Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[T to Dyre Avenue]

12 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

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.

But how would they have accommodated the additional Manhattan-bound Astoria riders if the Astoria el was connected to the Crosstown Line? It would still be the same two Flushing Line tracks leaving Queensboro Plaza for Manhattan. It might have been feasible to do this if the 2nd Avenue El and its Queensboro Bridge tracks hadn’t been demolished earlier in the 1940s, because the el probably could have accommodated the extra ridership. The extra tracks and platforms were used for the el, so without it, there were only two ways into Manhattan - the Steinway and the 60th St tunnels. I think it was (and is) more efficient to have trains from one tunnel go to Flushing and from the other to Astoria. 

[R10 2952]

All valid points, though I think it is something the BMT accounted for; their original plans for the Crosstown Line back in the late 1910s essentially called for an el branching off from the Astoria line and tying into the Franklin Ave Line onwards to Brighton.

In fact, had the line been routed to run between Astoria and Brighton Beach and/or Coney Island, I think it would've been more useful than the current setup- never made much sense to me that the current Crosstown line makes that westward swing from Marcy onto Lafayette, and having trains terminate at Smith-9th station of all places never made any sense at all.

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

All valid points, though I think it is something the BMT accounted for; their original plans for the Crosstown Line back in the late 1910s essentially called for an el branching off from the Astoria line and tying into the Franklin Ave Line onwards to Brighton.

In fact, had the line been routed to run between Astoria and Brighton Beach and/or Coney Island, I think it would've been more useful than the current setup- never made much sense to me that the current Crosstown line makes that westward swing from Marcy onto Lafayette, and having trains terminate at Smith-9th station of all places never made any sense at all.

That was the original plan, more or less, which didn't go anywhere because it was proposed as an el and even then els were unpopular.

The IND built that west dogleg to destroy the BMT Myrtle and Lexington, which worked to a degree. Of course, that became less useful once the destruction of the BMT was completed and then now the IND had this not-quite-duplicative, poorly connected infrastructure everywhere.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 2/19/2021 at 4:44 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

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.

Fair enough about the  to Far Rockaway being slightly shorter than the current Far Rockaway . The  made local and cut back to WTC would obviously be a shorter route than the current . I proposed a similar “8th Ave Flip” further back in this thread that called for an  local and  express. The  would have been like in you plan and the  would function the same way as the  in your plan. But I’d be happy with the  as the 8th Ave/CPW locals and the  as the 8th Ave expresses.

Though QBL is still a tough nut to crack for deinterlining, because without that infill station -  which I like very much - running the  local cuts off the inner QBL local stops from Queens Plaza and Court Sq, whereas running them express forces one of the QB express lines to get 8-car  trains and much worse crush-loading. I’m not sure which is better overall: build the infill station in LIC or lengthen all of the  line platforms in Brooklyn and on the Myrtle Ave el. The infill station would allow for more connections, including one between the Astoria Line and the QBL and would bring back a transfer point between all QB local and express trains that was lost when the  was rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel - albeit via a connecting passageway instead of a cross-platform transfer like we used to have.

[Caelestor]

Connecting an underground line with an elevated in a built-up area would probably have been too costly and disruptive. If the IND had endless money, a better plan may have been to send the  up 31 St (replacing the Astoria El) and then west via Governor's Island into Manhattan along 125 St, forming a really effective circumferential line. Then all 60 St tunnel trains could then run onto the QBL local tracks via the 11 St Cut, and the 63 St line a generation later could have been run to Woodside / Forest Hills as the QBL bypass or under Northern Blvd.

Regarding the deinterlining plan:

• I think the 168 / 207 St - WTC line has to be entirely local, mainly to keep service to the upper level of 50 St. That station really should have much more ridership given its location, but it's hamstrung by the  only running 5-6 tph offpeak. Plus, 6 Ave is more central to most commuters than 8 Ave.
• It's totally possible to run all QBL express trains via 63 St with 10 cars, but it requires the  to go back to Nassau St and the  to run to Church Ave, at least until the BMT Eastern Division platforms are lengthened. There may be some merit to doubling service along the Culver Line and removing the capacity limits that comes with interlining the 6 Ave and Jamaica lines via Chrystie St.

