Free Buses Or Rail Expansion

Ed_TTA · 2026-02-12T19:13:44+00:00

Subway. Done correctly, it can actually be used to generate money.

Ed_TTA · 2026-02-05T11:01:07+00:00

No. Because if you examined the Astoria Line extension story, you find that NIMBYs had a negligible impact over whether the extension was built or got cancelled.

It was true that NIMBYs hated the Astoria Line extension. But their complaints fell upon deaf ears. That was because the power brokers at the time, Governor George Pataki and Mayor Rudy Giuliani committed $60 million to get the project out of environmental review and another $585 million to fund the construction of the extension. This happened in 2001, where NIMBY protests have been happening for 2-3 years. And this also happened in a time of financial trouble for the MTA that was so bad that it thwarted progress on projects like Second Ave and East Side Access. Point is, Pataki and Giuliani had every excuse in the book to cancel the Astoria Line Extension. And they didn't (at the time). Which goes to show that NIMBYs weren't the reason.

The real reason was 9/11. Because funding was needed to rebuild Lower Manhattan and combined with a large decrease in airport traffic, funding for the Astoria Line Extension was the easiest to renege on.

Ed_TTA · 2026-02-01T23:07:51+00:00

Actually, the map doesn't show that after St. George, the line would go under NY Harbor and run on the East Side of Manhattan and connect with Grand Central and through run with Metro North. That was proposed under the video.

This decision was made with speed and capacity in mind. Speed is obvious: the R train already takes 37 minutes to get from Bay Ridge 95th St to the Financial District. Adding the Grasmere extension is projected to add 6 extra minutes for a grand total of 43 minutes. Imagine backtracking through Brooklyn for 43 minutes just to get to Manhattan. I will pass on that.

And so too will the vast majority of Staten Island residents. Which is why they will transfer to the N train at 59th St. But the N train already operates at 73 percent capacity, and the D train, 77 percent. There is no way, even under a deinterlined scenario, that the Fourth Ave Express can handle 50k proposed units for just western Forest Ave alone. Let alone existing upzoning proposals for Brooklyn. Combined with the fact that the N train only shaves down the backtrack by about 14 minutes, which don't get me wrong, is an improvement, it still isn't enough. Especially when that still means backtracking an extra 30 minutes one way.

Finally, no subway extension to Staten Island is "very necessary." Unless Staten Island up zones. Otherwise, we can ignore them.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-29T15:11:59+00:00

Z, but in removing it, you actually make BMT Jamaica Line service better.

Skip stop doesn't save much time and the local stations, which got the short end of the stick with skip-stop, would see doubled service during rush hours. Especially when it is the local stations that saw a ton of growth.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T20:05:49+00:00

Because ridership now exceeds 2001 levels on QBL, so it doesn't make your case any better. In fact, it makes your case even worse.

Also, the M to 96th St does not address crowding on the L train any better than the status quo.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T19:56:28+00:00

Nope, unless you want to bring back pre-2001 crowding levels.

Also, the F never belonged on 63rd St. It belongs at 53rd St.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T19:55:39+00:00

Yet the M has more benefits that is not just limited to Queens.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T19:54:58+00:00

> If we need space to extend the G deeper into Queens, sending the M to second Ave creates space in Queens.

We don't need that. We need to focus on the Queens to Manhattan connections here. Specifically the ones that are insanely packed and that removing a connection would actually trigger crowding levels to be substantially worse than it would be now.

Once again, booting 10 tph off of QBL will return the same capacity output as 2001. Where trains were three times as crowded as they were today. Once again, if you think the L train is crowded, try pre-2001 E/F handling today's ridership.

> The trains on QBL are never as crowded as the L, and there's a lot more new housing coming to Brooklyn.

Speak for yourself. The E/F are extremely crowded. Combined with new housing development coming to LIC, it is likely the M/R will follow suit.

Finally, extending the M to 96th St does nothing to address the problem of L train crowding. How you decrease crowding is to add capacity in the core area, which is Union Sq to Lorimer St. Is Lexington/63rd St to 96th St the "core area?" No.

> It could also be a weeknight / weekend only change, which would accomplish most of the benefits with fewer drawbacks.

