Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Lex]

As far as I'm concerned, veering away from Downtown Flushing is a nonstarter.

Now, if we were talking about extending it through there, I'd consider it. Of course, something would have to give, and if you ask me, it's eschewing turning anything at Main Street in favor of a pair of branches (Union Street/Willets Point Boulevard and Northern Boulevard).

Union Street/Willets Point Boulevard stations:

• Northern Boulevard
• 32nd Avenue
• 26th Avenue
• 146th Street
• 150th Street
• 154th Street (at the very least, have a shell built)
• Francis Lewis Boulevard
• Utopia Parkway

Northern Boulevard stations:

• Parsons Boulevard
• 150th Street
• 157th Street (designed much like Grand Street in Manhattan, but with the eastbound platform more closely aligned with 158th Street to make a future cross-platform transfer easier)
• 165th Street
• Utopia Parkway
• Francis Lewis Boulevard
• 208th Street
• Bell Boulevard

[Wallyhorse]

On 2/7/2022 at 1:42 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. That connection connecting the  local tracks to the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks alone is going to be one hell of task. And wouldn't extending the  require demolition of the WTC Mall? After spending nearly $4 billion on the giant stegosaurus, I don't think the PA are going to go for tearing it up.

The only way I'd be in favor of running the  on QBL is if it runs via 63rd St and express with the , while the  and  run local to/from 71st-Continental. Having a local  merge with an express  between 36th St and Queens Plaza on top of the  merge that's already there is a recipe for disaster.

The time to have done the work required to connect the  to the  tracks was right after 9/11 happened or before that in 1966 when construction of the WTC commenced.

That said, I believe it's a straight shot from the end of Chambers on the to the Broadway like tracks north of the WTC to where the mall likely is unaffected or minimally affected by such, especially if they only have to open up Church Street for that.  

[mrsman]

23 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The time to have done the work required to connect the  to the  tracks was right after 9/11 happened or before that in 1966 when construction of the WTC commenced.

That said, I believe it's a straight shot from the end of Chambers on the to the Broadway like tracks north of the WTC to where the mall likely is unaffected or minimally affected by such, especially if they only have to open up Church Street for that.  

Agreed.  The  via Montague plans that some people have is largely because it is indeed a straight shot.  Also agree that the best opportunities for doing something along these limes was during WTC construction when there is a lot of digging in that neighborhood going on anyway.  

Having the 8th Ave line continue into Montague would mean that we could run 4 services along 8th Ave [as opposed to the current three], two express services that lead to Cranberry and two local services that lead to Montague.  The WTC dead end limits the capability of using the full capacity of 8th Ave.

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Yep. I don’t know if they considered back then (first WTC construction in the late 60s) and if so, why they didn’t go through with it. But that train has left the station.  

[ActiveCity]

Fun fact, the Chambers St station on the IND Eight Avenue line was not meant to be the last stop. One example of this is that the station lacks layup tracks which is unusual for IND construction. In addition, the BMT Broadway and IND Eight Avenue lines both run under Church St. This is relevant because both lines are within the same level of each other and are only a few hundred feet away from each othtunnel er. Infact, the IND wanted to extend the line further south to connect with the Court St station on the IND Fulton St line. This would've required taking over the BMT Broadway line and the construction of a new East River tunnel. This East River tunnel would've been built at the  Whitehall St station by using the bell mouth provisions. If built, Broadway trains would've been truncated to City Hall station. And finally, the Montague St tunnel would've been served by Nassau Loop trains.

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Yep. I don’t know if they considered back then (first WTC construction in the late 60s) and if so, why they didn’t go through with it. But that train has left the station.  

One of the problems with to Montague is where exactly is the supposed to go? If it just terminates at City Hall that's just musical chairs.

4th Av passengers already have west side access via the at Borough Hall.

[Vulturious]

26 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

One of the problems with to Montague is where exactly is the supposed to go? If it just terminates at City Hall that's just musical chairs.

4th Av passengers already have west side access via the at Borough Hall.