 

[Lawrence St]

Would it still be possible to convert the High Line back into a regular rail line and connect it with the for an extension to 23rd St?

[bobtehpanda]

36 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Would it still be possible to convert the High Line back into a regular rail line and connect it with the for an extension to 23rd St?

No

1. where would you even connect the two

2. the high line doesn't really have passenger stations

3. the high line runs through buildings, some of which were integrated after the conversion to a park and so can't handle the weight, vibration etc. of an actual subway line

4. state law requires replacement of parkland in the area, and there isn't a whole lot of free land on the Far West Side to just turn into park

[RapidoNewLook]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

4. state law requires replacement of parkland in the area, and there isn't a whole lot of free land on the Far West Side to just turn into park

This may not be a problem, as I believe CSX never sold the line, but they leased or donated it,  stipulating that if they ever wanted to convert it back into a rail line, they'd be able to. 

Edited February 22, 2021 by RapidoNewLook

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, RapidoNewLook said:

This may not be a problem, as I believe CSX never sold the line, but they leased or donated it,  stipulating that if they ever wanted to convert it back into a rail line, they'd be able to. 

CSX gave the City title to the line in 2005.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/nyregion/metro-briefing-new-york-manhattan-city-takes-title-to-high-line.html

[Theli11]

19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Though QBL is still a tough nut to crack for deinterlining, because without that infill station -  which I like very much - running the  local cuts off the inner QBL local stops from Queens Plaza and Court Sq, whereas running them express forces one of the QB express lines to get 8-car  trains and much worse crush-loading. I’m not sure which is better overall: build the infill station in LIC or lengthen all of the  line platforms in Brooklyn and on the Myrtle Ave el. The infill station would allow for more connections, including one between the Astoria Line and the QBL and would bring back a transfer point between all QB local and express trains that was lost when the  was rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel - albeit via a connecting passageway instead of a cross-platform transfer like we used to have.

18 hours ago, Caelestor said:

• It's totally possible to run all QBL express trains via 63 St with 10 cars, but it requires the  to go back to Nassau St and the  to run to Church Ave, at least until the BMT Eastern Division platforms are lengthened. There may be some merit to doubling service along the Culver Line and removing the capacity limits that comes with interlining the 6 Ave and Jamaica lines via Chrystie St.

 

I think the entire plan would have longer trains since there's longer stations along the Jamaica El, and Essex St. No need for the  to go back to Nassau, you'll upset who like the single train going to Midtown - Myrtle. the train won't do much either, it'll just be a shorter with no benefits for service. 
 

  

 

Edited February 22, 2021 by Theli11
Expanding and specifying the quote

[mrsman]

I wonder if it is feasible to have the QBL express run to 6th Ave local via 63rd that split into two routes:  and .   to Culver,  via Williamsburg Bridge to Broadway Junction.  

There would be fewer stations to retrofit as Broadway Junction is closer than Middle Vilage from Myrtle Jct.

It would mean sending  and  to Broad Street and having the  train run as a peak direction express to Broadway Junction.  No more .

The Broadway Brooklyn line could also merit some stop consolidation.  Fewer stops, each with longer platforms and better locations.

I'd suggest: Williamsburg Plaza, Union Ave , Flushing, Myrtle, Koscuiscko, Gates, Decatur, Broadway Junction for a total of 8 stations.

 

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, mrsman said:

I wonder if it is feasible to have the QBL express run to 6th Ave local via 63rd that split into two routes:  and .   to Culver,  via Williamsburg Bridge to Broadway Junction.  

There would be fewer stations to retrofit as Broadway Junction is closer than Middle Vilage from Myrtle Jct.

