Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 1/26/2022 at 9:19 AM, shiznit1987 said:

Thinking about it some more, I'd like to amend my plan:

The Broadway Local tracks will still be tied into the Manhattan Bridge, so that all four Manhattan Bridge Tracks feed into Broadway. The service pattern would look like this:

 Broadway Exp - 4th Ave Exp - Sea Beach

 Broadway Exp - 4th Ave Exp - West End

 Broadway Local - Brighton Local

 Broadway Local - Brighton Express

 Nassau St Subway - Montague - 4th Ave Local to Bay Ridge

Now that Southern Brooklyn is taken care of, the  trains are extended down Water St thru Lower Manhattan to a new tunnel to Atlantic Ave in Brooklyn where they take over the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR. The  curves off down Utica Ave to Kings Plaza while the  continues to Jamaica where it is tied into the Archer Ave Subway. Archer Ave is extended one stop to Archer/Merrick to a new 4 track terminal ala 179st with turnback tracks. The service pattern looks like this:

 207th St/Inwood - Kings Plaza (CPW Express)

 205th St/Norwood - Merrick/Archer (CPW Express)

 168st/Wash Hts - CPW Local - 8th Ave

Benefits:

-Dekalb Ave and Columbus Circle are de-interlined. 

-Southern Brooklyn passengers can still get 6th Ave service at Atlantic

-Much needed relief for Queens Blvd and SE Queens with the new  service

-Utica Ave subway can be more easily completed as an elevated, helping speed construction and lower costs

 

Problem with the  part you piss off all southern Brooklyn riders trying to get to 6th Avenue but other than that good idea

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 2/2/2022 at 6:33 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’d be all in for a Flushing extension too. I’d likely stop using the QM20 if I had a  or  line stop near me in Whitestone. It’s much too far for me to walk to and from the LIRR at Auburndale most days (if the weather is in the 50s thru 70s with no rain I can do it, but that’s it). But I’d have the  stay on Northern all the way to 221st/Springfield Blvd because Northern is a wide commercial street and most of the others are residential (like Station Road and 39th Avenue). I’d use  because it’s “the other purple line,” but only the R62As can display it and none of the newer A-Division trains can display a route number greater than . 

Interesting how you mentioned replacing the  designation with a purple . Transit actually had the chance to do this 20 years ago when they could have used the existing  sign on the rolls when they sent R62As from the  and  lines over to the . But no, they kept the , citing that it would actually cause confusion to change it to . 

Thanks for the feedback the main reasoning behind renaming the  is so that passengers know what route will go to the terminal  might seem good but the MTA never used double digits they got rid of double letter routes for a reason. I believe that the flushing extension should create a new route using entire the  and  train logo

[Amiri the subway guy]

Just now, Amiri the subway guy said:

Thanks for the feedback the main reasoning behind renaming the  is so that passengers know what route will go to the terminal  might seem good but the MTA never used double digits they got rid of double letter routes for a reason. I believe that the flushing extension should create a new route using entire the  and  train logo

Maybe flushing skip stop service can be studied to have balanced service on both branches

[JeremiahC99]

5 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Problem with the  part you piss off all southern Brooklyn riders trying to get to 6th Avenue but other than that good idea

That issue is mitigated since the Broadway and Sixth Avenue lines run almost a block apart form each other throughout Manhattan, so it would be a matter of riders just taking the Broadway Line to a nearby station and walking from there. As for transfers, these can be mitigated since the Lexington Avenue connection is available at Canal Street and at 14th Street-Union Square, and the 8th Avenue Line has a connection at Times Square-42nd Street, as well as 14th Street-Union Square via the  train. That line is also within walking distance of Broadway as well.

Meanwhile, the  and  can be used to enhance service in Brooklyn and Queens.

