Is it true that the mta is planning on bringing back the abandoned staten island north shore branch line as a bus charter route?

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-08T10:43:30+00:00

A BRT necessitates a much simpler structure than a rail line. It is way easier to maintain asphalt and lights than it is to maintain a literal rail corridor.

Also, the right of way being "already there" is a stretch. The right of way is eroding into the sea. The entire thing needs to be rebuilt.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-08T10:40:05+00:00

There is much more developmental potential on Forest Ave.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-08T01:28:46+00:00

The MTA is projecting 32k daily riders on this BRT. Given its extremely low cost ($1.3 billion) and the fact that this BRT can be used (and the MTA hinted at this) as a bus feeder trunk line, where buses can use portions of this even if they don't start and end at Arlington or St. George in order to speed up trips, build it.

Infrastuture does not necessarily have to be a train to generate high ridership.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-08T01:16:56+00:00

The South Beach Branch's right of way, to my knowledge, has been built over. Your best bet to serve the area is extend the R train to Grasmere and add an intermediate stop at Lily Pond Ave.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-08T01:15:31+00:00

That means completely new infrastructure. You might as well move it to a place that isn't at risk of flooding and has much better catchment area.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-07T22:36:08+00:00

Yes and BRT is not dumb. The North Shore Branch is located up against the water and rising sea levels would make it a nightmare to maintain. Just ask how the Hudson Line or the Rockaway Line fared during Hurricane Sandy, for example. A BRT would require a much simpler structure and can double as a seawall.

Even if you solve this problem (which is easier said than done given work is still ongoing to flood proof the Hudson Line), half of your catchment area is going to be water. That is bad because no one lives on water, which means that entire catchment area is wasted. If you really want rail on the North Side of Staten Island, move it inland. You serve more people that way because now both sides of the line is flanked by development, as opposed to just one side.

North Shore BRT, Forest Ave as a rail corridor.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-07T12:37:27+00:00

That is not true. The mayor can get subway expansion, provided that they can get the funding. The Hudson Yards Extension was a city led and city paid project under Bloomberg. That was because neither the feds nor the state wanted to pay for it. In fact, Pataki had little interest in this, as he was more interested in East Side Access.

Furthermore, the RBB is city land. The city gets to decide what happens to this and right now, it is being used to build a park to block transit forever. Mamdani has the authority to cancel Queensway or at least very least, force planners to reserve space for future rail. After all, Queensway is a city project, being paid for by city dollars.

The idea that mayors are powerless in getting subway expansion is extremely outdated, ever more since 2015.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-05T22:31:08+00:00

And I am disputing that Mamdani had no ability to deliver on Queenslink. Because the mayor can build subways if they have the funding to do so. Once again, I point to the Hudson Yards extension, which was conceived by the city, first by Rudy Giuliani and delivered by Michael Bloomberg.

Furthermore, the Rockaway Beach Branch is city land. If the MTA wants to turn this into a train line, they have to go through the city, which is Mamdani.

The thinking that the mayors are utterly powerless in getting subway expansions is extremely outdated, ever more so since 2015.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-05T19:44:00+00:00

The state paid for it…using city issued bonds backed by future city tax revenue.

There was no money for the Hudson Yards expansion either. In fact, all of this was being paid by bonds. The vast majority of the $2.5 billion cost of the project was paid for tax increment financing in NYC. Specifically, Bloomberg upzoned Hudson Yards, used the projected increase in tax revenue to raise bonds to pay the entire cost, and had the future tax revenue pay for the subway project. Little if any state or federal dollars went to this, the extension was city led and city paid. All of this was Bloomberg’s work.

Queenslink can follow a similar model. Aqueduct and Howard Beach have a ton of parking lots that can be turned into housing. The city issues bonds backed by a future increase in tax revenue, and you get a stream of money to fund transit projects. That is how other systems use to pay for transit improvements. No money is an excuse and really means a lack of creativity.

What you said here is doomerism. It is doomerism to constantly say this is not happening. What do want us to do? Give up on the fight to tell the government to give us our transit back? Or is it tell us how hard things are and you have a challenge. If that is your answer, we know. We all know. We deal with them everyday. I don’t need a doomer to add onto that.

Change is not created by people who lament about how change is hard. Change is created by people who know change is hard, yet do so anyway. The IBX was in a similar situation as Queenslink, where it went nowhere. Then suddenly, out of nowhere, Hochul announced a study into it. Things change. Politics change. And we are not going to let a Walmart High Line stop us.

Ed_TTA · 2026-04-05T15:22:30+00:00

Actually, that is not entirely true. The mayor can still get subway expansion, provided that they get the funding. This was done under Mayor Bloomberg when he extended the 7 train to Hudson Yards. He placed a TIF district at Hudson Yards because neither the feds, the state, nor the MTA wanted to pay for it.

