It's crazy to think that most of these projects would have been completed years ago had it not been for the money problems and the wars. Not to mention guys like Robert Moses bringing a crusade against public transportation and scarring the city with eyesore highways.
You know Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses had fusted the TA workers to tair down all the extra elevated lines down right?. Those two selfish evil dowers that was in offices got together and said let's take down these extra elevated lines down because they could not stand for no extra elevated lines to be the way it is right now. You definitely need to blame Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses. I totally disagree with the lower riderships because there was nothing wrong with the 8 Thrid Avenue and any other elevated lines that was running. The only reason why the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated lines came down is because those two evil dowers Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses could not stand for no extra elevated lines to be up running at all.
@@leecornwell5632 How many times do I have to tell you that La Guardia was out of power for 25 years when the Third Ave el in the Bronx came down? And how many times do I have to tell you that La Guardia worked with Roosevelt to rescue the IND First System? Are there things that I wish La Guardia didn't do when it came with transit issues? Yes. But casting blame on La Guardia on tearing down the elevated lines is not true.
@@leecornwell5632 Communities living along 3rd Ave wanted it to be torn down. Combined with the fact that the Third Ave el was literally being held together by duct tape and string, planners found it easier to demolish it and replace with a new line, hence the Third Ave Replacement Project was born, which did not go through because of the 1975 Fiscal Crisis.
Not a vital transfer as you can go from the (G) to the (L) to the (J)/(Z) or from the (G) to the (A)/(C) to the (J)/(Z). If you think about it, where the (G) intersects with the (J)/(M)/(Z), you have the B43 and B48 bus routes, and the B38 bus route along DeKalb and Lafayette Avenue.
@@ahmadfrw1 it should be feasible Broadway Station was overbuilt for an connection to a unbuilt subway. They can build new station above Union Ave to connect the G and then get rid of 2 JMZ station at Hewes and Lorimer saves them money and makes train faster.
As per usual the Bronx gets nothing . Then people wonder why it is what it is , we get no support from the city . Not only are we getting kicked out due to gentrification. $2.2k to live in the Bronx ? Yikes . But let me be honest the Bronx needs MAJOR HELP from the mta . Every single service is packed and barely run. Help the Bronx
Exactly 💯% right. Especially the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. They are still processing about it all aswell non stop. Every sence they torn down the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line down it had gotten worser and worser and even right now as you mentioned about the Bronx Thrid Avenue Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. Thrid Avenue South Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx is definitely starting to developing again with Affordable houses and other businesses I'm telling. They just don't be rebuilding affordable houses and other businesses for nothing. Something is definitely about to happen I'm telling you. Not in the Bad way. In a good way.
Looks like there are only 4 boroughs as the Bronx is glaringly missing from every proposal. Not only has the Bronx not been considered for new projects, they have been removed from original proposals for the IBX and Second Avenue Subway extension. It's a shame that the MTA doesn't see much need to improve service in the Bronx over the next 20 years.
More like 3. But they don't consider them because they are not the "right" color and have the money for the political backing. But i definitely think that SAS should have gone to the Bronx. Even if it only connected to the #6 at 138th St and 2/4 & 5 at 149th Street and 3rd Avenue. Than build a LaGuardia Airport Lightrail via the Triborogh right-of-way as 125 Crosstown. This would leave a different set of funding for the extension to the Bronx and fast-tracking Midtown East south of 63rd Street eventually connecting to the Nassau Street J/Z lines. Finally putting this section to good use as more people are heading to midtown. Possible service with the "R" to 95th Street.
I propose a Fordham Road-Pelham Parkway Crosstown Subway Line as a branch of the IND 9th Avenue Line. The new line should serve the & terminate at Pelham Bay Park, while the (X) should run to Inwood-207th Street via Dyckman Street & Broadway.
If I were the governor of New York State I would put top priority on getting construction costs down and building the Second Avenue Subway, the Inter Borough Express, and the Queenslink.
Extending the 2nd Ave. west along 125th St. is a no brainer. But when has the MTA shown any brains? The Queenslink thing should reconnect the LIRR to this branch and extend to JFK Airport's central terminal area providing (finally) a one seat ride to the central business district--you know, like what London, Paris, Zurich, Tokyo, and many other 'world capitals' already have?
They need to at least build a bell mouth on the 2nd Avenue Subway leading to the Bronx. The city is only going to get more congested and eventually the Bronx will be the next Brooklyn in terms of people migrating and investing in that borough.
I tell you one thing. The red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line in the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road between Wakefield and New Lots Avenue I tell you that right now straight up for real. You know why the Q T trains are definitely gonna be extended to west side 125 street to connect to the 1 Broadway line. Because they are definitely making enough room for the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line to come back to south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx between Nereid and or Gun hill road and New Lots Avenue Brooklyn I'm telling you . The 4 5 trains terminate at Utica and New Lots Avenue to replace the 3 trains .
@@jointransitassociation These should be the stations on the BMT 2nd Avenue Line: Ⓜ 125th Street (express) Ⓜ 116th Street (local) Ⓜ 110th Street (local) Ⓜ 103rd Street (local) Ⓜ 96th Street (express) Ⓜ 91st Street (local) Ⓜ 86th Street (local) Ⓜ 79th Street (local) Ⓜ 72nd Street (express) Ⓜ 66th Street (local) Ⓜ 59th Street (local) Ⓜ 50th Street (local) Ⓜ 42nd Street (express) Ⓜ 34th Street (local) Ⓜ 28th Street (local) Ⓜ 23rd Street (local) Ⓜ 18th Street (local) Ⓜ 14th Street (express) Ⓜ Saint Mark's Place (local) Ⓜ Houston Street (local) Ⓜ Grand Street (express) Ⓜ Chatham Square (local) Ⓜ Frankfort Street-Brooklyn Bridge (local) Ⓜ Maiden Lane (local) Ⓜ Hanover Square (express) Ⓜ Battery Park (express) Ⓜ Liberty Street (express only) Ⓜ Battery Park City-Chambers Street (express only)
I’m not a planning expert, but the ratings for Queenslink are scandalous. Especially, as you point out, how the piece acts like a trail and transit project can’t coexist.
I'll admit I have not yet had a chance to take a close look at the needs assessment, but I'm curious: For those of you that have gone through it, does the MTA discuss its methodology at all? How do they estimate the costs? How do they assign scores/percentages to each of those categories? How do they assign the overall scores? I'd like to really see the formulae and the data they use to come these published numbers.
Utica is so weird based on everything here. The bits in there showing that Rogers Junction is being looked at along with some real deinterlining of the IRT Eastern Parkway portions of the system (albeit with the caveat of introducing that weird 7th Avenue (8) train to then interline down other routes) as well as new storage tracks to the south of Crown Heights - Utica Avenue station suggests that there's more than just a spark in the background for the eventuality of a Utica Ave extension, but then that 71/100 score for the actual "full" length extension from the IRT line is so weird. I'm totally down with the thinking they have of the entire Utica Avenue corridor being nice for something to catch the (A)/(C) and (J)/(M)/(Z) along its length but until they are in a better position to do more and build a full length line somehow, they gotta start somewhere and Utica's only going to get more important as more and more transplants looking for housing get pushed further away from central/downtown Brooklyn.
Thank you for this video. What i am surprised....well not really, surprised about, is the lack of conversation about rail to LaGuardia. The amount of times I have sat on a bus in traffic trying to catch a flight....We need better leadership for real.
Bro you’re a genius. Why the f*** have they not thought about extending the 3 train to linden boulevard. That could be dove beyond easily. All the infrastructure is already there and the tracks are built
I still can't understand the choice of LRT for IBX... This is a circular / tangential line, you need capacity... It may be OK if it only was a support line to an existing high capacity line. IBX would be the perfect candidate to introduce fully automated driverless subway (platform screen doors, the works). You highlighted the main issue : outrageously inflated costs. I live in Paris, where there's currently a massive transit expansion underway. At least 360 kilometers of new lines, including the Grand Paris Express which is about 200km of new metro with 4 new lines and several extensions, 68 new rather grandiose stations, 90% of it deep underground. Plus many tram line extensions (2 new tram lines in 2023), the West extension of RER line E (express regional heavy metro), a first 5-station urban transit cable car / gondola line extending a metro line, 5 new proper busway BRT lines, etc. The cost of this transit-a-palooza is incomparably lower than NYC's extensions, while dealing with very complicated soil, crazy strict tunnel laws, stringent environmental regulations, etc. Not to mention the obvious archeological requirements found in Europe. I think NYU (if I recall correctly) mentioned it in its transit cost project study highlighting the stark cost difference. As for the feasibility of building a subway through or under the water table : it's perfectly doable and called a Monday in Paris... Here they have to freeze the ground hard and use dozens of pressurized mud / slurry TBM's to be able to dig through aquifers and water filled layers of brittle gypsum and sulfur... There's no rock like in many places in New York. Where there were limestone layers, there are now abandoned quarries (part of which form the catacombs) that create another level of complexity. Yet it costs a fraction. I'd say that the cost issue should be addressed before planning new developments, or they'll always be strangled and limited by the cost. Continuing to overspend means less extensions, less upgrades, more opposition, perpetuation of the idea that public transportation is a burden, etc. With a more normal cost, I'm pretty sure IBX would be full subway and already operating. Great video 👍 Greetings from Europe.
They are looking at cost, where the Subway will prove to be a better investment, and they are "fearing low ridership on a Subway" which is not the case.
A semblance of Grand Paris Express’s amazing network efforts, high average speeds, and low construction costs is nothing more than a wet dream in NYC. A JFK-Jamaica-Flushing-College Point-Parkchester-Bronx Park-Fordham-University Heights alignment in the spirit of Paris Line 15 would probably cost $150Billion :(
@@eriklakeland3857 Yeah, and that's bonkers. Paris soil is a nightmare and a good chunk of M15 runs under substantially denser areas than in Queens or Brooklyn alongside IBX's route (sections of M15 have well above 15K/km² population density, plus a couple of stations and a tunnel "S" are set under a forest of skyscrapers and a large entertainment / sports arena). Or the soon to open and very large new station of RER E under La Défense CNIT expo center (the triangular shaped building you can see on sat view, they've built the station by inserting a digging site through the underground car park of the CNIT, without vertical access, which was lengthy and costly but still far cheaper than a basic station in NYC). So, how come it is so expensive? Where does the money go? In Paris they've revised their traffic expectations for the GPE from 2M to at least 3M daily rides, most of it on M15, as a circular line becomes a de facto backbone. One good example of this, still in Paris, is the circular tram lines which form the middle ring (metro M2 & M6 are the two halves of the inner ring, tram T3a & T3b are the two halves of a 85% complete middle ring, M15 will be the high capacity, high speed, high frequency semi-outer ring, T11 T12 & T13 form a further outer discontinuous ring). T3a and T3b lines are saturated, they use the largest type of tram vehicles (7 elements, 2.65m wide) and have daily ridership in excess of 250K, which is usually subway territory. T2, a tangential running on the West side of the core, now runs tram trains in pairs and is still saturated. T1, the Northern tangential, is receiving new longer and wider trains to try cope with saturation. M15 is eagerly awaited by millions to lighten the burden on the undersized circular and tangential tram lines. IBX using LRT or tram trains, will either be saturated in no time or people simply won't use it as much. In both case, it will be a missed opportunity. There's enormous untapped potential for the IBX : the BQE is a nightmare, the VWE isn't much better, and I'm sure many would rather use efficient public transit running a backbone tangential line or set of lines. A multiple tangential system, akin to how GPE's M15, M16 & M17 will work would be perfect, as you mentioned : IBX currently planned route extended to LGA and Flushing or College Point, as inner high capacity tangential. And a JFK to Bronx as you proposed, connected to IBX at Flushing or College Point. It would form a dual tangential, NYC's version of what M15, M16 & M17 offer in Paris North and East. Bronx riders could access LGA much faster and simpler and the downtown line would be given a breath of fresh air. It all boils down to the same questions: where does the money go? And how come it costs far more in NYC than anywhere else in Western EU despite being under stringent EU environmental, tunnel safety and labor regulations?
@@eriklakeland3857 That would be a very good line from JFK to Fordham Plaza. I suggested a Springfield Gardens to Marble Hill line via same alignment and following Kingsbridge Road.
@@KyrilPG the idea of Flushing-Main St evolving to Saint Denis-Pleyel of the GPE unabashedly makes my dick hard. I would leave why construction costs so much to the experts, but the Bronx to Eastern Queens Subway connection under Long Island Sound would be worth the money as transit overcoming a physical barrier like that with few travel alternatives would induce a ridiculous amount of demand.
Regarding the 3 extension, I'm pretty sure the big problem with costs is property acquisition. There's a lot of pretty valuable real estate that they'd have to buy up, which jacks up the price tag significantly.
Had it been done in the past, it would've ran on ground level, and the developments could've been built around or on top of the line. Adding it after the developments' makes it difficult which is quite sad to see. Look at how Pitkin Yard for the A and C line is for example. The yard sits on the ground level with apartments on top of it.
@damonsmartin9894 Eminent domain doesn't make land acquisition cheaper. In fact, it's more expensive than market value for the properties since the Authority doesn't want to have to go to court, which itself is expensive, only to have to pay market price for the property anyway.
1:22 Good point! 9:55 Huh. Didn't know that. But yet they want a big say in how our streets are configured, in favor of buses. >.> 6:34 Gotta love how they have different justifications. For example, IBX moves forward, but Utica and Woodhaven are "good enough" for buses, even though both have higher bus ridership than IBX projections. (According to the Queens Bus Network Redesign Existing Conditions Report, Woodhaven has 51k riders. But that was published before COVID, so) On IBX being elevated, I'm willing to bet that the NIMBYs will come out when the first shovel hits. Community input, blah blah blah. For reference, congestion pricing was codified in *2019* , yet now is when politicians are speaking up. Also strange that IBX doesn't face the same opposition as the RBB, even though both are old-school, ballasted railroad ROWs (though some of the Bay Ridge Branch is also in a trench).