[Joyjliradio]

 

[Vulturious]

30 minutes ago, Joyjliradio said:

 

I'm not really for the whole  running local idea. While the  might theoretically run better, it has to stop at a lot more stations than before. I doubt anyone would be willing to stick with the  as a whole along QBL in general if it meant it's not running express anymore. The  iirc has ran local to Jamaica-179 St before, but was cut back for the very reason of no one wanting to stay on it.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 2/19/2022 at 8:40 AM, Amiri the subway guy said:

Thanks for the feedback the main reasoning behind renaming the  is so that passengers know what route will go to the terminal  might seem good but the MTA never used double digits they got rid of double letter routes for a reason. I believe that the flushing extension should create a new route using entire the  and  train logo

If the  splits after Main St, then yes you’d want a different number for the different terminals. But with the  and  it’s the same terminal at both ends, so perhaps it might be confusing to have a  as the local in both directions and an  as the express in one direction and local in the other.

On 2/19/2022 at 8:40 AM, Amiri the subway guy said:

Maybe flushing skip stop service can be studied to have balanced service on both branches

Flushing is better with peak express  than skip stop, because of all the commuters boarding the  at Main Street. Though if one track ever has to be removed from service long-term, as was the case in 1985 when the Flushing el needed major rehab, then skip stop can be implemented for the duration. This was done in 1986-88 on the Brighton Line with the  and  trains. 

On 2/19/2022 at 2:31 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

That issue is mitigated since the Broadway and Sixth Avenue lines run almost a block apart form each other throughout Manhattan, so it would be a matter of riders just taking the Broadway Line to a nearby station and walking from there. As for transfers, these can be mitigated since the Lexington Avenue connection is available at Canal Street and at 14th Street-Union Square, and the 8th Avenue Line has a connection at Times Square-42nd Street, as well as 14th Street-Union Square via the  train. That line is also within walking distance of Broadway as well.

Meanwhile, the  and  can be used to enhance service in Brooklyn and Queens.

For areas in between the Broadway and 6th Avenue lines, that could work. But for areas like Washington Square or the 40s east of 6th Avenue, Broadway may not be that great of an alternative to 6th. 

[Wallyhorse]

On 1/19/2022 at 2:28 PM, shiznit1987 said:

This plan of mine involves several re-arriangements to improve Brooklyn service:

First, the Broadway Local tracks will be connected to the north side of the Manhattan Bridge. This means that now all four MB tracks will feed into the Broadway Line. The  will become the Brighton Local with the  being the Brighton Express. This allows for Dekalb to be deinterlined. 

Second, the  trains after Broadway-Lafayette will be tied into the Nassau St Line with the  running to Jamaica Center and the  running through the Nassau St subway/Montague Tunnel to the 4th Ave local, heading to Bay Ridge. The  will be retained as a Metropolitan Ave to Chambers St service to allow for those who still want to travel from Broadway-Brooklyn to Lower Manhattan. Also, CPW will be deinterlined with the  going to 207th and the  to 205th via CPW express.  trains run to 168th via CPW local

Third, with the Lower Manhattan section of the Broadway line now severed from the rest of the route, my proposal is to connect the  train to the Broadway Line tracks at World Trade Center, making the 's terminal Whitehall St. This is critical since having a three track terminal for the  will enable it to run more service if the day ever comes the Queens Blvd bypass is built. 

Actually, what your proposal would do is allow for two lines along eighth Avenue and South Brooklyn, with perhaps the  actually going a lot further than Whitehall to Bay Ridge to replace the  for example and have the  run via another line in South Brooklyn.   

[ManhattanBoundQ]

Here are my ideas.

    IDEAS THAT DON'T INVOLVE NEW TRACK:

• Send the to Lefferts Blvd to replace the . Late Nights  service would be cut back west of Euclid Avenue, eliminating the need for the .  
• Since  service only runs in the peak direction, take advantage of this and use the entire express track from Ave X to Jay St.
• Swap the  and  routes between 47-50th Sts and 36th St. This would eliminate the  switching tracks near Queens Plaza, and the  switching tracks south of 36th St.
•  service should just be replaced with a , that would run peak direction express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave, stopping only at Myrtle Ave.
• Run  like the , as a weekday peak direction express, not just rush hours.
• Just rename the  to the . It would make the system so much simpler.
• Swap  and  routes in Brooklyn, with rush hour  express service to/from Bay Parkway.
• Do something with the  and  at 75th Ave and Briarwood, either only stop one of them, or stop both of them, because the situation right now is too confusing.