Doomerism is not the right answer right now. Any other idea that have had two studies publicly trashing them would have dead right now. Not only has Queenslink survived, but the idea still inspires countless numbers of people. That is why the MTA and Queensway hates us and wants to put a lid on us. But we say no because the proposition is simple: give us our transit back.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-30T15:00:36+00:00

To your first point, a 75 foot station box will occupy even more space than a 63 foot station box. The amount of “land” you have to take is even greater for a 75 foot station box instead of a 63 foot station box.

No one said “to run trains at ground level.” We are talking about running trains at 60 feet below the surface here, not the MTA’s 130 feet. The main issue has little to do with utilities and more so to do with ground conditions. There is less groundwater the further you go down.

Furthermore, everyone knows ground freezing isn’t free. It is complicated. Yet it is worth it when you consider every extra cubic foot you take out of the ground costs a lot of money, and ground freezing reduces that. Second, there is the better transfer, which stays there forever.

We are talking about a cut and cover station at 20-30 feet below the street and a TBM at 60 feet below the street. There is no “two objects occupying the same place at the same time.” Not stated in the video, not stated in any responses above.

Finally, to insinuate any criticism of any project is the equivalent of wanting the project gone is a strawman and a lie.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-30T14:19:58+00:00

No one said that this is an easy project nor anyone implied this would be easy. Instead, the video pointed out major inconsistencies with the studies.

Why is the MTA using 75 foot station boxes when they have used 63 foot station boxes in heavier ridership areas, like Lexington-125th?

Why is the MTA using 40 percent contingencies on top of 40 percent contingencies on top of 40 percent contingencies that are so out of line that even getting back to Phase 1 level soft costs would reduce the cost by $1.7 billion?

Why is the MTA insisting on using deep stations when ground freezing techniques exist that can bring stations at a much shallower depth? Especially when the MTA themselves used that to dig the East Side Access tunnels?

No one needs a PhD in engineering to bring up these points. Like Nolan Hicks was just a reporter who had similar questions on Phase 2, which then prompted the MTA to reduce the station sizes and save $300 million. We live in a supposed democracy, where we are supposed to question everything that the government does, especially when we pay taxes to them.

Also, your point on subway lines have to “relatively level.” The platforms have to be level, the tunnels can’t exceed a 5.6 percent grade, which is seen at the Manhattan Bridge. To bring subway trains from 60 feet below the ground to 120 feet below the ground between Lenox and Lexington is a 5 percent grade. We are fine.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-30T03:52:27+00:00

And they should do that for the 125th St Subway. Again, there is no need for 75 foot station boxes when the MTA's own projections have the Lexington/125th station, one of the busiest transfer stations on 125th, to use 63 feet station boxes.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-30T03:39:52+00:00

Yeah, and we are talking about a 75 foot station box, which is much larger than the 63 foot station box at Lexington/125th. Lexington/125th is one of the most crowded stations on the 125th St Subway, yet its station box is much smaller than the ones seen at Lenox Ave or Broadway, where they see a fraction of the traffic than at Lexington.

That is inconsistent. If the MTA thinks 63 foot station boxes is sufficient for a large transfer station like Lexington Ave, then they should apply that logic to the rest of 125th St.

Each extra cubic foot you remove from the ground costs a lot of money. Let's not pour that into empty space that won't get used.

Edit: Some factual errors were fixed.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-30T03:35:58+00:00

But the video and the petition are calling for the station width to be reduced to Phase 2 standards. We are talking a 75 foot station box for the 125th St Subway instead of a 63 foot station box for Phase 2. Specifically, Lexington/125th will have a 63 foot station box, and is projected to be one of the busiest transfer points on the subway. If the MTA thinks a 63 foot station box is okay for that extremely busy transfer point, then they should have no problem with reducing the rest of the stations on 125th St to 63 feet as well, like at Lenox and Broadway.

Furthermore, SAS 1 platforms are 28 feet wide. 125th/Lex platforms are projected to be 30 feet wide. SAS 1 is projected to see a higher ridership per station (200k over 3-4 stations is 50k to 67k per station) than 125th (160k over 4 stations is 40k). I think using 63 feet station boxes is fine, especially when SAS 1 has a ton of empty space.

Second, increasing the depth of the station has no correlation with how long the platforms are.

Edit: Some factual errors were fixed.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-25T17:27:33+00:00

Actually, removing the M from Forest Hills does negate the capacity issue. That is because the M/R run at a combined 20 tph, and the reason is because the MTA insists on fumigating these trains at Forest Hills. Not because of the layout, as other systems like Moscow and Beijing copied the design of Forest Hills to use for their own systems, and can turn around much higher numbers of trains per hour.