Ideally a city like New York (or my home town Toronto) should be opening a new rapid transit station at least every year, on average. There should always be something being constructed - ideally 2 or 3 lines being extended. Also, if you want to look at a beautiful elevated metro design - look at the REM-1 line in Montreal. It’s new and quiet and looks actually nice. If the design forefronts images like this and pushes that to the public it could really nip any nimby backlash in the bud.
Late to the party, but your commentary on elevated trains is on point! I live less than a block from the above ground 7 (and only one block over from a station) and it has to be silent in my apartment with the windows open for me to hear anything. The bus getting blocked by people double parking on my one way street, though… I hear that honking constantly. 😅
I think in a previous 20-year assessment needs, there was a plan to extend the W to Red Hook. I don’t know if the MTA is still studying it, but really, I think an extension to Red Hook should be reserved for the 1. The W should be extended to connect with the IND Fulton Street line, running local to Euclid Avenue, while the C will run express, and replace the A to Lefferts Boulevard. As for Utica, I think it should be its own line rather than a branch off the IRT Eastern Parkway line. The reason I say that is because of how Utica Avenue on the IND Fulton Street line is designed. The high roofs indicate that the station was meant to be a large transfer point. If anything, I believe we should build a branch off the G from Bedford-Nostrand Avenues (designated as the U) and have it run along Utica Avenue, towards Kings Plaza. Maybe even to Jacob Riis Beach if possible. The MTA should also look into some smaller projects apart from extending the 3 to the Gateway Center mall. One of which would be building a transfer passageway between Bowery (J/Z) and Grand Street (B/D), because if you look at the map, the stations are pretty close to eachother. Another one would involve demolishing both Hewes and Lorimer Street stations and replacing them with a brand new station at Union Avenue, so riders won’t have to transfer out-of-system to the G. The unfinished South 4th Street station could be repurposed into a transfer hall for the new complex. If I was the head of the MTA, I’d definitely make these projects a priority.
I agree with having the 1 go to Red Hook instead of the W. I also agree with new transfers. Connecting Bowery (J) to Grand St (B/D) is a great idea; I'd like to also throw in 57 St (N/Q/R/W) with 7 Ave (B/D/E). Both would be helpful if deinterlining is taken seriously, especially following vanshnookenraggen/TTA’s plans. What do you think about connecting Bway/Lafayette (B/D/F/M) with Prince St (R/W)? If the primary goal is to make a transfer between the J and the G, you don't have to destroy Hewes St to do so. The east end of that station leads into New Montrose Ave, a wide but underutilized and redundant street. There you can take up street space to build escalators n' such between the elevated and underground mezzanines; this is exactly what happened at Court Square, connecting the 7 and the G. That's the "easy way out"; however, station spacing would certainly be more balanced if Hewes and Lorimer were torn down in favor of one new station.
The red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be extended to gateways mall in Brooklyn if they are definitely talking about bringing the 3 trains to Flatbush Ave Brooklyn to replace the 5 trains to Flatbush Brooklyn like they did before in 1958. 1969. That's when the old 8 Third Ave Elevated line were sent to 241 street connecting to the 2 5 trains and then it went down to Gun hill road under neath the 2 5 trains and made a right curve to East 204 street Webster Boston road Bronx Clearmount and then south Ferry.
I totally agree with the 8 line to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn and Wakefield and then the new red circle 🔴 8 could still run on the Thrid Avenue Elevated line in the Bronx and Wakefield or Nereid Ave during the non peak hours when the 5 trains don't run on white plains road Bronx. Some red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could still terminate at Gun Hill Rd during the morning rush hours and evening rush hours and let the 5 trains could still run to Nereid Ave during the week days. on the weekends the Red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be the last stop at Gun Hill Rd like they did before when they torn down the Thrid Avenue Elevated line down. The 8 could definitely run to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn or gateways Brooklyn.
I have an idea of extending the express track on the White Plains Line to 149th Street-Grand Concourse. I just don’t see the point of delaying 2 local trains and rush hour 5 express trains just before the 149th Street portal. So, to fix the debacle there, I want to see passengers transfer at 3rd Avenue-149th Street or 149th Street GC for the 2 or 5 train during construction time as well as during rush hour so that way we won’t see too many passengers transferring and waiting on the uptown platform for a 2 train if they need a local station during rush hour, as well as not see too many people transferring platforms at GC. As for this assessment, I do agree that Rogers Junction should be de-interlined, but I would have 2 and 3 trains running to Uitca and New Lots, while the 4 and 5 will run on Nostrand Avenue.
1:05 I think that should be an Extention of the T, whereas the Q runs on 125 st. The T would serve a place where people rely more on metro north, which is less reliable
Video composition suggestion: I find it very distracting to have unrelated train footage playing in the background. Just zoom in on the screenshots from the report. And have them on the screen longer, I wanted to look at them more!
What is strange about the MTA's reluctance to build the Elmhurst LIRR station is that the damn station existed until the early 1970's when the population of Elmhurst was less. In my view aside from the ridiculous fact the city pockets revenue from the subway without putting anything in it, many of the board members DRIVE to work and do NOT live in NYC. Another issue that is indirectly related to the MTA is that the NYC Dept of Design and Construction has most employees driving into the LIC headquarters. I really think ALL MTA administrators and city agencies involved in design be required to take the NYC subways, buses and regional rail 60% of their commute. I think the only way we will ever get a fine system that addresses truly the community needs is if it is taken over at the federal government level. The lack of accountability at the MTA for managing costs is its greatest fault and having Feds oversee the purse strings will at least help regain some accountability.
Great information. Can BMT and IRT trains run on the same tracks now? The cars were different sizes to accommodate the platforms different lengths and widths.
IRT and BMT trains can always run on the tracks in the NYC Subway system. It is the tunnel sizes which prevent B Division cars from entering A Division cars. But starting with Dual Contracts, all tunnel sizes were built to the same length/width in the event that if the BMT (or IND) wanted to take it over, the platforms can be shaved back to accommodate those wider cars.
One project that should be looked into doing is a crosstown line from Dyckman street on the A line. From Dyckman across 207st onto Fordham Road onto Pelham Parkwway and all the way to either Co op city or just outside City island. A crosstown subway would be most helpfull to residents of the Bronx. Plus all the connections that can be made with other lines
If you are going to build a crosstown subway, don't start at Inwood. The ridership is more prevalent east of Concourse, and the grades on the Western Bronx are big enough that it would make any subway almost infeasible. If you want a subway, a branch of Concourse along Fordham is the best bet you will ever get.
Since the first SBS line opened along the Bx12 route in 2008, the corridor has been frequently cited as a candidate for light rail conversion, so that would be a good place to start.
Light Rail on Frordam plaza. Hell no. They could definitely put a extra bus over there. The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line would definitely work because it does not have to worry about the light Rail being on the streets because it's definitely over Crowding and dangerous. Back then yeah. But now for get about it. Just bring back the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line and call it a day..
One small problem, we was supposed to completely deinterline Rogers junction and we did but with one small problem and that is the 8, we don't know if it's like the H where it's only a small line or completely part of 7 av and if it's the latter then there will be huge problems but other than the 8, Rogers is looking very promising
@veoni5421 A previous report made about the Rogers Junction proposal mentioned the 8 Train would essentially be a 2 Train variant, running from Wakefield to New Lots Ave. Guessing MTA left out the northern section since they could change how the service runs before it launches though
I agree that it will be revolutionary, allowing frequent service for both branches of the Eastern Pkwy Line. It also needs to be done for a Utica Avenue subway to be successful.
@@zalmanorloff The 8 train is pretty much just the rush hour 2 train to New Lots. I guess making it an "8" service would make it easier to understand. It prevents people from wondering if their 2 train will go to New Lots or Flatbush. The 8 train is kinda silly, but I;m guessing they have to make this 8 train because there's no yard for the Nostrand Av branch.
I would like to see the Utica Av subway be the V train comes back runs from 71av thru its normal route past LES-2nd Av into bolton with the F, switch to the C at Jay st, run local with the C on fulton up to utica av, then branch off down to kings plaza
The 2nd avenue Q train should extend to the Bronx (glaringly omitted from these transit proposals) to 3rd avenue. It's unnecessary to extend the Q to Amsterdam avenue.
I prefer the SAS go directly to the Bronx. And an Lightrail out of LaGuardia Airport using the Triborogh right-of-way is the best choice for a 125th Street Crosstown. The "Q" and eventually the "T" will run via 3rd Avenue ELEVATED to at least Fordham Road extended to Gun Hill Road with an extended "D". The #6 would extend to meet these two lines. Meanwhile, the "T" will operate to the Throggs Neck via Lafayette Avenue. This would realistically transition the Bronx to a meaningful transit rail corridor. Other projects i like to see done in the Bronx includes already proposed Commuter rail expansion plans. This will solidified the system as we don't know it today.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could have a free transfers to the D trains and the 2 5 trains at Gun Hill Rd while the 6 Pelham line be extended to co op city mall free transfers to the B D trains at co op city transferring to the Connecticut metro North railroad.
Anyone who thinks the Bronx doesn't need a subway along 3rd Ave or Webster doesn't live here. The Bx15, Bx21, and the Bx41 are super crowded during rush hour. There's enough ridership and demand for a subway line. And if the Bronx becomes the next new destination it's going to need better transportation.
@@jointransitassociation The Metro North doesn't provide enough coverage. The area needs a subway line with frequent stops. The demand is there and Metro North couldn't add any more trains if they wanted to. They're always cancelling them because of staff or equipment shortages.
@@monica012077 Okay, let me talk about Metro North regional rail. Under a regional rail system on Metro North, fares will be reduced down to $2.90. Free transfers to the subway and bus will be given. Formerly closed stations at 168th St, Claremont Pkwy, and 183rd St will be reopened, plus an infill station at 149th St. Metro North rail service will be boosted accordingly, and all 15tph on the local track will make all stations. Express trains to New Haven will continue skipping those stations and reverse peak service will be tripled, from 5 to 15 tph. All of this will cost maximum a few hundred million dollars, and delivers a rail line of subway quality. Compare that for a full subway on 3rd Ave. That is an instant $20 billion price tag right there. Even making that an el will make it cost $6 to $7 billion. Congratulations, you just blew billions of dollars on a new parallel line that provides the same value as simply upgrading the existing rail line. Now, those things that you mentioned to me can be fixed. Those employee/equipment shortages can always be fixed by hiring new personal and buying more trains, which is what needs to happen when a subway extension happens. So your problems that you talked about about Metro North is the exact same problems that a new subway would need to solve. At that point, just upgrade the Metro North railroad to regional rail.
Thoughts on building a Kings Highway elevated instead of the Utica Ave line (or have the Utica Ave line start via Kings Hwy)? The 3/4 would branch after Sutter Ave station, which is already elevated. Much of Kings Hwy is wider than Utica and has separate service roads, so I'd imagine there'd be less opposition getting it started.
Agree. City is doing nothing on contruction of subways when they have $100B budget but don’t mind wasting money on other projects that don’t benefit the city as a wholen
Extending the SAS as a Crosstown line until you the fact it would interfere with any Bronx extension in our lifetimes or the third phase. So the substitute would be to either keep the plan as it is and just include a station with the Lenox IRT or drop it at Second Avenue 125th Street. I go with the latter. Any plans to extend it to Broadway/Riverside would result in a delay of many years to come with more engineering studies. Instead, i want the MTA to fasttrack the 3rd Phase from 63rd Street to 14th Street. This would bring train to an area without north and south transit. Phase 4 would connect the line to Nassau Street lines. And than we can have the "T" group up with the "R" to 95th Street. The missing 4.
Honestly Phase 4 should just continue along Water Street to Hanover Square and Whitehall Street as planned and connect to the Fulton Street Line’s local tracks to allow for the C to go express to Lefferts Blvd and the A split service between both Rockaway terminals. This gives 12 trains per hour to Lefferts Blvd and 6 trains a piece to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, all express in Brooklyn. Having the Second Avenue Subway connect with the Nassau Street Line will interfere with reliability of service along both the Williamsburg Bridge and the Montague Street Tunnel. In essence, the T train will replace C service on the Fulton Street Local tracks.
@@TheRailLeaguer Referring to Water Street: We got ferries for that! And I don't know what the water table in the area. But I do know of climate change and this should not be a go. Anyway, I did not know Lefferts Blvd was capable of turning so many trains. What I know is it is not an adequate terminal. Besides, the area is not in need of extra train service. Also, the M diverts from the J/Z. And lower Manhattan does need an alternative to East side Midtown and this is a cost effective solution to producing better service along Nassau specifically. The trunk has been dying for an upper Manhattan connection and I think this is the time to do it. Anyway, I'm so against creating another under water tunnel when the demand is not there. Send it through Montague and be done with everything.
@@qolspony The ferries are in no way a substitute for subway as they don’t have the capacity and connectivity of the subway system. Also a subway on Water Street, clearly a more superior option since it’s better at relieving congestion on the Lexington Avenue Line, will not make climate change worse. Also Nassau Street does not need a connection to Upper Manhattan, as demand is not there. Nobody wants it, not even area riders. It’s also worth noting that Nassau Street service would have zero additional capacity for future expansions. Also Fulton Street and Rockaway riders are in desperate need of more simplified service. I use the line a lot and service there is abysmal. The demand for it and a new East River Tunnel is clearly there as well, especially sending everything through Montague Street Tunnel is not an effective option (the lines going through Brooklyn are already at capacity, meaning no additional room for Second Avenue Subway-related service increases aside from the ones for N and Q service). In contrast, having the Second Avenue Subway run through Fulton Street via a new tunnel would allow for a more reliable connection to Brooklyn, simplify service through Brooklyn and Queens, and allow for future service increases for service to Queens. You need to stop thinking out of your ass and come up with something logical.
Yes they do need the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line over at Gun Hill Rd Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx because the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 BX 19 buses is way over Crowding im telling you right now straight up for real.
