Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Amiri the subway guy]

On 8/5/2022 at 5:00 AM, ABOGbrooklyn said:

Why do so many people like having the go to the Bronx? The is already a long line and is local in Brooklyn. This seems unrealistic and the Bronx already has a Coney Island Route in the . should go crosstown 125th Street and the should go to the Bronx via 3rd Avenue

Allow me to describe the reasoning for the choices and how people would benefit from it. 

Now usually it’s the T via Bronx and Q via Harlem y’all used to but the reasoning for it is that currently they is 50 trains during rush hours heading to east midtown the 4/5/6 trains vs 25/30 trains heading to west midtown the 2/D. The 1 is further west away from the rest of the Bronx line and only three stations so technically we could exclude it in this scenario. The B is a rush hour only extension and runs on the same route as the D so it doesn’t really count as it’s own Individual line. Add the Q train would balance the ridership access out. And Broadway is a much more attractive line to be extended to the Bronx since it stops at a bunch of major transfer points in midtown ETC (Times Square Herald Square Union Square). The T the most you get is Grand Central  The main problem with sending the T train to Bronx I see is that it would leave the 2 as the only direct west side route in south bronx. There many places to go to transfer to east at 149th street via 5, 138th street via 6. Or ride all the way in Harlem for T

And sending the T to 125th street crosstown would give the people on Harlem easier access to the east side of Manhattan reducing crowding on the 7/L trains. 

And people are saying that the Q train might be too long while I agree with this at first. Realistic that argument is moot cause I believe we overestimated the length cause let’s be honest the Q train won’t be anywhere near as long as the A or F trains. It would be around the same length as the B train. 

My estimate on the Q train length. 

Longer than the N train, Shorter than the D train.

[subwaykid256]

Some Ideas I've been working on

 cut back to City Hall. Debating on whether to send it via QueensLink

 168 st - Bay Ridge 95 St via 125 St/2 Av/Nassau St line/4 Av lcl

 to Red Hook or send the to red hook

Rockaway Park 116 St-WTC via Queenslink via QBL/53 St/8 Av lcl

Metropolitan Av - 125 St/St Nicholas Av 6av lcl/2 av lcl

 

 

[Wallyhorse]

On 8/6/2022 at 2:43 AM, Trainmaster5 said:

Let me make one thing perfectly clear.. I'm an elderly person now but I remember the Third Avenue El running in .Manhattan. I worked for NYCT for 30 years in RTO.. I'm a veteran of the Beast,  the from New Lots to 241 st in the Bronx. I've ridden lines like Myrtle-Jay, Culver Shuttle,  Jamaica to 168 st, Franklin-Brighton,  and BMT Fulton to Lefferts. I've seen the 1968 Plan for Action introduced. I think that it's naive to believe that the will ever come to pass. As far as 125th goes you have a line at Broadway,  multiple lines at St.Nick, Lenox,  and Lexington. I believe that a crosstown line is a poor expenditure of limited funds compared with a Bronx extension. That's my opinion and knowing how the works I'd venture that the crosstown line is a pipe dream. Just look at the history of these proposals. Perhaps I'm just cynical but there are less lines running today. 50÷ years after the Plan for Action.  . Welcome to the real world.  Carry on. 

 

The idea here would be to have the go to 125-Broadway with a transfer to the either underground or coming above ground and continuing to 12th Avenue.  Keep in mind that Columbia University is undergoing or has undergone a massive expansion in recent years and having the go there would allow for those on the east side to have much easier access to Columbia, using the  from there to backtrack to 116 for the main campus if needed.  This also would allow those going to CCNY from the east side to from 125-Broadway transfer to the  the other way for the one stop north to 137.  

The other main purpose of including a connection to the 8th Avenue Line is even if it's not used in regular service, something on CPW forcing a shutdown there at least allows the and  trains to use the SAS if need be. 