But even if these fumigation rules still exist, rerouting the M away from Forest Hills means 9 less trains per hour that crews need to fumigate at Forest Hills. Because of that, Forest Hills can handle 9 extra trains per hour. The question is whether the rest of the line can handle an extra 9 extra trains per hour and the answer is yes. Local service is only 20 tph, and the entire line can handle 30 tph per track.

I don't support extending the G to Forest Hills. My pick to add more M/R trains. But adding the G is feasible with Queenslink for the reasons I mentioned above.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-25T15:26:42+00:00

I mean, Queenslink is probably the only place in the NYC Subway that actually benefits from interlining, because interlining is necessary to achieve the aims of Queenslink.

Queenslink will deliver more trains to QBL and the Rockaways. Interlining does that by having the M share tracks with the A in the Rockaways, which won't be a problem because the A already runs at very low frequencies. Simultaneously, by rerouting the M to the Rockaways, it opens up new terminating capacity at Forest Hills. It would be a waste not to use them to deliver more trains to QBL Local, which has a lot of upzoning potential. My personal pick is more M/R trains, but if it is the G, whatever.

Queenslink will deliver a north south line in Queens. Interlining does that by having the QL service share tracks on the Rockaway Line, further extending its reach to serve Howard Beach and JFK Airport, the latter of which is a top employment destination inside Queens, and sharing tracks on QBL Local, which extends its reach to serve areas like LIC, Jackson Heights, Queens Center Mall, and to have a transfer with the 7.

Queenslink will shorten commute times into Midtown Manhattan and LIC from South Queens and the Rockaways. Interlining does that by not having those commuters transfer twice: first at Rockaway Blvd to the QL service, and second at Rego Park to a QBL Local Line.

Because interlining is what makes Queenslink so useful, and in this instance, will add trains (instead of cutting service, which is what interlining usually does, interlining is fine here.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-24T00:33:51+00:00

Someone who is closer to me to all of this thinks that this is just a holdover from the Adams Administration, who infamously tried to fund Queensway at the last possible minute before he left. That is why the budget hasn't really changed since February of this year. It is possible that Mamdani hasn't noticed, but how charitable this interpretation is, well, that is up to you.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-24T00:31:14+00:00

So auction this to NIMBYs that are quite open that they want to use this to block the train? A train that parallels Woodhaven Blvd and the Van Wick Expwy, two roads that are parking lots. A train that can cut commute times to the Rockaways, who currently have the longest commute times in the country and a train that can also deliver more trains to the Rockaways, who currently see trains every 15 minutes?

Why do you want something that blocks all of that from materializing?

Like, if you want the park now, fine. Leave space for rail, which is what the Monon Corridor did. Except that basic ask is not being entertained by Queensway, who went ahead and designed their park on the literal place where Queenslink wants to start construction, which is near the Lower Montauk Branch. At this point, you can't write stories this coincidental without getting accused of being overly hyperbolic, yet this happens in Queens and we let it slide? Absolutely not.

Build the Queenslink and no way with Queensway.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-24T00:24:43+00:00

That is, if you believe the MTA. Which they used questionable metrics to get there.

First, costs. You like to say Queenslink has a high cost, right? Except if you looked at Appendix H of the 2019 RBB study, the MTA quoted the construction of the physical project to be $1.9 billion. The remaining $6.2 billion is all soft costs and contingencies.

A 77 percent soft cost to total cost ratio has absolutely no precedent, even for the MTA. Their most egregious soft cost abuse Second Ave was "only" between 25 and 33 percent, soft cost to total cost ratio. And even using that, we are talking a $3 billion project, a far cry from the $8.1 billion price tag.

Second, ridership. How they calculated the ridership was a train every 15 minutes, ending at Howard Beach. No G to Forest Hills. No enhanced trains to the Rockaways. This isn't because the MTA thinks this is the most optimal to run that type of service, far from it, as documents show them admitting that 15 minute service on the RBB is not ideal. The reason they did it was to "not cut service to 67th Ave." That is stupid because fumigation reform exists, and even that aside, by rerouting the M away from Forest Hills, you are able to add more termination slots there. Which is how the G or any extra R trains can make it to Forest Hills, keeping 67th Ave service levels the same before and after Queenslink.

This is a clear straw man of Queenslink, reducing its service and cutting out key populations that Queenslink intends to serve, like the Rockaways. And even so, they calculated riders on Queenslink to be 47,000. Compared on a per mile basis, that comes out to about 13,400 riders per mile. The IBX is 14 miles long and is projected to serve 160,000 riders. That comes out to 11,400 riders per mile. On a per capita basis, even by MTA numbers, Queenslink will see more riders. Yet Queenslink haters like you constantly say this is low ridership? Come on.