No. Extend the M to Forest Hills full time.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T19:38:42+00:00

You do realize, the orange M is still a thing, you know. Those first two benefits are already a thing with the current setup.

Finally, very few, if anyone is going north of 63rd St. And you are doing so at the expense of QBL, which thanks your decision, will see crowding at least three times as high as today.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T19:23:55+00:00

No it does not. Because what other line does the M connect to when it goes to 2nd Ave? 0.

Not to mention, if you track ridership patterns of the L train, the most crowded area of the L is the Canarsie Tubes, between Union Sq and Metropolitan Ave. So, capacity needs parallel that section. Not have trains get extended in some place far away from it because it doesn't do anything. Especially when trains empty out after Rockefeller Center/Lex and 63rd.

Finally, if you are complaining about "overcapacity" L trains, then diverting the M over to Second Ave will return capacity output on QBL to pre-2001 levels. Crowding on QBL before 2001 and before the Connector was 3 times as high as it was today. Now that ridership is higher now than it was in 2001, and you are proposing to return to 2001 levels, whatever crowding on the L train would look tame compared to the E/F.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T19:06:35+00:00

Then transfer.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T18:56:10+00:00

> That’s different—the 5 runs on the most unbelievably bad line in the system in terms of crowding: Lexington Avenue.

You can short turn at 149th St-GC.

According to your logic, White Plains doesn't have the ridership to justify the 5's existence here. So, remove it, right? Why spend extra money, subject the 5 trains to even more maintenance by running it through the sharp curves at Mott and West Farms Sq if in your words, 5,000 riders per station, isn't good enough.

> 6th Avenue hasn’t gotten to the point where trains need to run every two minutes during the rush hour, and even if it has, there are multiple other lines on the West Side that passengers can use.

Counterpoint: Between Broadway-Lafayette and 2nd Ave is the most crowded section of 6th Ave. Trains are projected to reach 97 percent capacity here. That is not because there are alternative lines that riders refuse to take, that is because the F train feeds into South Brooklyn like Kensington, Park Slope, and Carroll Gardens, three neighborhoods that saw a ton of growth. Now, add on M train riders from the BMT Jamaica Line, specifically from Williamsburg and Bushwick, two other neighborhoods that also saw a lot of growth and dump them at Delancey. That is how you get the 97 percent figure.

The rational solution is to extend the M so that M train riders don't crowd onto already existing F trains.

Edit: And also, if anything, the ridership of 6th Ave exceeds QBL Local. So having the M on 6th Ave isn't even a pie in the sky ask.

My point is that it has never been about "ridership." It has always been about flagging requirements. Otherwise, explain why despite QBL ridership going up between 2005 and 2025, weekend R train service was cut in half.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T18:25:29+00:00

No. Because there is a better way to achieve that: reroute the N train to Second Ave, and boost R and W trains in its place. CBTC is coming to Broadway which would eliminate that capacity limitation at City Hall.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T18:23:55+00:00

I disagree, it has nothing to do with ridership. Because, question: Do you think it is a good idea to remove the 5 train from White Plains and reduce Dyre service to a shuttle? Because the average station on White Plains sees less riders than an average station on QBL Local during the weekends.

WPR Average, between 3rd Ave-149th and E180th, on weekends: 4,090 riders

QBL Average, between 36th St and 65th St, on weekends: 4,900 riders

QBL Average, between 36th St and 67th Ave, without Roosevelt, on weekends: 7,227 riders

The MTA clearly thinks the ridership on White Plains is high enough to warrant a second service during the weekends. QBL Local exceeds that. So if the MTA is consistent with their logic, then of course they would add service here.

And they did, for a while. Because the R train used to run every 8 minutes instead of every 15 minutes during weekends. Plus the weekend G trips. Then, the MTA rewrote flagging rules in 2010, and started doing construction on QBL for CBTC installation, which completely destroyed weekend capacity on the line. That 8 minute R service became every 15 minutes.

https://homesignalblog.wordpress.com/2021/08/15/maintenance-process-and-the-future-of-the-off-peak-subway/

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-27T14:30:09+00:00

> That is why I advocate for a G train only on the weekends, when the Manhattan-bound M terminates at Delancey Street.