Well you're right on one hand, but I don't necessarily see why this idea should be thrown away. It's not only about having access to west side, it's mainly about providing alternatives. I don't see an issue with terminating the  at City Hall, in fact I think it's more manageable. This would essentially allow for  trains to have a better time turning trains around if the lower level is renovated since there are 3 tracks (that's if they use the full 3 tracks which would be a waste not to). The  wouldn't need to run at all during late nights because it's cut back. 

For those along Broadway wanting service to Whitehall for that service to the Staten Island Ferry, the  could still be running there or extended into Brooklyn. Routing it via West End instead wouldn't be a bad thing in this case because 4 Av local riders in my opinion would probably have a much better time with the . 

I'm not sure how service during other times would run as that one is a bit confusing. I don't necessarily think it's a big issue if the  was running fully local during late nights since a lot of other lines are already doing so anyway. Maybe a special  service would be running the same way the late night  currently does.

Honestly, this connection would give more opportunities to riders and the MTA. The MTA could easily reroute  and  trains pretty much entirely along 8 Av and could still get to their respective branches in Brooklyn. If they wanted, the MTA could swap some services around. 

[bobtehpanda]

14 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well you're right on one hand, but I don't necessarily see why this idea should be thrown away. It's not only about having access to west side, it's mainly about providing alternatives. I don't see an issue with terminating the  at City Hall, in fact I think it's more manageable. This would essentially allow for  trains to have a better time turning trains around if the lower level is renovated since there are 3 tracks (that's if they use the full 3 tracks which would be a waste not to). The  wouldn't need to run at all during late nights because it's cut back. 

For those along Broadway wanting service to Whitehall for that service to the Staten Island Ferry, the  could still be running there or extended into Brooklyn. Routing it via West End instead wouldn't be a bad thing in this case because 4 Av local riders in my opinion would probably have a much better time with the . 

I'm not sure how service during other times would run as that one is a bit confusing. I don't necessarily think it's a big issue if the  was running fully local during late nights since a lot of other lines are already doing so anyway. Maybe a special  service would be running the same way the late night  currently does.

Honestly, this connection would give more opportunities to riders and the MTA. The MTA could easily reroute  and  trains pretty much entirely along 8 Av and could still get to their respective branches in Brooklyn. If they wanted, the MTA could swap some services around. 

This doesn't give any new opportunities to riders. Riders wanting west side stations have the at Borough Hall or the   at Metrotech. Riders wanting 53rd St can already take the  and walk a little bit from 59th St. 

It would have cost a lot of money, and would result in no net benefits for Brooklyn riders, and significantly worsened connections for Broadway riders. At least the Chrystie St connection brought new direct Midtown services to lines that did not have it before.

[Vulturious]

22 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This doesn't give any new opportunities to riders. Riders wanting west side stations have the at Borough Hall or the   at Metrotech. Riders wanting 53rd St can already take the  and walk a little bit from 59th St. 

It would have cost a lot of money, and would result in no net benefits for Brooklyn riders, and significantly worsened connections for Broadway riders. At least the Chrystie St connection brought new direct Midtown services to lines that did not have it before.

I won't argue about how much it would cost to build the connection alone including rescheduling every service and whatnot. However, I am going to argue your statement of, "This doesn't give any new opportunities to riders." I feel like you skimmed over the whole reroute thing and swapping services around. While you are right that it might worsen connections for Broadway riders, it wasn't like people taking the  were happy with it anyway.

Like you said, riders could easily transfer over to the  or . Hell I could go a step further, riders can easily transfer to any South Brooklyn train like the  at Dekalb or Atlantic, the  at 36 St/59 St or Atlantic Av, and the  at 4 Av-9 St or Jay St-MetroTech. I don't see much of an issue with providing more alternatives or at the very least in my opinion, better alternatives. Especially those along 4 Av local stops, I can easily see more riders finally getting better service. People are probably still going to transfer over to another line entirely anyway, but that's ok. 

[bobtehpanda]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

I won't argue about how much it would cost to build the connection alone including rescheduling every service and whatnot. However, I am going to argue your statement of, "This doesn't give any new opportunities to riders." I feel like you skimmed over the whole reroute thing and swapping services around. While you are right that it might worsen connections for Broadway riders, it wasn't like people taking the  were happy with it anyway.

