Original Expansion Plans Discussion

[TheNewYorkElevated]

On 7/1/2023 at 10:51 AM, TheNewYorkElevated said:

MTA long term plans for the future.

https://new.mta.info/20YN
 

Plans mentioned here:

-Second Avenue Subway extension on 125th Street to connect with the  train. 
- train to Red Hook. 
-Utica Avenue subway line 

- train extension to Spring Creek. 
Any chance of these projects becoming reality? 

 

[Trainmaster5]

8 hours ago, TheNewYorkElevated said:

 

In Fantasy Land, maybe. Get back to us while I’m waiting for my connection at South Fourth Street. It’s running late ⏰.

[Mtatransit]

13 hours ago, TheNewYorkElevated said:

 

Even in this pipe dream scenario, there will still be no extension of the subway further into Queens/Staten Island

How about...

Extending the  or to Rochdale and St Albans and build a real terminal there where the switches are in the proper locations 

How about extending the  to Francis Lewis Blvd with a stop at 188th Street.  I don't think I am thinking very big here. 

You could completely reconfigure bus routes if you have these extension, saving millions in operating costs, and reducing the amount of buses you need to run into Parson/Archer and 165th.

Shoot why not also extend the  to Grasmere while we are at it since we have the Red Hook proposal. Would serve much more people and save them time than extending the train to Red Hook. 

 

Again not expecting any of these 20 years to even happen (perhaps the SAS phase II won';t even be completed in 20 years), but if we are dreaming, why dream small

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

On 7/6/2023 at 3:55 PM, TheNewYorkElevated said:

MTA long term plans for the future.

https://new.mta.info/20YN
 

Plans mentioned here:

-Second Avenue Subway extension on 125th Street to connect with the  train. 
- train to Red Hook. 
-Utica Avenue subway line 

- train extension to Spring Creek. 
Any chance of these projects becoming reality? 

If any of these come to fruition, it won't be for quite a while. Here are the subway expansions plans they list and my thoughts on likelyhood:

-SAS 125th Street Crosstown might be the most likely cause SAS is currently MTA's main subway pet project, it'd be a logical extension after Phase II is completed (Phase II plans to have tail tracks west as far as Lenox Av to allow for a crosstown in the future), and Phase III being so hard and logistically complicated may make MTA hold off on it.

-Train to Red Hook is very unlikely unless you get a Hudson Yards style redevelopment of the area. Previously, MTA considered a Red Hook subway by extending the  via a new tunnel under the east river, but that would be a lot of work for only adding 1 or 2 stations. Branching off of Montague seems a bit more reasonable but still problematic, but that'd likely be the approach MTA would take if you saw a redevelopment of that area. Some have also mentioned light rail which I don't really think would be sufficient replacement to the benefits of a subway in NYC, but I could see MTA doing a whole light rail along the growing East River waterfront on the Brooklyn/Queens. I think that would depend on if the IBX is completed, and if so how successful it's percieved to be.

-Utica Avenue Transit Improvement (including possible subway) was supposed to get a study, but COVID seemed to stop that. Prolly decently likely relative to some on this list given the area is such a transit desert. I think MTA would likely combine it with a general effort to fix some of the IRT's other problems in Brooklyn such as Rodgers Junction (assuming it's a branch of IRT Eastern Parkway).

-  extension to Spring Creek is one of those projects that's a relatively low hanging fruit that offers clear benefit, but never ends up being choosen. Remember, the MTA wouldn't actually have to do much to construct because Livonia Yard gets you 90% of the way there. I could see a scenario where this is lumped in with Utica Avenue extension as part of "fixing" the Brooklyn IRT.

-10th Avenue Station on  is again a low hanging fruit; it was supposed to be part of the  extension to Hudson Yards but was cut for Budget reasons. They did built the tunnel in a way where the station could be added later though. I think the issue with this project is while it's a relatively low hanging fruit, it'll never be in demand enough to actually construct since the area isn't *that* bad of a transit desert. Honestly, best chance it might be constructed is if the  is extended up 10th Avenue

-Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation really depends on politics imo since *something* is going to be done with that ROW. It's a matter of whether it becomes a park, a subway line, or some combo of both. Adams seems to favor making it a park, but if the next mayor really insists on making it a subway it could happen

[Vulturious]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

If any of these come to fruition, it won't be for quite a while. Here are the subway expansions plans they list and my thoughts on likelyhood:

-SAS 125th Street Crosstown might be the most likely cause SAS is currently MTA's main subway pet project, it'd be a logical extension after Phase II is completed (Phase II plans to have tail tracks west as far as Lenox Av to allow for a crosstown in the future), and Phase III being so hard and logistically complicated may make MTA hold off on it.

-Train to Red Hook is very unlikely unless you get a Hudson Yards style redevelopment of the area. Previously, MTA considered a Red Hook subway by extending the  via a new tunnel under the east river, but that would be a lot of work for only adding 1 or 2 stations. Branching off of Montague seems a bit more reasonable but still problematic, but that'd likely be the approach MTA would take if you saw a redevelopment of that area. Some have also mentioned light rail which I don't really think would be sufficient replacement to the benefits of a subway in NYC, but I could see MTA doing a whole light rail along the growing East River waterfront on the Brooklyn/Queens. I think that would depend on if the IBX is completed, and if so how successful it's percieved to be.

-Utica Avenue Transit Improvement (including possible subway) was supposed to get a study, but COVID seemed to stop that. Prolly decently likely relative to some on this list given the area is such a transit desert. I think MTA would likely combine it with a general effort to fix some of the IRT's other problems in Brooklyn such as Rodgers Junction (assuming it's a branch of IRT Eastern Parkway).

-  extension to Spring Creek is one of those projects that's a relatively low hanging fruit that offers clear benefit, but never ends up being choosen. Remember, the MTA wouldn't actually have to do much to construct because Livonia Yard gets you 90% of the way there. I could see a scenario where this is lumped in with Utica Avenue extension as part of "fixing" the Brooklyn IRT.

-10th Avenue Station on  is again a low hanging fruit; it was supposed to be part of the  extension to Hudson Yards but was cut for Budget reasons. They did built the tunnel in a way where the station could be added later though. I think the issue with this project is while it's a relatively low hanging fruit, it'll never be in demand enough to actually construct since the area isn't *that* bad of a transit desert. Honestly, best chance it might be constructed is if the  is extended up 10th Avenue

-Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation really depends on politics imo since *something* is going to be done with that ROW. It's a matter of whether it becomes a park, a subway line, or some combo of both. Adams seems to favor making it a park, but if the next mayor really insists on making it a subway it could happen

I've spoken about this stuff before either in this thread or another so here are my two cents on what you've stated and what you missed:

- The SAS-125 St Crosstown right now has quite the opportunity to become a thing. I honestly agree with you about Phase III "being so hard and logistically complicated," especially with what to do after. However, I would like to add onto this by including other parts of the westbound extension that being heading north from Broadway or Riverside Drive to terminate at 137 St and a connection to the CPW line using the layup tracks. The connection would be quite a benefit for redundancy purposes and possibly a bunch of route changes. Riverside could probably work better for the crosstown line if a connection were to be made at Broadway-125 St making it a bit complicated if underneath Broadway to 137 St. 

