The "A" is too long. But I get your point. I thought about the #1, since that is a short line and it would cover the entire Bronx as a crosstown. But the problem here is the terrain around Van Cortlandt Park. There are many different elevations besides Gun Hill Road. Fordham Road is also hilly like Gun Hill Road. So it would have to be deep from the start to get to the Webster Avenue valley. It might be the reason why the old third Avenue El connected to the White Plains Rd instead of Jerome Avenue. Just note that an extended "D" line would have to go under Bronx River Park at some point. And that includes the Metro North Tracks and the #5 tracks, which are both embankments. Honestly, I don't think it would ever happen. The only best choice of any extension is using the highway right of way like the cross Bronx elevated. The "D" line is already elevated. Except, it is included in a metal box. You can see it coming towards the highway at 174th Street.
They should definitely build an extension of the Concourse line. In fact, not only should the (D)avis be extended to Co-Op City, the 6 should as well. We can also convert Pelham Bay Park into a 3 track station to allow peak-direction express 6 trains skip stations between Parkchester and Pelham Bay Park. The stations on the D train extension should be as follows: Olinville-White Plains Road (Transfer to the 2 and rush hour 5) Boston Road-Laconia Avenue Gun Hill Road-Hammersley Avenue (Transfer to the 5) Bartow-Allerton Avenues Co-Op City-Bay Plaza (Transfer to the 6 and Bx12 SBS)
6 train extended into CO OP City would have been nice. MTA/NYC will claim they have no money and more important projects so it never will get done. Same with the D extension.
@@sjice69 thus giving us Bronxites the shaft AGAIN. Why do I say again? Because they could've taken the Q and run it up 3rd Avenue to Fordham Road. I'm not sure if they could run it under Webster to Gun Hill, but damnit this was a golden opportunity to give us back our 3rd Avenue line and the MTA chose to have the Second Avenue line turn east and terminate at 125th. They screwed the pooch BIG TIME.
@@ElJibaro718They are definitely gonna bring the Thrid Avenue Elevated line back I'm telling you. Like the governor Cathy hucko said get it done or else the MTA won't have a job anymore and the Mayor Eric Adams said. There's is millions and millions of people looking for work right now.
Any A or D train extensions will have to go underground. Long stretches of Fordham Road and Gun Hill Road are one traffic-lane wide, and building elevated tracks will require long-term shutdowns of those roadways.
It's definitely needs to happen because south Bronx Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Elevated line is definitely needed. The Thrid Avenue Elevated line definitely needs to come back between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains. Bring the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line back. Extend the Pelham 6 line to co op city mall leave the B D trains alone And focus on the extra iRT elevated lines. Good enough that the D trains run through 205 and Coney island stillwell and the B trains run through Harlem 145 and morning and evenings rush hour week days to Bedford park leamem Leamem college.
@@leecornwell5632 always thought that it would be cheaper/easier to extend the 5 line into co-op after Dyre. Being that it seems closer and less of a hassle to build
I really think more orbital light rail is needed in NYC. Most European cities use trams that run on dedicated tracks and have transit signal priority for lower-capacity routes that probably don't have enough ridership to justify a subway but also have much more than buses can handle. Queens and the Bronx really need a lot more of these light rail (and even bus rapid transit) lines running crosstown, connecting major destinations like hospitals, shopping centers, subway stops, and universities. A cross-bronx subway is also required, of course, for the most heavily used route, but in addition to this extension, NYC should look into cheaper rapid transit proposals that can replace the slow and overcrowded crosstown buses.
I have been saying for years the D Train should be extended across Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City. But why stop there? Extend the 6 Train from Pelham Bay Park to Co-Op City as well. Since the Metro-North New Haven Line is being extended through the East Bronx and Co-Op City being one of the 4 stops being built, make a like Transit Hub in Co-Op City. Now you'll have not only the Metro-North, but also the D and 6 Trains for more options through The Bronx. That would make more sense, and ultimately add rail service to an area of The Bronx that has gone without it for years and desperately need it. Co-Op City needs rail service Big Time!!
Why not also extend the 2nd avenue line across the Harlem River, into the Bronx, and running it all the way up to Co-op City, to physically connect with the D train?!
Norwood 205th Street is the end of the line, but it is NOT the terminal of the line. The actual terminal is Bedford Park Blvd., which is where crews get on and off.
You're right. One of the strangest and most intriguing operations is when crew pull the air brakes and sit at Bedford Park Blvd for a couple minutes. I almost never ride this route but I did a couple of times a few years ago just before the pandemic.
Co-0p City needs subway service. Going accross Thee Pelham Pwky and Fordham Rd is the best way to go. I have seen many people get off the bus at Gun Hill Road (Seymour Ave) to catch the 5 train and I assume many more taking the bus to Pelham Bay Station to get the 6 train. This would also be a good thing for people along the 5 and 2 lines to make a transfer to get to Fordham RD since it is the main shopping district in The Bronx. Traffic along Fordham Rd is very heavy. The last time I was on Fordham Rd I walked from The Concourse to Webster Ave beating the BX12 bus along the same route by several minutes.
To address some issues, give the way the Concourse Line is oriented and the in feasibility of the other options such as the A train extension due to length and terrain issues as well as branching the D at Fordham Road due to service levels, it is clear that extending the D straight across via Burke Avenue is the only viable option. The best way to go about it is to follow the original 1933 plan per of the way. When the line was originally built, it was done so in a way to have the line cross over the park in the lower deck of a viaduct connecting 205th and Burke Avenue. Don’t worry. Such a connection can still be built for trains and it won’t negatively impact the park (the road portion of the viaduct won’t be constructed. From there to leave the park as quickly as possible, the line would then operate along Burke Avenue for much of the way (going to Gun Hill would have too much of a negative effect on the park). Given Bronx development, the whole extension from there on out would be underground via Burke Avenue until Wilson Avenue, with stops at White Plains Road (connect with the 2 train), Bronxwood Avenue, and Boston Road-Laconia Avenue, all within a 20 minute walk within Gun Hill Road’s catchment area. After Wilson Avenue, the line would diverge from the 1933 plan and finally shift onto Gun Hill Road for the rest of the way to Co-op City. After turning onto the roadway, the subway route would have a single stop at Seymour Avenue to connect with the 5 train. After that, it would then turn onto Bartow Avenue with one stop at Gunther Avenue and another one at Baychester Avenue, and will terminate at Co-op City Blvd. An optional thing to include is an extension is a short extension from Co-op City all the way to Orchard Beach, inside Pelham Bay Park. This underground extension would allow for direct subway service to the beach, reducing the need to get to the Bx12 to go to the beach and increasing access overall. It is of note that this service will operate only during the Summer Season from Memorial Day to just after Labor Day and the trains will be extended there during those time. Outside of summer and the beach hours, service will terminate at Co-op City. Given the MTA construction issues, should the MTA get costs under control this whole extension should be built in phases. Phase 1 would be the short bridge to a desperately needed new terminal and crew facilities at Burke Avenue/White Plains Road. From there, Phase 2 would be the rest of the route along Burke Avenue, Gun Hill, and Bartow Avenue to Co-Op City. Phase 3 will be the optional extension to Orchard Beach.
I’ve argued about this with you already. But, the park is more prominent in the Burke Av’s shadow, and building over the park will still negatively affect it. Burke Av is far less dense to be able to handle that subway compared to Gun Hill, and even though Gun Hill may be a long walk away, it’s like extending to LaGuardia via 23rd St. It’s impractical. Also what are these « terrain issues »?