Like you said, riders could easily transfer over to the  or . Hell I could go a step further, riders can easily transfer to any South Brooklyn train like the  at Dekalb or Atlantic, the  at 36 St/59 St or Atlantic Av, and the  at 4 Av-9 St or Jay St-MetroTech. I don't see much of an issue with providing more alternatives or at the very least in my opinion, better alternatives. Especially those along 4 Av local stops, I can easily see more riders finally getting better service. People are probably still going to transfer over to another line entirely anyway, but that's ok. 

I ignored it because you didn't explain what *new* destinations people gained access to. Musical chairs is not a service improvement if everyone already had access to it. No one is gaining a new alternative because you just eliminated the current route. There's zero net benefit.

The already has pretty tight operating conditions. Smushing into DeKalb would be a disaster.

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

I ignored it because you didn't explain what *new* destinations people gained access to. Musical chairs is not a service improvement if everyone already had access to it. No one is gaining a new alternative because you just eliminated the current route. There's zero net benefit.

The already has pretty tight operating conditions. Smushing into DeKalb would be a disaster.

Dekalb is a disaster only for express trains, the  isn't running express. It's pretty much alone for the most part straight from Bay Ridge until Whitehall St. Obviously, the  added in would hinder it, but they're only limited rush hour service. Even if you were to include the rush hour put-in from Coney Island yard, they literally stuck outside of 9 Av for like 30 mins to even an hour at times. 

I never said they should swap services around, I said they could. For example, let's say the  were to be reintroduced again, but instead of it running from 168 St to WTC it would be extended to Bay Ridge. There other examples, but I decided not to bring them up because I wanted others to think of something up for themselves. Maybe it might not be the best for short term investments, but long term investments definitely can work.

[bobtehpanda]

23 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Dekalb is a disaster only for express trains, the  isn't running express. It's pretty much alone for the most part straight from Bay Ridge until Whitehall St. Obviously, the  added in would hinder it, but they're only limited rush hour service. Even if you were to include the rush hour put-in from Coney Island yard, they literally stuck outside of 9 Av for like 30 mins to even an hour at times. 

I never said they should swap services around, I said they could. For example, let's say the  were to be reintroduced again, but instead of it running from 168 St to WTC it would be extended to Bay Ridge. There other examples, but I decided not to bring them up because I wanted others to think of something up for themselves. Maybe it might not be the best for short term investments, but long term investments definitely can work.

Just thought of another problem with an E-R swap.

Right now Staten Island Ferry passengers have direct connections to the east side via the and the LES/Broadway via the  . The would be redundant with the , as previously mentioned, and ferry passengers would have to walk longer to the already overcrowded for East Side services. This would be true as well for all stations south of City Hall.

[Vulturious]

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Just thought of another problem with an E-R swap.

Right now Staten Island Ferry passengers have direct connections to the east side via the and the LES/Broadway via the  . The would be redundant with the , as previously mentioned, and ferry passengers would have to walk longer to the already overcrowded for East Side services. This would be true as well for all stations south of City Hall.

Yes, but I did say the  is still a route that will provide that direct Broadway service. I doubt people taking the  from Brooklyn going into Manhattan are going anywhere further past Cortlandt St or City Hall so that shouldn't be much of an issue. While you are correct of it being a little redundant, riders still have a way through the . Even with it being a weekday service, it wouldn't be that much of an issue since the  which is a rather popular route that directly runs into Midtown Manhattan only operates there during weekdays. 

I think one way to compensate the lack of a lower Broadway service is by having the  run via Montague St during weekends as well. It's not the best option, but's it's not like riders coming in from Staten Island are going to have any better time anyway. This is the  we're talking about here.  trains could probably see a service boost because the  isn't cutting it off for such a short distance.