- Personally when it comes to a Red Hook extension, it has to be the , otherwise it's just wasted effort through Montague. Let's not forget it took how many years for the  extension to come to fruition only for it to be just 1 station. Even if 10th Ave station were included, that's still a lot of effort for just 2 station and it was a lot of money which in fairness it was deep borrow, but the  would undergo the same thing anyway. I don't know how Light Rail would work and I don't want to bother thinking about it since that's not really something I know too much about anyway.

- The MTA has basically been avoiding Rogers Junction after financial issues when they (or whoever was planning on doing it) were planning on reconstructing it. I've been seeing proposals online more in favor or a B division line to take over Utica Av rather than the IRT. Personally, I wouldn't mind the IRT running along Utica Av as long as they can fix Rogers like you mentioned and as long as there are provisions for widening the line to allow for B division take over.

- Spring Creek expansion is definitely a low hanging fruit waiting to be picked, but I sorta have to point out that even though Livonia gets you much closer to it, it looks like it also gets in the way, unfortunately.

- Nothing much to say really about the 10th Av station, but I do find you including the  along 10th Av very interesting. This definitely gives the MTA more incentive to build the proposed station while giving it quite the connection to a line that never meets.

- I've seen a proposal online that changes up how the RBB connects to QBL. If I'm not mistaken, it connects through the yard leads between Jamaica Yard and Forest Hills station. Personally, this is much better than the connection to/from Rego Park. Adams straight up wanting to turn it into a park would be a huge missed opportunity, but at the same time, there's not much going on around the ROW, either. 

[Chris89292]

1 hour ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

-10th Avenue Station on  is again a low hanging fruit; it was supposed to be part of the  extension to Hudson Yards but was cut for Budget reasons. They did built the tunnel in a way where the station could be added later though. I think the issue with this project is while it's a relatively low hanging fruit, it'll never be in demand enough to actually construct since the area isn't *that* bad of a transit desert. Honestly, best chance it might be constructed is if the  is extended up 10th Avenue

 

People want the 10th Avenue station, it should be a top priority project in my opinion

 

[Mtatransit]

Maybe I am biased but my top priority would be the IBX or the Rockaway beach Branch reactivation

Even more than the SAS.

I mean outer borough subway service is terrible and inefficient because they all go through Manhattan and bus service that exist between Bronx, Queens and Brooklyn all run into traffic and runs in mixed traffic at that.

Having something connecting at minimum Queens and Brooklyn in Central Queens/Brooklyn would do wonders in creating new employment opportunities and new commuting patterns than the hub and spoke system we have currently

[Lawrence St]

12 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

If any of these come to fruition, it won't be for quite a while. Here are the subway expansions plans they list and my thoughts on likelyhood:

-SAS 125th Street Crosstown might be the most likely cause SAS is currently MTA's main subway pet project, it'd be a logical extension after Phase II is completed (Phase II plans to have tail tracks west as far as Lenox Av to allow for a crosstown in the future), and Phase III being so hard and logistically complicated may make MTA hold off on it.

-Train to Red Hook is very unlikely unless you get a Hudson Yards style redevelopment of the area. Previously, MTA considered a Red Hook subway by extending the  via a new tunnel under the east river, but that would be a lot of work for only adding 1 or 2 stations. Branching off of Montague seems a bit more reasonable but still problematic, but that'd likely be the approach MTA would take if you saw a redevelopment of that area. Some have also mentioned light rail which I don't really think would be sufficient replacement to the benefits of a subway in NYC, but I could see MTA doing a whole light rail along the growing East River waterfront on the Brooklyn/Queens. I think that would depend on if the IBX is completed, and if so how successful it's percieved to be.

-Utica Avenue Transit Improvement (including possible subway) was supposed to get a study, but COVID seemed to stop that. Prolly decently likely relative to some on this list given the area is such a transit desert. I think MTA would likely combine it with a general effort to fix some of the IRT's other problems in Brooklyn such as Rodgers Junction (assuming it's a branch of IRT Eastern Parkway).

-  extension to Spring Creek is one of those projects that's a relatively low hanging fruit that offers clear benefit, but never ends up being choosen. Remember, the MTA wouldn't actually have to do much to construct because Livonia Yard gets you 90% of the way there. I could see a scenario where this is lumped in with Utica Avenue extension as part of "fixing" the Brooklyn IRT.

-10th Avenue Station on  is again a low hanging fruit; it was supposed to be part of the  extension to Hudson Yards but was cut for Budget reasons. They did built the tunnel in a way where the station could be added later though. I think the issue with this project is while it's a relatively low hanging fruit, it'll never be in demand enough to actually construct since the area isn't *that* bad of a transit desert. Honestly, best chance it might be constructed is if the  is extended up 10th Avenue

-Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation really depends on politics imo since *something* is going to be done with that ROW. It's a matter of whether it becomes a park, a subway line, or some combo of both. Adams seems to favor making it a park, but if the next mayor really insists on making it a subway it could happen

BY far, this would be the easiest thing to implement, but knowing the (TA) and politics in the city in general, it will never happen.

[Wallyhorse]

15 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

If any of these come to fruition, it won't be for quite a while. Here are the subway expansions plans they list and my thoughts on likelyhood:

-SAS 125th Street Crosstown might be the most likely cause SAS is currently MTA's main subway pet project, it'd be a logical extension after Phase II is completed (Phase II plans to have tail tracks west as far as Lenox Av to allow for a crosstown in the future), and Phase III being so hard and logistically complicated may make MTA hold off on it.

-  extension to Spring Creek is one of those projects that's a relatively low hanging fruit that offers clear benefit, but never ends up being choosen. Remember, the MTA wouldn't actually have to do much to construct because Livonia Yard gets you 90% of the way there. I could see a scenario where this is lumped in with Utica Avenue extension as part of "fixing" the Brooklyn IRT.