IT WAS CALLED FOREST PARK LINE I PLAN FOR NEW BRANCH AT QUEENS CENTER MALL AND ROCKAWAY BLVD AND GOT NEW PLAN 3 TRAIN WAS EXTENDED FROM NEW LOTS STANLEY COZINE AVES GATEWAY MALL AND LONG ISLAND
1) A Second Ave & # 7 train subway extension to New Jersey should be made now. If Governor Hochul is still planning to implement Congestion Pricing in NYC. The Governor’s of NJ & NY will need to get together for their commuters. 2) I have some concerns about IBX. I just don’t know if Hochul has the testicular fortitude to do it. 3) I am really into the Utica & the Nostrand Ave’s extension with a major repair terminal under Marine Park Brooklyn (between Stuart St & Avenue U). 4) Queens Link or Queens Way? 5) Elmhurst, Queens? 6) New Lots Avenue line extension to Spring Creek. Would it be feasible to extend it to Shirley Chisholm State Park in Brooklyn.
Reverse it. The (Q) should go to The Bronx terminating at Co Op City. The (T) should go to West Harlem. I like the 125th Street Subway idea so that now you can split or alter the M3, M4 and M101 routes, and create new bus routes from Upper Manhattan to Queens.
The original plan for the Utica Avenue line was IND second system. But the community around Stuyvesant Street at the time fought it resulting in it demise. Now we got the #4 as an alternative. It is better than nothing. If they extend it to Kings Plaza i say it might as well extend to the Rockaways. What would this do for the entire system? 1. It would get rid of the 3 "A" lines (Rockaway Park, Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd) and dedicated it to Lefferts Blvd. It would allow room for the "D" at that inefficient junction at 59th Street. 2. The Queens Link would become the primary service to what I would call Rockaway Junction, which is a new station that would connect to the #4.
I partially agree, as the IRT Utica Avenue Line should run onto the IRT Rockaway Elevated Line in 2 sections. The should run to Rockaway Park-Beach 105th Street via Utica Avenue local, while the (8) should terminate at Flatlands Avenue. The should run to Breezy Point-Beach 222nd Street via Utica Avenue express, while the (4) should terminate at Crown Heights-Utica Avenue. These should be the stations on the IRT Utica Avenue Line: Ⓜ️ Empire Boulevard (8) Ⓜ️ Clarkson Avenue (8) Ⓜ️ Snyder Avenue (8) Ⓜ️Clarendon Road (8) Ⓜ️ Foster Avenue (8) Ⓜ️ Kings Highway (8) Ⓜ️ Flatlands Avenue (8) Ⓜ️ Avenue N Ⓜ️ East 53rd Street Ⓜ️ Belt Parkway Ⓜ️ Floyd Bennett Field Ⓜ️ Riis Landing These should be the stations on the after Riis Landing to Breezy Point-Beach 222nd Street: Ⓜ️ Park End Terrace Ⓜ️ Beach 184th Street Ⓜ️ Fort Tilden-Beach 193rd Street Ⓜ️ Highland Place Ⓜ️ Point Breeze Avenue Ⓜ️ Breezy Point-Beach 222nd Street These should be the stations on the after Riis Landing to Rockaway Park-Beach 105th Street: Ⓜ️ Beach 147th Street Ⓜ️ Beach 140th Street Ⓜ️ Beach 133rd Street Ⓜ️ Beach 125th Street Ⓜ️ Beach 116th Street Ⓜ️ Rockaway Park-Beach 105th Street
A Utica Avenue subway extension to the Rockaways is not needed since it would be a lot slower compared to the current service via the A train and ridership potential is very very low. You’re better off ending the 4 train at Kings Plaza and having enhanced bus service bridge the gap between there and the Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street station. Alongside Queenslink more than sufficient for Rockaway residents.
@@TheRailLeaguer Please give me a little detail about it being "slower"? Note: People would still have the option to catch the Queens Link when built or "A" train if not built at a newly constructed Hamel Rockaway Junction Station. The advantage would be now you have two (3 if you count LIRR) out of the Rockaways. Why is this good? Because they are two bridge links that sometimes open, causing delays up the line. The train to Rockaway Park goes in the direction of Manhattan, I don't see how the #4 could be slower than the "A". I'm very aware that the "A" is indeed the best Express in Brooklyn. But the #4 would take a slight shorter route into Brooklyn. The #4 has the advantage of serving the Rockaways more equally. Also more of the Island including Bell Harbor, which the "A" does not serve at all. There is a few concerns. The Roger Junction. But this could be easily fixed by prioritizing the #4 over the 2/3/5.
@@bennythepenny5831 Why it got to complicated? The #4 to Far Rockaway or Woodlawn. The big problem in introducing another line is capacity. And the Roger Junction limits that capacity significantly. The other issue is the #4 will have a lot of mileage, unless train crews can change at Utica Avenue.
@@qolspony The IRT line would make far more stops than the A train and quite frankly there’s zero demand for a 3 train to the Rockaways replacing A train service. You need to stop with the lane idea of having the IRT Utica Avenue Line go to the Rockaway Peninsula. Belle Harbor does not need subway service going that way.
I'd assume that the reason for building an LIRR station in Elmhurst is to interchange with the QBL. There already being a station adjacent on a different line is a very weak argument against opening a station.
Unless MTA can develop real estate projects and pocket the profits along transit corridors, I don't think any new line extensions will happen any time soon.
The 3 to Spring Creek is a no-brainer. However their plan is to tear down everything between Elton and Linwood Streets south of Linden Blvd. It makes no sense as they can easily build a line directly above Linwood Street and not have to do as many land acquisitions. It would have to end at Flatlands Avenue, though. Also, Linwood Street is mostly industrial, so NIMBYism wouldn't be as strong. As for the SAS extension to Broadway-125th St its also a no brainer as it will alleviate 125th Street and significantly lower travel times across the corridor. I remember having to travel across 125th street to take the Lex and it was so bad that it was faster to go all the way down to Times Sq, take the shuttle, then go back up. Also a crosstown above 59th street is severely needed. Finally, they only want the bootleg Highline (Queensway) only because it's cheaper and easier to deal with. The Queenslink is such an easy project to implement. MTA higher ups (maybe even the Governor & Mayor) pressured the planners to download the benefits significantly to give the Queensway an advantage.
Technically the land acquisitions for the 3 extension shouldn’t be that bad since it’s mostly industrial (like you said). Also this helps keep the extension mostly straight.
Stuff like the 3 extension shouldn’t even be a major project. It should quietly be completed in a few months behind the scenes for a few hundred million dollars. Can’t believe these costs - are they planning on building a deep-bore subway even in the outer boroughs?
What's your opinion on the MTA's report on Rodgers Junction? I'd say the fact that it was mentioned was surprising. The 8 route bullet is weird, but I'm guessing it is for one seat ride NIMBYs; I would prefer the 5 terminate at Crown Heights than the 4 and how the hell is it $410 million for a couple switches and a new track?
The red circle 8 could definitely run to Nereid 238 the street and running under neath Gun hill road making a right curve to 204 street and Batenical Gardens and Frordam plaza connecting to the metro North railroad and 149 street Thrid Avenue Elevated line free transfers to the 2 5 trains and 138 street connecting to the 6 Pelham line and then dig a hole 🕳️ to let the 8 run under ground to fourth Ave Manhattan and 125 street to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely run to the Bronx Nereid Ave Elevated Gun hill road Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. Put all elevateds in those stations.
Just put all the elevators on the red circle 🔴 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated stops in all stations elevaters this time so this way the handicap people and the elderly people could definitely get on the elevators .
Impressive and here's the thing Q train extension to 125th Street Saint Nicholas Avenue from 96 Street 2nd Avenue they would just simply get off at these following stops Atlantic Avenue 34th Street Herald Square Times Square 42nd Street because the quickest option from the Q train are 1,2,3 A,B,C & D trains. If they want to look at a modern elevated look no further than the AirTrain JFK
I'll support the (4) line Utica Ave extension to Church Avenue because that is where the high density along Utica ends. If you want a true Utica Avenue Subway, it will need to be built into the (J)/(M)/(Z) or the (L). The (4) to Church Avenue would be sufficient as the (4) is the shotest Express on the Lexington, and to connect B35 (and soon to be B55 SBS) customers to the (4) along Utica will eliminate the need for them to ride further West to Nostrand Avenue for the (2) and (5). In fact customers who transfer at Nostrand can simply focus on the transfer to the B44 SBS due to the (4) terminating at Church Avenue/Utica Avenue. But then again (when it comes to the B55 SBS), B15 customers out of JFK have the (3) at New Lots Avenue, and they can walk to the (3) at Van Siclen, Pennsylvania, Junius, Rockaway, and Saratoga Avenue Stations.
Most riders along Utica go to the IRT via the buses. I'm guessing by your definition of a "true" Utica Avenue Line, you mean of the South 4th Street Line. Provisions could be built, but I don't see that line being built and it is unnecessary when you can make adjustments to other lines like a new Marcy Avenue station, Union Avenue on the J/Z, fixing curves at Marcy Ave, Alabama Ave, and Crescent St, and new flying junction at Myrtle-Broadway. This would cost less than a true Utica Ave Line. Also, look at the rider \ship along the corridor. A BRT cannot replicate service of a subway. Ending Utica Avenue Line at Church Avenue will still require rider to transfer along the corridor.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan I beg to differ. The reason it is the B55 SBS is to distinguish from the B35 Local. I say the B35 Local should extend to Spring Creek Postal Facility, the B15 is taken out of JFK Airport but terminate at Cross Bay Blvd for a transfer to the Q52/Q53 SBS, while the B55 SBS as proposed goes to JFK. There's not that much need to have a line go from JFK to Sunset Park as you can simply make a transfer (to the B35), and you accomplish all of the transfer connectivity the B55 SBS does with its terminal at Kensington - Church Avenue (F) and (G). What I would propose is a B86 SBS from Howard Beach - Cross Bay Blvd to Coney island and a B88 SBS from Howard Beach - Cross Bay Blvd to Bay Ridge (as a faster and more direct version of the B8). Even still, you'll need the Queens Bus Redesign to extend routes from Eastern Queens to East New York - New Lots Avenue (3) Station for the transfer connections. I would operate the B55 SBS every 6 minutes throughout the day, every 8 minutes during Evenings and every 20 minutes during Late Nights. The B35 Local would operate every 5 minutes during Peak Hours, every 7 to 8 minutes during Middays, Evenings and Weekends and every 30 minutes during Late Nights.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831 You have different types of riders on the B46. There's those who go to the (3) and (4) at Eastern Parkway, there's those who go to the (A) and (C) along Fulton Street, there's those who go to the (J)/(M)/(Z) at Myrtle Avenue, there's those who connect with the (G) at Broadway/Rutledge, and there's those who ride to the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. Also factor in those who transfer to/from the heavy bus routes that intersect the B46 as well as the Q35 to/from the Rockaways (which really should be a B41 SBS extension). There's a reason why the B46 operates as frequent as it does (matching the headways of the M14 and M15 in Manhattan). The B55 SBS will prove useful to B41, B44 and B46 customers going to/from JFK Airport if they are unable to walk to a B6 or B8 bus (unless they create a B86 SBS from Howard Beach to Coney Island).
Ending the Utica Avenue Line at Church Avenue is very short sighted as there is high density and loads of usage south of there. In fact, having the IRT Utica Avenue Line go all the way to Kings Plaza benefits all B46 bus riders and even all of Southeast Brooklyn.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831He doesn’t really get it since he doesn’t really use mass transit as often as he claims, and I’m also guessing that he doesn’t live in NYC either. You are right that a BRT cannot replicate subway service (though as someone who rides the B46, traffic there can be a pain, especially at Church Avenue), though I do reckon that concurrent with building a full length Utica Avenue Line, there ought to be improvements to bus service there.
As someone who used to live on the 4/5… I just wish they’d fix that god awful switch onto the 2/3 heading north. We’d sit in the tunnel for 20+ min after Brooklyn college and it just made the trip misery inducing.
That is another weird line. It was meant to go all the way down to Sheepshead bay. I think the water table was the issue. There is no storage track past the junction.
This is in 20 year timeline. What’s wrong of not having a 3 extension to SC? New Lots to Spring Creek could be realistic when it comes to an option. Now the SAS to 125th St-Broadway gives the riders a 3rd option of transportation. For the SAS to the Bronx, you need to study on what and where should it end.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be the last stop at Gun Hill Rd and New Lots Avenue Brooklyn while the 3 could definitely be extended to Flatlands Ave and the 4 5 could be the last stop at Utica Avenue Brooklyn. The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be the last stop at Utica Avenue and the 4 5 to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn.
The red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line is definitely gonna happen to the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx New Lots Avenue Brooklyn and 238 street Nerid Avenue or Gun hill road.
Man 2nd Ave Subway didn't get any compromises with being a fully underground, grade-separated subway. There is no reason that Queenslink or Utica Ave shouldn't be the same. Busways are not a compromise. Same with the IBX, it's needed so, so badly and the fact that MTA is seriously considering allowing it to be partially street running instead of ponying up the cash to tunnel some segments makes them seem out of touch at best
6:42 your comparison between queenslink and the 2AS seems refuted by the source you’re citing. 2AS also scored relatively low in improving regional accessibility.
Whoops. What I mean and should say is that the MTA's own reasoning for SAS via 125th should apply to Queenslink too. Like they both do the same thing, which is to provide connections, but unlike the SAS via 125th, Queenslink boosts capacity to the Rockaways and QBL, spans a longer distance so that someone deep in Southern Queens can get to Northern Queens, (which is regional accessibility), and is cheaper than SAS via 125th. But the fact that the MTA did not apply that same logic to Queenslink as they did with SAS via 125th really shows that they are not interested and are backing Queensway.
@@jointransitassociation the MTA scored transit connections under the "Resiliency" category. TBH I think the person who came up with these category names should be fired, but connections are definitely considered.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line will definitely come back I tell you that right now. Another thing the Q T trains is definitely gonna be extended to East Harlem and west side 137 street to connect to the 1 Broadway line I'm telling you That means they are definitely making enough room in the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx for the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line to come back to help out the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 buses. Rather they have the red circle 🔴 8 or the green 🍏 8 or powder blue 🔵 8.