It would mean sending  and  to Broad Street and having the  train run as a peak direction express to Broadway Junction.  No more .

The Broadway Brooklyn line could also merit some stop consolidation.  Fewer stops, each with longer platforms and better locations.

I'd suggest: Williamsburg Plaza, Union Ave , Flushing, Myrtle, Koscuiscko, Gates, Decatur, Broadway Junction for a total of 8 stations.

 

As much as I love the idea of not having the  around since it's barely around and is also skip-stop, I doubt that idea would ever go through with the . You also forgot to mention the , the  would have to run local and truncate to Forest Hills because the  is running express. Then, there is the issue of no express service running to Queens Plaza now because both express trains are running via 63 St and not split. Although, there are some benefits to this such as not as much merging issue to deal with since it is running express and via 63 St. There's also the reconstructed stations as well as lengthened ones along Broadway-Brooklyn and no more useless . However, that is pretty much it. Like I said, I doubt the  would ever go through or consider it.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

21 hours ago, mrsman said:

I wonder if it is feasible to have the QBL express run to 6th Ave local via 63rd that split into two routes:  and .   to Culver,  via Williamsburg Bridge to Broadway Junction.  

There would be fewer stations to retrofit as Broadway Junction is closer than Middle Vilage from Myrtle Jct.

It would mean sending  and  to Broad Street and having the  train run as a peak direction express to Broadway Junction.  No more .

The Broadway Brooklyn line could also merit some stop consolidation.  Fewer stops, each with longer platforms and better locations.

I'd suggest: Williamsburg Plaza, Union Ave , Flushing, Myrtle, Koscuiscko, Gates, Decatur, Broadway Junction for a total of 8 stations.

 

I thought about this too. But that was years before the MTA implemented the current  service. My version would have had the  go peak express to/from JC via the lower level to offer some real competition to the overcrowded . It would have required building the third track on the Jamaica Ave el, similar to this Vanshnookenraggen proposal -

https://mobile.twitter.com/vanshnook/status/1360337687970996224 

But given the popularity of the current  train, the opportunity to do this left the station years ago (pardon the pun). 

19 hours ago, Vulturious said:

As much as I love the idea of not having the  around since it's barely around and is also skip-stop, I doubt that idea would ever go through with the . You also forgot to mention the , the  would have to run local and truncate to Forest Hills because the  is running express. Then, there is the issue of no express service running to Queens Plaza now because both express trains are running via 63 St and not split. Although, there are some benefits to this such as not as much merging issue to deal with since it is running express and via 63 St. There's also the reconstructed stations as well as lengthened ones along Broadway-Brooklyn and no more useless . However, that is pretty much it. Like I said, I doubt the  would ever go through or consider it.

You’re probably more likely to get away with not having express service stop at Queens Plaza, than local service with a de-interlined QBL. Because if the local trains go via 53rd, then no one has to backtrack at the inner QBL local stations for Long Island City. But if the locals go via 63rd, then the inner local stations would be cut off from LIC. The rumored service change that would have sent the  via 63rd and the  via 53rd (presumably only on weekdays) would be one way to clear up the congestion experienced daily in the QP/36th St area. At least then, there is still express service to QP. But it would also be a service cut to the 63rd St stations with both less frequent service on shorter trains. Who knows if it would work?

[mrsman]

All of the above discussion does make it clear that it would be quite difficult to de-interline the system.  I still do beleive that it is a worthwhile goal because it would reduce the merging and allow for as many trains as possible through the existing tunnels without new construction.

An alternative that I was thinking of to deal with the QBL problem would be to extend the  to Forest Hills, along the existing QB line.

OK, so 12 TPH  from JC, 9 TPH   from 179 and 9 TPH  from 179th are the QBL express trains.  THese all run to 53rd and the 8th Ave express to the Cranberry tunnel.  In Brooklyn, the  can run as the Fulton express to Far Rockaway, the  is a Fulton express to Lefferts and  is the Fulton local to Euclid.  