[Lex]

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Yes, but I did say the  is still a route that will provide that direct Broadway service. I doubt people taking the  from Brooklyn going into Manhattan are going anywhere further past Cortlandt St or City Hall so that shouldn't be much of an issue. While you are correct of it being a little redundant, riders still have a way through the . Even with it being a weekday service, it wouldn't be that much of an issue since the  which is a rather popular route that directly runs into Midtown Manhattan only operates there during weekdays. 

I think one way to compensate the lack of a lower Broadway service is by having the  run via Montague St during weekends as well. It's not the best option, but's it's not like riders coming in from Staten Island are going to have any better time anyway. This is the  we're talking about here.  trains could probably see a service boost because the  isn't cutting it off for such a short distance.

First, local stations exist.

Second, do we really need yet another flat junction (assuming that there isn't a subtle slope that would nonetheless drastically complicate construction of the connection while retaining the existing one)?

[Vulturious]

7 hours ago, Lex said:

First, local stations exist.

Second, do we really need yet another flat junction (assuming that there isn't a subtle slope that would nonetheless drastically complicate construction of the connection while retaining the existing one)?

Well WTC and Cortlandt St are pretty close to each other anyway. One station is going to need to go so I propose getting rid of the WTC platform. Obviously, it's not ideal to get rid of it. However, because of how close to each other, at least keeping Cortlandt St will keep a connection between Chambers St and Park Place. I'd say maybe going up a bit and assuming there isn't anything in the way above like the Fulton Center or connections between stations, we can maybe have a flyover. It would have to go up because of the  and  tunnels getting in the way. 

Even if it isn't possible, I don't think a flat junction would be as bad as it might seem at least. There are only 2 flat junctions in the system and that is the one at Myrtle Av-Broadway and north of 135 St. I know it's annoying for the  and , but I'm not sure about how the  and  deal with each other. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I still think the connection is rather good even with the cons that come with it. It'll definitely benefit in the long run. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

Well WTC and Cortlandt St are pretty close to each other anyway. One station is going to need to go so I propose getting rid of the WTC platform. Obviously, it's not ideal to get rid of it. However, because of how close to each other, at least keeping Cortlandt St will keep a connection between Chambers St and Park Place. I'd say maybe going up a bit and assuming there isn't anything in the way above like the Fulton Center or connections between stations, we can maybe have a flyover. It would have to go up because of the  and  tunnels getting in the way. 

Even if it isn't possible, I don't think a flat junction would be as bad as it might seem at least. There are only 2 flat junctions in the system and that is the one at Myrtle Av-Broadway and north of 135 St. I know it's annoying for the  and , but I'm not sure about how the  and  deal with each other. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I still think the connection is rather good even with the cons that come with it. It'll definitely benefit in the long run. 

But the  runs more frequently than any of the other lines you mentioned do. And when ridership bounces back to pre-Covid levels, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to figure out how to run more  trains per hour, given how crowded that line can get. A flat junction will only hamper  service frequency, especially if another service like the  still runs through there. 

Also, going back to what I posted earlier, it's possible that if the  connects to the Broadway Line tracks via flyover, it's possible that WTC mall could be in path of the connecting tracks. You see, the  passes over the mall as you get near the escalators leading down to the  train. So it's possible that the existing  platform is also above the mall (I believe it is). But in order to get there, the southbound  passes under the  tracks, then rises back up to enter WTC. An  extension to Lower Broadway would likely require the  to stay at that lower level to avoid making a flat junction connection. Or possibly go even lower to avoid the left turn towards Brooklyn the  make after leaving Chambers. 

I also don't really see how the  would be that much better than existing  service or even a full-time South Brooklyn  service. Yes, it might offer flexibility with doing reroutes that we can't do now, but is it really worth disrupting service on the and  lines to make said connection? You said in a previous they could, but not necessarily should, swap the services. But what is the point of building this connection if they don't run a regular service through there? If they leave the existing services as they are and the connection ends up being seldom-used (like only for emergency reroutes), then that's even more of a reason not to do it.

Edited February 14, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But the  runs more frequently than any of the other lines you mentioned do. And when ridership bounces back to pre-Covid levels, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to figure out how to run more  trains per hour, given how crowded that line can get. A flat junction will only hamper  service frequency, especially if another service like the  still runs through there. 