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE SOME NEW TRACK

• Build switches at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts, connecting the  and , to enable a connection between the lines for train movements, and to be used during service changes.
• New Switches just east of 7th Ave - 53rd St, allowing a connection for a Bronx-Manhattan-Queens Line.

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE A LOT OF NEW TRACK

• New line using the tail tracks beyond 2nd Ave  station, would provide a new East-West line across Queens. Possible route could head along Houston St before heading under the East River, with a Connection to the  and  at Lorimer-Metropolitan, and another connection to the  at Montrose Ave, and a connection to the  either at Wyckoffs Av or Knickerbocker, before tying into the Jamaica Line at Cypress Hills. Note this route was planned using a track map, not a street map. Line may be designated .
• Obviously the completion of the , possibly with an extension into Brookyln.
• Extension of the  to Bedford-Nostrand Avs, preferrably with some sort of track connection to the , as well as the double tracking of the entire line, to allow for a new line to Brighton Beach or Coney Island from Court Sq, most likely would remain as a shuttle during late nights.

[ManhattanBoundQ]

1 hour ago, ManhattanBoundQ said:

New line using the tail tracks beyond 2nd Ave  station, would provide a new East-West line across Queens. Possible route could head along Houston St before heading under the East River, with a Connection to the  and  at Lorimer-Metropolitan, and another connection to the  at Montrose Ave, and a connection to the  either at Wyckoffs Av or Knickerbocker, before tying into the Jamaica Line at Cypress Hills. Note this route was planned using a track map, not a street map. Line may be designated .

Stations on the new section

Bold indicates express stops

Italic indicates transfers via passageways

1. 2nd Ave - Houston St
2. Avenue C
3. 2nd St
4. Marcy Avenue  (Lorimer-Metropolitan)
5. Lorimer - Grand Sts
6. Schloes St
7. Montrose Av
8. Thames St
9. Suydam St
10. Knickerbocker Ave
11. Cornelia St
12. Cooper Ave
13. Highland Blvd
14. Cypress Hills

[ActiveCity]

1 hour ago, ManhattanBoundQ said:

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE A LOT OF NEW TRACK

• New line using the tail tracks beyond 2nd Ave  station, would provide a new East-West line across Queens. Possible route could head along Houston St before heading under the East River, with a Connection to the  and  at Lorimer-Metropolitan, and another connection to the  at Montrose Ave, and a connection to the  

I have a better idea, have the run there instead. I'll explain how. South of Canal St on the tracks, there's a bellmouth in both directions that were supposed to run east. These tracks were intended for the Utica Avenue local line. Instead, you plan to have it connect to the and lines. However, this is not feasible because the line would run in an unusual path. Under my plan, this line would run under Worth St and East Broadway to it's terminus at Union Avenue to connect with the and lines.

[ManhattanBoundQ]

13 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

I have a better idea, have the run there instead. I'll explain how. South of Canal St on the tracks, there's a bellmouth in both directions that were supposed to run east. These tracks were intended for the Utica Avenue local line. Instead, you plan to have it connect to the and lines. However, this is not feasible because the line would run in an unusual path. Under my plan, this line would run under Worth St and East Broadway to it's terminus at Union Avenue to connect with the and lines.

That would most likely turn out better than what I had planned

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, ManhattanBoundQ said:

Here are my ideas.