15 TPH   are the QBL locals that run from 179 thru 63rd and the 6th Ave local to the Culver line.

7.5 TPH  and 7.5 TPH  both start at Forest Hills and run along the QBL local.   continues via 63rd along and then its current routing to service Myrtle Ave.   provides the connection for all the QBL local trains to Queens Plaza, Court Square and then continuing along the Crosstown route to Brooklyn.

My thinking is that preserving a connection from the QBL local stations between QP and Roosevelt to QP is important, but not at the expense of limiting the QBL express by introducing merges on the QBL express.  The QBL express would be de-interlined since all of the expresses go to 8th Avenue express and all of the 8th Ave expresses go to QBL express.  The  all serve as one closed system.

The QBL local/6th Ave trains are not de-interlined, but the other main trunk lines of the B division will be de-interlined.  8th Ave express, 8th Ave local, 6th Ave express, Broadway local, and Broadway express would all be de-intelined under vanshnookenraggen's plan, even if an adjustment is made as outlined above to allow for extended service.  Only 22.5 TPH will service the 63rd tunnel, but that is still an improvement over existing service.

For the passengers who board at the local stations between QP and Roosevelt, most want to go to Midtown, so 75% of the trains serving their stations do go to Midtown down 6th Ave.  But there are probably some who are heading to LIC, especially as that area starts to grow.  Some may also want access to 8th Ave trains for access to West Midtown.  The  train will serve that need as it will provide the connection needed to QP and also a transfer to the 8th Ave services there.  Any passengers from the QB local stations heading to Lower Manhattan will best be served by transferring to the Lex express when they first enter Manhattan (many of these plans also recommend improving the transfer connection from 63/Lex to 59/Lex) or by taking  trains to W4 and transferring to 8th Ave trains there.

One question is whether 179th can turn 15 locals and 18 expresses per hour?  I know it can turn more than what it is asked currently, but what is the limit there?  How many trains can QBL serve using 179th, JC, and Forest Hills as possible terminals?

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

On 2/27/2021 at 10:12 PM, mrsman said:

How many trains can QBL serve using 179th, JC, and Forest Hills as possible terminals?

I'm definitely overthinking this but:

Given the fact that 179th has 8 tailing tracks, the yard access at Forest Hills, and the basic terminal at Jamaica Center

• There is enough space at 179th St for  and  trains to all terminate there and each line would have 2 tracks to do so.
• There is enough space at Forest Hills for up to 3 lines to terminate there, which means that if we have the  terminating at 179th St, the  and possibly rerouted  and  trains could terminate at 71st Ave
• 2 lines could terminate at Jamaica Center, and given the other examples, the lines would probably be rerouted  and  trains but not  or  trains since they are core lines at CPW.

 

So basically you could have 9 lines run on Queens Blvd, give or take a few due to station and track capacity. The lines i came up with were the  and rerouted  and  trains.

[vanshnookenraggen]

14 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

I'm definitely overthinking this but:

Given the fact that 179th has 8 tailing tracks, the yard access at Forest Hills, and the basic terminal at Jamaica Center

• There is enough space at 179th St for  and  trains to all terminate there and each line would have 2 tracks to do so.
• There is enough space at Forest Hills for up to 3 lines to terminate there, which means that if we have the  terminating at 179th St, the  and possibly rerouted  and  trains could terminate at 71st Ave
• 2 lines could terminate at Jamaica Center, and given the other examples, the lines would probably be rerouted  and  trains but not  or  trains since they are core lines at CPW.

 

So basically you could have 9 lines run on Queens Blvd, give or take a few due to station and track capacity. The lines i came up with were the  and rerouted  and  trains.

The first point is correct but the second is wrong, and the third kinda depends. Or rather, the second is wrong if the first is true. What I mean by that is if you're through running all trains past Forest Hills to 179th then trying to regularly terminate some trains at FH is going to gum up the works. Hell, all locals already terminate there NOW *and it gums up the works. The whole point of sending locals to 179 is that you can turn them much quicker, thus more capacity. QBL local is limited by the fact that it takes 3 min for a terminating train at FH to clear the track. 179 offers more flexibility with an additional track but if an express is using that track it gets trickier.