[Wallyhorse]

7 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

Some Ideas I've been working on

 cut back to City Hall. Debating on whether to send it via QueensLink

 168 st - Bay Ridge 95 St via 125 St/2 Av/Nassau St line/4 Av lcl

 to Red Hook or send the to red hook

Rockaway Park 116 St-WTC via Queenslink via QBL/53 St/8 Av lcl

Metropolitan Av - 125 St/St Nicholas Av 6av lcl/2 av lcl

Cutting back the to City Hall would be contingent on abandoning the tracks south of City Hall and connecting the current tracks at World Trade Center used by the to the Montague Line, something that should have been done after 9/11.  In that scenario, the 8th Avenue line uses those tracks to get to South Brooklyn.  In this scenario, as I would do it the  turns brown and runs via Nassau from 95th Street to a new terminal at Canal Street on the  that reopens the abandoned platforms at Canal and Bowery (with the returning to what was the northbound track prior to 2004.  Canal Street would be set up as a terminal for this  in a way that could not have been done prior to the work that has the current setup since before then, the "express" tracks at Canal were actually terminal tracks that had a crossover at the southern end of that platform that was done away with with the changes.  In this scenario, this  would most of the time terminate on what currently is the northbound track (old "southbound express" track) at Canal with during rush hours the old "northbound express" track also used to terminate some trains.  Late nights and weekends, this  would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue and absorb the late night and weekend shuttles. 

The in this scenario would run from City Hall (some runs to/from Canal Street rush hours) and replace the on Queens Boulevard.  This possibly could be the Rockaway Beach Branch run to Rockaway Park, eliminating the need for the current Rockaway Park since this  would absorb that.

The  in this scenario could perhaps replace the full time on the Brighton line and become the Brighton local to Coney Island (via Montague and 8th Avenue) while the becomes a full-time Brighton express to Brighton Beach (extended to Coney Island nights and weekends). This would give Coney Island riders a direct 8th Avenue option they currently do not have.

I do like the idea of the running as you suggested, though I would prefer to have the be a long-overdue replacement in The Bronx for the old Bronx portion of the 3rd Avenue EL to Gun Hill Road running the formed 3rd Avenue EL route.  

Not crazy about the  proposal here.  The idea of the running via 2nd Avenue from the Willy B might be a more realistic option in this case, however, it may require because of capacity issues north of 63rd a new lower level to be built for most likely a that would continue to the Bronx, with perhaps this running express from 72nd-125th (no stops in between).  This  could be the one that continues to 168th with the north of 125.  

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Cutting back the to City Hall would be contingent on abandoning the tracks south of City Hall and connecting the current tracks at World Trade Center used by the to the Montague Line, something that should have been done after 9/11.  In that scenario, the 8th Avenue line uses those tracks to get to South Brooklyn.  In this scenario, as I would do it the  turns brown and runs via Nassau from 95th Street to a new terminal at Canal Street on the  that reopens the abandoned platforms at Canal and Bowery (with the returning to what was the northbound track prior to 2004.  Canal Street would be set up as a terminal for this  in a way that could not have been done prior to the work that has the current setup since before then, the "express" tracks at Canal were actually terminal tracks that had a crossover at the southern end of that platform that was done away with with the changes.  In this scenario, this  would most of the time terminate on what currently is the northbound track (old "southbound express" track) at Canal with during rush hours the old "northbound express" track also used to terminate some trains.  Late nights and weekends, this  would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue and absorb the late night and weekend shuttles.  

Neglected to note:  In this version of the , since that train would be going to 95th-Bay Ridge at all times, the in this format would terminate at Chambers Street.  It would be set up where patrons looks for Fulton or Broad Street (or South Brooklyn) would do a cross-platform transfer at Canal Street with it done where usually, the  after picking up passengers from the would leave Canal first to cross over to the "local" track while the  after that is done goes to Chambers, switching over to the terminal track at Chambers.  The exceptions to this are:

During rush hours, a handful of  trains would terminate on the "northbound express" track because of the larger number of such trains running then (probably 12 TPH as opposed to 7 TPH most of the time on weekdays), in those instances, the would leave first since the transfer to the  would take place at Chambers rather than Canal.

Going northbound, the transfer from the  to the for those going north of Canal would take place at Chambers, usually with the leaving first and getting to the re-activated northbound local track with the  then going to the terminal tracks.

All of the above would be on weekdays,  Late nights and weekends, since at those times the  would be going to Metropolitan Avenue, transfers from the to the  can take place anywhere between Myrtle Avenue and Chambers on the same platform. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

11 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

Some Ideas I've been working on

 cut back to City Hall. Debating on whether to send it via QueensLink

 168 st - Bay Ridge 95 St via 125 St/2 Av/Nassau St line/4 Av lcl

 to Red Hook or send the to red hook

Rockaway Park 116 St-WTC via Queenslink via QBL/53 St/8 Av lcl

Metropolitan Av - 125 St/St Nicholas Av 6av lcl/2 av lcl

 

 

All interesting proposals, other than the  (or ) to Red Hook. I’d be more in favor of connecting that to the Fulton St local tracks somewhere between Schermerhorn and Lafayette. The  via 2nd Ave/125 could certainly be useful, but then what would replace it on Queens Blvd? Maybe a second 2nd Avenue service that could run via 63rd, while either the  or  uses Queenslink. 