@@peskypigeonx Not necessarily true as a bridge over the park is pretty much unavoidable and when done correctly, it shouldn’t be an issue. With this also being said, Burke also provided a direct ride but not to fret: past Laconia Avenue, the line also uses Gun Hill to get to Bartow Avenue, so essentially this is a hybrid of both plans. For terrain, we have the issue of the Bronx being pretty hilly with steep terrain changes. Any underground stations would require steep grades or really deep stations.
@@TheRailLeaguer If you’ve actually ever been to the park, you’d know that doing this, at least overground via bridge, has no way to not be obstructive in this area. This is basically like a centerpiece of the park, and as much as you want to blend it in, it’s still going to pop up.
@@peskypigeonx Doesn’t mean that isn’t feasible, nor can we make its effects less minimal (noise barriers and over mitigations). We’ve had to dig subway routes through parks before and the elevated F train passes through a huge cemetery complex in Brooklyn. Also helps that it will be level the whole way. As for getting it past WPR, the 1933 plans called for the extension to be underground from that point on. With this in mind, I would propose it to be that way until at least Laconia Avenue. From there it would be preferable to remain underground the whole way, similar to the original Baychester Avenue plan, but if possible, it could be elevated the rest of the route.
I would say to go with the Gun Hill road line option as that would be easier, it’s a commercial street where cars don’t really travel that fast as supposed to Boston road. It would be one straight line until Bartow Avenue then turn left to end at Co-op City Blvd. The question is will the MTA just do the bare minimum and extend the 6 just a few feet into Bay Plaza and say “Hey at least we gave co op City a subway line.”? They would argue that it would take less time and money.
(this was originally by accident put in another comment) Finally some better representation of this plan! I also would prefer the Gun Hill Rd Line, especially considering the lower density of Burke Av compared to just going directly on it. Though I really do not know where you would put the portal. The amount of bus riders that have to be fit through the few openings in the Bronx River Area is overwhelming, and slow for so many, where you’re on the Bx41, Bx28/38, Bx25/26, or the Bx12.
I feel that tearing down the 3rd Avenue EL in the Bronx was a bad idea. What should have happened is to have the 2nd Avenue subway operate into the Bronx, operating via Webster Avenue as an underground subway or elevated from Claremont Parkway to Allerton or Burke Avenue, connecting with the D to Bay Plaza.
I like the 3rd and 4th proposals honestly. Both should be built but instead of ditching the concourse extension, extend it to Gun Hill Road on the (2) line. This will allow easier access to the west side of Manhattan from those coming from Wakefield. And to talk about the 3rd proposal, there is a proposal by MysticTransit which he wants to make the Bx12 Light Rail.
Glad to hear. As for Mystic Transit's idea on making the Bx12 light rail, I respectfully disagree with him for three reasons. 1. There is some underestimating how many commuters would use the Cross Bronx subway if it was a thing. We are talking about over 100k riders wanting to go crosstown. Seattle's light rail system, which carries 80k riders, already uses huge rail cars to handle that ridership, meaning that at that point, just go for a heavy rail system. 2. I know that Mystic Transit proposed giving trains their own right of way in some parts, which is good, but my problem with light rail turning into a gadgetbahn. There is no doubt that the project will go over budget, causing massive scaledowns where light rail will mix into traffic, meaning a glorified Bx12 but on tracks. This means if there is any traffic, prepare for extensive delays. Part of the reason why I think that is because of what is happening to the IBX. The MTA claimed that it will be a light rail, but due to cost overruns, we got trains mixed with the street. At least for subways, they have to commit to it from day one, and build the project on how it was intended because people at least know how a subway works, so any scaledowns will be politically infeasible. 3. Finally, light rail cannot connect with the NYC Subway system, meaning that the MTA/city will have to pay for new maintenance crew, new drivers, and new yards. That all adds to the cost, and since standardization is one thing that drives down costs, having different types of trains, with different operators is not going to be very efficient. At least for the subway option, it will use the same rolling stock, meaning the same operators, same maintenance crews, and the same control centers can operate the line, meaning reduced costs. Now, if there is a massive coordinated effort to get light rail expansions in NYC then I am more on board, but for now, I don't like the light rail option.
@@jointransitassociationbut from what I remember hearing about the IBX is that it won’t travel on the street expect just for a little bit in Middle Village because of the tunnel under that cemetery. They’re supposed to be building over the existing bay ridge tracks.
@@jointransitassociation light rail wouldn't work heading down Fordham Road. Busses already prove that. Drivers don't respect the bus lanes so imagine light rail running down Fordham. I would love to see it, but it ain't feasible.
I agree completely. Never ditch the Concourse extension, no matter what. I still think Pelham Parkway should be converted into a real parkway, but I also like the idea of a Fordham Road Spur from the Concourse Line.
I've revisited my deinterlining plans after seeing some of your newest videos (as of August 26). The E and K via Fulton with 36 TPH seriously struck a chord (despite my doubt that there are enough trains to achieve that throughout, even after the last option order of R211s) and had influenced most of my changes, which also take into account room for new lines/expansions (meaning it's both actionable today and futureproof). But as part of the above, you propose cutting the A back to WTC. Either this MUCH shorter line or the B would run to Inwood. Sticking with the latter, in another video you propose sending one of two 6th Ave lines to Bay Ridge. Of course, the route to 95 St is much shorter than the route to Coney Island. Let's say the B, which runs to Inwood, is also the one that takes the shorter route to Bay Ridge. According to A, D, and R schedules, the runtime for this entire route is 75 minutes, whereas the longest lines today (A, D, F, R, 2) are 100 minutes. I think it's reasonable for the B to serve the 10:45 alignment. I'm not sure whether most of the Bx12 ridership is east of Concourse, however there's substantial demand west of it. According to the Bronx Bus Network Redesign Existing Conditions Report, there's a ton of westbound boardings at Concourse, Jerome, and University Ave. The highest eastbound boardings are Broadway, 10 Ave (1 train), and Jerome Ave (followed by Concourse, Southern Blvd, & White Plains Rd). And the top bus transfer to/from the Bx12, local and SBS, is the Bx3, which is on University Ave (followed by the Bx39). All west of Concourse! Finally, yeah, the terrain of western Bronx would indeed make it difficult to build an elevated line. Leaving tunneling as the remaining option, and of course, expensive. But as a line that already starts underground, you don't have to do as much elevation changing after crossing the Harlem River, and you might be able to cut across the street grid (e.g. using 190 St) where the elevation is high. The terrain calms down east of Webster Ave (you can also take advantage of the downhill leading towards Webster, though more people would probably protest a portal here), so at most you'd need a 2 mile tunnel, and the remaining 4 miles can certainly be elevated.
The E and K route combination is fine but there are better ways to deinterline the subway as we would have to revisit some of the plans proposed by Vanshnookeraggen First the A gets chopped back to WTC but it will not have the C running with it as the A is taking the title along Concourse to Norwood 205th St as it is a shorter route The B can take the tracks to Inwood as planned but it will take the tracks via Sea Beach to Coney Island as we are saving the provisions for the Staten Island Subway because it would be a longer route than the route to Coney Island so the B gets the branch to Coney Island. The Fordham Crosstown route could be the only extension that the B would get while the D gets the one to Staten Island. The C is rerouted away from CPW and on to the QBL to Jamaica 179th St replacing the K route making the C and E Combination as you achieve the same 36tph on Cranberry. The C train would also handle all the express service on Fulton to both Lefferts Blvd and the Rockaways. The proposed C Train would be providing better service than what the A serves today. The D Train would be moved off Concourse to run to 168th St. With the D ending there it means that the line would end at Bay Ridge 95th St so that we can use the plans to extend the proposed D to Staten Island, as with the B would be too long. Any rider that wants Services to Norwood 205th St can use a cross island transfer to the A Train. The E would be the same as the C but would serve the same purpose as the proposed K route as the E would run local on Fulton to Euclid Ave. Any rider that seeks service to Lefferts Blvd or Far Rockaway can transfer to a C Train making those stops as the C would handle 24tph as without QueensLink the C would have to alternate between 3 branches without QueensLink as that totals to 8tph on each branch. With the A ending at Norwood you have 24tph on Concourse and 15tph for both the B and D meaning that the B and D run at a combined 30tph. Also the merges at 59th St and 145th St would be gone, as the A would have its own track to cross on to while the B and D split off on another.