    IDEAS THAT DON'T INVOLVE NEW TRACK:

• Send the to Lefferts Blvd to replace the . Late Nights  service would be cut back west of Euclid Avenue, eliminating the need for the .  
• Since  service only runs in the peak direction, take advantage of this and use the entire express track from Ave X to Jay St.
• Swap the  and  routes between 47-50th Sts and 36th St. This would eliminate the  switching tracks near Queens Plaza, and the  switching tracks south of 36th St.
•  service should just be replaced with a , that would run peak direction express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave, stopping only at Myrtle Ave.
• Run  like the , as a weekday peak direction express, not just rush hours.
• Just rename the  to the . It would make the system so much simpler.
• Swap  and  routes in Brooklyn, with rush hour  express service to/from Bay Parkway.
• Do something with the  and  at 75th Ave and Briarwood, either only stop one of them, or stop both of them, because the situation right now is too confusing.

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE SOME NEW TRACK

• Build switches at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts, connecting the  and , to enable a connection between the lines for train movements, and to be used during service changes.
• New Switches just east of 7th Ave - 53rd St, allowing a connection for a Bronx-Manhattan-Queens Line.

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE A LOT OF NEW TRACK

• New line using the tail tracks beyond 2nd Ave  station, would provide a new East-West line across Queens. Possible route could head along Houston St before heading under the East River, with a Connection to the  and  at Lorimer-Metropolitan, and another connection to the  at Montrose Ave, and a connection to the  either at Wyckoffs Av or Knickerbocker, before tying into the Jamaica Line at Cypress Hills. Note this route was planned using a track map, not a street map. Line may be designated .
• Obviously the completion of the , possibly with an extension into Brookyln.
• Extension of the  to Bedford-Nostrand Avs, preferrably with some sort of track connection to the , as well as the double tracking of the entire line, to allow for a new line to Brighton Beach or Coney Island from Court Sq, most likely would remain as a shuttle during late nights.

Ideas that don't involve new track:

• The  running to Lefferts would cause more trouble than it's worth because both the  and  would merge again going into Queens creating more delays. People along Lefferts would transfer over to the  the first chance they get instead of sticking to the .
• Coney Island can't turn around all those  trains quick enough, that's why some  trains turn back at Kings Highway during rush hour. Regardless, there's no reason in keeping the  around anyway because of how unreliable it is.
• Rumors of this was planned to happen before COVID hit, no idea why they haven't done this yet.
• No issue with this, although no idea how well this would work out.
• Same as the , no issue, just no idea how well this would work out.
• In what way is renaming the  back into the  simpler? It's a shuttle service anyway lol. Regardless, the  is internally known as the .
• Same as the , no issue, but no idea how well it can work out.
• I don't see what's confusing, to me it's pretty plain and simple. The  serves local stops between Forest Hills-71 Av and Jamaica-179 St all times with the  running express during weekdays. Other times, the  would run local with the .

Ideas that involve some new track:

• No issue with this idea personally, however I don't think it is possible because the  would dip down or up on both ends of the station.
• This one I don't think is possible as Queens bound  trains would be coming in from the complete opposite end as Uptown/Bronx bound  and vice versa in the other direction.

[Wallyhorse]

16 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Ideas that don't involve new track:

• The  running to Lefferts would cause more trouble than it's worth because both the  and  would merge again going into Queens creating more delays. People along Lefferts would transfer over to the  the first chance they get instead of sticking to the .

Which is exactly why I would consider doing what is supposed to be Phase 4 of the SAS (separate from the rest of the project) that would have the  run from at least Seaport (until connected to the current SAS) to Euclid Avenue (extended late nights to Lefferts) with the  except late nights running as an express along Fulton Street to Lefferts.  This  as I've noted before would run via a new tunnel leading into what currently is the Transit Museum, converted back into a regular subway stop at Court and coming in at Hoyt-Schemerhorn on what currently are the unused local tracks there. This would allow the  and  to both run express on Fulton at all times (though with the and both local late nights on Fulton. 