@@leecornwell5632 I hope so even if they make it elevated as well. They will also need and express track for the bronx just for the volume of people that would use it and one or two express stops
I don’t like that this “assessment” has no provision for The Bronx anywhere in it. I think the extension of the Q across 125th St is useless. People aren’t trying to make a million connections if they don’t have to. Make it easy to get a train so that they can have a one-train ride and sending the Q across 125th won’t help most people unless you live along the surrounding areas. I live in The Bronx and I’m not gonna get off the Lexington Ave line for the Q.
Phase 2 already has an opening in the tunnel at 120th St if they so choose to put a subway to the Bronx. Also, you might not use the Second Ave subway, but the dense Upper East Side neighborhood will, which means less crowding for you. Finally, to your point that extending the Q via 125th is useless, 125th St is already a heavily congested corridor, meaning that the crosstown market already exists on 125th St. People want easier access between the East and West sides on Manhattan, which a SAS via 125th provides. Now about the Bronx. I did a video to examine whether the Bronx needs more capacity to Manhattan. And the answer is, with current services, no, and that is with pre covid ridership. So an SAS to. the Bronx is not only more expensive, but is not even needed. Here is an article done by Vanshnookenraagen about this exact same topic: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/04/the-future-of-the-2nd-ave-subway-a-bronx-tail-track/ Here is an article done by Kristian Laverick about a SAS 125th St crosstown: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/05/second-avenue-subway-phase-2-the-case-for-a-crosstown-extension-on-125th-street/. Hope this information helps!
@@jointransitassociation it is useless in that the main purpose of it going to 125th & Lexington Ave is to get people off the 4,5,6 trains and i know most won’t do it. And what hasn’t been addressed is there is a major fault line along 125th St. The construction could cause MAJOR damage. And while a Crosstown line isn’t bad, they usually go to another borough and this won’t be the case and that’s where it’s not as useful as it could and should be. And i totally disagree with you about The Bronx not needing more service. I live in The Bronx and i see the ridership everyday. There are plenty of transit desertlands that needs to be addressed. Hell there needs to be subway service from The Bronx to Queens. We lost the ability to have that with the IBX because of the Metro North project in the East Bronx (which i personally am not a fan of). I get that Brooklyn & Queens needs more subway service and I’m all for that The Bronx needs to be a part of the conversation too. It doesn’t have to be SAS, just extend the D Train somewhere along Gun Hill Road or to Co-op City and that alone would do wonders. The people in The Bronx want and need easier access just to go through the borough, let alone other parts of the city.
@@glamslamcam "it is useless in that the main purpose of it going to 125th & Lexington Ave is to get people off the 4,5,6 trains and i know most won’t do it." Yeah, if you are living in the Bronx, you are not to use the SAS. But if you are on the Upper East Side, you would. Since stations on UES are so big, having another transit option on Second Ave will draw riders away from Lexington. "And what hasn’t been addressed is there is a major fault line along 125th St." Yeah, if you are entering Broadway and 125th St, that is where the fault line exists. That's why I want to end it at St. Nicholas Ave, where the fault line would not be a problem. "they usually go to another borough" Is there some rule that subway lines need to go to another borough in order to be useful? I am failing to understand the point you are trying to make. Look, SAS is flawed. I know. The entire transit community knows. But I am trying to be nuanced when it comes to criticizing SAS because SAS is objectively a good project, and the things that SAS gets attacked in the transit community is pretty outlandish. "There are plenty of transit desertlands that needs to be addressed." Here, let me tell you a few projects that serve transit deserts AND will not involve extending the SAS to the Bronx. Metro North Regional Rail: By building 4 or 5 new infill stations on Metro North, lowering fares to $2.90, boosting service, you effectively created a rail line with subway like frequencies. All for a cost of maybe $300 million? Meanwhile, if SAS goes via 3rd Ave, that is an instant $20 billion price tag right there. (6) to Co-Op City: This two stop extension, which would an elevated, would serve the dense Co-Op City corridor (D) to Co-Op City: This extension, as you pointed out, would feature a cross Bronx subway, which is needed as Cross Bronx travel has huge ridership. This will also serve the gap between the Dyre Ave Line and the Pelham Line, which accounts for one of the biggest job markets in all of the Bronx. As you can see, not sending SAS to the Bronx doesn't mean Bronx travel won't be improved. In fact, I argue, not doing SAS to the Bronx would be be far more beneficial, as the money spent on a full SAS to the Bronx can be spent on these three extension projects. These extension projects would serve way more commuters than SAS to the Bronx would, and could be cheaper, as one of them is upgrading a commuter rail line, while the other will be elevated viaducts that drive down costs. Combined with the fact that deinterlining could greatly boost Bronx capacity, I just don't see the value in extending SAS to the Bronx just yet.
@@jointransitassociationinstead of agruiging why not put both ideas into one because the N and Q can go into the bronx while the T and y can handle crosstown.
I would love it if construction were so cheap that multimillionaires could tell the MTA "build this extension, I'll pay for it" just so that then they get to say "I put that on the subway map".
Yes they are mentioning about the red 8 going to New Lots Avenue and Wakefield 241 street. I have a real spriital feeling that they are definitely gonna have the red ♥️ circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line to meet the 2 5 trains at Wakefield 241 street and then the red circle 8 could still go down under neath the 2 5 trains at Gun Hill Rd and 204 street and Batenical Gardens and Frordam plaza and 184 183 210 Webster Ave Elevated train station and 161 street and 149 street free transfers to the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 buses. What they should of did is leave the BX 55 buses alone until they rebuild the Thrid Avenue Elevated line back. We are definitely talking about a complete inspections and over haul trestles frames and beams and stations improvements and signals improvements. Like they do to all the subways elevated lines and under ground.
The old 8 is gonna definitely come back some where I tell you that right now because I had read about the 20 years MTA more than a billion dollars. Type in on Google for MTA projects 20 year more than a billion.
That is infeasible because of the insane turns a subway needs to make to access Alphabet City. A better deal is to build an infill station at Aves B-C on the Canarsie Line.
@@jointransitassociation is infeasible only because how overrun project budgets are in the US. 2nd Ave Subway has to go deep and under the Mid-town Tunnel approaches... Certainly would utilize the blocks underneath this approach and St Vartan Park to swing the line onto 1st Ave from there on While the subway line is already deep bore here and should keep it deep down to swing under Stuytown's foundation and sway into Avenue B... Maybe the US doesn't have that technology, but tunneling underneath 12-15 storey buildings have been done many times in Asia and Europe, and can keep the building safe. Utilizing the Stuy Oval and the 14th/20th Street loop, and round thru the corner of 1st & 20th, can draw a feasible line that only affecting 3 buildings and the ice rink
@@champan250 Yeah, but speeds would be impacted. There is a reason why planners abandoned connecting SAS via Nassau at Bowery because of the wear and tear on the train's wheels and how slow it would be. Unless you want to make it extra deep bore, which is going to drive up the cost further and potentially get it axed from the capital program As I said, putting an infill station on Aves B-C is a much better deal because now Alphabet City has direct subway access, and combined with tail tracks at 8th Ave plus a third track at Atlantic Ave, the L train is more than ready to take on the new customers, who already use 1st Ave anyways.
@@jointransitassociation speed wasn't a problem as those curves are near where trains need to slow down to approach a major station. I don't live in NY now but in an Asian city that have a deep bore tunnel that swing a 8-car train from one ave to another ave... All the space they needed was a 300ft x 300ft box, which we have in the two areas I mentioned for the 2nd Ave line above.... I take this almost every day, no one noticing any particular drop in speed as it approached a station anyways For wear and tear, yea we are talking about 1970s US outdated technology vs newest train set technology in the past 20 years
@@champan250 Yeah, that is more circuitous routing. And deep bore is not great, as you are driving up the costs of construction, which isn't worth it when there are different, cheaper ways of improving Alphabet City service, like as I said, an infill station at Aves B-C. I think we all agree SAS is too expensive, but one of the reason why it is so expensive is because it is deep bore. And advocating for more deep bore is certainly going to drive up the costs even more. And also, it doesn't matter if you are using the R46's or the R211's. When a train approaches a very sharp curving track, there is going to be wear and tear on the wheels. The tracks are the problem, not the trains.
The street running section of the IBX is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. What is stopping a tunnel? They haven’t exactly shown a reluctance to spend money in the past, it needs to be done.
New York has to look at things like Paris, Tokyo and Seoul does. Improve now and improve fast. This 80 years to build 2 stops on the Second Avenue Subway don't cut it. And even the interborough express will take like 10 years? Finishing the second avenue subway will take 30 years? How about refurbishing all of the existing tracks and stations, never? Seriously NY has a priorities issue, like spending billions sheltering foreign migrants versus taking care of their own people.
It’s really senseless to use the presence of an old subway branch with low ridership to justify a new one with higher ridership. Capex for existing branch: $0; capex for new branch: billions.
The IBX should’ve gone to the Bronx and Staten Island. Do you know how much commuter time would go down and allow people in the Bronx and outer boroughs to get to the island faster? It’s commonsense.
This is why we can never have nice things. Your logic is, oh, what you are advocating is great, but I don't think this is going to happen, so I am going to say everything in my power to try to put down the side that I believe in. Like, I am sure that you want the MTA to run better right? Then stop putting down the side that you believe in. Having a defeatist attitude sure isn't going to change anything. And to counter your point, please search up the MTA during the late 1980s and 1990s. There is a reason why people called it the golden age of subway functionality, as Governor Pataki said, "Just show them your Metrocard Gold."
That is certainly one way to run a good transit system, but that is not the only way. Singapore’s MTR is part of the government and runs great. Paris, which has arguably one of the best transit systems in the world, is run by a state agency. So there are multiple ways to run a good transit system and there are more examples of good transit systems being run by the state rather by some private megacorp.
@@jointransitassociation RATP is _for-profit_ state owned corporation. MTA is chartered as a non-profit and hence a perennially mismanaged welfare queen. Yes, even just for-profit (with subsidies) makes a big difference.
@@rapunzel1701 You are pretending that for profit makes a ton of difference when NYC was plagued with a ton of bad decisions. Those include Robert Moses, Robert F. Wagner Jr.'s Token Mayor Campaign, the 1970s NYC Subway Crisis, and the systematic diverting of funds away from the subways and towards other priorities (which started under Pataki and Guliani). Meanwhile in Paris, the metro, with the exception of a 17 year break in the 1950s and 60s, constantly expanded because of good policy because the French realized that cars were not the future. Again, correlation does not equal causation, and I could throw more examples towards you. Busan, Shanghai, Moscow, Taipei all have great systems, yet their objective is to serve people, not make money.
@@katrinawilliams5636That’s not how any of it works since a subway extension won’t ruin the quietness of any neighborhood. In fact, when the Second Avenue Subway opened, everyone and I mean everyone was rejoicing.
It's crazy to think that most of these projects would have been completed years ago had it not been for the money problems and the wars. Not to mention guys like Robert Moses bringing a crusade against public transportation and scarring the city with eyesore highways.
so true !
You know Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses had fusted the TA workers to tair down all the extra elevated lines down right?. Those two selfish evil dowers that was in offices got together and said let's take down these extra elevated lines down because they could not stand for no extra elevated lines to be the way it is right now. You definitely need to blame Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses. I totally disagree with the lower riderships because there was nothing wrong with the 8 Thrid Avenue and any other elevated lines that was running. The only reason why the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated lines came down is because those two evil dowers Governor LaGuardia and Robert mosses could not stand for no extra elevated lines to be up running at all.
@@leecornwell5632 How many times do I have to tell you that La Guardia was out of power for 25 years when the Third Ave el in the Bronx came down? And how many times do I have to tell you that La Guardia worked with Roosevelt to rescue the IND First System? Are there things that I wish La Guardia didn't do when it came with transit issues? Yes. But casting blame on La Guardia on tearing down the elevated lines is not true.
Who fusted the TA workers to tair down the Thrid Avenue Elevated line down? Now you tell me.
@@leecornwell5632 Communities living along 3rd Ave wanted it to be torn down. Combined with the fact that the Third Ave el was literally being held together by duct tape and string, planners found it easier to demolish it and replace with a new line, hence the Third Ave Replacement Project was born, which did not go through because of the 1975 Fiscal Crisis.
One project I think doesn’t get talked enough about is building an in-system transfer between the J and G
Yup
Not a vital transfer as you can go from the (G) to the (L) to the (J)/(Z) or from the (G) to the (A)/(C) to the (J)/(Z). If you think about it, where the (G) intersects with the (J)/(M)/(Z), you have the B43 and B48 bus routes, and the B38 bus route along DeKalb and Lafayette Avenue.
Yeah they should make bway (G) transfer to Lorimer St (J/M)
@@ahmadfrw1 it should be feasible Broadway Station was overbuilt for an connection to a unbuilt subway. They can build new station above Union Ave to connect the G and then get rid of 2 JMZ station at Hewes and Lorimer saves them money and makes train faster.
@@jack_dagnel bingo
As per usual the Bronx gets nothing . Then people wonder why it is what it is , we get no support from the city . Not only are we getting kicked out due to gentrification. $2.2k to live in the Bronx ? Yikes . But let me be honest the Bronx needs MAJOR HELP from the mta . Every single service is packed and barely run. Help the Bronx
Exactly 💯% right. Especially the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. They are still processing about it all aswell non stop. Every sence they torn down the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line down it had gotten worser and worser and even right now as you mentioned about the Bronx Thrid Avenue Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. Thrid Avenue South Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx is definitely starting to developing again with Affordable houses and other businesses I'm telling. They just don't be rebuilding affordable houses and other businesses for nothing. Something is definitely about to happen I'm telling you. Not in the Bad way. In a good way.
Looks like there are only 4 boroughs as the Bronx is glaringly missing from every proposal. Not only has the Bronx not been considered for new projects, they have been removed from original proposals for the IBX and Second Avenue Subway extension. It's a shame that the MTA doesn't see much need to improve service in the Bronx over the next 20 years.