-10th Avenue Station on  is again a low hanging fruit; it was supposed to be part of the  extension to Hudson Yards but was cut for Budget reasons. They did built the tunnel in a way where the station could be added later though. I think the issue with this project is while it's a relatively low hanging fruit, it'll never be in demand enough to actually construct since the area isn't *that* bad of a transit desert. Honestly, best chance it might be constructed is if the  is extended up 10th Avenue

-Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation really depends on politics imo since *something* is going to be done with that ROW. It's a matter of whether it becomes a park, a subway line, or some combo of both. Adams seems to favor making it a park, but if the next mayor really insists on making it a subway it could happen

 

14 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I've spoken about this stuff before either in this thread or another so here are my two cents on what you've stated and what you missed:

- The SAS-125 St Crosstown right now has quite the opportunity to become a thing. I honestly agree with you about Phase III "being so hard and logistically complicated," especially with what to do after. However, I would like to add onto this by including other parts of the westbound extension that being heading north from Broadway or Riverside Drive to terminate at 137 St and a connection to the CPW line using the layup tracks. The connection would be quite a benefit for redundancy purposes and possibly a bunch of route changes. Riverside could probably work better for the crosstown line if a connection were to be made at Broadway-125 St making it a bit complicated if underneath Broadway to 137 St. 

- Spring Creek expansion is definitely a low hanging fruit waiting to be picked, but I sorta have to point out that even though Livonia gets you much closer to it, it looks like it also gets in the way, unfortunately.

- Nothing much to say really about the 10th Av station, but I do find you including the  along 10th Av very interesting. This definitely gives the MTA more incentive to build the proposed station while giving it quite the connection to a line that never meets.

- I've seen a proposal online that changes up how the RBB connects to QBL. If I'm not mistaken, it connects through the yard leads between Jamaica Yard and Forest Hills station. Personally, this is much better than the connection to/from Rego Park. Adams straight up wanting to turn it into a park would be a huge missed opportunity, but at the same time, there's not much going on around the ROW, either. 

 

14 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

People want the 10th Avenue station, it should be a top priority project in my opinion

 

I'll start with a 10th Avenue station on the : 

For that to work IMO, it would need to be done to where there is an exit on 41st Street and 9th Avenue connected to the west end of the PABT.  That to me would make such more viable.

Extending the up 10th Avenue is something I have proposed many times.  As I would do it, it would run up 10th Avenue to 72nd Street (underneath the existing  station with transfers to that there with provisions to extend the line further than that).  That likely could be done in concert with a 10th Avenue station on the  and perhaps if as some think will eventually happen Madison Square Garden being relocated to a new building from 9th-10th Avenues and 28th-30th Streets.

The SAS crosstown I have noted many times.  I would do that with a connection to the 8th Avenue line at St. Nicholas/125 that in both directions can use the track between the express and local tracks that currently runs from north of 125 on the  to north of 135th Street as an exit and entry point to the SAS that could down the road allow for perhaps the to run with the on the SAS (with the becoming full-time to Astoria and perhaps running with the on the West End to at least Bay Parkway) with one of the or  running to 125-Broadway and the other running with the on the Concourse to Bedford Park Boulevard with the joining the to 168.  

As for the , as I have noted how I would do it would be after 135 and the goes its way, the goes above ground to a new, full-length 145th Street station and then over a new, rail-only bridge south of the Macombs Dam Bridge to a new stop at 153rd-Yankees and then joining the  south of 161-Yankee Stadium and stopping there and then running with the  to Woodlawn with some  trains ending at Burnside. 

As for the Rockaway Beach Branch, I had previously proposed there that the  head to Rockaway Park from Whitehall (with some trains starting on the tunnel level of Canal Street if necessary) with the  moved back to Astoria.  To me, and especially to get the backing of Resorts World (that has a Casino near Aqueduct) for a revival I believe such a line would have to run through what some still call "The Financial District" (even if that is outdated) and that's why I would do it with the (that also could involve making the  brown and moving it to Nassau as I have described in the past).  

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

7 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

BY far, this would be the easiest thing to implement, but knowing the (TA) and politics in the city in general, it will never happen.

Ye; I think the issue is because of politics, it's really only giant projects that get the funding (see SAS) whereas smaller projects that may actually offer good benefit on a cost/rider basis are ignored.

My hope would be if the MTA ever does a Utica Avenue subway, they do all of the following at once:

-A Utica Avenue subway as a branch of the Eastern Parkway Line; would be built so could be changed to A-division if needed

-Fixing Rodgers Junction

-Extending the  to Spring Creek to provide more transit access and a better terminal

-Extending the Nostrand Avenue line 1 stop to have a better terminal. I think it goes understated how bad of a terminal Flatbush Avenue is. There are no tail tracks so trains have to be slow in entering/leaving the station and trains can't be stored. And because it wasn't meant to be a terminal, the station is 2 side platforms rather than an island platform; at least we have countdown clocks now to direct passengers to where the next train will depart from but it's still a bad set up. Again, this is a relatively small, low hanging fruit project that could help fix capacity limitations on the IRT, but has never seen any action. Also remember, there the tunnels extended a few hundred feet past the current bumper blocks, but those tunnels were sealed off when the station was reconfigured a while back.

[ArchytectAnthony]

21 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Rockaway Beach Branch reactivation really depends on politics imo since *something* is going to be done with that ROW. It's a matter of whether it becomes a park, a subway line, or some combo of both. Adams seems to favor making it a park, but if the next mayor really insists on making it a subway it could happen

I mean there is Queenslink which as you said, combines a park and subway option for the RBB, which has decent political and community backing. Still sad Adams went for the park only but the funding is only for a small part of the ROW, though I don't think construction even started yet so there's still some hope.

[LGA Link N Train]

On 7/8/2023 at 12:05 AM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

-Utica Avenue Transit Improvement (including possible subway) was supposed to get a study, but COVID seemed to stop that. Prolly decently likely relative to some on this list given the area is such a transit desert. I think MTA would likely combine it with a general effort to fix some of the IRT's other problems in Brooklyn such as Rodgers Junction (assuming it's a branch of IRT Eastern Parkway).

I’m under the impression that the study for Utica Avenue has already been completed but hasn’t been officially published yet.

[ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ]

6 hours ago, LGA Link N Train said:

I’m under the impression that the study for Utica Avenue has already been completed but hasn’t been officially published yet.

About two months or so ago, my dad's friend who works in the MTA indicated there was some internal discussion or movement related to Utica Avenue, but didn't specify anything specifically. I could try asking him if he knows if the study was ever completed (though he might not know given how even within the large agency, there isn't always transparency).

I think most people, including people in the MTA know in an ideal world Utica Avenue should have a subway; the demand is clearly there. However, in practice, they may choose a less expensive option like dedicated bus lanes that would cost less and be more likely to receive political support. Another underrated political problem with Utica Avenue subway is if it were to extend down into the Flatlands area, it'd likely have to be elevated because of water. Even though a new elevated could be built much quitier than the existing NYC els, it'd still face a lot of backlash.