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Which is exactly why I would consider doing what is supposed to be Phase 4 of the SAS (separate from the rest of the project) that would have the  run from at least Seaport (until connected to the current SAS) to Euclid Avenue (extended late nights to Lefferts) with the  except late nights running as an express along Fulton Street to Lefferts.  This  as I've noted before would run via a new tunnel leading into what currently is the Transit Museum, converted back into a regular subway stop at Court and coming in at Hoyt-Schemerhorn on what currently are the unused local tracks there. This would allow the  and  to both run express on Fulton at all times (though with the and both local late nights on Fulton. 

Don't have an issue with that as Lefferts Branch would still get it's express service with the  becoming more reliable than ever.  trains would then be able to cover the Rockaways on it's own without the need of the  at all.

[darkstar8983]

4 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Don't have an issue with that as Lefferts Branch would still get it's express service with the  becoming more reliable than ever.  trains would then be able to cover the Rockaways on it's own without the need of the  at all.

 Any plan that involves the  extension to Lefferts (and therefore all  trains being sent to the Rockaways) would lead to a service reduction on the  line. The Rockaway Branches do not need that much  service (although JFK Airport commuters would appreciate regular service). To maintain current rush hour  service, you would have to run some  train trips to/from Euclid Av (as the  train does now, except these Euclid Av put-in trips would now be for the ), which would cause delays in fumigation along the  line, unless you make the thru  trains stop on the local tracks @ Euclid Av, to allow for the short-turn trips to use the express tracks. This was a problem seen often with the AM-rush short-turn  trains that ended service at Kew Gardens-Union Turnpike. I'm assuming the  train to Jamaica Center that followed the short-turn  to union turnpike was either delayed outside 75 Av, or ran local east of 71 Av, like the 179 St trips do now. 

[JeremiahC99]

28 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

 Any plan that involves the  extension to Lefferts (and therefore all  trains being sent to the Rockaways) would lead to a service reduction on the  line. The Rockaway Branches do not need that much  service (although JFK Airport commuters would appreciate regular service). To maintain current rush hour  service, you would have to run some  train trips to/from Euclid Av (as the  train does now, except these Euclid Av put-in trips would now be for the ), which would cause delays in fumigation along the  line, unless you make the thru  trains stop on the local tracks @ Euclid Av, to allow for the short-turn trips to use the express tracks. This was a problem seen often with the AM-rush short-turn  trains that ended service at Kew Gardens-Union Turnpike. I'm assuming the  train to Jamaica Center that followed the short-turn  to union turnpike was either delayed outside 75 Av, or ran local east of 71 Av, like the 179 St trips do now. 

With the SAS trains taking over the Fulton Street local tracks, you would actually see more frequent service, not a drastic service reduction on either line. The express tracks between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Rockaway Blvd would see service increase from 15 trains per hour to 24-30 trains per hour (depending on the interlining situation in Manhattan). From there, you get 12 trains per hour to both Lefferts and the Rockaways, which is what is needed for these riders.

[Wallyhorse]

17 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

With the SAS trains taking over the Fulton Street local tracks, you would actually see more frequent service, not a drastic service reduction on either line. The express tracks between Hoyt-Schermerhorn and Rockaway Blvd would see service increase from 15 trains per hour to 24-30 trains per hour (depending on the interlining situation in Manhattan). From there, you get 12 trains per hour to both Lefferts and the Rockaways, which is what is needed for these riders.

Right, and in late night you would have 2nd and 8th Avenue local service ( would also be local late nights as it is now) with in this scenario the one difference being the would in the overnights be extended to Lefferts when the is not running.  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/9/2022 at 9:54 AM, ManhattanBoundQ said:

Here are my ideas.