Also, going back to what I posted earlier, it's possible that if the  connects to the Broadway Line tracks via flyover, it's possible that WTC mall could be in path of the connecting tracks. You see, the  passes over the mall as you get near the escalators leading down to the  train. So it's possible that the existing  platform is also above the mall (I believe it is). But in order to get there, the southbound  passes under the  tracks, then rises back up to enter WTC. An  extension to Lower Broadway would likely require the  to stay at that lower level to avoid making a flat junction connection. Or possibly go even lower to avoid the left turn towards Brooklyn the  make after leaving Chambers. 

I also don't really see how the  would be that much better than existing  service or even a full-time South Brooklyn  service. Yes, it might offer flexibility with doing reroutes that we can't do now, but is it really worth disrupting service on the and  lines to make said connection? You said in a previous they could, but not necessarily should, swap the services. But what is the point of building this connection if they don't run a regular service through there? If they leave the existing services as they are and the connection ends up being seldom-used (like only for emergency reroutes), then that's even more of a reason not to do it.

Then I guess it's time to move on from this discussion, I'm willing to accept defeat. Maybe it's possible to build such connection with a flyover, but who knows what will happen there. 

[subwaykid256]

Honestly I think having the to Montague would be a great idea because that way you can diversify the service going into Brooklyn. And cut the train short.

 

 

[subwaykid256]

So heres an idea. This idea is very experimental so I still plan to refine my ideas but here we go

 To Jamaica Center - Bay Ridge 95 St via new Church St connection QBE via 53 St

 To Forest Hills 71 Av - Coney Island Stillwell Av QBL via 53 St 6av LCL Culver LCL (Taking over the  as 3 Borough Local) Late nights extended back to Jamaica 179 St

 Restored weekday service to Forest Hills 71 Av Weekends/Late Night cut back to Court Sq

 Middle Village - 2 Av/96 St. (Ultimately when Phase 3 is complete my idea is to send to 125 St/Lex via 2 Av) Weekends cut to Essex St Late Nights Myrtle Av Shuttle

 to Astoria - City Hall (Weekdays Only)

 Jamaica - 179 St - Bay Pkwy QBE via 63 St Bway LCL 4 Av LCL via West End. Weekends cut to City Hall

 

[Vulturious]

7 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

So heres an idea. This idea is very experimental so I still plan to refine my ideas but here we go

 To Jamaica Center - Bay Ridge 95 St via new Church St connection QBE via 53 St

 To Forest Hills 71 Av - Coney Island Stillwell Av QBL via 53 St 6av LCL Culver LCL (Taking over the  as 3 Borough Local) Late nights extended back to Jamaica 179 St

 Restored weekday service to Forest Hills 71 Av Weekends/Late Night cut back to Court Sq

 Middle Village - 2 Av/96 St. (Ultimately when Phase 3 is complete my idea is to send to 125 St/Lex via 2 Av) Weekends cut to Essex St Late Nights Myrtle Av Shuttle

 to Astoria - City Hall (Weekdays Only)

 Jamaica - 179 St - Bay Pkwy QBE via 63 St Bway LCL 4 Av LCL via West End. Weekends cut to City Hall

 

While it's cool that you implemented the  Montague connection, I can't help but see a lot of flaws here.

Starting off with the , having it cut back as an all local train wouldn't be a good idea. People would still take the , but there would be a lot of complaints. Even if we were to look past that whole thing, I feel the 's reliability would decrease because of how many trains it would be dealing with. Currently, the only lines it is dealing is the  and . However, with this new setup, it's dealing with the  twice as well as dealing with the  and . 

Next up is the , I've seen a lot of news revolving around the  and even some petitions about restoring the service back to Forest Hills. Even with the  getting all the new stuff now, I just don't see it ever coming back to Forest Hills. Hell, maybe later on down the line where the 's fleet changes again (most likely will happen) and it finally gets longer length trains, it's just not probable. There are more people along QBL that rather have service to Manhattan than the . It's also not the best replacement compared to the .