@@Reformperson I think the vanshnookenraggen deinterlining plan gives the largest quantity of riders what they want - and makes sense to build long-term extensions off of. First, running the B to Inwood and the D to Norwood, both along CPW express, would satisfy the most riders. Keep in mind that riders on both lines have likely already transferred from another bus or jitney. These are the reasons I don't want Inwood and Norwood each served by two different trunks where one would run via CPW local. In addition, even if the D was the only line along Concourse, 10 TPH would be a considerable improvement over 6 TPH along Concourse today, delivering a 66.666% increase in capacity. Second, we must take rolling stock quantities into account. Unfortunately, even after the R211 order, there is not enough rolling stock to run any individual B-division subway line beyond 10 TPH, except for the L - unless you wanna pick and choose which services get higher frequencies and which ones lose out lol. This is why my proposed frequency for every individual labeled line is every 6 minutes (10 TPH), except for the L - because that's all we can do with the trains we will have 8 years from now. For the deinterlined E and K there would only be enough trains for 30 TPH (although CBTC should still be built for 36 TPH, because that'll allow trains to get back on schedule after a delay 👍🏻). I think the deinterlined A (which won't be that short, with a 41-minute runtime) and C will actually be challenging to run, because it is most likely to be served by 207 St yard where inspection sheds do not fit full-length 600-foot ten-car trains, and we won't have any spare eight-car trains for the job. So they'll have to pull ten-car trains from Concourse and Coney Island yards, with one only large enough to serve the D and the other being disconnected and far away. (At least there *will* be enough ten-car trains to go around.) Third, I don't want subway runtimes to be too long, primarily to make it easier on train crews. Today, the longest subway trips top out at 100 minutes, according to schedules. To make some of this less confusing and recap so far, I'd label routes differently (again, each train on this list would run every 6 minutes): - A: Far Rockaway-179 St (Jamaica) via Fulton/8 Av/Queens Bl exp - C: Lefferts Blvd-179 St (Jamaica) via Fulton/8 Av/Queens Bl exp - E: Euclid Ave-Jamaica Center via Fulton *local* + 8 Av/Queens Bl exp - K: 168 St-WTC via 8 Av/CPW local - V: Bedford Park Blvd-WTC via 8 Av/CPW local - B: Inwood-Bay Ridge via CPW/6 Av express - D: Norwood-Coney Island via CPW/6 Av express & Sea Beach --- Now let's talk long-term extensions, with the assumption that this will take a long time, giving MTA time to buy enough subway cars and build storage and maintenance facilities for expanded service. Starting with the B via Fordham Road to Co-op City. According to schedules based off existing routes, it would be 75 minutes from Bay Ridge to Inwood-207, which is why I don't want to bring it to Coney Island after extending it via Fordham Road. Next: what's *my* answer for a subway to Staten Island? A branch off of the IND Culver line. (Caveat: Steps 1 and 2 can happen even if the extension never happens. 👍🏻) 1) First the M would be taken off Chrystie St/6 Ave and replaced with the H. The F continues to run to Forest Hills while the H serves QueensLink and maximizes capacity through Queens Blvd local, Manhattan (6 Av local), and Brooklyn. The H would terminate at either Kings Highway or Avenue X, since Coney Island is a low-capacity terminal. Side benefit: eight-car trains would be freed up for the K. 2) With the H running to Brooklyn, there's not enough space to run the F, H, *and* G local between Bergen St and Church Ave. So the F and H would run express full-time, cutting 10 minutes off total runtimes (this is important), and resulting in 20 TPH service between Kings Highway and 63 Dr-Rego Park. As a consequence, the G would be fully deinterlined, allowing *it* to run at max frequency as well, and facilitating local/express transfers as both would be super frequent. 3) Finally, I'd have the H go to Coney Island and build new tunnels diverging off the F just north of Church Ave, going all the way down Fort Hamilton Pkwy and over into Staten Island. Why the F? It would be much shorter than the H to the Rockaways, terminating at Forest Hills. Unlike a subway via 4th Avenue, it would also enjoy higher average speeds by avoiding slow zones around DeKalb Ave and the Manhattan Bridge. After all of the above, I estimate a 85-minute runtime between Forest Hills and Grasmere. I'd make up for the loss of the M to Midtown with other extensions: I) This is not an extension but a reminder that the H would double capacity at Essex St. A new transfer connecting Bowery to Grand St (B/D) might also help. II) SAS via Houston St, S 4 St, and Utica Ave instead of MTA's proposed Phase 4. In terms of subway capacity, it would be like building a second 6 train, making it so L riders, including people transferring to the L from the G (Lorimer St) and M (Myrtle/Wyckoff), don't have to transfer at Union Square or Bway-Lafayette St, relieving overcrowding at those stations themselves. It would also relieve the 4 and 5 in Brooklyn because this is what I propose for the Utica Ave subway, connecting with the deinterlined 4 and 5 at Crown Heights and then taking a more direct, shorter route to SoHo. Caveat: I don't know of a yard that can serve this line. III) Uniting the K with the M by rebuilding the Myrtle Ave el with a portal underground near Ryerson and Steuben streets, and eventually connecting this to 8th Ave local at Canal St. So the M would replace the K, running between Middle Village and Washington Heights, and the V would run between Bedford Park Blvd and WTC (both with 8-car trains). Then I would extend the M beyond Metropolitan Ave in the direction of Corona and LGA. Why? This gives northern Queens more connections to Brooklyn without traveling all the way around Manhattan, including a transfer to my proposed SAS at Myrtle Av-Bway. Unlike the IBX, this new M would also serve downtown Brooklyn as well as lower Manhattan. I'd build this in the style of the 63rd St tunnel/East Side Access, in order to connect the LIRR to NJ, creating frequent through-running regional rail between Far Rockaway/Long Beach and the Main, Bergen County, and Pascack Valley lines (with deinterlining at Jamaica). Finally, this would fully deinterline the J, so it can run 4-car trains at 24 TPH. Speaking of regional rail, before a subway to Staten Island, I'd extend the Metro-North to Staten Island first, and have that take over the S.I. Railway. I also have a regional rail plan but this wall of text is already long (1,270 words 🤐). Running Harlem line trains to SI would: 1) also relieve Lexington Ave subways 2) relieve NJT at Metropark station as well 3) replace express buses, so those buses can run to other destinations or be replaced with more frequent local buses 4) retire the polluting Staten Island Ferry and eliminate 2 mandatory transfers and 20 minutes of travel time 5) connect SI to more transit leading out of the city, further helping compete with driving
@@samuelitooooo yeah but understand that even though 10tph is somewhat ok it can be better with 24tph with the A as we would maximize capacity on Concourse so here is how we will improve it remember as much as we want Both branches to be express it can’t happen as that would cause capacity limits and reverse branching. Which is why the C is removed from CPW and placed on the QBL instead, as C Trains replace the R Trains there and the F and M would use the 63rd St Tunnel. While the C and E Trains use the 53rd St Tunnel. Service would be as Follows A: Norwood 205th St to WTC (8th Ave/CPW Local) B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island via Sea Beach (6th Ave/4th Ave/CPW Express) C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway (Queens Blvd/8th Ave/Fulton St Express) D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St (CPW/6th Ave/4th Ave Express)(Local South of 36th St) E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave (Queens Blvd/8th Ave Express/Fulton St Local) K: Discontinued H: Discontinued M: Rockaway Park to Metropolitan Ave N: 96th St to Coney Island (Brighton/Broadway Express Q: 96th St to Ocean Pkwy (Brighton Local/Broadway Express R: Astoria Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island via West End (Broadway/4th Ave Local) W: Discountinued Z: Discontinued The D Train Extension to Staten Island would have a shorter run time than the B so therefore the D gets that extension as the D ends at 168th St. The M also replaces the Rockaway Park H Shuttle, whereas the C only has to alternate between two Branches. The Express in CPW only saves like 3 minutes so it wouldn’t matter and the A route I proposed would be shorter as Concourse Riders get 24tph and If they want 6th Ave Service there’s a Cross Island Transfer to either the B or D Train that run at a combined 30tph.