More like 3. But they don't consider them because they are not the "right" color and have the money for the political backing.
But i definitely think that SAS should have gone to the Bronx. Even if it only connected to the #6 at 138th St and 2/4 & 5 at 149th Street and 3rd Avenue.
Than build a LaGuardia Airport Lightrail via the Triborogh right-of-way as 125 Crosstown.
This would leave a different set of funding for the extension to the Bronx and fast-tracking Midtown East south of 63rd Street eventually connecting to the Nassau Street J/Z lines. Finally putting this section to good use as more people are heading to midtown. Possible service with the "R" to 95th Street.
I propose a Fordham Road-Pelham Parkway Crosstown Subway Line as a branch of the IND 9th Avenue Line. The new line should serve the & terminate at Pelham Bay Park, while the (X) should run to Inwood-207th Street via Dyckman Street & Broadway.
@@bennythepenny5831 I hope you are suggesting it for EAST of Webster area, as the Fordham Road area has a very complicated topography.
@@bennythepenny5831what the fuck is a 9 av line? Do you mean 8 av?
Also we don't need a new subway line in the Bronx due to it's density
If I were the governor of New York State I would put top priority on getting construction costs down and building the Second Avenue Subway, the Inter Borough Express, and the Queenslink.
Extending the 2nd Ave. west along 125th St. is a no brainer. But when has the MTA shown any brains? The Queenslink thing should reconnect the LIRR to this branch and extend to JFK Airport's central terminal area providing (finally) a one seat ride to the central business district--you know, like what London, Paris, Zurich, Tokyo, and many other 'world capitals' already have?
Hiring Andy byford was pretty big brained
They need to at least build a bell mouth on the 2nd Avenue Subway leading to the Bronx. The city is only going to get more congested and eventually the Bronx will be the next Brooklyn in terms of people migrating and investing in that borough.
That is already included in Phase 2 of the Second Ave Subway.
I tell you one thing. The red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line in the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road between Wakefield and New Lots Avenue I tell you that right now straight up for real. You know why the Q T trains are definitely gonna be extended to west side 125 street to connect to the 1 Broadway line. Because they are definitely making enough room for the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line to come back to south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx between Nereid and or Gun hill road and New Lots Avenue Brooklyn I'm telling you . The 4 5 trains terminate at Utica and New Lots Avenue to replace the 3 trains .
@@jointransitassociation
These should be the stations on the BMT 2nd Avenue Line:
Ⓜ 125th Street (express)
Ⓜ 116th Street (local)
Ⓜ 110th Street (local)
Ⓜ 103rd Street (local)
Ⓜ 96th Street (express)
Ⓜ 91st Street (local)
Ⓜ 86th Street (local)
Ⓜ 79th Street (local)
Ⓜ 72nd Street (express)
Ⓜ 66th Street (local)
Ⓜ 59th Street (local)
Ⓜ 50th Street (local)
Ⓜ 42nd Street (express)
Ⓜ 34th Street (local)
Ⓜ 28th Street (local)
Ⓜ 23rd Street (local)
Ⓜ 18th Street (local)
Ⓜ 14th Street (express)
Ⓜ Saint Mark's Place (local)
Ⓜ Houston Street (local)
Ⓜ Grand Street (express)
Ⓜ Chatham Square (local)
Ⓜ Frankfort Street-Brooklyn Bridge (local)
Ⓜ Maiden Lane (local)
Ⓜ Hanover Square (express)
Ⓜ Battery Park (express)
Ⓜ Liberty Street (express only)
Ⓜ Battery Park City-Chambers Street (express only)
I’m not a planning expert, but the ratings for Queenslink are scandalous. Especially, as you point out, how the piece acts like a trail and transit project can’t coexist.
I'll admit I have not yet had a chance to take a close look at the needs assessment, but I'm curious: For those of you that have gone through it, does the MTA discuss its methodology at all? How do they estimate the costs? How do they assign scores/percentages to each of those categories? How do they assign the overall scores? I'd like to really see the formulae and the data they use to come these published numbers.
Utica is so weird based on everything here. The bits in there showing that Rogers Junction is being looked at along with some real deinterlining of the IRT Eastern Parkway portions of the system (albeit with the caveat of introducing that weird 7th Avenue (8) train to then interline down other routes) as well as new storage tracks to the south of Crown Heights - Utica Avenue station suggests that there's more than just a spark in the background for the eventuality of a Utica Ave extension, but then that 71/100 score for the actual "full" length extension from the IRT line is so weird. I'm totally down with the thinking they have of the entire Utica Avenue corridor being nice for something to catch the (A)/(C) and (J)/(M)/(Z) along its length but until they are in a better position to do more and build a full length line somehow, they gotta start somewhere and Utica's only going to get more important as more and more transplants looking for housing get pushed further away from central/downtown Brooklyn.
Thank you for this video. What i am surprised....well not really, surprised about, is the lack of conversation about rail to LaGuardia. The amount of times I have sat on a bus in traffic trying to catch a flight....We need better leadership for real.
Bro you’re a genius. Why the f*** have they not thought about extending the 3 train to linden boulevard. That could be dove beyond easily. All the infrastructure is already there and the tracks are built
I'm glad I was able to bring this up to you. The MTA is truly becoming a oblivious agency.
I still can't understand the choice of LRT for IBX...
This is a circular / tangential line, you need capacity... It may be OK if it only was a support line to an existing high capacity line.
IBX would be the perfect candidate to introduce fully automated driverless subway (platform screen doors, the works).
You highlighted the main issue : outrageously inflated costs.
I live in Paris, where there's currently a massive transit expansion underway.
At least 360 kilometers of new lines, including the Grand Paris Express which is about 200km of new metro with 4 new lines and several extensions, 68 new rather grandiose stations, 90% of it deep underground.
Plus many tram line extensions (2 new tram lines in 2023), the West extension of RER line E (express regional heavy metro), a first 5-station urban transit cable car / gondola line extending a metro line, 5 new proper busway BRT lines, etc.
The cost of this transit-a-palooza is incomparably lower than NYC's extensions, while dealing with very complicated soil, crazy strict tunnel laws, stringent environmental regulations, etc. Not to mention the obvious archeological requirements found in Europe.
I think NYU (if I recall correctly) mentioned it in its transit cost project study highlighting the stark cost difference.
As for the feasibility of building a subway through or under the water table : it's perfectly doable and called a Monday in Paris...
Here they have to freeze the ground hard and use dozens of pressurized mud / slurry TBM's to be able to dig through aquifers and water filled layers of brittle gypsum and sulfur...
There's no rock like in many places in New York. Where there were limestone layers, there are now abandoned quarries (part of which form the catacombs) that create another level of complexity. Yet it costs a fraction.
I'd say that the cost issue should be addressed before planning new developments, or they'll always be strangled and limited by the cost.
Continuing to overspend means less extensions, less upgrades, more opposition, perpetuation of the idea that public transportation is a burden, etc.
With a more normal cost, I'm pretty sure IBX would be full subway and already operating.
Great video 👍
Greetings from Europe.
They are looking at cost, where the Subway will prove to be a better investment, and they are "fearing low ridership on a Subway" which is not the case.
A semblance of Grand Paris Express’s amazing network efforts, high average speeds, and low construction costs is nothing more than a wet dream in NYC. A JFK-Jamaica-Flushing-College Point-Parkchester-Bronx Park-Fordham-University Heights alignment in the spirit of Paris Line 15 would probably cost $150Billion :(
@@eriklakeland3857 Yeah, and that's bonkers.
Paris soil is a nightmare and a good chunk of M15 runs under substantially denser areas than in Queens or Brooklyn alongside IBX's route (sections of M15 have well above 15K/km² population density, plus a couple of stations and a tunnel "S" are set under a forest of skyscrapers and a large entertainment / sports arena). Or the soon to open and very large new station of RER E under La Défense CNIT expo center (the triangular shaped building you can see on sat view, they've built the station by inserting a digging site through the underground car park of the CNIT, without vertical access, which was lengthy and costly but still far cheaper than a basic station in NYC).
So, how come it is so expensive? Where does the money go?
In Paris they've revised their traffic expectations for the GPE from 2M to at least 3M daily rides, most of it on M15, as a circular line becomes a de facto backbone.
One good example of this, still in Paris, is the circular tram lines which form the middle ring (metro M2 & M6 are the two halves of the inner ring, tram T3a & T3b are the two halves of a 85% complete middle ring, M15 will be the high capacity, high speed, high frequency semi-outer ring, T11 T12 & T13 form a further outer discontinuous ring).
T3a and T3b lines are saturated, they use the largest type of tram vehicles (7 elements, 2.65m wide) and have daily ridership in excess of 250K, which is usually subway territory.
T2, a tangential running on the West side of the core, now runs tram trains in pairs and is still saturated.
T1, the Northern tangential, is receiving new longer and wider trains to try cope with saturation.
M15 is eagerly awaited by millions to lighten the burden on the undersized circular and tangential tram lines.
IBX using LRT or tram trains, will either be saturated in no time or people simply won't use it as much. In both case, it will be a missed opportunity.
There's enormous untapped potential for the IBX : the BQE is a nightmare, the VWE isn't much better, and I'm sure many would rather use efficient public transit running a backbone tangential line or set of lines.
A multiple tangential system, akin to how GPE's M15, M16 & M17 will work would be perfect, as you mentioned :
IBX currently planned route extended to LGA and Flushing or College Point, as inner high capacity tangential.
And a JFK to Bronx as you proposed, connected to IBX at Flushing or College Point. It would form a dual tangential, NYC's version of what M15, M16 & M17 offer in Paris North and East.
Bronx riders could access LGA much faster and simpler and the downtown line would be given a breath of fresh air.
It all boils down to the same questions: where does the money go? And how come it costs far more in NYC than anywhere else in Western EU despite being under stringent EU environmental, tunnel safety and labor regulations?
@@eriklakeland3857 That would be a very good line from JFK to Fordham Plaza. I suggested a Springfield Gardens to Marble Hill line via same alignment and following Kingsbridge Road.
@@KyrilPG the idea of Flushing-Main St evolving to Saint Denis-Pleyel of the GPE unabashedly makes my dick hard. I would leave why construction costs so much to the experts, but the Bronx to Eastern Queens Subway connection under Long Island Sound would be worth the money as transit overcoming a physical barrier like that with few travel alternatives would induce a ridiculous amount of demand.
Regarding the 3 extension, I'm pretty sure the big problem with costs is property acquisition. There's a lot of pretty valuable real estate that they'd have to buy up, which jacks up the price tag significantly.
Had it been done in the past, it would've ran on ground level, and the developments could've been built around or on top of the line. Adding it after the developments' makes it difficult which is quite sad to see. Look at how Pitkin Yard for the A and C line is for example. The yard sits on the ground level with apartments on top of it.
Eminent domain
@damonsmartin9894 Eminent domain doesn't make land acquisition cheaper. In fact, it's more expensive than market value for the properties since the Authority doesn't want to have to go to court, which itself is expensive, only to have to pay market price for the property anyway.
1:22 Good point!
9:55 Huh. Didn't know that. But yet they want a big say in how our streets are configured, in favor of buses. >.>
6:34 Gotta love how they have different justifications. For example, IBX moves forward, but Utica and Woodhaven are "good enough" for buses, even though both have higher bus ridership than IBX projections. (According to the Queens Bus Network Redesign Existing Conditions Report, Woodhaven has 51k riders. But that was published before COVID, so)
On IBX being elevated, I'm willing to bet that the NIMBYs will come out when the first shovel hits. Community input, blah blah blah. For reference, congestion pricing was codified in *2019* , yet now is when politicians are speaking up. Also strange that IBX doesn't face the same opposition as the RBB, even though both are old-school, ballasted railroad ROWs (though some of the Bay Ridge Branch is also in a trench).
There is an advocacy group in New Jersey that is campaigning to have the 7 train extended to Secaucus Junction.
Great video. In my opinion the most important projects are: IBX, Rogers Junction, 125 St Crosstown Line, Queenslink.
No Utica Ave subway lol?
Ideally a city like New York (or my home town Toronto) should be opening a new rapid transit station at least every year, on average. There should always be something being constructed - ideally 2 or 3 lines being extended.
Also, if you want to look at a beautiful elevated metro design - look at the REM-1 line in Montreal. It’s new and quiet and looks actually nice. If the design forefronts images like this and pushes that to the public it could really nip any nimby backlash in the bud.
Late to the party, but your commentary on elevated trains is on point! I live less than a block from the above ground 7 (and only one block over from a station) and it has to be silent in my apartment with the windows open for me to hear anything. The bus getting blocked by people double parking on my one way street, though… I hear that honking constantly. 😅
I think in a previous 20-year assessment needs, there was a plan to extend the W to Red Hook. I don’t know if the MTA is still studying it, but really, I think an extension to Red Hook should be reserved for the 1. The W should be extended to connect with the IND Fulton Street line, running local to Euclid Avenue, while the C will run express, and replace the A to Lefferts Boulevard.
As for Utica, I think it should be its own line rather than a branch off the IRT Eastern Parkway line. The reason I say that is because of how Utica Avenue on the IND Fulton Street line is designed. The high roofs indicate that the station was meant to be a large transfer point. If anything, I believe we should build a branch off the G from Bedford-Nostrand Avenues (designated as the U) and have it run along Utica Avenue, towards Kings Plaza. Maybe even to Jacob Riis Beach if possible.
The MTA should also look into some smaller projects apart from extending the 3 to the Gateway Center mall. One of which would be building a transfer passageway between Bowery (J/Z) and Grand Street (B/D), because if you look at the map, the stations are pretty close to eachother. Another one would involve demolishing both Hewes and Lorimer Street stations and replacing them with a brand new station at Union Avenue, so riders won’t have to transfer out-of-system to the G. The unfinished South 4th Street station could be repurposed into a transfer hall for the new complex.
If I was the head of the MTA, I’d definitely make these projects a priority.
I agree with having the 1 go to Red Hook instead of the W.