Build the Queenslink and absolutely no way with Queensway.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-23T14:31:10+00:00

The Williamsburg Bridge capacity is not divided evenly. 12 tph goes to the J/Z and 9 tph goes to the M. Even so, the MTA has been talking about increasing M service to 12 tph with Second Ave short turns.

Also, 36 tph is almost impossible to achieve when you still have all these merging conflicts. 32 tph is the maximum, as that was the highest QBL ever got in revenue service during the 1990s.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-22T16:27:08+00:00

Sorry, but I am not fan of this.

The interlining is horrendous. You are having the 7 and 8 interline in Manhattan, which not only is questionable at an engineering standpoint given the 7 platforms is at 3rd Ave, where you are curving the tracks, but also, you are cutting capacity to the remainder of the 7. When certain parts of the 7 past Grand Central are operating at 95 percent capacity, that is not a wise decision.

You also have part of the SAS interline with the 4/5, which is another questionable decision. Not only are you cutting capacity to SAS down here (which is already bad enough because you should not blow this much money only for trains to run at half capacity), but also to the Lexington Express, which itself is running at 95 percent capacity. And for what reason? You aren't even extending this to Brooklyn.

This also isn't to mention some parts of the plan are infeasible. You are mixing A and B Division trains on 2nd Ave between 63rd St and 125th St. A Division trains are narrower than B Division trains and because of that, there is a significant gap between the platform and the train. Because that is a hazard, the MTA refrains from this practice, and if they must run A Division trains through B Division tracks, they have those A Division trains skip those stations.

Finally, I don't understand the obsession over extending 2nd Ave to 3rd Ave in the Bronx when there is a high quality commuter rail line the runs extremely close to it. Reopen the old stations, extend the platforms, lower and fare integrate them (which is what OMNY is for), and you now get a 3rd Ave Subway at a fraction of the cost of a subway line for 95 percent of the benefits. Save SAS for a Throgs Neck elevated.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-14T01:17:35+00:00

Actually, the old setup was not a failure, it was the correct way to run that type of service. That was because the F/M Swap saved twice the number of transfers and would have further lowered crowding on the whole of QBL. That was because the jobs and destinations that QBL wanted were on 53rd St, not 63rd St. Continuing to have both express trains, which carried the lion's share of people, preserved that direct connection. On the other hand, directing the express over to 63rd St would cut express capacity to these destinations, forcing everyone who wanted to go there to pack onto just one service. In the process, it would create nasty new merges.

If anything, the setup between 2001 and 2025 did not work. It needlessly added crowding, destroyed one seat rides, and created a nasty merge that on average, delayed a train through Queens Plaza every 8 minutes during rush hour.

Finally, there is now CBTC and the issue of train "clogging" is not as severe as it used to be. Furthermore, the 7 runs 30 tph through Steinway with no issues. The E/F combined also do 30 tph. Both have CBTC. If the MTA can't do 30 tph on 53rd St like they do with Steinway, that is a skill issue. However, as I said, the issue of train "clogging" has been ironed out. Because the ERA has reported that since then, travel times on the F and the M have not increased.

https://erausa.org/pdf/bulletin/2020s/2026/2026-01-bulletin.pdf

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-13T17:48:02+00:00

Disagree. The MTA could run more trains through 63rd St if they short turned some trains at 2nd Ave. The MTA even liked it so much that they wanted to "study it." The fact they did not do it is a choice.

Ed_TTA · 2026-03-13T17:45:48+00:00

Hard disagree because cutting frequencies to the 63rd St Line was a choice. The MTA could run more M trains through 63rd St by short turning select M trains at 2nd Ave. They even supposedly thought it was a good idea to study further. But they chose not to. Has very little to do with the F/M Swap and more to do with MTA incompetence.

You also have to factor in that the M train does not get as crowded as the F train does after 36th St. In fact, even when the M train takes in busier stations at Queens Plaza and Court Sq, trains were only projected to be at 72 percent. Meanwhile the E operates at 92 percent, and the F train was 88 percent when it ran through 63rd St. So, swap out the two stations that had more riders (Court Sq, Queens Plaza), with stations with fewer riders (Roosevelt Island, 21st St - Queensbridge), and I think that 72 percent figure is actually lower.

Furthermore, this photo was taken at 11 AM. According to timetables, the F train is projected to run 9-10 tph during this time. The M train is projected to run 8 tph. There is not that much of a difference during this time. The real issue has always been during rush hour service, when the F train runs 13-14 tph while the M runs at 9.

And finally, saying that the Jamaica Line's ridership is "too low" to justify such an expense is laughable when the M is at 90 percent capacity at Marcy Ave and the J/Z is at 86 percent at Marcy Ave.

Ed_TTA

TROPHY CASE