@@Reformperson The pros of this plan are that the A can be exclusively served by Concourse Yard, and that the D runtime between Washington Heights and Fort Hamilton is 60 minutes, which is admittedly better than my proposed F extension running between Forest Hills and Grasmere in an estimated 85 minutes. The cons of this are 1) Concourse does not have room to store all trains needed for 24 TPH A train service, which would require about 46 trains (The yard currently stores 33.5 trains) 2) The closest yard to the D is 207, so the D would have to run 8-car trains for reasons I already wrote in my last mega-comment 3) The M remains interlined, prohibiting capacity increases on the IND Culver, and using 8-car trains that the D would need 4) The Fordham Road extension is no longer feasible, as the B train runtime between Inwood and Coney Island would be about 82 minutes 5) Both C branches east of Rockaway Blvd would remain at 5 TPH, which is definitely substantially better than today's schedules, but vanshookenraggen's plan enables 10 TPH on those same segments. Also, [I can't believe I didn't check this earlier, but] CPW express saves closer to 5 minutes, according to existing schedules, and probably more with CBTC since that enables higher speed limits but doesn't enable shorter dwell times. Today, express trains take 11-12 minutes to travel between 59 St and 145 St, and local trains do the same in 15-18 minutes. In other words, local riders can switch to an express train and then "skip the line", passing two local trains (if at 24 TPH) by the time they get to 59 St, and hop back on the local.
@@samuelitooooo a run to Grasmere with the D from Washington Height would be around 65 minutes, and if we extended it to Richmond Ave in Victory Blvd it would be approximately 80-85 minutes of run tile with the D going there. Also the A on Concourse would allow for peak direction express service and I remember TTA mentioned that 24tph on Concourse is possible and the D won’t have to use 8 car sets, as it would use 10 car sets. The Staten Island Extension would serve the Grasmere Station and Places along Victory Blvd for more riders serving residents, and the College of Staten Island as well, the station would be elevated located at the gate, and would end at Richmond Ave which would have tail tracks that lead to a new yard as there is space for development of a new yard West of the Richmond Ave Station I Proposed, and would replace the s93 LTD and would be repurposed as a rush hour variant of the s53. The C without QueensLink would run 8tph on 3 branches, on Lefferts, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, which is better that what the A does today. Some A Trains would end at Bedford Pk Blvd maintains the 24tph on the Local tracks and Concourse. The E however maintains its 12tph as it would end at Euclid Ave instead of WTC. But it would be 10tph on each branch of the E ends at Lefferts Blvd while all C Trains go to the Rockaways. 10tph on both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Pk would easily replace the inconsistent H shuttle. If Concourse can’t handle that amount of trains then the A would have between 16-18tph which is much better depending how Norwood 205th St does as a terminal, also with the D to Staten Island and the new Yard I propose at Staten Island after Richmond Ave, we can give those trains there as a new subway would need extra capacity giving the D 18-21tph which is what Staten Island could have as the run time to Grand St in Manhattan to Grasmere would be 30 minutes with the D.
Exactly 💯% right on that. Pelham Bay park is definitely way over Crowding just like main street Flushing. You have to remember the metro North railroad Connecticut is going back to Pennsylvania station Manhattan Hunts point moriss parkchester and co op city. Just make it to stop and make a over pass just like they did on the Thrid Avenue Elevated line when it pass the mayge Mayjor highway.
I agree. It will help Bronx residences significantly! I just wish it was the #1 because of the whole mileage issue with the "D" But the terrain won't allow something like that to occur.
I would love your final option of the B train going its own route after Fordham Road to Co-op City Blvd, it brings prestige to an already almost-dead service and definitely would help with overcrowding issues on the BX12 route. A MUST HAVE!!
While there is a lot of demand for Cross, Bronx train services, I think Gun Hill Road is the wrong corridor. The intent is to focus on other projects, like the second Avenue subway, Interboro express, and improving commuter rail service. When it finally comes time to look at Cross Bronx services, we should focus on the light rail across Fordham Road, and speeding up the bus service on other Corridors. If it was going to be a subway, perhaps go across Burke Avenue to co-op city
You are underestimating how many commuters would use the Cross Bronx subway if it was a thing. We are talking about over 100k riders wanting to go crosstown and would rather take the subway over whatever slow BRT that the city implemented with the Bx12. Currently, it takes around half an hour to get from Grand Concourse to Eastern Bronx. It should not take half an hour for commuters to go three miles. The Cross Bronx subway absolutely should be a priority, and yes, SAS, IBX, and regional rail should also be a priority. They all should be a priority, combined with numerous other projects, like the Queenslink, 7 Train Project, Utica Ave subway, Nostrand Ave extension, rehabilitation of the J/Z, SE Queens Line, and so much more. NYC largely ditched expanding its system after 1940, and since then, the city has grown to the point where the NYC Subway system is overcrowded and needs new subway routes. Also, I would not give Fordham Rd a light rail service. Remember that Cross Bronx is very heavily used (over 100k riders), and Seattle's light rail system, which carries 80k riders, already uses huge rail cars to handle that ridership, meaning that at that point, just go for a heavy rail system. Also, you are running the risk of turning the project into a gadgetbahn, as there is no doubt that the project will go over budget, causing massive scaledowns where light rail will mix into traffic, meaning a glorified Bx12. At least with a subway, you have to commit to it. Finally, light rail cannot connect with the NYC Subway system, meaning that the MTA/city will have to pay for new maintenance crew, new drivers, and new yards. What you will end up with if you pursue the light rail option is potential trains mixing in with the street, causing delays, small trains that cannot adequately serve the potential 100k riders, and no interoperability.