I also agree with new transfers. Connecting Bowery (J) to Grand St (B/D) is a great idea; I'd like to also throw in 57 St (N/Q/R/W) with 7 Ave (B/D/E). Both would be helpful if deinterlining is taken seriously, especially following vanshnookenraggen/TTA’s plans. What do you think about connecting Bway/Lafayette (B/D/F/M) with Prince St (R/W)?
If the primary goal is to make a transfer between the J and the G, you don't have to destroy Hewes St to do so. The east end of that station leads into New Montrose Ave, a wide but underutilized and redundant street. There you can take up street space to build escalators n' such between the elevated and underground mezzanines; this is exactly what happened at Court Square, connecting the 7 and the G. That's the "easy way out"; however, station spacing would certainly be more balanced if Hewes and Lorimer were torn down in favor of one new station.
Here’s my brutally honest opinion, y’all need to stop it with these bullshit deinterlining proposals
The red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be extended to gateways mall in Brooklyn if they are definitely talking about bringing the 3 trains to Flatbush Ave Brooklyn to replace the 5 trains to Flatbush Brooklyn like they did before in 1958. 1969. That's when the old 8 Third Ave Elevated line were sent to 241 street connecting to the 2 5 trains and then it went down to Gun hill road under neath the 2 5 trains and made a right curve to East 204 street Webster Boston road Bronx Clearmount and then south Ferry.
I totally agree with the 8 line to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn and Wakefield and then the new red circle 🔴 8 could still run on the Thrid Avenue Elevated line in the Bronx and Wakefield or Nereid Ave during the non peak hours when the 5 trains don't run on white plains road Bronx. Some red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could still terminate at Gun Hill Rd during the morning rush hours and evening rush hours and let the 5 trains could still run to Nereid Ave during the week days. on the weekends the Red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be the last stop at Gun Hill Rd like they did before when they torn down the Thrid Avenue Elevated line down. The 8 could definitely run to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn or gateways Brooklyn.
The 6 Pelham line could definitely be extended to co op city.
The W extension was in there, but it wasn't well ranked.
I have an idea of extending the express track on the White Plains Line to 149th Street-Grand Concourse. I just don’t see the point of delaying 2 local trains and rush hour 5 express trains just before the 149th Street portal. So, to fix the debacle there, I want to see passengers transfer at 3rd Avenue-149th Street or 149th Street GC for the 2 or 5 train during construction time as well as during rush hour so that way we won’t see too many passengers transferring and waiting on the uptown platform for a 2 train if they need a local station during rush hour, as well as not see too many people transferring platforms at GC. As for this assessment, I do agree that Rogers Junction should be de-interlined, but I would have 2 and 3 trains running to Uitca and New Lots, while the 4 and 5 will run on Nostrand Avenue.
1:05 I think that should be an Extention of the T, whereas the Q runs on 125 st. The T would serve a place where people rely more on metro north, which is less reliable
Video composition suggestion: I find it very distracting to have unrelated train footage playing in the background. Just zoom in on the screenshots from the report. And have them on the screen longer, I wanted to look at them more!
125 st Crosstown I’m with but the Bronx should connect with Grand Concourse
What is strange about the MTA's reluctance to build the Elmhurst LIRR station is that the damn station existed until the early 1970's when the population of Elmhurst was less.
In my view aside from the ridiculous fact the city pockets revenue from the subway without putting anything in it, many of the board members DRIVE to work and do NOT live in NYC. Another issue that is indirectly related to the MTA is that the NYC Dept of Design and Construction has most employees driving into the LIC headquarters. I really think ALL MTA administrators and city agencies involved in design be required to take the NYC subways, buses and regional rail 60% of their commute.
I think the only way we will ever get a fine system that addresses truly the community needs is if it is taken over at the federal government level. The lack of accountability at the MTA for managing costs is its greatest fault and having Feds oversee the purse strings will at least help regain some accountability.
Queens way is stupid because Queens is full of parks including the biggest park in town in Flushing Meadows. We need the M train to Rockaways
The LIRR should do third rail for Oyster Bay line As all phases.
Great information. Can BMT and IRT trains run on the same tracks now? The cars were different sizes to accommodate the platforms different lengths and widths.
IRT and BMT trains can always run on the tracks in the NYC Subway system. It is the tunnel sizes which prevent B Division cars from entering A Division cars. But starting with Dual Contracts, all tunnel sizes were built to the same length/width in the event that if the BMT (or IND) wanted to take it over, the platforms can be shaved back to accommodate those wider cars.
One project that should be looked into doing is a crosstown line from Dyckman street on the A line. From Dyckman across 207st onto Fordham Road onto Pelham Parkwway and all the way to either Co op city or just outside City island. A crosstown subway would be most helpfull to residents of the Bronx. Plus all the connections that can be made with other lines
If you are going to build a crosstown subway, don't start at Inwood. The ridership is more prevalent east of Concourse, and the grades on the Western Bronx are big enough that it would make any subway almost infeasible. If you want a subway, a branch of Concourse along Fordham is the best bet you will ever get.
@@jointransitassociationTrue! That hill leading to University Avenue is massive! A major undertaking indeed.
Since the first SBS line opened along the Bx12 route in 2008, the corridor has been frequently cited as a candidate for light rail conversion, so that would be a good place to start.
@@TheRailLeaguer I don't even think Lightrail can transgress a hill that deep along Fordham Road.
Light Rail on Frordam plaza. Hell no. They could definitely put a extra bus over there. The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line would definitely work because it does not have to worry about the light Rail being on the streets because it's definitely over Crowding and dangerous. Back then yeah. But now for get about it. Just bring back the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line and call it a day..
You should cover the Rogers Junction changes- not as flashy as an extension but super revolutionary for riders in this area.
One small problem, we was supposed to completely deinterline Rogers junction and we did but with one small problem and that is the 8, we don't know if it's like the H where it's only a small line or completely part of 7 av and if it's the latter then there will be huge problems but other than the 8, Rogers is looking very promising
@@carlbro1 I thought the 8 was just their duplication of the current and rare 5 to Utica and 2 to New Lots service? Good points though
@veoni5421 A previous report made about the Rogers Junction proposal mentioned the 8 Train would essentially be a 2 Train variant, running from Wakefield to New Lots Ave. Guessing MTA left out the northern section since they could change how the service runs before it launches though
I agree that it will be revolutionary, allowing frequent service for both branches of the Eastern Pkwy Line. It also needs to be done for a Utica Avenue subway to be successful.
@@zalmanorloff The 8 train is pretty much just the rush hour 2 train to New Lots. I guess making it an "8" service would make it easier to understand. It prevents people from wondering if their 2 train will go to New Lots or Flatbush. The 8 train is kinda silly, but I;m guessing they have to make this 8 train because there's no yard for the Nostrand Av branch.
I would like to see the Utica Av subway be the V train comes back runs from 71av thru its normal route past LES-2nd Av into bolton with the F, switch to the C at Jay st, run local with the C on fulton up to utica av, then branch off down to kings plaza
when is the rest of the rating subway lines coming
The 2nd avenue Q train should extend to the Bronx (glaringly omitted from these transit proposals) to 3rd avenue. It's unnecessary to extend the Q to Amsterdam avenue.
I prefer the SAS go directly to the Bronx. And an Lightrail out of LaGuardia Airport using the Triborogh right-of-way is the best choice for a 125th Street Crosstown.
The "Q" and eventually the "T" will run via 3rd Avenue ELEVATED to at least Fordham Road extended to Gun Hill Road with an extended "D". The #6 would extend to meet these two lines. Meanwhile, the "T" will operate to the Throggs Neck via Lafayette Avenue. This would realistically transition the Bronx to a meaningful transit rail corridor.
Other projects i like to see done in the Bronx includes already proposed Commuter rail expansion plans. This will solidified the system as we don't know it today.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could have a free transfers to the D trains and the 2 5 trains at Gun Hill Rd while the 6 Pelham line be extended to co op city mall free transfers to the B D trains at co op city transferring to the Connecticut metro North railroad.
IS the MTA biased towards Queensway? Far-fetched, they know Queenslink is needed……..
The answer is yes
Anything that involves non-Manhattan transit expansion is a pain for them lol.
@@Jorge-lh6pxwell what a manchild of a company. Could use the almighty Queenslink, Queensway can burn in hell.
Yes. A lot of suburban Queens politicians that don’t want the subway near them but complain about transit deserts 🤦♂️😒
@@williamerazo3921 why don’t politicians want subway lines near them?
Anyone who thinks the Bronx doesn't need a subway along 3rd Ave or Webster doesn't live here. The Bx15, Bx21, and the Bx41 are super crowded during rush hour. There's enough ridership and demand for a subway line. And if the Bronx becomes the next new destination it's going to need better transportation.
Regional rail on Metro North works better than a 3rd Ave subway, as it is less expensive and can be implemented in the next year or so.
@@jointransitassociation The Metro North doesn't provide enough coverage. The area needs a subway line with frequent stops. The demand is there and Metro North couldn't add any more trains if they wanted to. They're always cancelling them because of staff or equipment shortages.
@@monica012077 Okay, let me talk about Metro North regional rail.
Under a regional rail system on Metro North, fares will be reduced down to $2.90. Free transfers to the subway and bus will be given. Formerly closed stations at 168th St, Claremont Pkwy, and 183rd St will be reopened, plus an infill station at 149th St. Metro North rail service will be boosted accordingly, and all 15tph on the local track will make all stations. Express trains to New Haven will continue skipping those stations and reverse peak service will be tripled, from 5 to 15 tph. All of this will cost maximum a few hundred million dollars, and delivers a rail line of subway quality. Compare that for a full subway on 3rd Ave. That is an instant $20 billion price tag right there. Even making that an el will make it cost $6 to $7 billion. Congratulations, you just blew billions of dollars on a new parallel line that provides the same value as simply upgrading the existing rail line.
Now, those things that you mentioned to me can be fixed. Those employee/equipment shortages can always be fixed by hiring new personal and buying more trains, which is what needs to happen when a subway extension happens. So your problems that you talked about about Metro North is the exact same problems that a new subway would need to solve. At that point, just upgrade the Metro North railroad to regional rail.
Thoughts on building a Kings Highway elevated instead of the Utica Ave line (or have the Utica Ave line start via Kings Hwy)? The 3/4 would branch after Sutter Ave station, which is already elevated. Much of Kings Hwy is wider than Utica and has separate service roads, so I'd imagine there'd be less opposition getting it started.
Obviously, we would de-interline Eastern Pkwy first so the merge at Sutter Ave would be less cataclysmic
Utica has much more ridership potential than Kings Hwy, whose main bus route on that street (B7) really needs be eliminated.
Agree. City is doing nothing on contruction of subways when they have $100B budget but don’t mind wasting money on other projects that don’t benefit the city as a wholen
Extending the SAS as a Crosstown line until you the fact it would interfere with any Bronx extension in our lifetimes or the third phase.
So the substitute would be to either keep the plan as it is and just include a station with the Lenox IRT or drop it at Second Avenue 125th Street. I go with the latter.
Any plans to extend it to Broadway/Riverside would result in a delay of many years to come with more engineering studies.
Instead, i want the MTA to fasttrack the 3rd Phase from 63rd Street to 14th Street. This would bring train to an area without north and south transit. Phase 4 would connect the line to Nassau Street lines. And than we can have the "T" group up with the "R" to 95th Street. The missing 4.
Honestly Phase 4 should just continue along Water Street to Hanover Square and Whitehall Street as planned and connect to the Fulton Street Line’s local tracks to allow for the C to go express to Lefferts Blvd and the A split service between both Rockaway terminals. This gives 12 trains per hour to Lefferts Blvd and 6 trains a piece to Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, all express in Brooklyn.
Having the Second Avenue Subway connect with the Nassau Street Line will interfere with reliability of service along both the Williamsburg Bridge and the Montague Street Tunnel. In essence, the T train will replace C service on the Fulton Street Local tracks.
@@TheRailLeaguer Referring to Water Street: We got ferries for that! And I don't know what the water table in the area. But I do know of climate change and this should not be a go.
Anyway, I did not know Lefferts Blvd was capable of turning so many trains. What I know is it is not an adequate terminal. Besides, the area is not in need of extra train service.
Also, the M diverts from the J/Z. And lower Manhattan does need an alternative to East side Midtown and this is a cost effective solution to producing better service along Nassau specifically. The trunk has been dying for an upper Manhattan connection and I think this is the time to do it.
Anyway, I'm so against creating another under water tunnel when the demand is not there. Send it through Montague and be done with everything.
@@qolspony The ferries are in no way a substitute for subway as they don’t have the capacity and connectivity of the subway system. Also a subway on Water Street, clearly a more superior option since it’s better at relieving congestion on the Lexington Avenue Line, will not make climate change worse. Also Nassau Street does not need a connection to Upper Manhattan, as demand is not there. Nobody wants it, not even area riders. It’s also worth noting that Nassau Street service would have zero additional capacity for future expansions.
Also Fulton Street and Rockaway riders are in desperate need of more simplified service. I use the line a lot and service there is abysmal. The demand for it and a new East River Tunnel is clearly there as well, especially sending everything through Montague Street Tunnel is not an effective option (the lines going through Brooklyn are already at capacity, meaning no additional room for Second Avenue Subway-related service increases aside from the ones for N and Q service). In contrast, having the Second Avenue Subway run through Fulton Street via a new tunnel would allow for a more reliable connection to Brooklyn, simplify service through Brooklyn and Queens, and allow for future service increases for service to Queens.
You need to stop thinking out of your ass and come up with something logical.
Yes they do need the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line over at Gun Hill Rd Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx because the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 BX 19 buses is way over Crowding im telling you right now straight up for real.
What? No IRT Nostrand Ave extension is on the list?
I believe the Nostrand Ave extension is not on the 20 Years Needs Assessment.