I guess you can have the  in a deinterlined QBL as the Queenslink service. But it should shown on the map as a separate blue line from the  where they operate together to show more clearly that the  isn’t turning onto Liberty Ave or the  isn’t continuing north to Queens Blvd.

[ActiveCity]

I can't imagine how a transfer from the new red hook subway line would look like from the existing stations overground and underground.

[ActiveCity]

I think the R should go to red hook since it's already on Queens Blvd and Queens Blvd may also have the new Rockaway Beach Branch connection making the existing R line even longer.

[MTA Researcher]

42 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  via 2nd Ave/125 could certainly be useful, but then what would replace it on Queens Blvd?

The  comes in handy

[MTA Researcher]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The idea of the running via 2nd Avenue from the Willy B might be a more realistic option in this case, however, it may require because of capacity issues north of 63rd a new lower level to be built for most likely a that would continue to the Bronx, with perhaps this running express from 72nd-125th (no stops in between).  This  could be the one that continues to 168th with the north of 125.  

Wow! What a coincidence! Check this map out! Well let’s focus on the  and  

[MTA Researcher]

https://metrodreamin.com/view/VFZWV3ZTMUFWU090alJ0VURtTjQxTFMzYVg5M3ww

[subwaykid256]

On 8/7/2022 at 1:24 PM, MTA Researcher said:

The   comes in handy

My train would take over the as the Brighton Express and the would be the Brighton local going to Coney Island. 

The i propose would run from Brighton Beach then go over the Manhattan Bridge with the and then switch to the local tracks on 6 av and make stops until Forest Hills. of course only running on Weekdays

The  would become the and run via 2 ave until Lexington Av-125 St

 would run to Red Hook

 would run as a 4 Av local from DeKalb Av - Bay Ridge 95 St. 

[MTA Researcher]

How did I do in this proposal idea of a map? I was bored so I decided to revive this thread by posting here my idea. I hope I nailed it this time.

https://metrodreamin.com/view/VFZWV3ZTMUFWU090alJ0VURtTjQxTFMzYVg5M3wz

[Kamen Rider]

(I am not directing this at Reasearcher, this is just me voicing my opinion on the subject)

… I hate “de-interlineing”. It actively makes the system worse.

Here’s the thing about the subway…

IT WAS BUILT TO BE INTERLINED.

That’s what it was designed to be., designed to do.

The through put of a line is controlled by its terminals. Having different terminals branching off a core trunk allows said trunk to have a HIGHER TPH than otherwise would be possible, because otherwise the terminals would limit the core capacity.

 

 

the other thing I never liked about the concept it that it doesn’t take the wants of the ridership into account.

You know why the A is still split at Rockaway Blvd?

Why the Q is the Brighton Local?

the F still rarely goes express in Brooklyn?

it’s because that’s how the riding public wants them to be.

Ozone Park WANTS an express

Brighton line Passengers WANT Broadway.

Carol Gardens/Gowanus/ Prospect Park area Culver Line passengers don’t want to transfer twice or ride backwards.

This is what the public wants, so this is what they get.

 

like, I will say this about Reasercher’s map… taking the Briadway off SAS… bad idea, because it removes the connection between SAS and the 63rd street line.

You’re removing the transfer to/from the F, which, speaking as someone who has actually been the conductor on trains on both lines through that station… is a VERY popular transfer. Going from Downtown Q to queens bound F and in reverse, Brooklyn bound F to 96th bound Q.

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

19 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

(I am not directing this at Reasearcher, this is just me voicing my opinion on the subject)

… I hate “de-interlineing”. It actively makes the system worse.

Here’s the thing about the subway…

IT WAS BUILT TO BE INTERLINED.

That’s what it was designed to be., designed to do.

The through put of a line is controlled by its terminals. Having different terminals branching off a core trunk allows said trunk to have a HIGHER TPH than otherwise would be possible, because otherwise the terminals would limit the core capacity.