@@jointransitassociation OK, maybe a subway would work. But I'm always reluctant to agree with subway expansions and find it hard to believe that such a big system needs so many expansions. If the Cross Bronx Subway is so important, why does no one talk about it? Also, a light rail can use existing crew and drivers, from the buses it replaces. Subway is not always feasible. I see a new second avenue subway esque-scale and fiasco here. I see a lot of struggle to make it, and while I think it would help riders, I don't see an easy way to make it possible, so this is why I want light rail and bus improvements
@@transitcaptain The same thing will happen to light rail. Part of the reason why I think that is because of what is happening to the IBX. The MTA claimed that it will be a light rail, but due to cost overruns, we got trains mixed with the street. At least for subways, they have to commit to it from day one, and build the project on how it was intended because people at least know how a subway works, so any scaledowns (like street running) will be politically infeasible. Even if the MTA cleans itself, I still don't think light rail is okay here. Part of the reason why light rail can traverse hilly regions is because rail cars are light and small, but light and small does not match the ridership of Cross Bronx. The Cross Bronx Subway can see 100k riders, and since Seattle's light rail system sees 80k riders and uses huge rail cars to move people, anything bigger would become subway/heavy rail. Also, as stated in the video, I do not like the entire Fordham Rd corridor to be a subway, because as you stated earlier, Bronx is more hilly to the west than in the east. But Cross Bronx ridership is concentrated east of Concourse, a branch to Co-Op city via Fordham Rd and Pelham Pkwy will work the best. A lower level at Fordham Rd would be perfect, as it is deeper, so by the time it gets to Co-Op City, even though the tracks will remain level, it will become elevated because the land will continuously slope down. Furthermore, just because NYC has a huge subway system, it does not mean it needs more. Another reason why I support Cross Bronx is also the same reason why I support Queenslink: it provides a radial rail line that can connect all of existing rail lines. All Bronx lines are north-south, and there is no east-west line, so even though Bronx on paper looks covered, if you don't travel north-south or into Manhattan, then you can't use a rail line. That is the case for more than 100k commuters in the Bronx. Same thing with the Queenslink. All Queens lines are east-west, so even though on paper Queens looks covered (for the area around the Queenslink), if commuters want to go north-south, then they cannot do so by rail, meaning using a bus or driving in traffic heavy roads. That is the case for 26k riders that use the Woodhaven Blvd corridor (Q11, Q21, Q52, Q53) alone, and not factoring other heavily used bus lines. And yes, Cross Bronx is talked about a lot in the transit community. Mystic Transit and Nerdy Nel have talked about this, and they are major figures in the transit community, so I wouldn't say the Cross Bronx subway is an obscure topic.
Between 167 and 170th street station there is a 4th pocket track directly to the west of the southbound track. This means that every southbound platform on the line was designed to be the downtown local track and the existing track was supposed to be the downtown express track.
Please do an extension of the [1], [6], [7], [E], [J], [W], & [Z] to Brooklyn. I would also like an extension of the [A], [M], [N], & [W] to The Bronx.
I know I'm off topic but why not revived the Third Ave El that runs up to Fordham Rd then head east on Fordham Rd all the way to Bay Plaza? The train can be branched off the 2/5 at the hub then proceed to Third Ave?
I don't like reviving the Third Ave El, because you can achieve regional rail service on Metro North with a fraction of the cost. Also, branching off the 2/5 is a non starter. The 2/5 runs borderline abysmal frequencies and branching will introduce 10+ minute wait times. Even with deinterlining, that is every 6 to 8 minutes, during rush hour. The IRT White Plains Rd line sees very high ridership, meaning decreasing frequencies are a no go. Finally, Grand Concourse and Jerome Ave are major destinations, but by using the Third Ave el, you cut off those major destinations. If you want to build the Cross Bronx subway, starting at Grand Concourse is an absolute must.
If you are interested, here is an article that address your concerns: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/04/the-future-of-the-2nd-ave-subway-a-bronx-tail-track/. Hope it helps!
The first proposal makes sense because when it comes to the east west crossways, this opens up another option for any Bronxite. And I live in that area.
I heard that, when the Concourse line was proposed, people along the Concourse were given the choice of having it built right away as a 3-track line, or having it built perhaps a decade later (when the City expected to have more money) as a 4-track line. They chose the 3-track option by a wide margin.
The option of extending the Concourse Line down Gun Hill Road seems like the most reasonable and feasible option. As for relief for the M12 Bus, a cross-Bronx shuttle subway between Marble Hill and Throggs Neck could be a good option.
people would confuse stillwelll bronx with the major stilwell avenue terminal in coney island that also happens to be the other teminal of the D line. 'also dose the bronx have a proper downtwon n . if so where is it.
They should have extended the A line towards Van Cortlandt Park and do the split like in Rockaway Blvd. One goes towards Van Cortlantd and the other goes across The Bronx towards Co-Op city and connect to all the lines including Metro North and New Haven Lines.
TBM Boring will likely be needed. This will allow construction under the game Reserve or via the Polo Grounds route. This can of worms got opened with East Side Access.
I do support subway extensions to Co-op City, a dense residential area with 24/7 ridership. A very solid anchor for heavy transit services. With my proposed extension of the deinterlined (B) from Inwood to Co-op City via Fordham Road, the articulated buses on the BX12 can be repurposed towards hyper-frequent Orchard Beach shuttles. I also propose expanding Eastchester Depot from 140 buses to 300 so that, among other reasons, routes like the Bx29 can run every 6 minutes all day. Of course, there should also be a station for frequent, through running regional rail over by Section 5. I think certain extensions would carry a high price tag, but would also carry a high return on investment. An extension from 207th would follow one of the 3 busiest bus routes in the entire city, and the elbow room this would provide with 6-minute service would surely induce ridership as it alleviates overcrowding that riders currently experience on buses. You can then upzone around Pelham Parkway, since much of eastern Bronx is lower density with more single family homes. Finally, yeah, the terrain of western Bronx would indeed make it difficult to build an elevated line. Leaving tunneling as the remaining option, and of course, expensive, But as a line that already starts underground, you don't have to do as much elevation changing after crossing the Harlem River, you might be able to cut across the street grid (e.g. using 190th St) where the elevation is high. The terrain calms down east of Webster Avenue (you can also take advantage of the downhill leading towards Webster, though more people would probably protest a portal here), so at most you'd need a 2 mile tunnel, and the remaining 4 miles can certainly be elevated. Also I'd extend the deinterlined (A) to Co-op City via Burke Avenue the best way to go about it is to follow the original 1933 plan per of the way. When the line was originally built, it was done so in a way to have the line cross over the park in the lower deck of a viaduct connecting 205th and Burke Avenue. Don't worry. Such a connection can still be built for trains and it won't negatively impact the park (the road portion of the viaduct won't be constructed. From there leave the park as quickly as possible, the line would then operate along Burke Avenue for much of the way (going to Gun Hill would have too much of a negative effect on the park). Given Bronx development, the whole extension from there on out would be underground via Burke Avenue until Wilson Avenue, then the line would diverge from the 1933 plan and finally shift onto Gun Hill Road for the rest of the way to Co-op City. Given the MTA construction issues, should the MTA get costs under control this whole extension should be built in phases. Phase 1 would be the short bridge to a desperately needed new terminal and crew facilities at Burke Avenue/White Plains Road. From there, Phase 2 would be the rest of the route along Burke Avenue, Gun Hill, and Bartow Avenue to Co-op City. Phase 3 will be the optional extension to Orchard Beach. As for the Fordham extension it should be built into two phases with Phase 1 being a 2 mile tunnel portion of the Western Bronx to about Webster Avenue and with Phase 2 being a 4 mile elevated structure east of Webster Avenue and would be the rest of the route to Co-op City Blvd following the Bx12 alignment along Fordham and Pelham Parkway to Co-op City Blvd.
interesting, never realized Cross-Bronx was a necessity, but, if the bus ridership numbers confirm it... I mean, the fact such a dense if shrinking neighborhood is so much underserved when it comes to transport, that is a problem, especially, if the neighborhood is already an underprivileged part of the city,
Crossovers just ahead of terminal stops are common, but not universal. Placing a switch behind a terminal station is acceptable so long as trains empty of passengers, are moved onto the tail track switch and then moved back into service on the opposite side. 179 St - Jamaica is a terminal that has no crossovers between it and 169 St. The crossovers are located on the tail tracks. Also, you might look at Stillwell Av - Coney Island. Look at the diagram in both directions.
Aside from the Bronx River Parkway, and the old Bronx River Parkway, there really isn't that much of the Bronx Park corridor that would be touched by the extension. You just have to concentrate largely on running it under Gun Hill Road.