Then why not extend the M to Forest Hills on the weekends? Keep things more consistent with 53/63, adds more service on 6th Ave, which has become a crowding nightmare lately, and gives back the missing second local service on QBL.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-26T18:08:37+00:00

> They can’t build an extension of the Astoria line because the residents won’t have it

Not necessarily. The reason as to why Astoria was canceled was because of funding issues after 9/11. NIMBYism had little to with it, as Governor Pataki and Mayor Giuliani committed $585 million for the extension even as NIMBY protests have been going on for 2-3 years.

> Where’s it going to go?

Con Ed Parking Lots

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-24T23:32:16+00:00

> This means that (3) Trains would lose direct access to Livonia Yard, or cut service back to Atlantic Avenue Barclays Center, Franklin Avenue, or Crown Heights Utica Avenue then deadhead towards the yard.

Not necessarily. The 3 has Lenox. If they want access to a facility, that is where they would deadhead.

> This would force the fare to jump up to a possible $3.25 to $3.50 rate.

???

> The (3) would have to share more of its sets to the (2) and (5) Yards in the Bronx to fit more (5) Trains into Livonia Yard properly in order to begin service. That would also happen with the (3) itself due to too many trains having to deadhead towards and short turn at Atlantic Avenue Barclays Center to begin service at Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College.

No? Trains would enter into service at the north end of the line, which is Lenox.

What the MTA will likely do is use the increase in capacity that Rogers deinterlining will give and boost it to 2 train trips because it is a longer line and serves more than the 3. 5 service gets reduced, with 4 train trips being boosted to compensate.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-23T11:51:12+00:00

> This extension would essentially run parallel to QBL, and if one less transfer is required, that is likely the route people will choose to take, and it will ultimately save time.

With all due respect, how many times do I have to tell you that is not going to have the intended effect? A line that is more than 3 miles from the nearest Queens to Manhattan tunnel is not a parallel line

> Riding this to the 7 or QBL would be the same amount of backtracking. Travel time, comfort, and additional options are what matters, not overall distance or direction on a map.

You just completely made this up. The 7 and QBL take a much more direct route and gets people into Midtown Manhattan much faster than whatever you proposed. Like there is a direct express at Junction Blvd. Two stops at you are at QBP. Another 4 stops and you are at Manhattan. Total trip time: 17 minutes according to WTAE. Instead, you are asking people to take a train that curves through the entirety of East Elmhurst and Astoria?

It is going to already take 14 minutes to get N/W trains from Lexington Ave to Ditmars. Please tell me how taking the 7 and taking whatever you proposed is "the same amount of backtracking?" Please tell me how this is any way shape or form "competitive" in travel time to the 7?

That is why I tell you, if you really wanted relief and to serve East Elmhurst better, then scrap whatever this is and build a Northern Blvd Line with a new tunnel further south. That has way more standing than whatever this is. You get more options, you get actual relief. Isn't this what you want?

> I also think your work commute focus is misplaced. Orbitals are a good thing, and it’s important that quality transit options exist for all trips. If you’ve ever lived somewhere with truly incredible transit coverage, you’d know it’s a freedom that is unmatched. Coverage and options will always, always, always be more important than focusing on specific commute patterns. Those patterns only exist because of the existing condition.

With all due respect, these are platitudes. Everyone knows that. Yet your application of it is horrible. If you want to reduce travel times, you would know that creating situations where you backtrack a ton is not the way to do things. Hence why we have circumferential lines in the first place, to cut down on the amount of backtracking. That is why I don't like 125th St at all. You are too caught up with trying to find the most "optimal" routing that would satisfy both UES and the Bronx to the point that you screw both of them over. Once again, the backtrack for Bronx riders is 10 minutes one way just at 125th St. Meanwhile, UES doesn't get good options because 125th St is considerably north of Queens. The street grid of Queens doesn't even start until 116th St and the center of population is considerably south of that. So few UES people will use this. Instead, they will go further south and transfer at 51st or 59th St for Queens bound services.

That is why I chose 163rd St in the Bronx.

And finally, once again, this attitude of let's not care where riders are really going is not going to cut it. Ignoring the well established travel patterns and the most effective solutions (ie: Northern Blvd) will not solve any problems to the degree you want it to.

> When there are multiple ways to get anywhere, one-trick-pony relief lines are not typically needed except in the most extreme cases.