[CenSin]

Skimmed the discussions and I find it interesting that there is talk of making Utica Avenue built to B Division clearances for an eventual connection to one of the numerous B Division lines up north. There is a lot stacked against something like that from happening:

• All of the B Division stations in the potential path of a Utica Avenue extension are through stations. That isn’t true of the Eastern Parkway line which has one pair of tracks dead-ending just east of Utica Avenue. (And of course, because there were always plans to make such a branch.)
  • So, a tie-in to any of the B Division lines would immediately siphon service from all the stations west of Utica Avenue on that line.
• All of the B Division lines except for the are served by multiple routes sharing a double-tracked tunnel or bridge across the East River. Capacity would be an issue.
• Speaking of capacity: a connection to the Williamsburg Bridge via Myrtle Avenue–Broadway would probably be a no-go. It caps train lengths to 8 cars, and there is no capacity to send more trains to Manhattan’s prime destinations (in midtown).
• The fabled Second System to dodge all of the above limitations would be expensive enough to be inconceivable as a serious proposal. There’s an entire 5 miles of tunneling between 2 Avenue–East Houston Street and Myrtle Avenue–Broadway and a river. The Amtrak tunnel under the Hudson River is projected to cost $7 billion.
  • Doing this would also assume there is a trunk line with spare capacity to connect it to.

[TMC]

On 7/12/2023 at 6:29 PM, CenSin said:

Skimmed the discussions and I find it interesting that there is talk of making Utica Avenue built to B Division clearances for an eventual connection to one of the numerous B Division lines up north. There is a lot stacked against something like that from happening:

• All of the B Division stations in the potential path of a Utica Avenue extension are through stations. That isn’t true of the Eastern Parkway line which has one pair of tracks dead-ending just east of Utica Avenue. (And of course, because there were always plans to make such a branch.)
  • So, a tie-in to any of the B Division lines would immediately siphon service from all the stations west of Utica Avenue on that line.
• All of the B Division lines except for the are served by multiple routes sharing a double-tracked tunnel or bridge across the East River. Capacity would be an issue.
• Speaking of capacity: a connection to the Williamsburg Bridge via Myrtle Avenue–Broadway would probably be a no-go. It caps train lengths to 8 cars, and there is no capacity to send more trains to Manhattan’s prime destinations (in midtown).
• The fabled Second System to dodge all of the above limitations would be expensive enough to be inconceivable as a serious proposal. There’s an entire 5 miles of tunneling between 2 Avenue–East Houston Street and Myrtle Avenue–Broadway and a river. The Amtrak tunnel under the Hudson River is projected to cost $7 billion.
  • Doing this would also assume there is a trunk line with spare capacity to connect it to.

Personally, the IRT extension should be built first, but at the same time as an IND extension from a new trunk line on 3rd Ave (Which I believe is superior to Phases 3 & 4 of SAS, and should replace them).
 

- This new trunk line would use a new double-track tunnel from Houston Street to Metropolitan Ave, deep-boring under East Williamsburg to bypass the ‘s zig-zag through the area, then turning onto Bushwick Avenue and Broadway, then finally onto Malcolm X Blvd.

- The  is the only Brooklyn subway that is overcrowded, and will only continue to get more crowded due to Williamsburg’s continued gentrification that is spreading north, east, and even south. 

- The Broadway Brooklyn El is not a good alternative to relieve the ‘s overcrowding, because it is a weak line. It gets mediocre ridership for traveling through a gentrifying neighborhood (development concentrates near the ), average crowding is very low, and the line isn’t even close to hitting its max capacity (19 TPH vs. max 24 TPH, possibly 30 TPH+ if improvements are made?). Broadway Brooklyn should have the  rerouted back to Broad Street, express service removed, and Skip-Stop abolished to increase reliability and frequency. No other investment is really worth the trouble, due to it being such a weak line, being slow and decrepit. 
 

- Replacing or supplementing Broadway Brooklyn with a South 4th Street (or similar proposal) would not have a good cost:benefit ratio at all, if we’re talking about how the IND envisioned it. I guess my proposal is sort of a modern take on S4S, which addresses the capacity needs of the system today. 
 

- Utica gains a full trunk worth of capacity, rather than a branch, along with Livonia. This is important, as it opens up an entire section of Brooklyn to massive rezoning (not realistic because NIMBYs rule the world, but this is in my ideal environment, where local leadership, being community boards and borough governments are abolished, with all control in the hands of the city). I’m talking about high-rise apartments blanketing the entirety of Southern and Eastern Brooklyn, taking advantage of existing subway capacity, and new capacity opened up by Utica. Even right now, it doesn’t matter whether you think Utica would be “over-served” by 30+ TPH, because the only expensive part of this is the infrastructure. Running more trains is cheap, especially if it results in growth along the corridor.

 

- In terms of cost, Utica, in addition to a full 3rd Avenue Trunk as I propose it should not cost more than $6.5B at globally average construction costs, which are achievable, albeit less achievable politically. SAS, Gateway, IBX, and the failed LGA N Train all had unnecessarily inflated costs, and should have cost much less than they were built for, or initially quoted at. Tunneling for SAS totaled only $285M, the rest of the cost was taken up by stations and the systems required to operate the extension (elevators, escalators, signals, etc). The cost premium came from huge, mined stations with enormous mezzanines. The systems used were not standardized across the entire line, with different stations using different models of equipment. The other glaring issue, that plagues these projects more broadly is poor contractor management, where contractors essentially have free-reign and control, and the transit agency/government takes a back seat. Efficient and cheaper construction happens when the reverse occurs, the MTA should oversee the contractors much more strictly, and control the project from the top-down. 

[Mtatransit]

On 7/8/2023 at 9:42 PM, ArchytectAnthony said:

I mean there is Queenslink which as you said, combines a park and subway option for the RBB, which has decent political and community backing. Still sad Adams went for the park only but the funding is only for a small part of the ROW, though I don't think construction even started yet so there's still some hope.

RBB will move the NYC Subway from its current Manhattan centric network. Many new jobs and opportunity will be accessible to people in Brooklyn and Queens. IMO these outer borough expansion ideas are a higher priority than any phase of the SAS.

The SAS idea was drawn up in an era, where we could afford to do both the SAS and other expansion project. We can't afford that now

Edited July 19, 2023 by Mtatransit

[Lawrence St]

14 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

RBB will move the NYC Subway from its current Manhattan centric network. Many new jobs and opportunity will be accessible to people in Brooklyn and Queens. IMO these outer borough expansion ideas are a higher priority than any phase of the SAS.

The SAS idea was drawn up in an era, where we could afford to do both the SAS and other expansion project. We can't afford that now

I personally feel like SAS and ESA in todays age is useless. We should be focusing on expansion plans outside of Manhattan.