I think a better solution is to extend the ( 6 ) Pelham Bay Express to Co-op City and construct a light metro under and over Fordham Road - Prlham Bay Parkway.
It would be neat if the city would extend the Concourse line to the Dyre Av line; connecting the two lines thus allowing the D to terminate at Eastchester. EDIT: Bay Plaza, Esplanade (ˌe-splə-ˈnäd).
Why not lay tracks over the (future) Cross Bronx Expressway deck project and run surface transit along an established ROW for a lot less money than the MTA could possibly squander.
@@jointransitassociation Lets not make perfection the enemy of the good. After all, they're going to install that idiotic deck over the road anyway ... as in out of sight, out of (their) minds instead of fixing the problem by adding another 6 lanes. Ask yourself this - What would Big Bob Moses do?
@@tobygoodguy4032 Usually, I would agree with that statement, but that statement only applies if a plan is not terribly flawed. Branching at Cross Bronx Expressway will cut capacity in the places where you have capacity, and is too far south to where people want to go. The reason why we have urban planning is because people want to move as many people as possible, and highway alignments, although tempting to use, need to be contextualized. Fordham Rd and Pelham Pkwy, where most of the ridership is at, is over one mile away. If most people need to walk a mile to where they need to take the train, it makes it way less effective. Always build transit in the places where it would be the most effective, not where it is the least expensive. And we wouldn't make these big decisions. That is up to experienced transit planners. We are just people who like trains and read a lot about it in our spare time. We are always going to have opinions, but take them with a grain of salt. The real work that should be taken seriously are the transit planners. Also, the Cross Bronx Expressway needs to be left alone and be decked over. No road widening should take place because of the rule of induced demand: you build it, more is going to come. You widen that road and I guarantee you that the expressway will be congested, just like when the Kosciusko Bridge was widened.
@@tobygoodguy4032 The Third Avenue Elevated line should of been left alone also right un Above the Express Highway. Leave the B D trains alone And focusing on the extra iRT lines like the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains and just extending the Pelham 6 line to co op city mall and call it a day. The 6 Pelham line could definitely be extended to co op city mall because they have the Connecticut metro North going back to Pennsylvania station Manhattan Hunts point moriss parkchester and co op city in the future. Bring back the 9 V 8 trains.
An advantage of having the D so close to the 4 line is that, if you live in Washington Heights like I do, you can take a downtown A train to 145th St and then transfrer to the D train to get to, say, Yankee Stadium or Alexander's Department Store at Fordham Road back in the 1980s or to The Bronx High School of Science (which I attended in the mid 80s and which my brother later attended and which is a short distance from the Bedford Park Blvd station) or to get to the Bronx Botanical Gardens (which is also a short distance from the Bedford Park Blvd station but in the opposite direction, east rather than west that is), and you can do all this without having to transfer to the 4 train... But, for all other intents and purposes, the D and 4 lines run too close together and thete is too much distance between the D line and the 2 and 5 lines (and there is also too much distance between the 1 and 4 lines, and don't even get me started on the Riverdale section of the Bronx because that's a whole other story which I'll save for a whole other post on a whole other video if you make one on the northwest Bronx).
I'd pass on all of these. What I think would be best would be the Cross Bronx to connect to the new IBX and to be built all at once. Connect Cross Bronx to LGA/Rego Park /Forest Hills/Jamaica down to the Brooklyn Army Termina all in one solution.
The problem with the IBX is that it will run way too south of where people want to go. Pelham Pkwy and Fordham Rd is the corridor where most people want to go.
You forgot about the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be extended between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains.
They all should be done, but the state and the government will not pay for it. China has made hundreds of miles of track and even a train station in a record 8 hours. So why can't we?
@@dannythunder3180 However, other nations worldwide, including the E.U., has expanded their Metro systems. We can do it, but the socialist state refuses funding, so that they can regress society instead of progressing.
But it won't give Bronx commuters Cross Bronx service. Extending the D will. However, we do also favor the 6 being extending to Co-Op city though, along with the D.
That would result in a massive U turn after Dyre that will go on for more than a mile, which is not attractive to the average commuter. Extending the D and the 6 would be better options.
@@jointransitassociation He really doesn't like the current M service or even anything resembling a one-seat ride from the Myrtle Avenue and Broadway-Brooklyn corridors to Midtown Manhattan, despite the service being well received. This is all out of spite, whereas my versions cater to the majority of riders' needs and balance things out.
The A is too long a ride as is. Extended service to CO Op would be impractical for operation ans costly to construct. The Fordam cutoff on the B/D would be the better choice with the D to Co Op and B to 205th
Oh, and don't even get me started on travelling east-west in the Bronx (except to say that the Bx 12 line has greatly improved since the 1980s because now it makes fewer stops and you have to get a ticket from a machine beforehand so the driver doesn't have to wait for people to pay).
The "A" is too long. But I get your point.
I thought about the #1, since that is a short line and it would cover the entire Bronx as a crosstown. But the problem here is the terrain around Van Cortlandt Park. There are many different elevations besides Gun Hill Road.
Fordham Road is also hilly like Gun Hill Road. So it would have to be deep from the start to get to the Webster Avenue valley.
It might be the reason why the old third Avenue El connected to the White Plains Rd instead of Jerome Avenue.
Just note that an extended "D" line would have to go under Bronx River Park at some point. And that includes the Metro North Tracks and the #5 tracks, which are both embankments. Honestly, I don't think it would ever happen.
The only best choice of any extension is using the highway right of way like the cross Bronx elevated.
The "D" line is already elevated. Except, it is included in a metal box. You can see it coming towards the highway at 174th Street.
They should definitely build an extension of the Concourse line. In fact, not only should the (D)avis be extended to Co-Op City, the 6 should as well. We can also convert Pelham Bay Park into a 3 track station to allow peak-direction express 6 trains skip stations between Parkchester and Pelham Bay Park.
The stations on the D train extension should be as follows:
Olinville-White Plains Road (Transfer to the 2 and rush hour 5)
Boston Road-Laconia Avenue
Gun Hill Road-Hammersley Avenue (Transfer to the 5)
Bartow-Allerton Avenues
Co-Op City-Bay Plaza (Transfer to the 6 and Bx12 SBS)
Yes and we definitely agree that the 6 should also get extended to Co-Op city. It is just that the topic deserves its own video.
That will make the d train too long so ill give it to the eight train
6 train extended into CO OP City would have been nice. MTA/NYC will claim they have no money and more important projects so it never will get done. Same with the D extension.
@@sjice69 thus giving us Bronxites the shaft AGAIN. Why do I say again? Because they could've taken the Q and run it up 3rd Avenue to Fordham Road. I'm not sure if they could run it under Webster to Gun Hill, but damnit this was a golden opportunity to give us back our 3rd Avenue line and the MTA chose to have the Second Avenue line turn east and terminate at 125th. They screwed the pooch BIG TIME.
@@ElJibaro718They are definitely gonna bring the Thrid Avenue Elevated line back I'm telling you. Like the governor Cathy hucko said get it done or else the MTA won't have a job anymore and the Mayor Eric Adams said. There's is millions and millions of people looking for work right now.
Any A or D train extensions will have to go underground. Long stretches of Fordham Road and Gun Hill Road are one traffic-lane wide, and building elevated tracks will require long-term shutdowns of those roadways.
It's definitely needs to happen because south Bronx Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Elevated line is definitely needed. The Thrid Avenue Elevated line definitely needs to come back between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains. Bring the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line back. Extend the Pelham 6 line to co op city mall leave the B D trains alone And focus on the extra iRT elevated lines. Good enough that the D trains run through 205 and Coney island stillwell and the B trains run through Harlem 145 and morning and evenings rush hour week days to Bedford park leamem
Leamem college.