IT WAS CALLED FOREST PARK LINE I PLAN FOR NEW BRANCH AT QUEENS CENTER MALL AND ROCKAWAY BLVD AND GOT NEW PLAN 3 TRAIN WAS EXTENDED FROM NEW LOTS STANLEY COZINE AVES GATEWAY MALL AND LONG ISLAND
1) A Second Ave & # 7 train subway extension to New Jersey should be made now. If Governor Hochul is still planning to implement Congestion Pricing in NYC. The Governor’s of NJ & NY will need to get together for their commuters.
2) I have some concerns about IBX. I just don’t know if Hochul has the testicular fortitude to do it.
3) I am really into the Utica & the Nostrand Ave’s extension with a major repair terminal under Marine Park Brooklyn (between Stuart St & Avenue U).
4) Queens Link or Queens Way?
5) Elmhurst, Queens?
6) New Lots Avenue line extension to Spring Creek. Would it be feasible to extend it to Shirley Chisholm State Park in Brooklyn.
i doubt they ever do queen link. They should run queen link liberty ave connection to a and end at rego park mall connect to queen blvd trains.
let´s continue fighting for the queenslink!
why dont they make the uthica line as a tram line then? [coming from someone who has only visited NYC once for 4 days]
If you look at Utica Ave, it is very congested corridor. So a tram is just a glorified bus, but without the flexibility.
Great video, but time stamps for videos such as these would be helpful
kinda weird to think that the T would be entirely within 1 borough
Can’t they send the Q via crosstown 125th while sending the “T” to the bronx?
Reverse it. The (Q) should go to The Bronx terminating at Co Op City. The (T) should go to West Harlem.
I like the 125th Street Subway idea so that now you can split or alter the M3, M4 and M101 routes, and create new bus routes from Upper Manhattan to Queens.
crazy how the Bronx keeps getting snubbed
The original plan for the Utica Avenue line was IND second system. But the community around Stuyvesant Street at the time fought it resulting in it demise.
Now we got the #4 as an alternative. It is better than nothing.
If they extend it to Kings Plaza i say it might as well extend to the Rockaways.
What would this do for the entire system?
1. It would get rid of the 3 "A" lines (Rockaway Park, Far Rockaway and Lefferts Blvd) and dedicated it to Lefferts Blvd. It would allow room for the "D" at that inefficient junction at 59th Street.
2. The Queens Link would become the primary service to what I would call Rockaway Junction, which is a new station that would connect to the #4.
I partially agree, as the IRT Utica Avenue Line should run onto the IRT Rockaway Elevated Line in 2 sections. The should run to Rockaway Park-Beach 105th Street via Utica Avenue local, while the (8) should terminate at Flatlands Avenue. The should run to Breezy Point-Beach 222nd Street via Utica Avenue express, while the (4) should terminate at Crown Heights-Utica Avenue.
These should be the stations on the IRT Utica Avenue Line:
Ⓜ️ Empire Boulevard (8)
Ⓜ️ Clarkson Avenue (8)
Ⓜ️ Snyder Avenue (8)
Ⓜ️Clarendon Road (8)
Ⓜ️ Foster Avenue (8)
Ⓜ️ Kings Highway (8)
Ⓜ️ Flatlands Avenue (8)
Ⓜ️ Avenue N
Ⓜ️ East 53rd Street
Ⓜ️ Belt Parkway
Ⓜ️ Floyd Bennett Field
Ⓜ️ Riis Landing
These should be the stations on the after Riis Landing to Breezy Point-Beach 222nd Street:
Ⓜ️ Park End Terrace
Ⓜ️ Beach 184th Street
Ⓜ️ Fort Tilden-Beach 193rd Street
Ⓜ️ Highland Place
Ⓜ️ Point Breeze Avenue
Ⓜ️ Breezy Point-Beach 222nd Street
These should be the stations on the after Riis Landing to Rockaway Park-Beach 105th Street:
Ⓜ️ Beach 147th Street
Ⓜ️ Beach 140th Street
Ⓜ️ Beach 133rd Street
Ⓜ️ Beach 125th Street
Ⓜ️ Beach 116th Street
Ⓜ️ Rockaway Park-Beach 105th Street
A Utica Avenue subway extension to the Rockaways is not needed since it would be a lot slower compared to the current service via the A train and ridership potential is very very low. You’re better off ending the 4 train at Kings Plaza and having enhanced bus service bridge the gap between there and the Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street station. Alongside Queenslink more than sufficient for Rockaway residents.
@@TheRailLeaguer Please give me a little detail about it being "slower"?
Note: People would still have the option to catch the Queens Link when built or "A" train if not built at a newly constructed Hamel Rockaway Junction Station.
The advantage would be now you have two (3 if you count LIRR) out of the Rockaways. Why is this good? Because they are two bridge links that sometimes open, causing delays up the line.
The train to Rockaway Park goes in the direction of Manhattan, I don't see how the #4 could be slower than the "A".
I'm very aware that the "A" is indeed the best Express in Brooklyn. But the #4 would take a slight shorter route into Brooklyn.
The #4 has the advantage of serving the Rockaways more equally. Also more of the Island including Bell Harbor, which the "A" does not serve at all.
There is a few concerns. The Roger Junction. But this could be easily fixed by prioritizing the #4 over the 2/3/5.
@@bennythepenny5831 Why it got to complicated? The #4 to Far Rockaway or Woodlawn. The big problem in introducing another line is capacity. And the Roger Junction limits that capacity significantly. The other issue is the #4 will have a lot of mileage, unless train crews can change at Utica Avenue.
@@qolspony The IRT line would make far more stops than the A train and quite frankly there’s zero demand for a 3 train to the Rockaways replacing A train service.
You need to stop with the lane idea of having the IRT Utica Avenue Line go to the Rockaway Peninsula. Belle Harbor does not need subway service going that way.
I'd assume that the reason for building an LIRR station in Elmhurst is to interchange with the QBL. There already being a station adjacent on a different line is a very weak argument against opening a station.
Unless MTA can develop real estate projects and pocket the profits along transit corridors, I don't think any new line extensions will happen any time soon.
You are right, as the MTA has no incentive to expand transit. They just see it as more debt.
4 to Broadway Junction via Eastern Parkway??
Why?
The 3 to Spring Creek is a no-brainer. However their plan is to tear down everything between Elton and Linwood Streets south of Linden Blvd. It makes no sense as they can easily build a line directly above Linwood Street and not have to do as many land acquisitions. It would have to end at Flatlands Avenue, though. Also, Linwood Street is mostly industrial, so NIMBYism wouldn't be as strong.
As for the SAS extension to Broadway-125th St its also a no brainer as it will alleviate 125th Street and significantly lower travel times across the corridor. I remember having to travel across 125th street to take the Lex and it was so bad that it was faster to go all the way down to Times Sq, take the shuttle, then go back up. Also a crosstown above 59th street is severely needed.
Finally, they only want the bootleg Highline (Queensway) only because it's cheaper and easier to deal with. The Queenslink is such an easy project to implement. MTA higher ups (maybe even the Governor & Mayor) pressured the planners to download the benefits significantly to give the Queensway an advantage.
Technically the land acquisitions for the 3 extension shouldn’t be that bad since it’s mostly industrial (like you said). Also this helps keep the extension mostly straight.
Stuff like the 3 extension shouldn’t even be a major project. It should quietly be completed in a few months behind the scenes for a few hundred million dollars. Can’t believe these costs - are they planning on building a deep-bore subway even in the outer boroughs?
What's your opinion on the MTA's report on Rodgers Junction? I'd say the fact that it was mentioned was surprising. The 8 route bullet is weird, but I'm guessing it is for one seat ride NIMBYs; I would prefer the 5 terminate at Crown Heights than the 4 and how the hell is it $410 million for a couple switches and a new track?
The red circle 8 could definitely run to Nereid 238 the street and running under neath Gun hill road making a right curve to 204 street and Batenical Gardens and Frordam plaza connecting to the metro North railroad and 149 street Thrid Avenue Elevated line free transfers to the 2 5 trains and 138 street connecting to the 6 Pelham line and then dig a hole 🕳️ to let the 8 run under ground to fourth Ave Manhattan and 125 street to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely run to the Bronx Nereid Ave Elevated Gun hill road Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx. Put all elevateds in those stations.
Just put all the elevators on the red circle 🔴 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated stops in all stations elevaters this time so this way the handicap people and the elderly people could definitely get on the elevators .
Impressive and here's the thing Q train extension to 125th Street Saint Nicholas Avenue from 96 Street 2nd Avenue they would just simply get off at these following stops Atlantic Avenue 34th Street Herald Square Times Square 42nd Street because the quickest option from the Q train are 1,2,3 A,B,C & D trains. If they want to look at a modern elevated look no further than the AirTrain JFK
I'll support the (4) line Utica Ave extension to Church Avenue because that is where the high density along Utica ends. If you want a true Utica Avenue Subway, it will need to be built into the (J)/(M)/(Z) or the (L). The (4) to Church Avenue would be sufficient as the (4) is the shotest Express on the Lexington, and to connect B35 (and soon to be B55 SBS) customers to the (4) along Utica will eliminate the need for them to ride further West to Nostrand Avenue for the (2) and (5). In fact customers who transfer at Nostrand can simply focus on the transfer to the B44 SBS due to the (4) terminating at Church Avenue/Utica Avenue. But then again (when it comes to the B55 SBS), B15 customers out of JFK have the (3) at New Lots Avenue, and they can walk to the (3) at Van Siclen, Pennsylvania, Junius, Rockaway, and Saratoga Avenue Stations.
Most riders along Utica go to the IRT via the buses. I'm guessing by your definition of a "true" Utica Avenue Line, you mean of the South 4th Street Line. Provisions could be built, but I don't see that line being built and it is unnecessary when you can make adjustments to other lines like a new Marcy Avenue station, Union Avenue on the J/Z, fixing curves at Marcy Ave, Alabama Ave, and Crescent St, and new flying junction at Myrtle-Broadway. This would cost less than a true Utica Ave Line. Also, look at the rider \ship along the corridor. A BRT cannot replicate service of a subway. Ending Utica Avenue Line at Church Avenue will still require rider to transfer along the corridor.
@NYC_Pokemon_Fan I beg to differ. The reason it is the B55 SBS is to distinguish from the B35 Local. I say the B35 Local should extend to Spring Creek Postal Facility, the B15 is taken out of JFK Airport but terminate at Cross Bay Blvd for a transfer to the Q52/Q53 SBS, while the B55 SBS as proposed goes to JFK. There's not that much need to have a line go from JFK to Sunset Park as you can simply make a transfer (to the B35), and you accomplish all of the transfer connectivity the B55 SBS does with its terminal at Kensington - Church Avenue (F) and (G).
What I would propose is a B86 SBS from Howard Beach - Cross Bay Blvd to Coney island and a B88 SBS from Howard Beach - Cross Bay Blvd to Bay Ridge (as a faster and more direct version of the B8).
Even still, you'll need the Queens Bus Redesign to extend routes from Eastern Queens to East New York - New Lots Avenue (3) Station for the transfer connections.
I would operate the B55 SBS every 6 minutes throughout the day, every 8 minutes during Evenings and every 20 minutes during Late Nights. The B35 Local would operate every 5 minutes during Peak Hours, every 7 to 8 minutes during Middays, Evenings and Weekends and every 30 minutes during Late Nights.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831 You have different types of riders on the B46. There's those who go to the (3) and (4) at Eastern Parkway, there's those who go to the (A) and (C) along Fulton Street, there's those who go to the (J)/(M)/(Z) at Myrtle Avenue, there's those who connect with the (G) at Broadway/Rutledge, and there's those who ride to the Williamsburg Bridge Plaza. Also factor in those who transfer to/from the heavy bus routes that intersect the B46 as well as the Q35 to/from the Rockaways (which really should be a B41 SBS extension).
There's a reason why the B46 operates as frequent as it does (matching the headways of the M14 and M15 in Manhattan).
The B55 SBS will prove useful to B41, B44 and B46 customers going to/from JFK Airport if they are unable to walk to a B6 or B8 bus (unless they create a B86 SBS from Howard Beach to Coney Island).
Ending the Utica Avenue Line at Church Avenue is very short sighted as there is high density and loads of usage south of there. In fact, having the IRT Utica Avenue Line go all the way to Kings Plaza benefits all B46 bus riders and even all of Southeast Brooklyn.
@@darkgalaxyi_o_l_o_i7831He doesn’t really get it since he doesn’t really use mass transit as often as he claims, and I’m also guessing that he doesn’t live in NYC either.
You are right that a BRT cannot replicate subway service (though as someone who rides the B46, traffic there can be a pain, especially at Church Avenue), though I do reckon that concurrent with building a full length Utica Avenue Line, there ought to be improvements to bus service there.
Why does 125 need a subway ?? Nobody ever goes fully crosstown
Stop being a nimby person. Can't use buses because it's unreliable, overcrowded and sometimes cars and commercial vehicles block the bus lane.
Elmhurst won’t get built because of the populace who take the Port Washington Branch on the LIRR
As someone who used to live on the 4/5… I just wish they’d fix that god awful switch onto the 2/3 heading north.
We’d sit in the tunnel for 20+ min after Brooklyn college and it just made the trip misery inducing.
That is another weird line. It was meant to go all the way down to Sheepshead bay. I think the water table was the issue. There is no storage track past the junction.
This is in 20 year timeline. What’s wrong of not having a 3 extension to SC? New Lots to Spring Creek could be realistic when it comes to an option. Now the SAS to 125th St-Broadway gives the riders a 3rd option of transportation. For the SAS to the Bronx, you need to study on what and where should it end.
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be the last stop at Gun Hill Rd and New Lots Avenue Brooklyn while the 3 could definitely be extended to Flatlands Ave and the 4 5 could be the last stop at Utica Avenue Brooklyn. The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be the last stop at Utica Avenue and the 4 5 to New Lots Avenue Brooklyn.
The Q T trains across west side 125 and 137 street to connect to the 1 Broadway line.
Unless ridership go back to Pre Covid time All these projects are not going to happen Excluding 2 Ave Line.
The outer boroughs, like Queens, are very quickly approaching pre covid ridership.
Also, congestion pricing is around the corner.