[TMC]

10 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

RBB will move the NYC Subway from its current Manhattan centric network. Many new jobs and opportunity will be accessible to people in Brooklyn and Queens. IMO these outer borough expansion ideas are a higher priority than any phase of the SAS.

The SAS idea was drawn up in an era, where we could afford to do both the SAS and other expansion project. We can't afford that now

I don’t think the Manhattan-centricity of the network is a flaw. All systems should prioritize core service, with some degree of circumferential service if necessary. The issue is that the Manhattan-centric design is struggling to adapt to a post-COVID era because of bad operations (lackluster off-peak service, dwindling reliability as maintenance is prioritized more and more, as well as heavy interlining, which limits frequency and reliability). Manhattan still contains the majority of destinations for riders, the outer-boroughs contain more decentralized employment which were always difficult to serve with rapid transit in the first place. Your take on RBB “moving the system from its current Manhattan-centric network” is incorrect, as it has always been viewed as a quicker way to Midtown than the A’s meandering through Brooklyn. 

[TMC]

2 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I personally feel like SAS and ESA in todays age is useless. We should be focusing on expansion plans outside of Manhattan.

This is incorrect, SAS is still an incredibly valuable line, the issue is that it’s part of a system that is still focused on rush hour commutes, rather than all-day reliable service useful for commutes to/from work, school, and leisure (especially leisure, in the context of post-COVID and WFH). Same with ESA, it’s issue is that it is operated poorly, although ESA was less useful than SAS (20 years ago, I would have constructed something different).

Midtown Manhattan still contains the highest concentration of destinations for transit riders in NYC, the issue is that the system, like virtually all others in North America, failed to adapt to Post-COVID conditions. IBX isn’t as much of a slam-dunk as most advocates make it out to be, especially in its current form as a LRT with a street-running segment (insanely stupid, heavy rail was unfairly sandbagged). It’s still useful if it can be done for ~$1B~, at $5B, it’s not even worth it. The best transit systems always prioritize core service, even today, NYC’s issue is that it doesn’t know how to run a good system. 

[Nova Fly Guy]

The upper level of Utica on the  is still intact platforms and road bed. I’ve been there a few times recently I’m almost sure it will be used if there’s talk of Utica Av Subway service.

Edited July 19, 2023 by Nova Fly Guy

[Mtatransit]

3 hours ago, TMC said:

I don’t think the Manhattan-centricity of the network is a flaw. All systems should prioritize core service, with some degree of circumferential service if necessary. The issue is that the Manhattan-centric design is struggling to adapt to a post-COVID era because of bad operations (lackluster off-peak service, dwindling reliability as maintenance is prioritized more and more, as well as heavy interlining, which limits frequency and reliability). Manhattan still contains the majority of destinations for riders, the outer-boroughs contain more decentralized employment which were always difficult to serve with rapid transit in the first place. Your take on RBB “moving the system from its current Manhattan-centric network” is incorrect, as it has always been viewed as a quicker way to Midtown than the A’s meandering through Brooklyn. 

I disagree RBB will open up new opportunity for travel inter borough. I mean look at the ridership on the parallel Q53 bus

I still think you are thinking too Manhattan centric. The core will still have robust service, but a network should not have ALL its service go to the core. You also mentioned we need some circumferential service but right now we have none

The demand on the subway is towards Manhattan right now because all the service is pointed towards Manhattan. The people traveling interboro probably are not on the public transit right now because the service is so Manhattan focused. Very few will deal with a Bronx- Queens or Queens-Brooklyn via Manhattan on a daily basis.

As for RBB I don’t think most people want Midtown. It would open up more robust travel option from North Queens to South Queens/Brooklyn. It would also provide part of Middle village, Maspeth and Glendale subway service 

3 hours ago, TMC said:

This is incorrect, SAS is still an incredibly valuable line, the issue is that it’s part of a system that is still focused on rush hour commutes, rather than all-day reliable service useful for commutes to/from work, school, and leisure (especially leisure, in the context of post-COVID and WFH). Same with ESA, it’s issue is that it is operated poorly, although ESA was less useful than SAS (20 years ago, I would have constructed something different).

Midtown Manhattan still contains the highest concentration of destinations for transit riders in NYC, the issue is that the system, like virtually all others in North America, failed to adapt to Post-COVID conditions. IBX isn’t as much of a slam-dunk as most advocates make it out to be, especially in its current form as a LRT with a street-running segment (insanely stupid, heavy rail was unfairly sandbagged). It’s still useful if it can be done for ~$1B~, at $5B, it’s not even worth it. The best transit systems always prioritize core service, even today, NYC’s issue is that it doesn’t know how to run a good system. 

I mean something has to go to the outerboros right. You can not expect people to take public transportation if the service is crap

If you are against IBX and RBB what do you suggest Queens riders to do? Take a bus, drive, because short of doubling my pay there is no way in hell I am commuting from Brooklyn - Queens everyday on the subway thru Manhattan. I’m sure people passed up opportunity just because of that 

 

The thing with SAS is that there are alternatives on the Lex Ave Line. Post COVID there are extra capacity

The QBL is almost equally crowded and there are no relief in sight. There are still transit deserts in the outerboro. 
 

If we want to implement congestion pricing in good faith all the capital project expansions can not be focused solely on Manhattan

The SAS idea is from another era, an era where we can build a subway. The SAS was also proposed alongside a whole range of other transit projects in the 5 boros, yet it was the only plan revived from both the 1929 and 1968 other than ESA

Edited July 19, 2023 by Mtatransit

[TMC]

3 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

I disagree RBB will open up new opportunity for travel inter borough. I mean look at the ridership on the parallel Q53 bus

I still think you are thinking too Manhattan centric. The core will still have robust service, but a network should not have ALL its service go to the core. You also mentioned we need some circumferential service but right now we have none

The demand on the subway is towards Manhattan right now because all the service is pointed towards Manhattan. The people traveling interboro probably are not on the public transit right now because the service is so Manhattan focused. Very few will deal with a Bronx- Queens or Queens-Brooklyn via Manhattan on a daily basis.

As for RBB I don’t think most people want Midtown. It would open up more robust travel option from North Queens to South Queens/Brooklyn. It would also provide part of Middle village, Maspeth and Glendale subway service 

I mean something has to go to the outerboros right. You can not expect people to take public transportation if the service is crap

If you are against IBX and RBB what do you suggest Queens riders to do? Take a bus, drive, because short of doubling my pay there is no way in hell I am commuting from Brooklyn - Queens everyday on the subway thru Manhattan. I’m sure people passed up opportunity just because of that 

 

The thing with SAS is that there are alternatives on the Lex Ave Line. Post COVID there are extra capacity

The QBL is almost equally crowded and there are no relief in sight. There are still transit deserts in the outerboro. 
 