You are definitely making a good point 👉. The 6 is definitely gonna be extended to co op city mall I'm telling you.
.
If you know of brand new subway, I make fiction and proposed lines, even abandoned ones.
@@leecornwell5632 always thought that it would be cheaper/easier to extend the 5 line into co-op after Dyre. Being that it seems closer and less of a hassle to build
I really think more orbital light rail is needed in NYC. Most European cities use trams that run on dedicated tracks and have transit signal priority for lower-capacity routes that probably don't have enough ridership to justify a subway but also have much more than buses can handle. Queens and the Bronx really need a lot more of these light rail (and even bus rapid transit) lines running crosstown, connecting major destinations like hospitals, shopping centers, subway stops, and universities. A cross-bronx subway is also required, of course, for the most heavily used route, but in addition to this extension, NYC should look into cheaper rapid transit proposals that can replace the slow and overcrowded crosstown buses.
The main issue I see with that, especially in Manhattan, is that most of the road aren’t wide enough to support light rail
@@B345T1N355Official If those roads already support BUSES, then light rail vehicles shouldn't be too problematic.
I have been saying for years the D Train should be extended across Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City. But why stop there? Extend the 6 Train from Pelham Bay Park to Co-Op City as well. Since the Metro-North New Haven Line is being extended through the East Bronx and Co-Op City being one of the 4 stops being built, make a like Transit Hub in Co-Op City. Now you'll have not only the Metro-North, but also the D and 6 Trains for more options through The Bronx. That would make more sense, and ultimately add rail service to an area of The Bronx that has gone without it for years and desperately need it. Co-Op City needs rail service Big Time!!
Why not also extend the 2nd avenue line across the Harlem River, into the Bronx, and running it all the way up to Co-op City, to physically connect with the D train?!
Norwood 205th Street is the end of the line, but it is NOT the terminal of the line. The actual terminal is Bedford Park Blvd., which is where crews get on and off.
Interesting!
You're right. One of the strangest and most intriguing operations is when crew pull the air brakes and sit at Bedford Park Blvd for a couple minutes. I almost never ride this route but I did a couple of times a few years ago just before the pandemic.
Bedford Park Blvd. is also where one of the IND's master towers is located....
Co-0p City needs subway service. Going accross Thee Pelham Pwky and Fordham Rd is the best way to go. I have seen many people get off the bus at Gun Hill Road (Seymour Ave) to catch the 5 train and I assume many more taking the bus to Pelham Bay Station to get the 6 train. This would also be a good thing for people along the 5 and 2 lines to make a transfer to get to Fordham RD since it is the main shopping district in The Bronx. Traffic along Fordham Rd is very heavy. The last time I was on Fordham Rd I walked from The Concourse to Webster Ave beating the BX12 bus along the same route by several minutes.
To address some issues, give the way the Concourse Line is oriented and the in feasibility of the other options such as the A train extension due to length and terrain issues as well as branching the D at Fordham Road due to service levels, it is clear that extending the D straight across via Burke Avenue is the only viable option.
The best way to go about it is to follow the original 1933 plan per of the way. When the line was originally built, it was done so in a way to have the line cross over the park in the lower deck of a viaduct connecting 205th and Burke Avenue. Don’t worry. Such a connection can still be built for trains and it won’t negatively impact the park (the road portion of the viaduct won’t be constructed.
From there to leave the park as quickly as possible, the line would then operate along Burke Avenue for much of the way (going to Gun Hill would have too much of a negative effect on the park). Given Bronx development, the whole extension from there on out would be underground via Burke Avenue until Wilson Avenue, with stops at White Plains Road (connect with the 2 train), Bronxwood Avenue, and Boston Road-Laconia Avenue, all within a 20 minute walk within Gun Hill Road’s catchment area.
After Wilson Avenue, the line would diverge from the 1933 plan and finally shift onto Gun Hill Road for the rest of the way to Co-op City. After turning onto the roadway, the subway route would have a single stop at Seymour Avenue to connect with the 5 train. After that, it would then turn onto Bartow Avenue with one stop at Gunther Avenue and another one at Baychester Avenue, and will terminate at Co-op City Blvd.
An optional thing to include is an extension is a short extension from Co-op City all the way to Orchard Beach, inside Pelham Bay Park. This underground extension would allow for direct subway service to the beach, reducing the need to get to the Bx12 to go to the beach and increasing access overall. It is of note that this service will operate only during the Summer Season from Memorial Day to just after Labor Day and the trains will be extended there during those time. Outside of summer and the beach hours, service will terminate at Co-op City.
Given the MTA construction issues, should the MTA get costs under control this whole extension should be built in phases. Phase 1 would be the short bridge to a desperately needed new terminal and crew facilities at Burke Avenue/White Plains Road. From there, Phase 2 would be the rest of the route along Burke Avenue, Gun Hill, and Bartow Avenue to Co-Op City. Phase 3 will be the optional extension to Orchard Beach.
I’ve argued about this with you already. But, the park is more prominent in the Burke Av’s shadow, and building over the park will still negatively affect it. Burke Av is far less dense to be able to handle that subway compared to Gun Hill, and even though Gun Hill may be a long walk away, it’s like extending to LaGuardia via 23rd St. It’s impractical. Also what are these « terrain issues »?
@@peskypigeonx Not necessarily true as a bridge over the park is pretty much unavoidable and when done correctly, it shouldn’t be an issue.
With this also being said, Burke also provided a direct ride but not to fret: past Laconia Avenue, the line also uses Gun Hill to get to Bartow Avenue, so essentially this is a hybrid of both plans.
For terrain, we have the issue of the Bronx being pretty hilly with steep terrain changes. Any underground stations would require steep grades or really deep stations.
@@TheRailLeaguer If you’ve actually ever been to the park, you’d know that doing this, at least overground via bridge, has no way to not be obstructive in this area. This is basically like a centerpiece of the park, and as much as you want to blend it in, it’s still going to pop up.
@@TheRailLeaguer Also, how would you even get it past WPR?
@@peskypigeonx Doesn’t mean that isn’t feasible, nor can we make its effects less minimal (noise barriers and over mitigations). We’ve had to dig subway routes through parks before and the elevated F train passes through a huge cemetery complex in Brooklyn. Also helps that it will be level the whole way.
As for getting it past WPR, the 1933 plans called for the extension to be underground from that point on. With this in mind, I would propose it to be that way until at least Laconia Avenue. From there it would be preferable to remain underground the whole way, similar to the original Baychester Avenue plan, but if possible, it could be elevated the rest of the route.
I would say to go with the Gun Hill road line option as that would be easier, it’s a commercial street where cars don’t really travel that fast as supposed to Boston road. It would be one straight line until Bartow Avenue then turn left to end at Co-op City Blvd. The question is will the MTA just do the bare minimum and extend the 6 just a few feet into Bay Plaza and say “Hey at least we gave co op City a subway line.”? They would argue that it would take less time and money.
(this was originally by accident put in another comment) Finally some better representation of this plan! I also would prefer the Gun Hill Rd Line, especially considering the lower density of Burke Av compared to just going directly on it. Though I really do not know where you would put the portal. The amount of bus riders that have to be fit through the few openings in the Bronx River Area is overwhelming, and slow for so many, where you’re on the Bx41, Bx28/38, Bx25/26, or the Bx12.
The reason for the wide west side platform at the Fordham Rd. D station is the Grand Concourse underpass at Fordham Rd. not a forth track.
Was hoping somebody said this I live in the area and I was like “huh”?
I feel that tearing down the 3rd Avenue EL in the Bronx was a bad idea. What should have happened is to have the 2nd Avenue subway operate into the Bronx, operating via Webster Avenue as an underground subway or elevated from Claremont Parkway to Allerton or Burke Avenue, connecting with the D to Bay Plaza.