Speaking of the , the only issue it would have is directly cutting off the  and . It's mainly the same for the most part up until around Lexington Av-63 St. The  and  would have to hold while the  is trying to run through, but that would lead to even worse delays on Broadway.

As we get onto the Broadway side of things, this is where the worst is happening. Currently, Broadway has a lot to deal with such as the  having to switch to local north of Herald Square. This then leads to delays to every line as there are three lines running on the same track between Herald Square all the way into Queens. However, the  is now running via 63 St which means even more dwell time in stations across all of Broadway. Even more with the  having to wait for the  to crossover to the other side of Lexington Av-63 St. I see the need for the  in this scenario to just be a waste of time as it's only operating during weekdays, losing that direct yard access, as well as having to deal with the delays where the service frequency would just not run as often. The  didn't need to swap with the  either. 

[subwaykid256]

Good point so how about to make things simpler i leave the as is now. and simply terminate the  At City Hall where there will be a new transfer to the via City Hall/Park Place/Chambers St. The  on Weekdays can be extended to Bay Pkwy via Montague 4 Av lcl and on weekends the is cut back to City Hall. Late nights no service runs local from Jamaica Center - Bay Ridge 95 St. And yes City Hall station at Night will be closed as there is the new connection to the .

 

When Phase 3 of SAS is complete where the will run to Forest Hills 71-Av via 2 Av. and turn on 63 St with the . And what if I cut the and cut service to make room for the to go to  Jamaica Center.

[Vulturious]

28 minutes ago, subwaykid256 said:

Good point so how about to make things simpler i leave the as is now. and simply terminate the  At City Hall where there will be a new transfer to the via City Hall/Park Place/Chambers St. The  on Weekdays can be extended to Bay Pkwy via Montague 4 Av lcl and on weekends the is cut back to City Hall. Late nights no service runs local from Jamaica Center - Bay Ridge 95 St. And yes City Hall station at Night will be closed as there is the new connection to the .

 

When Phase 3 of SAS is complete where the will run to Forest Hills 71-Av via 2 Av. and turn on 63 St with the . And what if I cut the and cut service to make room for the to go to  Jamaica Center.

Is the  operating via Astoria or QBL? If via Astoria, cut back the  because it doesn't need to go to Brooklyn anymore because the  needs yard access. If QBL, wouldn't just be easier to keep the  as Astoria riders know the  more than the  and vice versa with QBL riders? That's just a thought.

As for the phase 3 thing, I'm not sure how well the  would operate along the Brooklyn-Broadway line or even Jamaica Av line. The  might seem like a separate line, but it's really just the  skipping stops. Essentially, they're just the same. A better place to run the  to is via a new tunnel into Brooklyn to the Fulton St line. Fulton St definitely needs some help and having the  replace the  would help a lot. They really need to reevaluate on how they want to construct SAS, if it was a 4 track line at least south of 63 St maybe there can be room for it.

[subwaykid256]

10 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Is the  operating via Astoria or QBL? If via Astoria, cut back the  because it doesn't need to go to Brooklyn anymore because the  needs yard access. If QBL, wouldn't just be easier to keep the  as Astoria riders know the  more than the  and vice versa with QBL riders? That's just a thought.

As for the phase 3 thing, I'm not sure how well the  would operate along the Brooklyn-Broadway line or even Jamaica Av line. The  might seem like a separate line, but it's really just the  skipping stops. Essentially, they're just the same. A better place to run the  to is via a new tunnel into Brooklyn to the Fulton St line. Fulton St definitely needs some help and having the  replace the  would help a lot. They really need to reevaluate on how they want to construct SAS, if it was a 4 track line at least south of 63 St maybe there can be room for it.

Maybe having the run to Bay Ridge would be a better idea. Whether its through Phase 3 and maybe using the Nassau St Line or Phase 4 Through Montague.

 

[Wallyhorse]

On 2/11/2022 at 10:41 AM, mrsman said:

Agreed.  The  via Montague plans that some people have is largely because it is indeed a straight shot.  Also agree that the best opportunities for doing something along these limes was during WTC construction when there is a lot of digging in that neighborhood going on anyway.  