If we want to implement congestion pricing in good faith all the capital project expansions can not be focused solely on Manhattan

The SAS idea is from another era, an era where we can build a subway. The SAS was also proposed alongside a whole range of other transit projects in the 5 boros, yet it was the only plan revived from both the 1929 and 1968 other than ESA

- Ridership on the Q53 is really not that impressive, it’s high for NYC, but still not that impressive. 
 

- You’re right, some circumferential service is needed to tie up the secondary cores and activity centers. The  should be made more robust, running every 6 minutes, connecting Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City, as well as the neighborhoods in between with Manhattan-bound service (another important aspect of circumferential service). I’m not against IBX, I’m just against IBX as a tram, and against it being built at such high cost. IBX only pencils if it is around ~$1B~, not $5.5B or $8B. Projected ridership is not expected to be high, and TOD probably won’t change that, if it is ever built.

 

- The issue is that not a lot of ridership is able to be captured from inter-borough traffic. It’s much harder than you all think. Crosstown and IBX work because they connect two secondary CBDs (IBX connects multiple activity centers, but same concept) to each other, while intersecting other Manhattan-bound subways in between. The issue is that Crosstown’s transfer situation sucks (it is fixable though), and that contributes to its low use, along with poor service, despite the neighborhoods around it gentrifying. IBX has a scarier transfer situation, where nearly all transfers are planned to be OOS, I can’t tell how this will affect its usefulness, but I’m afraid of how this will affect its ridership if not fixed. Circumferential lines rely heavily on connections between secondary nodes AND connections to radial spokes towards the core, both are very important. 
 

- I’m not thinking Manhattan-centric, that’s literally how it is. Manhattan has a greater concentration of jobs and destinations than the outer boroughs. Jobs are much less concentrated in the outer boroughs, especially outside of places such as LIC and DTBK. They are much more difficult to serve by rapid transit, since rapid transit relies on density. This is also why circumferential lines rely on connections to radial lines bound for the core, most riders will be traveling towards there if they decide to use transit. 
 

- Like I said, the biggest issue is poor service on the existing system. The main cause of the ridership drop post-COVID can be directly linked to dropping system reliability, as maintenance becomes less productive and swallows up more of the MTA’s priorities. The biggest hit in reliability occurred during off-peak hours (including weekends), and with the loss of rush hour commutes, it’s clear why ridership has dropped. Various studies conducted on various transit systems have proven that frequency and reliability are the most important aspects of rapid transit. It’s difficult for a potential rider to justify transit if their experience with it leaves them stressed about delays, maintenance work, slowdowns, etc. Especially if the trip is between two outer boroughs, where detouring through Manhattan shouldn’t be that bad to deal with, poor reliability scares those riders away. The G suffers from poor reliability and service frequency too, which is why it’s ridership is very low. So, you are partly right, people won’t take the trains if the service is crap. 
 

- RBB serves mainly mainly bedroom communities and missing-middle/low-rise commercial. Most riders will inevitably be going to Manhattan, because there isn’t any secondary core served by RBB, it’s really just a faster radial alignment than the A’s run on Fulton Street. I do have my own take on RBB as part of my fantasy crayon maps, but I think it can only be justified if it costs <$1B (which is achievable, the MTA just has to want to). Other destinations for riders on RBB might be DTBK, Broadway Junction, Jamaica and Jackson Heights, which is fine, those connections would exist (making RBB a mix between radial and circumferential service, a good thing in this case), but the majority of potential riders are headed towards Midtown Manhattan. 
 

- I’m not against IBX and RBB, I’m against their high costs compared to their benefits. I’m pissed off at the MTA’s sandbagging, which could be a waste of taxpayer dollars if these high costs aren’t addressed in these projects and future projects. High costs also make it difficult for us to construct multiple projects at once, which we should be doing in order to make design and construction more efficient. I peg IBX at around $1.5B (with an extension to the Bronx, which is possible via the Hells Gate Bridge, there is capacity available), and RBB at around $600M, which are costs I would call justifiable. So no, I’m not against these projects. I’m against their high costs at present, and I’m calling you out for being blatantly incorrect about how transit ridership works. 

 

- Assuming decently reliable service (think, as in, much better than we have now), commuting from LIC to Downtown Brooklyn isn’t any harder going through Manhattan, in fact, it might actually be slightly quicker than using the G (again, assuming properly reliable and frequent service). Does this make the G less important? No, that’s not point at all. My point is that anything about “Well I have to detour through Manhattan because I don’t have a personal rapid transit line from home to work, so I’ll just drive” is stupid, and I’ve seen it hundreds of times. The G is important in that it connects the neighborhoods it serves  to LIC and Downtown Brooklyn, as well as towards Manhattan via a transfer.
 

- SAS is not useless, because again, you are assuming ridership numbers caused by poor off-peak service and low reliability across the board. Ridership is low because frequency and reliability suffered during and after COVID, and even a bit before then. The neighborhoods served by SAS are dense enough to justify SAS, in fact, when SAS 1 opened, it opened up some capacity on IRT Lex, despite SAS not being operated that frequently. I suggest a rezoning of the UES to take advantage of this. SAS 2 is equally as worth it, especially if extended across 125th Street to Broadway, providing another useful circumferential corridor. I’m more iffy about Phases 3 & 4, which bake in reverse-branching (a bad practice that needs to be eliminated), and add zero core capacity. Although, I have my own proposals for two additional Manhattan trunks, one on 3rd Avenue to replace the flawed SAS 3 & 4 proposal, and another running east-west across 50th Street. 
 

- Queens Blvd Express is crowded, the locals are not very crowded. There is also a heavy bias towards 53rd Street as opposed to 63rd Street. Most of this crowding is coming from the western portion of the line, particularly from riders connecting from the , as Flushing is slow south/west of Queensboro Plaza, and QBL is quicker. I address this with my 50th Street Trunk, which runs along Northern Blvd, providing relief to IRT Flushing. There are also regional rail corridors paralleling IRT Flushing and IND Queens Blvd, which should be utilized as a “big fast subway” of sorts. Fare-integration ($2.75 city fares, free transfers), subway-like frequencies, infill stations where necessary, and most importantly, through-running (allowing cross city commutes, and taking some stress off of the subway for inter-borough commutes) can help across the board, not just in Queens. Just like the subway, commuter rail suffers from catering to rush-hour commutes to/from the city center, when it could capture twice, maybe even triple the ridership if it could be utilized for off-peak, non-work, and cross-city trips. 
 

- We are in an era where we can’t build, correct. But that’s not because we can’t afford to build, it’s because we don’t want to build. We purposefully, and knowingly, overbuild and over-design stations to increase costs. We sandbag projects to inflate costs artificially, when in reality, the reasons given for inflated costs make zero sense ($8B to restore a mostly free RoW? $3B to move an old pipe? That doesn’t even line up with the norm of projects actually built). There are more excuses given than solutions found. 