As for the third point, the poor switch location in the tunnel keeps capacity on Archer at about 12tph. So technically two lower frequency lines could use it, but most likely just one could.

If you really wanted to use FH as a terminal and through station you'd want to build a new set of tracks outside the local platform. Terminating locals would use the current tracks while through runners used the outside. Is that really worth the extra few tph, idk?

But to answer the overall question: each track is theoretically capable of running 30tph * 2 tracks = 60tph. The terminals at 179 (60tph) + Archer (12tph) = 72tph. Luckily with CBTC bosting track capacity to 36tph * 2 tracks = 72tph!

[bobtehpanda]

On 2/27/2021 at 7:12 PM, mrsman said:

All of the above discussion does make it clear that it would be quite difficult to de-interline the system.  I still do beleive that it is a worthwhile goal because it would reduce the merging and allow for as many trains as possible through the existing tunnels without new construction.

An alternative that I was thinking of to deal with the QBL problem would be to extend the  to Forest Hills, along the existing QB line.

OK, so 12 TPH  from JC, 9 TPH   from 179 and 9 TPH  from 179th are the QBL express trains.  THese all run to 53rd and the 8th Ave express to the Cranberry tunnel.  In Brooklyn, the  can run as the Fulton express to Far Rockaway, the  is a Fulton express to Lefferts and  is the Fulton local to Euclid.  

15 TPH   are the QBL locals that run from 179 thru 63rd and the 6th Ave local to the Culver line.

7.5 TPH  and 7.5 TPH  both start at Forest Hills and run along the QBL local.   continues via 63rd along and then its current routing to service Myrtle Ave.   provides the connection for all the QBL local trains to Queens Plaza, Court Square and then continuing along the Crosstown route to Brooklyn.

During the pre-JC days it was turning the entirety of the QB express, 30 TPH. I don't think that in practice anything higher has been tried.

On 3/19/2021 at 11:32 AM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Luckily with CBTC bosting track capacity to 36tph * 2 tracks = 72tph!

How'd you get that number?

The examples we have in the system most like ours, London Underground, are sobering, since I don't think they plan on hitting anything higher than 32tph on their sub-surface railways.

[vanshnookenraggen]

Theoretical limit? There are other factors involved in capacity like power, acceleration, and dwell times. So maybe we can't hit 36tph. I hope NYCT plans on stress testing CBTC on QBL to see what's possible. 

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

On 3/21/2021 at 1:27 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Theoretical limit? There are other factors involved in capacity like power, acceleration, and dwell times. So maybe we can't hit 36tph. I hope NYCT plans on stress testing CBTC on QBL to see what's possible. 

dude are you the real vanshnookenraggen? i love ur website.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Bklyn Bound 2 Local

[TMC]

On 3/21/2021 at 1:27 PM, vanshnookenraggen said:

Theoretical limit? There are other factors involved in capacity like power, acceleration, and dwell times. So maybe we can't hit 36tph. I hope NYCT plans on stress testing CBTC on QBL to see what's possible. 

I hope the NYCT gets around to stress testing CBTC. I've noticed that it is a much faster ride; it took exactly half the time as it usually does from 71st Ave to 21st Street than it usually does when I took that commute. Hopefully the MTA considers improving the capacity along the line further since it is littered with places to start. I absolutely love your website. I've learned so much more about the system than I had previously learned and had prompted me to do my own research as well.

[Wallyhorse]

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.

 

I know this one's a bit old,. but the Broadway-Brooklyn-to-Canarsie-Line could very well work.  You would need to re-build Atlantic Avenue to at least four tracks and two island platforms (which as I remember can be done as not all of the old structures were torn down) where perhaps for example the becomes a full-time Canarsie line while the continues as it does and the terminates at Atlantic Avenue with a simple cross-platform transfer at Atlantic (in most cases) to the .  