    IDEAS THAT DON'T INVOLVE NEW TRACK:

• Send the to Lefferts Blvd to replace the . Late Nights  service would be cut back west of Euclid Avenue, eliminating the need for the .  
• Since  service only runs in the peak direction, take advantage of this and use the entire express track from Ave X to Jay St.
• Swap the  and  routes between 47-50th Sts and 36th St. This would eliminate the  switching tracks near Queens Plaza, and the  switching tracks south of 36th St.
•  service should just be replaced with a , that would run peak direction express between Broadway Junction and Marcy Ave, stopping only at Myrtle Ave.
• Run  like the , as a weekday peak direction express, not just rush hours.
• Just rename the  to the . It would make the system so much simpler.
• Swap  and  routes in Brooklyn, with rush hour  express service to/from Bay Parkway.
• Do something with the  and  at 75th Ave and Briarwood, either only stop one of them, or stop both of them, because the situation right now is too confusing.

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE SOME NEW TRACK

• Build switches at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts, connecting the  and , to enable a connection between the lines for train movements, and to be used during service changes.
• New Switches just east of 7th Ave - 53rd St, allowing a connection for a Bronx-Manhattan-Queens Line.

IDEAS THAT INVOLVE A LOT OF NEW TRACK

• New line using the tail tracks beyond 2nd Ave  station, would provide a new East-West line across Queens. Possible route could head along Houston St before heading under the East River, with a Connection to the  and  at Lorimer-Metropolitan, and another connection to the  at Montrose Ave, and a connection to the  either at Wyckoffs Av or Knickerbocker, before tying into the Jamaica Line at Cypress Hills. Note this route was planned using a track map, not a street map. Line may be designated .
• Obviously the completion of the , possibly with an extension into Brookyln.
• Extension of the  to Bedford-Nostrand Avs, preferrably with some sort of track connection to the , as well as the double tracking of the entire line, to allow for a new line to Brighton Beach or Coney Island from Court Sq, most likely would remain as a shuttle during late nights.

Agree with most of the ideas in the first group. The ones I don’t are extending the  to Lefferts, the and the swapping of the  and  in Brooklyn.

Having the  and  merge yet again after Euclid Avenue will just make both services unreliable.

Swapping the  and  will force a lot of transferring at Atlantic, because Brighton riders tend to have a much larger preference for Broadway versus 6th Ave, while southwest Brooklyn seems to prefer 6th. Maybe it might  be less of an issue if it’s the  and  lines that are swapped.

The  will be of very limited use unless you can figure out how to run it between Woodhaven Blvd and Broadway Junction. Except the  line has only two tracks there, so that’s why skip-stop is done. But they should at least expand  service to the entire duration of rush hour, not just one hour apiece in the morning and afternoon.

In the second group, I can agree with a connection for the  tracks with the  tracks. But I don’t think there’s sufficient space on either side of Hoyt-Schermerhorn to fit crossover tracks, so I don’t think it’s possible. I disagree with building connecting tracks at 53rd because trains on both levels of the stations travel in opposite directions (this is to facilitate transfers between downtown  and downtown  trains on one level and Bronx/Queens trains on the other). Not to mention that there is not sufficient track capacity for a Bronx-Manhattan-Queens service. 

In the third group, I agree the  should be finished and joined by a second service south of the 63rd St Tunnel. I think we can do without the others. There just isn’t sufficient capacity on the 6th Avenue local tracks for a third service, especially one that would largely parallel the  (and connect with it again at Knickerbocker or Wyckoff). I can see connecting the  to the , but I really don’t like the idea of wasting Brighton Line capacity on a service going to Court Square via the  line. That kind of service is guaranteed to be even less popular than the  was when it ran on the QB line. 

Edited March 12, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue
Response needed more detail

[Tocamilokiki]

On 3/12/2022 at 12:47 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agree with most of the ideas in the first group. The ones I don’t are extending the  to Lefferts, the and the swapping of the  and  in Brooklyn.

Having the  and  merge yet again after Euclid Avenue will just make both services unreliable.

Swapping the  and  will force a lot of transferring at Atlantic, because Brighton riders tend to have a much larger preference for Broadway versus 6th Ave, while southwest Brooklyn seems to prefer 6th. Maybe it might  be less of an issue if it’s the  and  lines that are swapped.

