to be long automatically. I'd actually prefer keeping the on Fulton because it doesn't force a transfer on passengers trying to get Uptown. The are already in Queens and Lefferts is 33 Minute Walk from Jamaica - Van Wyck. (For reference, Broadway Junction to Euclid Avenue is 43 minutes off). There's more customers who would need to go from Washington Heights to Euclid (Note that they're similar community demographics there [Specifically Harlem and Brownsville].) The can easily be swapped with the because the  can just run express past 50th St. (Or even just swap and ). You end up with similar results and better customer service while keeping the at a reasonable length. 

[vanshnookenraggen]

14 hours ago, Theli11 said:

Whatever services goes down Fulton St is going to be long automatically. I'd actually prefer keeping the on Fulton because it doesn't force a transfer on passengers trying to get Uptown. The are already in Queens and Lefferts is 33 Minute Walk from Jamaica - Van Wyck. (For reference, Broadway Junction to Euclid Avenue is 43 minutes off). There's more customers who would need to go from Washington Heights to Euclid (Note that they're similar community demographics there [Specifically Harlem and Brownsville].) The can easily be swapped with the because the  can just run express past 50th St. (Or even just swap and ). You end up with similar results and better customer service while keeping the at a reasonable length. 

I figure I should jump in and defend some of my choices.

First off, the argument that the E shouldn't be extended to Fulton and Rockaway is moot because from Jamaica to Far Rock is slightly shorter than the current A from 207 to Far Rock. If you want to make the argument that the line would still be too long, I fell you but within the scope of this project (ie no big expansion) there really isn't more you can do.

You argue that there is a correlation between East NY and Harlem but in none of my census research have I found anything to support this. I'm sure there are a few people who do make this commute but not so many that a direct OSR makes all the difference. Just because the demographics are the same doesn't mean the job markets are.

What I do find is that many work close to home or in the major CBDs (downtown Brooklyn, lower Manhattan, midtown Manhattan, and Jamaica). Similarly, West Harlem and Washington Heights riders primarily work close to home (Columbia or New York-Presbyterian) or in midtown with a smaller percentage in lower Manhattan. So for uptown, the   express makes the most sense. If you really have to get downtown, switch at W 4th St. It won't add any more time.

One thing that I have come around on is Queens Blvd. In my post I presented the  as the local via 63rd St and  express via 53rd. Many people have pointed out that this strands some riders. My main concern with swapping the services is that the M runs with shorter trains due to the platforms on the Jamaica and Myrtle Lines. I do propose extending these but as a separate project. Should the Myrtle platforms be extended first then I would be happy with  express and I think it would be a better alternative.

Additionally, I've looked at extending the  up to Queens Plaza and beyond. The Twitter thread is here:  

The long short of it is that because of the location of the existing 63rd St Tunnel connection, any track extension or station expansion that would host a terminal for the would require complex engineering and most likely expensive land taking (not just the land but we are talking about heavy concrete warehouses). This isn't to say that extending the isn't feasible (all the alternatives I presented are) but that they would all be very expensive and probably not worth the cost simply to have the  terminate north of Queens Plaza. However, if this was part of a larger Northern Blvd Subway extension the costs may be justified. 

My solution was to simply add an infill station on the 63rd St Tunnel at 41st Ave right before the tunnel connects with QBL. Early plans for the super-express had a station here and given the growth of LIC I think an infill station would make sense. This way all riders can change no matter the local or express service.

Edited February 19, 2021 by vanshnookenraggen

[R10 2952]

I always wondered why they never built a Culver-style connection between the Crosstown and the Astoria line in the '40s or '50s; would certainly make getting between Brooklyn and the M60 to LGA easier.

[Lex]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

I always wondered why they never built a Culver-style connection between the Crosstown and the Astoria line in the '40s or '50s; would certainly make getting between Brooklyn and the M60 to LGA easier.

At the risk of oversimplifying things, Flushing.

[R10 2952]

58 minutes ago, Lex said:

At the risk of oversimplifying things, Flushing.

Not necessarily; before 1949-51 Queens Plaza originally had four tracks and two platforms on each level, so the option to keep the Manhattan-bound track of the Flushing Line on the upper level and out of the way definitely existed back then.

[bobtehpanda]

9 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

I always wondered why they never built a Culver-style connection between the Crosstown and the Astoria line in the '40s or '50s; would certainly make getting between Brooklyn and the M60 to LGA easier.

1. Crosstown to Forest Hills was considered "good enough"

2. The M60 was only started up in '92, according to Wikipedia. There's a 1985 Queens bus map in the Downloads section and the only buses that go to LGA are the Q33, Q47 and the Q48.

Astoria also wasn't really the area that needed a relief track. Up until the '80s policy was Queens Blvd Bypass or bust.