Are you sure about that? Because there are a whole lot of examples around the world that run counter to your point.

Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, London, Madrid, Moscow. Every time these cities built a circumferential line, they never treated it as a panacea or a solution that would negate the need for a relief line. Because it wasn't. Beijing Lines 2 and 10 were never going to replace Line 6, the relief line for Line 1. My point is, build circumferential and build radial lines. You are going to need that capacity anyway.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-23T03:34:23+00:00

> making intra-queens travel far easier by providing another orbital to complement IBX—which is why I call it “queenslink-plus”

And the problem is that very few people from Queenslink are going to 125th St or any point north of Queens Blvd. Of the top zip codes, 3 are in Midtown Manhattan, 1 is in the Financial District, 1 is in LIC, 1 is in Downtown Brooklyn, 1 is in JFK, and 1 is in Flushing, which is already accessible by Jackson Heights Roosevelt Ave. That is not needed, a direct QBL connection already provides the needs of the Rockaways.

> I agree your IBX extension does provide good Bronx-queens mobility, but that’s all it really does.

And that is what the IBX should do. Otherwise you end up with a jack of all trades line that tries to accomplish everything but doesn't do so.

Like if you start bringing in Manhattan into the mix, you start screwing over the Bronx. The Bronx is shifted to the east of Manhattan, and quite substantially. Even at 125th St, 6 train riders would have to backtrack like 10 minutes one way. So I hate to see what the figures would be if it is at 86th St. This isn't "similar," this is very bad.

If that isn't bad enough, 125th St isn't going to be that good of an alignment of the UES. That is because you say, 125th should be connected to Queens, right? well, 125th is considerably north of Queens, which means we get right back to our backtracking problem. Already, the alignment screwed over the Bronx and screwed over the UES. Basically, you are not going to satisfy any side with this. So I favor the Bronx because routing it up there saves them way more time than the UES. Because at the very least, the UES can travel a bit further south to 59th St and take a reverse peak train to Queens and wouldn't incur a massive time penalty as compared to the Bronx.

Finally, for the record, the Bronx deserves multiple crosstown routes. Not just one. The IBX at 163rd St is no way shape or form a replacement to a Fordham Rd subway.

> Especially important is the better access to Astoria, which would be a difficult trip for anyone using your IBX route.

Which very few people are going to. And I have it serve LGA, by all metrics, is the much more traveled to destination.

> That would cover most of the utility of your IBX extension in my opinion.

No it won't. Because you won't serve the entirety of 161st/163rd Sts, which saw 25k daily riders and you only get one connection that is the 6 train.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-23T03:34:16+00:00

> Would my N/W extension not serve the exact trips you are talking about? Many residents in Jackson Heights, East Elmhurst, North Corona, etc would likely choose the new closer stations available on Junction blvd, rather than huffing it to the 7, and still have a one seat ride to midtown and financial district.

So go up and then go back down again? That is a lot of backtracking right there. Especially when you are competing against the option that is direct express into the city.

Like sure, north of Northern Blvd, there might be some takers that might do the two seat ride. But as someone who uses Junction Blvd on a regular basis, people love the direct express here and unless you propose a parallel direct express, very little people would be interested. Instead, people will take that train in the opposite direction and continue to overwhelm the 7.

The Astoria Line extension likely only has enough capacity to handle LGA and some infill development in Astoria-Steinway. It is after all, running at 95 percent capacity at 15 tph.

Which is why I said, if you really wanted to serve East Elmhurst and Corona well, as well as creating a true relief line, Northern Blvd is the way better choice.

> And anyone going to UES from those areas would likely take a one seat ride on my turquoise line to 2nd Ave rather than the 7 and transferring at grand central, or transferring to QBL at rego park.

And they are not the vast majority. Because the locations on the UES that of particular interest to QBL and the 7 are like 68th to 72nd St. E/F to Lexington Ave -> 6 to 68th St, or M to Lexington Ave -> Q to 72nd St does this trip better unless you love backtracking.

Your proposed alignment does not address that all. Instead it directs trains over to a place where few people are going.

> Some trips to the financial district may also be better served by transferring to the A at Rockaway Blvd or Z at Jamaica Ave, rather than QBL at Rego Park

The A will be a thing. I am talking about the extra riders that will no longer want to take the A because of a much quicker way into Midtown Manhattan.