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

20 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I know this one's a bit old,. but the Broadway-Brooklyn-to-Canarsie-Line could very well work.  You would need to re-build Atlantic Avenue to at least four tracks and two island platforms (which as I remember can be done as not all of the old structures were torn down) where perhaps for example the becomes a full-time Canarsie line while the continues as it does and the terminates at Atlantic Avenue with a simple cross-platform transfer at Atlantic (in most cases) to the .  

This route actually existed for a while in the 60's. Some  trains were rerouted via a spur onto the Canarsie line, however the spur did skip Bway Junction. Because the spur was single tracked, trains only ran towards Canarsie.

Edited April 26, 2021 by Bklyn Bound 2 Local

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

Proposed route

EDIT: Currently WIP

Route: 

Car models: R46, R68, R160 Siemens, R211

Stops:

1. Rockaway Park - Beach 116th Street
2. Beach 105th Street - Seaside
3. Beach 98th Street - Playland
4. Beach 90th Street - Holland
5. Broad Channel
6. Howard Beach - JFK Airport 
7. Aqueduct - N Conduit Ave 
8. Aqueduct Racetrack 
9. Rockaway Blvd - Liberty Ave
10. Atlantic Ave
11. Jamaica Ave
12. Myrtle Ave
13. Union Tpke
14. Yellowstone Blvd
15. 63rd Dr - Rego Park
16. Woodhaven Blvd - Queens Mall
17. Grand Ave - Newton
18. 69th Street
19. 58th Street
20. 46th Street - Bliss Street (underground platforms)
21. 40th Street - Lowery Street (underground platforms)
22. 33rd Street - Rawson Street (underground platforms)
23. Queens Plaza

 

Edited April 26, 2021 by Bklyn Bound 2 Local

[ActiveCity]

Send the B to 2 Av-Houston St via 6 Av Express / Concourse Local / Central Park West Local. Send the J to Bay Ridge-95 St via Broadway-Brooklyn Local / 4 Av Local / Canarsie Local. Send the N to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd via Broadway Express / 4 Av Express / Astoria / Sea Beach. Send the Q to Forest Hills-71 Av via Broadway Express / Brighton Express / Queens Blvd Local. Send the R to 96 St-2 Av via Broadway Local / 4 Av Local / 2 Av Local / West End. Send the Z to Broad St via Broadway-Brooklyn Express (rush hours only) / Jamaica Av. Extend the platforms on the Franklin Av Shuttle to accommodate 8 car-60 ft trains or 10 car-60 ft trains and restore the second track. Then, extend the Franklin Av line and connect it with the Myrtle Av line running from Coney Island-Stillwell Av or Brighton Beach to Metropolitan Av-Middle Village via Brighton Local / Myrtle Av. Finally, there will be 4 new stops added along the way at Lafayette Av, Spencer St, Tompkins Av, and Myrtle Av-Broadway. This new line, if built, would bring back the brown M train and will provide transfers to the G, J, L, and Z trains. 

[Theli11]

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I know this one's a bit old,. but the Broadway-Brooklyn-to-Canarsie-Line could very well work.  You would need to re-build Atlantic Avenue to at least four tracks and two island platforms (which as I remember can be done as not all of the old structures were torn down) where perhaps for example the becomes a full-time Canarsie line while the continues as it does and the terminates at Atlantic Avenue with a simple cross-platform transfer at Atlantic (in most cases) to the .  

Wouldn't this make the Broadway Line a lot worse.. I'm not sure how many people need to take a one seat ride into Manhattan via the Bridge when the Canarsie tunnel is perfectly fine. Making the  full time would also mean cutting service past Broadway Junction in half at all times. It's already bad enough in Skip Stop rush hours. And you're still forcing people to transfer at Atlantic rather than Broadway Junction.. yes it can work doesn't mean it should happen..