The red circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line is definitely gonna happen to the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx New Lots Avenue Brooklyn and 238 street Nerid Avenue or Gun hill road.
Man 2nd Ave Subway didn't get any compromises with being a fully underground, grade-separated subway. There is no reason that Queenslink or Utica Ave shouldn't be the same. Busways are not a compromise. Same with the IBX, it's needed so, so badly and the fact that MTA is seriously considering allowing it to be partially street running instead of ponying up the cash to tunnel some segments makes them seem out of touch at best
Utica honesty should be a trams with its own way
the SAS via 125 is the most possible
6:42 your comparison between queenslink and the 2AS seems refuted by the source you’re citing. 2AS also scored relatively low in improving regional accessibility.
Whoops. What I mean and should say is that the MTA's own reasoning for SAS via 125th should apply to Queenslink too. Like they both do the same thing, which is to provide connections, but unlike the SAS via 125th, Queenslink boosts capacity to the Rockaways and QBL, spans a longer distance so that someone deep in Southern Queens can get to Northern Queens, (which is regional accessibility), and is cheaper than SAS via 125th. But the fact that the MTA did not apply that same logic to Queenslink as they did with SAS via 125th really shows that they are not interested and are backing Queensway.
@@jointransitassociation the MTA scored transit connections under the "Resiliency" category. TBH I think the person who came up with these category names should be fired, but connections are definitely considered.
I have an interesting thought on how to do this sort of things that happy to share with you if you want a hah
It should go to the bx it would reestablish the 3rd Ave El the 2bd Ave subway
The 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line will definitely come back I tell you that right now. Another thing the Q T trains is definitely gonna be extended to East Harlem and west side 137 street to connect to the 1 Broadway line I'm telling you
That means they are definitely making enough room in the south Bronx Clearmount Webster Boston road Bronx for the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line to come back to help out the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 buses. Rather they have the red circle 🔴 8 or the green 🍏 8 or powder blue 🔵 8.
@@leecornwell5632 I hope so even if they make it elevated as well. They will also need and express track for the bronx just for the volume of people that would use it and one or two express stops
You barely mentioned the Bronx to queens use of Amtrak line in the Bronx over hellgate bridge into queens, don’t see any progress here.
I don’t like that this “assessment” has no provision for The Bronx anywhere in it. I think the extension of the Q across 125th St is useless. People aren’t trying to make a million connections if they don’t have to. Make it easy to get a train so that they can have a one-train ride and sending the Q across 125th won’t help most people unless you live along the surrounding areas. I live in The Bronx and I’m not gonna get off the Lexington Ave line for the Q.
Phase 2 already has an opening in the tunnel at 120th St if they so choose to put a subway to the Bronx. Also, you might not use the Second Ave subway, but the dense Upper East Side neighborhood will, which means less crowding for you. Finally, to your point that extending the Q via 125th is useless, 125th St is already a heavily congested corridor, meaning that the crosstown market already exists on 125th St. People want easier access between the East and West sides on Manhattan, which a SAS via 125th provides.
Now about the Bronx.
I did a video to examine whether the Bronx needs more capacity to Manhattan. And the answer is, with current services, no, and that is with pre covid ridership. So an SAS to. the Bronx is not only more expensive, but is not even needed.
Here is an article done by Vanshnookenraagen about this exact same topic: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/04/the-future-of-the-2nd-ave-subway-a-bronx-tail-track/
Here is an article done by Kristian Laverick about a SAS 125th St crosstown: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/05/second-avenue-subway-phase-2-the-case-for-a-crosstown-extension-on-125th-street/.
Hope this information helps!
@@jointransitassociation it is useless in that the main purpose of it going to 125th & Lexington Ave is to get people off the 4,5,6 trains and i know most won’t do it. And what hasn’t been addressed is there is a major fault line along 125th St. The construction could cause MAJOR damage. And while a Crosstown line isn’t bad, they usually go to another borough and this won’t be the case and that’s where it’s not as useful as it could and should be.
And i totally disagree with you about The Bronx not needing more service. I live in The Bronx and i see the ridership everyday. There are plenty of transit desertlands that needs to be addressed. Hell there needs to be subway service from The Bronx to Queens. We lost the ability to have that with the IBX because of the Metro North project in the East Bronx (which i personally am not a fan of). I get that Brooklyn & Queens needs more subway service and I’m all for that The Bronx needs to be a part of the conversation too. It doesn’t have to be SAS, just extend the D Train somewhere along Gun Hill Road or to Co-op City and that alone would do wonders. The people in The Bronx want and need easier access just to go through the borough, let alone other parts of the city.
@@glamslamcam "it is useless in that the main purpose of it going to 125th & Lexington Ave is to get people off the 4,5,6 trains and i know most won’t do it."
Yeah, if you are living in the Bronx, you are not to use the SAS. But if you are on the Upper East Side, you would. Since stations on UES are so big, having another transit option on Second Ave will draw riders away from Lexington.
"And what hasn’t been addressed is there is a major fault line along 125th St."
Yeah, if you are entering Broadway and 125th St, that is where the fault line exists. That's why I want to end it at St. Nicholas Ave, where the fault line would not be a problem.
"they usually go to another borough"
Is there some rule that subway lines need to go to another borough in order to be useful? I am failing to understand the point you are trying to make. Look, SAS is flawed. I know. The entire transit community knows. But I am trying to be nuanced when it comes to criticizing SAS because SAS is objectively a good project, and the things that SAS gets attacked in the transit community is pretty outlandish.
"There are plenty of transit desertlands that needs to be addressed."
Here, let me tell you a few projects that serve transit deserts AND will not involve extending the SAS to the Bronx.
Metro North Regional Rail: By building 4 or 5 new infill stations on Metro North, lowering fares to $2.90, boosting service, you effectively created a rail line with subway like frequencies. All for a cost of maybe $300 million? Meanwhile, if SAS goes via 3rd Ave, that is an instant $20 billion price tag right there.
(6) to Co-Op City: This two stop extension, which would an elevated, would serve the dense Co-Op City corridor
(D) to Co-Op City: This extension, as you pointed out, would feature a cross Bronx subway, which is needed as Cross Bronx travel has huge ridership. This will also serve the gap between the Dyre Ave Line and the Pelham Line, which accounts for one of the biggest job markets in all of the Bronx.
As you can see, not sending SAS to the Bronx doesn't mean Bronx travel won't be improved. In fact, I argue, not doing SAS to the Bronx would be be far more beneficial, as the money spent on a full SAS to the Bronx can be spent on these three extension projects. These extension projects would serve way more commuters than SAS to the Bronx would, and could be cheaper, as one of them is upgrading a commuter rail line, while the other will be elevated viaducts that drive down costs. Combined with the fact that deinterlining could greatly boost Bronx capacity, I just don't see the value in extending SAS to the Bronx just yet.
@@jointransitassociationinstead of agruiging why not put both ideas into one because the N and Q can go into the bronx while the T and y can handle crosstown.
I would love it if construction were so cheap that multimillionaires could tell the MTA "build this extension, I'll pay for it" just so that then they get to say "I put that on the subway map".
So we're not going to mention the RED 8 TRAIN?!
Yes they are mentioning about the red 8 going to New Lots Avenue and Wakefield 241 street. I have a real spriital feeling that they are definitely gonna have the red ♥️ circle 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line to meet the 2 5 trains at Wakefield 241 street and then the red circle 8 could still go down under neath the 2 5 trains at Gun Hill Rd and 204 street and Batenical Gardens and Frordam plaza and 184 183 210 Webster Ave Elevated train station and 161 street and 149 street free transfers to the 2 5 trains and the BX 15 BX 41 buses. What they should of did is leave the BX 55 buses alone until they rebuild the Thrid Avenue Elevated line back. We are definitely talking about a complete inspections and over haul trestles frames and beams and stations improvements and signals improvements. Like they do to all the subways elevated lines and under ground.
The old 8 is gonna definitely come back some where I tell you that right now because I had read about the 20 years MTA more than a billion dollars. Type in on Google for MTA projects 20 year more than a billion.
Look maybe they are thinking outside the box this time there is much more to buses than you know!
Real
So nothing for the Bronx?
2nd Ave Subway should veer out to serve Alphabet City
That is infeasible because of the insane turns a subway needs to make to access Alphabet City. A better deal is to build an infill station at Aves B-C on the Canarsie Line.
@@jointransitassociation is infeasible only because how overrun project budgets are in the US.
2nd Ave Subway has to go deep and under the Mid-town Tunnel approaches... Certainly would utilize the blocks underneath this approach and St Vartan Park to swing the line onto 1st Ave from there on
While the subway line is already deep bore here and should keep it deep down to swing under Stuytown's foundation and sway into Avenue B...
Maybe the US doesn't have that technology, but tunneling underneath 12-15 storey buildings have been done many times in Asia and Europe, and can keep the building safe. Utilizing the Stuy Oval and the 14th/20th Street loop, and round thru the corner of 1st & 20th, can draw a feasible line that only affecting 3 buildings and the ice rink
@@champan250 Yeah, but speeds would be impacted. There is a reason why planners abandoned connecting SAS via Nassau at Bowery because of the wear and tear on the train's wheels and how slow it would be. Unless you want to make it extra deep bore, which is going to drive up the cost further and potentially get it axed from the capital program As I said, putting an infill station on Aves B-C is a much better deal because now Alphabet City has direct subway access, and combined with tail tracks at 8th Ave plus a third track at Atlantic Ave, the L train is more than ready to take on the new customers, who already use 1st Ave anyways.
@@jointransitassociation speed wasn't a problem as those curves are near where trains need to slow down to approach a major station. I don't live in NY now but in an Asian city that have a deep bore tunnel that swing a 8-car train from one ave to another ave... All the space they needed was a 300ft x 300ft box, which we have in the two areas I mentioned for the 2nd Ave line above.... I take this almost every day, no one noticing any particular drop in speed as it approached a station anyways
For wear and tear, yea we are talking about 1970s US outdated technology vs newest train set technology in the past 20 years
@@champan250 Yeah, that is more circuitous routing. And deep bore is not great, as you are driving up the costs of construction, which isn't worth it when there are different, cheaper ways of improving Alphabet City service, like as I said, an infill station at Aves B-C. I think we all agree SAS is too expensive, but one of the reason why it is so expensive is because it is deep bore. And advocating for more deep bore is certainly going to drive up the costs even more.
And also, it doesn't matter if you are using the R46's or the R211's. When a train approaches a very sharp curving track, there is going to be wear and tear on the wheels. The tracks are the problem, not the trains.
The street running section of the IBX is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. What is stopping a tunnel? They haven’t exactly shown a reluctance to spend money in the past, it needs to be done.
New York has to look at things like Paris, Tokyo and Seoul does. Improve now and improve fast. This 80 years to build 2 stops on the Second Avenue Subway don't cut it. And even the interborough express will take like 10 years? Finishing the second avenue subway will take 30 years? How about refurbishing all of the existing tracks and stations, never? Seriously NY has a priorities issue, like spending billions sheltering foreign migrants versus taking care of their own people.
It’s really senseless to use the presence of an old subway branch with low ridership to justify a new one with higher ridership. Capex for existing branch: $0; capex for new branch: billions.
What do you mean? I am curious.
The IBX should’ve gone to the Bronx and Staten Island. Do you know how much commuter time would go down and allow people in the Bronx and outer boroughs to get to the island faster? It’s commonsense.
We should just put a starship in orbit over NYC and beam everyone everywhere 😛
It’s aal-buh-nee, not al-buh-nee
Knowing mta , ny political class , and Unions nothing is going to get done on time and will be over budget lmao
MTA is just making excuses on wanting to make changes
Invest in a $20 mic? lol
Joke of a transit agency
The MTA will never be successful so long as it's Government agency. "Advocate" all you want, it's a waste time.
This is why we can never have nice things. Your logic is, oh, what you are advocating is great, but I don't think this is going to happen, so I am going to say everything in my power to try to put down the side that I believe in. Like, I am sure that you want the MTA to run better right? Then stop putting down the side that you believe in. Having a defeatist attitude sure isn't going to change anything.
And to counter your point, please search up the MTA during the late 1980s and 1990s. There is a reason why people called it the golden age of subway functionality, as Governor Pataki said, "Just show them your Metrocard Gold."
@@jointransitassociation Imagine if the MTA was run like MTR.
That is certainly one way to run a good transit system, but that is not the only way. Singapore’s MTR is part of the government and runs great. Paris, which has arguably one of the best transit systems in the world, is run by a state agency. So there are multiple ways to run a good transit system and there are more examples of good transit systems being run by the state rather by some private megacorp.
@@jointransitassociation RATP is _for-profit_ state owned corporation. MTA is chartered as a non-profit and hence a perennially mismanaged welfare queen.
Yes, even just for-profit (with subsidies) makes a big difference.
@@rapunzel1701 You are pretending that for profit makes a ton of difference when NYC was plagued with a ton of bad decisions. Those include Robert Moses, Robert F. Wagner Jr.'s Token Mayor Campaign, the 1970s NYC Subway Crisis, and the systematic diverting of funds away from the subways and towards other priorities (which started under Pataki and Guliani). Meanwhile in Paris, the metro, with the exception of a 17 year break in the 1950s and 60s, constantly expanded because of good policy because the French realized that cars were not the future. Again, correlation does not equal causation, and I could throw more examples towards you. Busan, Shanghai, Moscow, Taipei all have great systems, yet their objective is to serve people, not make money.
Leave Spring Creek and Kings Plaza alone. Do not disturb their beautiful landscape.
If you talk with Spring Creek and Utica residents, they are in favor of rapid transit.
@@jointransitassociation I am a Utica Ave resident that feels that the train would mess up the cleaning Ness and quietness of the area.
@@katrinawilliams5636 Yo do realize that trains lower carbon emissions and modern elevated trains are pretty quiet, right?
@@katrinawilliams5636That’s not how any of it works since a subway extension won’t ruin the quietness of any neighborhood. In fact, when the Second Avenue Subway opened, everyone and I mean everyone was rejoicing.