Having the 8th Ave line continue into Montague would mean that we could run 4 services along 8th Ave [as opposed to the current three], two express services that lead to Cranberry and two local services that lead to Montague.  The WTC dead end limits the capability of using the full capacity of 8th Ave.

 

Absolutely.  You could have greater flexibility and have say a  train that runs to Coney Island (with the  shortened to Brighton Beach as the express and the moved elsewhere) for example.  Or have the  run 168-Bay Ridge with the either shortened to say Whitehall or City Hall (depending on whether or not the City Hall-Cortlandt part of the current line is abandoned) to 71-Continental or 179.  

[mrsman]

One positive aspect of  to Bay Ridge is that it would provide a yard for Bay Ridge trains.  They have access to the Jamaica Yard now, of course, by way of the  train, but the lack of yard access was always a sticking point in trying to establish an Astoria - Broadway local - Bay Ridge service, as a means of separating Broadway expresses from locals.

Another positive aspect would be the allowance of more re-routes and the ability for direct 8th Ave sevice from southern Brooklyn.

But I think overall, the connection would not allow for an increase in service overall.

Ideally, Division B would have 6 northern portals that connect to 6 Midtown track sets that connect to 6 southern portals.  If there were a one to one relationship between the portals and the Midtown tracks, you'd have the ability for the most capacity.  (This is deinterlining).  But even if we allow certain trains to still intermingle in certain places, having 6 exits on each side would still be beneficial.

We have 6 northern portals currently:

CPW express - CPW local - 2nd Ave - 63rd tunnel - 60th tunnel - 53rd tunnel

We have 6 sets of Midtown tracks (8th Ave express/local, 6th Ave express/local, and Broadway express/local).

We can connect the northern portals to the Midtown tracks on a one to one basis as follows:

CPW express - 8th Ave express

CPW local - 6th Ave express

2nd Ave - Broadway express

63rd - 6th Ave local

60th - Broadway local

53rd - 8th Ave local

[Doing the above would deinterline, but there could still be reasons to keep some trains that do interline, like a Qns service on 53rd that connects to 6th Ave or having QBL service via 60th as in today's  train.]

However, there are only 5 southern portals: Manhattan Bridge N, Manhattan Bridge S, Rutgers, Cranberry, and Montague.  The Williamsburg Bridge could be a 6th portal, but the way that the tracks are currently configured, it can only get Midtown trains at the expense of Rutgers.

The Midtown tracks can connect to these southern portals, and most currently do in a one to one fashion:

Broadway express - Manhattan Bridge S

Broadway local - Montague

6th Ave express - Manhattan Bridge N

6th Ave local - Rutgers OR Williamsburg Bridge

8th Ave express - Cranberry

8th Ave local - DEAD END

Since the 8th Ave local does not connect with a portal to Brooklyn, capacity is limited.  This is why there are only three services on 8th Ave today.

Connecting the 8th Ave local to Montague would mean that we can increase 8th Ave service at the expense of Broadway local service.  The billions of dollars needed to make this connection would not actually increase capacity, even though it does have some benefits with regard to re-routes.

What would allow for an increase in capacity? A connection to a 6th portal.  This can either mean a new East River tunnel or a new tunnel to connect with the Williamsburg Bridge.  The connection to Williamsgurg Bridge is usually envisioned as a subway between 6th Ave and the Bowery Station along Spring St or Broome St.  Another possibility is a subway along Worth Street that connects to the Nassau line. 

If the second option is chosen, it is true that 8th Ave local trains will hit two different Canal St stations, so to avoid confusion the 6th/Canal station should be renamed to TRIBECA.  But it does mean a relatively short tunnel along Worth St for about 1000 feet.  The 8th Ave trains will replace  along the Williamsburg Bridge lines.  So what becomes of the Nassau line south of Worth Street?  If teh above is implemented, there is a good argument that this small section of track between Chambers and Broad St station should become IRT and connected to the  train to allow  trains to reach the Financial District.