The  will be of very limited use unless you can figure out how to run it between Woodhaven Blvd and Broadway Junction. Except the  line has only two tracks there, so that’s why skip-stop is done. But they should at least expand  service to the entire duration of rush hour, not just one hour apiece in the morning and afternoon.

In the second group, I can agree with a connection for the  tracks with the  tracks. But I don’t think there’s sufficient space on either side of Hoyt-Schermerhorn to fit crossover tracks, so I don’t think it’s possible. I disagree with building connecting tracks at 53rd because trains on both levels of the stations travel in opposite directions (this is to facilitate transfers between downtown  and downtown  trains on one level and Bronx/Queens trains on the other). Not to mention that there is not sufficient track capacity for a Bronx-Manhattan-Queens service. 

In the third group, I agree the  should be finished and joined by a second service south of the 63rd St Tunnel. I think we can do without connecting it to thetrain.

 

[AbstractSector]

Transit newbie, lots to learn about.

As a rider, I find the branching on  makes for disappointing frequency to the Rockaways. How about sending all  trains to the Rockaways and converting service to Lefferts Blvd to a shuttle? Average weekday ridership of the Rockaways and Lefferts Blvd branch is 47k combined (2019). I presume this isn't a threshold to make any infrastructure investment. So fantasy time.

Reconfiguring Rockaway Blvd station: construct a new track on the north or south side to serve as the terminal for the Lefferts Blvd shuttle and a switch west of 104 St. South side appears more open, but I don't know if there is enough room on the street. What frequency does the single-track section set for the shuttle?

New track on south at left; new track on north at right. New tracks in green (normal service) and black (if coming from/going to Pitkin Yard)

Higher ridership from Beach 67 St to Far Rockaway suggests the increased service (now 10-12 tph) go to Far Rockaway. Is the Rockaway Park shuttle merging in front of trains at Broad Channel bottleneck at that rate? Can the Far Rockaway terminal handle the higher frequency?

[Vulturious]

13 hours ago, AbstractSector said:

Transit newbie, lots to learn about.

As a rider, I find the branching on  makes for disappointing frequency to the Rockaways. How about sending all  trains to the Rockaways and converting service to Lefferts Blvd to a shuttle? Average weekday ridership of the Rockaways and Lefferts Blvd branch is 47k combined (2019). I presume this isn't a threshold to make any infrastructure investment. So fantasy time.

Reconfiguring Rockaway Blvd station: construct a new track on the north or south side to serve as the terminal for the Lefferts Blvd shuttle and a switch west of 104 St. South side appears more open, but I don't know if there is enough room on the street. What frequency does the single-track section set for the shuttle?

New track on south at left; new track on north at right. New tracks in green (normal service) and black (if coming from/going to Pitkin Yard)

Higher ridership from Beach 67 St to Far Rockaway suggests the increased service (now 10-12 tph) go to Far Rockaway. Is the Rockaway Park shuttle merging in front of trains at Broad Channel bottleneck at that rate? Can the Far Rockaway terminal handle the higher frequency?

Here is the issue with this whole thing, there is no incentive whatsoever to building a new track and reconfiguring the Rockaway Blvd station. The idea isn't really a bad one, but there is going to be lots and lots of people crying about losing that direct service into Manhattan. I don't think there will be a time where anyone is willing to allow for a shuttle service to operate the Lefferts Branch full time.

Take a look at the  to Lefferts idea, no one was willing to allow that to happen and it still hasn't happened, at least if the  were to continue local along Fulton St. The only other way to allow for any kind of changes in Queens is to have another line that can replace the  along Fulton St local. This way  trains can run express with the  in Brooklyn all the way into Queens and run to Lefferts Blvd. This would give the  train more incentive to go into Lefferts while also getting rid of that confusing mess at Rockaway Blvd. The  would probably be able to handle all of Rockaway on its own without the need of the . Unfortunately, we're still a long way from that.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/16/2022 at 3:15 PM, Vulturious said:

Here is the issue with this whole thing, there is no incentive whatsoever to building a new track and reconfiguring the Rockaway Blvd station. The idea isn't really a bad one, but there is going to be lots and lots of people crying about losing that direct service into Manhattan. I don't think there will be a time where anyone is willing to allow for a shuttle service to operate the Lefferts Branch full time.