 

 

the other thing I never liked about the concept it that it doesn’t take the wants of the ridership into account.

You know why the A is still split at Rockaway Blvd?

Why the Q is the Brighton Local?

the F still rarely goes express in Brooklyn?

it’s because that’s how the riding public wants them to be.

Ozone Park WANTS an express

Brighton line Passengers WANT Broadway.

Carol Gardens/Gowanus/ Prospect Park area Culver Line passengers don’t want to transfer twice or ride backwards.

This is what the public wants, so this is what they get.

 

like, I will say this about Reasercher’s map… taking the Briadway off SAS… bad idea, because it removes the connection between SAS and the 63rd street line.

You’re removing the transfer to/from the F, which, speaking as someone who has actually been the conductor on trains on both lines through that station… is a VERY popular transfer. Going from Downtown Q to queens bound F and in reverse, Brooklyn bound F to 96th bound Q.

 

I’ll be honest. I don’t really like Metrodreamin tool because there are no line markers identifying which line is going where. And you have to click on a station over and over again to pull up the text box for each colored box representing each line that stops there, to know which ones do. And that’s a time-consuming process. At least Brand New Subway uses standard colored circles with each letter or number to readily show all the lines that stop at each station in just one click.

That said, I get that the subway was designed to be interlined. Even the IRT and BMT interlined subway and el services. But you can get to a point where either there is more service at the low-ridership ends of the line than in the high-use midsection of the line, or you can have too many merging points on one line that create delays, not just on that one line, but elsewhere in the system due to ripple effects. And I think over the years, that’s the direction in which the NYCTA and the MTA moved the subway. The MTA’s four-phase 2nd Ave Subway, if built as planned, will be an example of the former (  north of the 63rd St tunnel and  only south of the 63rd). The QBL with its current operations is an example of the latter. 

It’s not just terminal throughput that limits line frequencies. The above-mentioned multiple merge points (looking at you QBL and 34th St!), plus poorly designed junctions (looking at you, flat junctions, DeKalb and Rogers!) and sharp curves can also be to blame for why some lines run less service than they otherwise could (looking at you,  line at City Hall and  line on both sides of the Willy B!)

With QBL, by connecting the 63rd St Tunnel into the line between QP and 36th, they solved one problem by creating others. Under the old, original  express pattern via 53rd, rush hour crowding got to such severe levels at Lex-53rd, where they had to have some trains skip it. It was decided to split the  and  up. So the  was rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel, while the  stayed put and was joined by a QB local  (now the ). The problem was few riders wanted to ride a QB local, so they passed up the  /  in favor of the . And  and  trains have a nasty merge point outside 36th Street. Meanwhile, the  and  also have a nasty merge at QP, which also affects the . Both of these merge points did not exist in the past. Well, at least the  is somewhat less crowded, possibly due to 63rd Street’s crappy transfers (or lack thereof), owing to its original intention of being a QB bypass line. 

But you see, some people in Queens had what they wanted then lost it.  riders who want the  either have to deal with a three-block outside transfer or ride all the way to Broadway-Lafayette. Or transfer to the , then the . I’m just saying they didn’t have to do that in the past. 

Though I will agree with you that there should be both an  local and  express in Brooklyn and that running the  as the only local is a bad idea. But I will say that a deinterlined (or “semi-deinterlined”) QBL might be key to making it possible for the  to run on real weekday headways.

I also remain convinced that Brighton riders still prefer the Broadway  over the 6th Ave , and many deinterline plans I’m seeing seem to favor bringing back the  as the Brighton Local, while keeping the  as the express (or vice versa). I’m not in favor of that. I favor retaining the  as the Brighton Local. Fortunately, there is a deinterlined DeKalb option that allows the  to remain on Brighton. And allow the  to be a full Broadway Express instead of the delay inducing hybrid local-express it currently is.
 

Edited October 3, 2022 by T to Dyre Avenue

[LGA Link N Train]

20 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

… I hate “de-interlineing”. It actively makes the system worse.

Here’s the thing about the subway…

IT WAS BUILT TO BE INTERLINED.

That’s what it was designed to be., designed to do.

Yes and No. Most areas of the Subway System were built with interlining in mind whereas others weren’t. The IND as a whole is a good testament as to where it was intended to interline. However, Rogers Junction under its current layout, is not. 