[Mtatransit]

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- Ridership on the Q53 is really not that impressive, it’s high for NYC, but still not that impressive. 
 

- You’re right, some circumferential service is needed to tie up the secondary cores and activity centers. The  should be made more robust, running every 6 minutes, connecting Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City, as well as the neighborhoods in between with Manhattan-bound service (another important aspect of circumferential service). I’m not against IBX, I’m just against IBX as a tram, and against it being built at such high cost. IBX only pencils if it is around ~$1B~, not $5.5B or $8B. Projected ridership is not expected to be high, and TOD probably won’t change that, if it is ever built.

How much of it is due to the absurdly high construction cost over low ridership? 

The  is not really a circumferential line is it? Atleast for most of the people actually living in Western and Eastern Queens it isn't

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- The issue is that not a lot of ridership is able to be captured from inter-borough traffic. It’s much harder than you all think. Crosstown and IBX work because they connect two secondary CBDs (IBX connects multiple activity centers, but same concept) to each other, while intersecting other Manhattan-bound subways in between. The issue is that Crosstown’s transfer situation sucks (it is fixable though), and that contributes to its low use, along with poor service, despite the neighborhoods around it gentrifying. IBX has a scarier transfer situation, where nearly all transfers are planned to be OOS, I can’t tell how this will affect its usefulness, but I’m afraid of how this will affect its ridership if not fixed. Circumferential lines rely heavily on connections between secondary nodes AND connections to radial spokes towards the core, both are very important. 

Crosstown service have actually gotten much better over the years. Now weekend service are getting bumped up its pretty god. I agree with you regarding the transfer situations though. Transfers between the former three private lines especially to the IND is still hard in Brooklyn

Regarding OOS, I rather it be there than not there. 

Manhattan lines are still going to be the meat of the system. However like you said, having lines intersecting it is important as well. That is not the case in the current system, especially in Queens and the Bronx

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- I’m not thinking Manhattan-centric, that’s literally how it is. Manhattan has a greater concentration of jobs and destinations than the outer boroughs. Jobs are much less concentrated in the outer boroughs, especially outside of places such as LIC and DTBK. They are much more difficult to serve by rapid transit, since rapid transit relies on density. This is also why circumferential lines rely on connections to radial lines bound for the core, most riders will be traveling towards there if they decide to use transit. 

Even with a select area's with high density, you will have a hard time getting there between boros. Are you suggesting people just drive then? For example Elmhurst to Ridgewood, Q58 is the busiest bus route in Queens. IBX would solve some of that issue

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- Like I said, the biggest issue is poor service on the existing system. The main cause of the ridership drop post-COVID can be directly linked to dropping system reliability, as maintenance becomes less productive and swallows up more of the MTA’s priorities. The biggest hit in reliability occurred during off-peak hours (including weekends), and with the loss of rush hour commutes, it’s clear why ridership has dropped. Various studies conducted on various transit systems have proven that frequency and reliability are the most important aspects of rapid transit. It’s difficult for a potential rider to justify transit if their experience with it leaves them stressed about delays, maintenance work, slowdowns, etc.

Especially if the trip is between two outer boroughs, where detouring through Manhattan shouldn’t be that bad to deal with, poor reliability scares those riders away. The G suffers from poor reliability and service frequency too, which is why it’s ridership is very low. So, you are partly right, people won’t take the trains if the service is crap. 

I agree with the first part, service reliability certainly have dropped. More so service frequency have dropped due to trackwork, labor shortage, delays etc. It is not unusual to wait 20 minute for service now midday weekend. 

I disagree with the second part. Depending on where you live detouring thru Manhattan IS a deal breaker for most people, especially the further out they are from the East River. It may not be too bad if you live in LIC, you could take the  or take the others thru Manhattan, but if you live in Flushing, it is 30-45 minutes to drive but >1.5 hr by train. If people have a choice would they really take the subway?

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- RBB serves mainly mainly bedroom communities and missing-middle/low-rise commercial. Most riders will inevitably be going to Manhattan, because there isn’t any secondary core served by RBB, it’s really just a faster radial alignment than the A’s run on Fulton Street. I do have my own take on RBB as part of my fantasy crayon maps, but I think it can only be justified if it costs <$1B (which is achievable, the MTA just has to want to). Other destinations for riders on RBB might be DTBK, Broadway Junction, Jamaica and Jackson Heights, which is fine, those connections would exist (making RBB a mix between radial and circumferential service, a good thing in this case), but the majority of potential riders are headed towards Midtown Manhattan. . 

I can't argue against you here, as I agree most people will go to Midtown Manhattan. However the connection is still valuable, especially like you said, it connects bedroom communities to Broadway Junction, Jackson Heights, and Flushing/Jamaica as well. It also provides good connection to  and  should riders need Lower Manhattan as well. 

If you really want to dream, you could reinstate the connection at Atlantic Ave to the Atlantic Branch

5 hours ago, TMC said:

I’m not against IBX and RBB, I’m against their high costs compared to their benefits. I’m pissed off at the MTA’s sandbagging, which could be a waste of taxpayer dollars if these high costs aren’t addressed in these projects and future projects. High costs also make it difficult for us to construct multiple projects at once, which we should be doing in order to make design and construction more efficient. I peg IBX at around $1.5B (with an extension to the Bronx, which is possible via the Hells Gate Bridge, there is capacity available), and RBB at around $600M, which are costs I would call justifiable. So no, I’m not against these projects. I’m against their high costs at present, and I’m calling you out for being blatantly incorrect about how transit ridership works. 

You are talking about cost, but do you really think the SAS is worth 7.7 billion? You mention the RBB is worth 600 million. How much is SAS worth? I can tell you its not 7.7 billion especially when some of the tunnels already exist.

I think everyone is against the MTA's high cost. We are just thinking who and how much people will benefit more. For me, I rather save people who live in Queens >45 minutes than people who live along Second Avenue 10 minutes to walk to Lexington Avenue. 

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- SAS is not useless, because again, you are assuming ridership numbers caused by poor off-peak service and low reliability across the board. Ridership is low because frequency and reliability suffered during and after COVID, and even a bit before then. The neighborhoods served by SAS are dense enough to justify SAS, in fact, when SAS 1 opened, it opened up some capacity on IRT Lex, despite SAS not being operated that frequently. I suggest a rezoning of the UES to take advantage of this. SAS 2 is equally as worth it, especially if extended across 125th Street to Broadway, providing another useful circumferential corridor. 

Weird we are using the same justification when it comes to which project we would like prioritized. Interesting...