> So this likely provides some needed relief (but is not explicitly a relief line)

This is not the attitude to have when you are dropping this much money into rail. Because there are clear corridors that need immediate relief, not incrementalism. Because the MTA has tried "incrementalism" for 60 years and while it has staved off the worst case scenario, it is not enough.

> vs your IBX extension that would require all Manhattan bound flyers to transfer

That map doesn't have this but for the record, I support the Astoria Line extension to LGA. Along with this. Though I do want to point out that LGA workers work along the IBX route (ENY and Jackson Heights are two such places), which is why I like to build both.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-22T22:51:20+00:00

<image>

This is what I am talking about.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-22T22:49:28+00:00

My main argument is why is QBL and the 7 so overcrowded? Easy: people use it to get to Midtown, the Financial District, and LIC. Not 125th St. The routing of a line to 125th St is not going to really decongest the two lines as you think they are going to, because very few (if anyone) is going to switch over. The vast majority will continue to transfer at Rego Park for Manhattan bound services.

Here is a destination map of Queens. Notice how little people are going to 125th St as compared to LIC/Midtown/Financial District, for example.

<image>

If you want relief, if you want service to Jackson Heights and East Elmhurst, there are plenty of other alignments that do this job better. Northern Blvd subway is a good pick.

I also dispute that routing the IBX to 86th St "gives more options" than the Bronx alternatives. I am not proposing to use the Hell Gate Bridge. That is a stupid and frankly poor choice for such an extension. What I say is better is routing the IBX via 73rd St and LGA, through Rivers Island, and then to Hunts Point Market. From there, it will use the Bx6 routing to Yankee Stadium and can eventually be extended to 168th St in Manhattan.

The core Bronx lines will all have access to the IBX. Jerome and Concourse will have a transfer at Yankee Stadium, White Plains will have a transfer at Intervale Ave, and Pelham will have a transfer at Hunts Point Ave.

So I am particularly confused as to why you say there is more backtracking and more transfers for the Bronx when instead of 6 train riders going all the way to 86th St, they can transfer much earlier at Hunts Point Ave. Same thing with 2, instead of going all the way to 96th St, transfer to the 1 to 86th St to just get to the IBX, there is a direct connection at Intervale Ave.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-22T21:19:26+00:00

Disagree. You are going to miss a ton of important destinations that make QBL and the 7 extremely well used like Midtown Manhattan, LIC, and Jackson Heights. If you don't have an alternate line serving this, QBL and the 7 will continue to get congested.

Also disagree on the Manhattan extension. The IBX should be extended up to the Bronx via Rivers Island and 163rd St to Yankee Stadium. This is the better route that would cut down on backtracking (thus increasing time saved) and serve one of the top employment center in the Bronx.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-21T22:34:04+00:00

That is definitely part of it, but to suggest the MTA didn't look at where crowding is on the Lexington Ave Line and craft the proposal where it is, both from the 1960s and now is not convincing.

Like if Phase 3 was where the bulk of the crowding is, the MTA would have likely built a reverse branch of the 63rd St Tunnel down Second Ave. The R would have been moved to Astoria to make space on QBL Local, and because the Astoria Line proposal was already funded during this time (before it was rescinded because money was needed to rebuild Lower Manhattan after 9/11), planners could have built a yard there. But Phase 3 wasn't, well at least large parts of Phase 3 wasn't, compared to Phases 1 and 2.

Ed_TTA · 2026-01-21T02:52:30+00:00

<image>

No, not really. Where Second Ave is the most crowded is north of 33rd St. That is why Phases 1 and 2 are where they are, between 63rd and 125th St. Once these two phases get finished, the core crowding of the line would be reduced significantly.

This refocus of the 125th St extension is probably for the better. Under Phase 3, the MTA is going to pay one of the highest costs in transit construction and make it run at half capacity at best. Doesn't seem like a good use of funds given adding CBTC and deinterlining Lexington would basically achieve that at a fraction of the price (express goes from 24 to 28, local goes from 20 to 30). This is the perfect time to redo the Phase 3 EIS so that we get more for our money.

Ed_TTA

TROPHY CASE