20 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

The through put of a line is controlled by its terminals. Having different terminals branching off a core trunk allows said trunk to have a HIGHER TPH than otherwise would be possible, because otherwise the terminals would limit the core capacity.

Yes although it isn’t the only thing affects the TPH of a subway Line. (Pretty sure you know this mentioning the fact that you said you’ve worked on the and Lines). Merges and the Design of the Infrastructure that routes run through also play into effect of how many TPH they get. Although the former is where most people tend to reason their support for Deinterlining in. I know I used to although I’ll come back to that in a bit.

20 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

the other thing I never liked about the concept it that it doesn’t take the wants of the ridership into account.

You know why the A is still split at Rockaway Blvd?

Why the Q is the Brighton Local?

the F still rarely goes express in Brooklyn?

it’s because that’s how the riding public wants them to be.

Ozone Park WANTS an express

Brighton line Passengers WANT Broadway.

Carol Gardens/Gowanus/ Prospect Park area Culver Line passengers don’t want to transfer twice or ride backwards.

This is what the public wants, so this is what they get.

Ridership Preference’s are important to take into account yes, but when they hamper the reliability of service, then there’s an issue that needs to be solved. (Although to comment on the proposal of sending  trains to Lefferts Blvd, that would be an example of MORE interlining, just wanted to clear that up for that specific example). The Express rarely running is most likely due to the limitations of other parts of its route (Merge at Broadway-Lafayette, Rockefeller, 36th Street and 75th Avenue. Only one of which is really problematic) so the capacity to increase Express Service while maintaining the same frequency for  Local Service just isn’t there rn unless you decide to alter the current  or another route. For Brighton I have no objections to it but I think the reason people propose a  Swap (in spite of that being against the consensus of what Brighton and West End Riders want) is to keep the Weekend and Late Night Schedule Consistent with 6th Avenue and Broadway while also attempting to cut Operating costs. 

I tried not to repeat the same things that @T to Dyre Avenue said as they said their point much better than I could’ve said it but I think the point that’s trying to be made here is that De-Interlining is not a Black and White issue as many people (both Supporters and Opponents) have made it out to be. At the end of the day, Transit is meant to Serve the passengers and giving them what they want, but serving the riding public shouldn’t come at the cost of providing reliable and frequent service. And another thing to consider is that Ridership Patterns are not static.
 

I used to be Pro De-interlining but have stepped back and taken a more neutral stance on the topic given that I’ve learned more about NYCT over the past 5 years, but This is all just food for thought at the end of the day.

 

[MTA Researcher]

15 minutes ago, LGA Link N Train said:

 trains to Lefferts Blvd

 would be better for that cue. Apparently having  go there means that it must skip 50 St, along with  thus no line serves 50 St (upper level). With  vía 8 Av/Fulton St Exp to Lefferts Blvd it can stop at 50 St (lower level) then merge with the  going to 42 St PABT.

 

22 minutes ago, LGA Link N Train said:

The Express rarely running is most likely due to the limitations of other parts of its route (Merge at Broadway-Lafayette, Rockefeller, 36th Street and 75th Avenue.

How about  via Culver? Going south of W 4 it can switch to go via Delancey while  terminates at WTC.

 

Could this allow for  via Culver to go Express between Jay St - Church Av, then peak direction express to Avenue X?

[LGA Link N Train]

17 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

 would be better for that cue. Apparently having  go there means that it must skip 50 St, along with  thus no line serves 50 St (upper level). With  vía 8 Av/Fulton St Exp to Lefferts Blvd it can stop at 50 St (lower level) then merge with the  going to 42 St PABT.

Best Choice for Lefferts Blvd Service is to leave the Fulton Line alone. Having the  skipping 50th Street would mean that you need to De-Interline CPW which as annoying as that Bottleneck can be, its better off being left alone for the time being. Having the  go to Fulton with the  instead of the  will be a good way to remove that annoying merge by Canal Street, but that means increasing  Service and the  and ‘s reliability might be hindered as now the ‘s length is being increased. Although IDK if things would be different if 8th Avenue and Fulton CBTC were active. 

17 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

How about  via Culver? Going south of W 4 it can switch to go via Delancey while  terminates at WTC.

Could this allow for  via Culver to go Express between Jay St - Church Av, then peak direction express to Avenue X?

For what reason? And how many TPH would the  be running. The current setup with 8th and 6th Local Below West 4th is fine as is IMO.