I'm not saying the SAS is useless, I'm just saying I rather fill some of the transit desert that exists in the city

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- Queens Blvd Express is crowded, the locals are not very crowded. There is also a heavy bias towards 53rd Street as opposed to 63rd Street. Most of this crowding is coming from the western portion of the line, particularly from riders connecting from the , as Flushing is slow south/west of Queensboro Plaza, and QBL is quicker. I address this with my 50th Street Trunk, which runs along Northern Blvd, providing relief to IRT Flushing. There are also regional rail corridors paralleling IRT Flushing and IND Queens Blvd, which should be utilized as a “big fast subway” of sorts. Fare-integration ($2.75 city fares, free transfers), subway-like frequencies, infill stations where necessary, and most importantly, through-running (allowing cross city commutes, and taking some stress off of the subway for inter-borough commutes) can help across the board, not just in Queens. Just like the subway, commuter rail suffers from catering to rush-hour commutes to/from the city center, when it could capture twice, maybe even triple the ridership if it could be utilized for off-peak, non-work, and cross-city trips. 

We should aim to make commuter rail more friendly for people living in the city, so I agree with you there. But knowing MTA it will cost 5 billion as well. It would also require structural changes to the LIRR and its operation

5 hours ago, TMC said:

- We are in an era where we can’t build, correct. But that’s not because we can’t afford to build, it’s because we don’t want to build. We purposefully, and knowingly, overbuild and over-design stations to increase costs. We sandbag projects to inflate costs artificially, when in reality, the reasons given for inflated costs make zero sense ($8B to restore a mostly free RoW? $3B to move an old pipe? That doesn’t even line up with the norm of projects actually built). There are more excuses given than solutions found. 

I think the MTA just do not know how to build cheaply and cost effective anymore.  Not only that but it seems like there are no incentive to lower cost as well, unless politicians get involved.

Everything in NY cost >2x comparable project around the world, I mean even compared to London, a city much older than New York

[TMC]

1 hour ago, Mtatransit said:

How much of it is due to the absurdly high construction cost over low ridership? 

The  is not really a circumferential line is it? Atleast for most of the people actually living in Western and Eastern Queens it isn't

Crosstown service have actually gotten much better over the years. Now weekend service are getting bumped up its pretty god. I agree with you regarding the transfer situations though. Transfers between the former three private lines especially to the IND is still hard in Brooklyn

Regarding OOS, I rather it be there than not there. 

Manhattan lines are still going to be the meat of the system. However like you said, having lines intersecting it is important as well. That is not the case in the current system, especially in Queens and the Bronx

Even with a select area's with high density, you will have a hard time getting there between boros. Are you suggesting people just drive then? For example Elmhurst to Ridgewood, Q58 is the busiest bus route in Queens. IBX would solve some of that issue

I agree with the first part, service reliability certainly have dropped. More so service frequency have dropped due to trackwork, labor shortage, delays etc. It is not unusual to wait 20 minute for service now midday weekend. 

I disagree with the second part. Depending on where you live detouring thru Manhattan IS a deal breaker for most people, especially the further out they are from the East River. It may not be too bad if you live in LIC, you could take the  or take the others thru Manhattan, but if you live in Flushing, it is 30-45 minutes to drive but >1.5 hr by train. If people have a choice would they really take the subway?

I can't argue against you here, as I agree most people will go to Midtown Manhattan. However the connection is still valuable, especially like you said, it connects bedroom communities to Broadway Junction, Jackson Heights, and Flushing/Jamaica as well. It also provides good connection to  and  should riders need Lower Manhattan as well. 

If you really want to dream, you could reinstate the connection at Atlantic Ave to the Atlantic Branch

You are talking about cost, but do you really think the SAS is worth 7.7 billion? You mention the RBB is worth 600 million. How much is SAS worth? I can tell you its not 7.7 billion especially when some of the tunnels already exist.

I think everyone is against the MTA's high cost. We are just thinking who and how much people will benefit more. For me, I rather save people who live in Queens >45 minutes than people who live along Second Avenue 10 minutes to walk to Lexington Avenue. 

Weird we are using the same justification when it comes to which project we would like prioritized. Interesting...

I'm not saying the SAS is useless, I'm just saying I rather fill some of the transit desert that exists in the city

We should aim to make commuter rail more friendly for people living in the city, so I agree with you there. But knowing MTA it will cost 5 billion as well. It would also require structural changes to the LIRR and its operation

I think the MTA just do not know how to build cheaply and cost effective anymore.  Not only that but it seems like there are no incentive to lower cost as well, unless politicians get involved.

Everything in NY cost >2x comparable project around the world, I mean even compared to London, a city much older than New York

Regarding everything here, it’s just not easy to capture ridership going inter-borough outside of situations like Crosstown or IBX, job concentrations are just too low, which is why a network of tramways could fill in other gaps along busy bus routes. In terms of the subway, it will likely stay Manhattan-centric forever, that’s just how rapid transit is. The wider transit system should be less Manhattan-centric though. 
 

I don’t think filling in “transit deserts” is the thing we should be focused on. Adding network coverage is good, but focusing too much on coverage can have adverse effects. We don’t have the core capacity to handle extensions into Eastern Queens, parts of Southeast Brooklyn, and small extensions in the Bronx, let alone New Jersey, which should ideally be the next frontier for the subway, as PATH is laughably inadequate, and NJT doesn’t serve the urban neighborhoods of Hudson and Essex Counties well either. The focus should instead be on addressing system capacity first, before we build tons of branches out into Eastern Queens, the East Bronx, and Southeast Brooklyn.

[Mtatransit]

2 hours ago, TMC said:

Regarding everything here, it’s just not easy to capture ridership going inter-borough outside of situations like Crosstown or IBX, job concentrations are just too low, which is why a network of tramways could fill in other gaps along busy bus routes. In terms of the subway, it will likely stay Manhattan-centric forever, that’s just how rapid transit is. The wider transit system should be less Manhattan-centric though. 
 

I don’t think filling in “transit deserts” is the thing we should be focused on. Adding network coverage is good, but focusing too much on coverage can have adverse effects. We don’t have the core capacity to handle extensions into Eastern Queens, parts of Southeast Brooklyn, and small extensions in the Bronx, let alone New Jersey, which should ideally be the next frontier for the subway, as PATH is laughably inadequate, and NJT doesn’t serve the urban neighborhoods of Hudson and Essex Counties well either. The focus should instead be on addressing system capacity first, before we build tons of branches out into Eastern Queens, the East Bronx, and Southeast Brooklyn.

Don;t you think we should serve the dense areas of Queens and Brooklyn before we even think about New Jersey? Who doesn't even pay most of the MTA tax? Other than the areas served by PATH, the sprawl is even worse than Queens and Brooklyn, so I don't see why you would think NJ would be better because a new tunnel will cost >10 billion dollars