Take a look at the  to Lefferts idea, no one was willing to allow that to happen and it still hasn't happened, at least if the  were to continue local along Fulton St. The only other way to allow for any kind of changes in Queens is to have another line that can replace the  along Fulton St local. This way  trains can run express with the  in Brooklyn all the way into Queens and run to Lefferts Blvd. This would give the  train more incentive to go into Lefferts while also getting rid of that confusing mess at Rockaway Blvd. The  would probably be able to handle all of Rockaway on its own without the need of the . Unfortunately, we're still a long way from that.

I fail to see any real good point in reducing the Lefferts branch of the  into a 24/7 shuttle. Basically, bringing in another service to replace the  as the Fulton Local (such as the ) should be the solution. But of course that'll take billions of dollars and decades to plan and construct. About four or five years ago in this thread, I suggested the idea of building a connection from the underutilized Montague to connect to the Fulton St Line at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, or possibly a connection between the DeKalb Ave and Lafayette Ave stations, and running the  through said connection. Such connection wouldn't be dependent on a fully-built SAS and new East River Tunnel, like a  connection would be. But I was told in response that connection between the Fulton Line and the Montague Tunnel would be extremely expensive to construct due to the need to dodge the web of subway tunnels (on top of all the other infrastructure) in Downtown Brooklyn and because the  runs in cast-iron tubes in downtown Brooklyn and it's damn near impossible to tie another tunnel into cast-iron tunnels. As for a DeKalb-Lafayette connection, that would have the same issue of having to dodge an extensive web of tunnels, and also have the unfortunate situation of where the point of divergence from the  express and the  local is a local station (Lafayette Ave).

Edited March 18, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I fail to see any real good point in reducing the Lefferts branch of the  into a 24/7 shuttle. Basically, bringing in another service to replace the  as the Fulton Local (such as the ) should be the solution. But of course that'll take billions of dollars and decades to plan and construct. About four or five years ago in this thread, I suggested the idea of building a connection from the underutilized Montague to connect to the Fulton St Line at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, or possibly a connection between the DeKalb Ave and Lafayette Ave stations, and running the  through said connection. Such connection wouldn't be dependent on a fully-built SAS and new East River Tunnel, like a  connection would be. But I was told in response that connection between the Fulton Line and the Montague Tunnel would be extremely expensive to construct due to the need to dodge the web of subway tunnels (on top of all the other infrastructure) in Downtown Brooklyn and because the  runs in cast-iron tubes in downtown Brooklyn and it's damn near impossible to tie another tunnel into cast-iron tunnels. As for a DeKalb-Lafayette connection, that would have the same issue of having to dodge an extensive web of tunnels, and also have the unfortunate situation of where the point of divergence from the  express and the  local is a local station (Lafayette Ave).

Actually now that you mention a Dekalb-Lafayette Av connection, maybe it is in a way possible for this to happen. I think there is enough room for a connection to be built that would lead to the Montague St-Brighton connection tracks. I don't see the divergence between the  and the  being that big of an issue as we already see this happening along QBL with the 63 St connection built. Then again, it would be a difficult because of the Crosstown line in the way. The only other option would be to build an SAS connection through the old Court St station even with how expensive the project will be.

[AbstractSector]

>new Fulton St local service

That's a neat idea. Seemingly simple (no new track construction). But why hasn't Court St been used to such capacity?

• New local service between Court St (taking away Transit Museum) and Euclid Av
•  becomes Fulton St Express and is extended to Lefferts Blvd
•  full time to the Rockaways
• Almost double frequency to Queens
•  (optional) becomes Eighth Av Express to 59 St, then local to 168 St