[ActiveCity]

I'm almost done with my fantasy NYC subway map. You may not like it, but I do have multiple subway lines that run through Staten Island, Northeast Queens, and Southeast Queens. I use Google maps to create my fantasy maps.

Edited October 3, 2022 by ActiveCity

[ActiveCity]

The only way I can see trains going to Lefferts Blvd is if  trains run local on Fulton St in both directions. Passengers will backlash against the removal of express service.

[LGA Link N Train]

47 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

The only way I can see trains going to Lefferts Blvd is if  trains run local on Fulton St in both directions. Passengers will backlash against the removal of express service.

I can see this happening for the installation of Fulton CBTC. But as a permanent thing, you’d need a new East River Tube to feed onto the Fulton Local. Wether through Whitehall or SAS-4, doesn’t really matter to me

[Vulturious]

8 minutes ago, LGA Link N Train said:

I can see this happening for the installation of Fulton CBTC. But as a permanent thing, you’d need a new East River Tube to feed onto the Fulton Local. Wether through Whitehall or SAS-4, doesn’t really matter to me

I definitly think Whitehall at this point is the best option for a new East River tube to run along Fulton Local, SAS is just taking way too long. 

[ActiveCity]

Maybe if Court St wasn't a museum, then the Fulton St local would have its own letter-probably called the train or something similar. 

[Vulturious]

46 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

Maybe if Court St wasn't a museum, then the Fulton St local would have its own letter-probably called the train or something similar. 

That was literally what the IND intended on doing, their idea was to keep local trains in one borough lines. Fulton St local trains would've been designated as the  or HH or whatever. However, that obviously isn't the case.

[R68ACTrain]

On 10/2/2022 at 1:50 AM, Kamen Rider said:

(I am not directing this at Reasearcher, this is just me voicing my opinion on the subject)

… I hate “de-interlineing”. It actively makes the system worse.

Here’s the thing about the subway…

IT WAS BUILT TO BE INTERLINED.

That’s what it was designed to be., designed to do.

The through put of a line is controlled by its terminals. Having different terminals branching off a core trunk allows said trunk to have a HIGHER TPH than otherwise would be possible, because otherwise the terminals would limit the core capacity.

 

 

the other thing I never liked about the concept it that it doesn’t take the wants of the ridership into account.

You know why the A is still split at Rockaway Blvd?

Why the Q is the Brighton Local?

the F still rarely goes express in Brooklyn?

it’s because that’s how the riding public wants them to be.

Ozone Park WANTS an express

Brighton line Passengers WANT Broadway.

Carol Gardens/Gowanus/ Prospect Park area Culver Line passengers don’t want to transfer twice or ride backwards.

This is what the public wants, so this is what they get.

 

like, I will say this about Reasercher’s map… taking the Briadway off SAS… bad idea, because it removes the connection between SAS and the 63rd street line.

You’re removing the transfer to/from the F, which, speaking as someone who has actually been the conductor on trains on both lines through that station… is a VERY popular transfer. Going from Downtown Q to queens bound F and in reverse, Brooklyn bound F to 96th bound Q.

 

Great minds think alike. I've told many many many people that the subway is deinterlined because of a rider's benefit. People fail to realize some of these branches work the way they do so commuters have access to one side of Manhattan and the other. For example:

 in the Bronx, Brooklyn
 in Brooklyn
 in Brooklyn
 In Brooklyn
/ North of 59th St
 in Queens
 

Rogers and DeKalb Junction are indeed hotspts of the subway, but they work because there are atleast two lines that bring passengers to one side  of Manhattan. They say that the  causes the most delays on IRT because it interlines with the  and . Yet they don't understand that  riders depend on the  to reach Lexington Avenue from areas like Eastchester, Edenwald, and Co-Op City. I heavily agree with you on the Brighton part. I've been telling people for a long ass time, Brighton riders have always wanted access to both Broadway and Sixth Avenue for a long time.  and  did not work because Brighton Riders did not have access to Broadway as soon as possible, rather they had to transfer at Atlantic Avenue. Same with both  and  , it *especially* didn't work because there was no 6th Avenue service on 4th Avenue. Rather having only the , and taking a longer 6th Avenue way to Manhattan. This is why after 2004, Brighton, and 4th Avenue finally became both 6th Avenue and Broadway with the .  It is so refreshing to see someone have common sense toward the subject of the subway line routing.