Wow! Someone else here agrees with me!!
I like the 3rd and 4th proposals honestly. Both should be built but instead of ditching the concourse extension, extend it to Gun Hill Road on the (2) line. This will allow easier access to the west side of Manhattan from those coming from Wakefield.
And to talk about the 3rd proposal, there is a proposal by MysticTransit which he wants to make the Bx12 Light Rail.
Glad to hear. As for Mystic Transit's idea on making the Bx12 light rail, I respectfully disagree with him for three reasons.
1. There is some underestimating how many commuters would use the Cross Bronx subway if it was a thing. We are talking about over 100k riders wanting to go crosstown. Seattle's light rail system, which carries 80k riders, already uses huge rail cars to handle that ridership, meaning that at that point, just go for a heavy rail system.
2. I know that Mystic Transit proposed giving trains their own right of way in some parts, which is good, but my problem with light rail turning into a gadgetbahn. There is no doubt that the project will go over budget, causing massive scaledowns where light rail will mix into traffic, meaning a glorified Bx12 but on tracks. This means if there is any traffic, prepare for extensive delays. Part of the reason why I think that is because of what is happening to the IBX. The MTA claimed that it will be a light rail, but due to cost overruns, we got trains mixed with the street. At least for subways, they have to commit to it from day one, and build the project on how it was intended because people at least know how a subway works, so any scaledowns will be politically infeasible.
3. Finally, light rail cannot connect with the NYC Subway system, meaning that the MTA/city will have to pay for new maintenance crew, new drivers, and new yards. That all adds to the cost, and since standardization is one thing that drives down costs, having different types of trains, with different operators is not going to be very efficient. At least for the subway option, it will use the same rolling stock, meaning the same operators, same maintenance crews, and the same control centers can operate the line, meaning reduced costs.
Now, if there is a massive coordinated effort to get light rail expansions in NYC then I am more on board, but for now, I don't like the light rail option.
@@jointransitassociationbut from what I remember hearing about the IBX is that it won’t travel on the street expect just for a little bit in Middle Village because of the tunnel under that cemetery. They’re supposed to be building over the existing bay ridge tracks.
@@jointransitassociation light rail wouldn't work heading down Fordham Road. Busses already prove that. Drivers don't respect the bus lanes so imagine light rail running down Fordham. I would love to see it, but it ain't feasible.
I agree completely. Never ditch the Concourse extension, no matter what. I still think Pelham Parkway should be converted into a real parkway, but I also like the idea of a Fordham Road Spur from the Concourse Line.
The reas9n the Concourse line ducked east in the first place was precisely to allow for an extension to Gun Hill on the White Plains Road line!
I've revisited my deinterlining plans after seeing some of your newest videos (as of August 26). The E and K via Fulton with 36 TPH seriously struck a chord (despite my doubt that there are enough trains to achieve that throughout, even after the last option order of R211s) and had influenced most of my changes, which also take into account room for new lines/expansions (meaning it's both actionable today and futureproof).
But as part of the above, you propose cutting the A back to WTC. Either this MUCH shorter line or the B would run to Inwood. Sticking with the latter, in another video you propose sending one of two 6th Ave lines to Bay Ridge. Of course, the route to 95 St is much shorter than the route to Coney Island.
Let's say the B, which runs to Inwood, is also the one that takes the shorter route to Bay Ridge. According to A, D, and R schedules, the runtime for this entire route is 75 minutes, whereas the longest lines today (A, D, F, R, 2) are 100 minutes. I think it's reasonable for the B to serve the 10:45 alignment.
I'm not sure whether most of the Bx12 ridership is east of Concourse, however there's substantial demand west of it. According to the Bronx Bus Network Redesign Existing Conditions Report, there's a ton of westbound boardings at Concourse, Jerome, and University Ave. The highest eastbound boardings are Broadway, 10 Ave (1 train), and Jerome Ave (followed by Concourse, Southern Blvd, & White Plains Rd). And the top bus transfer to/from the Bx12, local and SBS, is the Bx3, which is on University Ave (followed by the Bx39). All west of Concourse!
Finally, yeah, the terrain of western Bronx would indeed make it difficult to build an elevated line. Leaving tunneling as the remaining option, and of course, expensive. But as a line that already starts underground, you don't have to do as much elevation changing after crossing the Harlem River, and you might be able to cut across the street grid (e.g. using 190 St) where the elevation is high. The terrain calms down east of Webster Ave (you can also take advantage of the downhill leading towards Webster, though more people would probably protest a portal here), so at most you'd need a 2 mile tunnel, and the remaining 4 miles can certainly be elevated.
The E and K route combination is fine but there are better ways to deinterline the subway as we would have to revisit some of the plans proposed by Vanshnookeraggen
First the A gets chopped back to WTC but it will not have the C running with it as the A is taking the title along Concourse to Norwood 205th St as it is a shorter route
The B can take the tracks to Inwood as planned but it will take the tracks via Sea Beach to Coney Island as we are saving the provisions for the Staten Island Subway because it would be a longer route than the route to Coney Island so the B gets the branch to Coney Island. The Fordham Crosstown route could be the only extension that the B would get while the D gets the one to Staten Island.
The C is rerouted away from CPW and on to the QBL to Jamaica 179th St replacing the K route making the C and E Combination as you achieve the same 36tph on Cranberry. The C train would also handle all the express service on Fulton to both Lefferts Blvd and the Rockaways. The proposed C Train would be providing better service than what the A serves today.
The D Train would be moved off Concourse to run to 168th St. With the D ending there it means that the line would end at Bay Ridge 95th St so that we can use the plans to extend the proposed D to Staten Island, as with the B would be too long. Any rider that wants Services to Norwood 205th St can use a cross island transfer to the A Train.
The E would be the same as the C but would serve the same purpose as the proposed K route as the E would run local on Fulton to Euclid Ave. Any rider that seeks service to Lefferts Blvd or Far Rockaway can transfer to a C Train making those stops as the C would handle 24tph as without QueensLink the C would have to alternate between 3 branches without QueensLink as that totals to 8tph on each branch.
With the A ending at Norwood you have 24tph on Concourse and 15tph for both the B and D meaning that the B and D run at a combined 30tph. Also the merges at 59th St and 145th St would be gone, as the A would have its own track to cross on to while the B and D split off on another.
@@Reformperson I think the vanshnookenraggen deinterlining plan gives the largest quantity of riders what they want - and makes sense to build long-term extensions off of.
First, running the B to Inwood and the D to Norwood, both along CPW express, would satisfy the most riders. Keep in mind that riders on both lines have likely already transferred from another bus or jitney. These are the reasons I don't want Inwood and Norwood each served by two different trunks where one would run via CPW local. In addition, even if the D was the only line along Concourse, 10 TPH would be a considerable improvement over 6 TPH along Concourse today, delivering a 66.666% increase in capacity.
Second, we must take rolling stock quantities into account. Unfortunately, even after the R211 order, there is not enough rolling stock to run any individual B-division subway line beyond 10 TPH, except for the L - unless you wanna pick and choose which services get higher frequencies and which ones lose out lol. This is why my proposed frequency for every individual labeled line is every 6 minutes (10 TPH), except for the L - because that's all we can do with the trains we will have 8 years from now.
For the deinterlined E and K there would only be enough trains for 30 TPH (although CBTC should still be built for 36 TPH, because that'll allow trains to get back on schedule after a delay 👍🏻). I think the deinterlined A (which won't be that short, with a 41-minute runtime) and C will actually be challenging to run, because it is most likely to be served by 207 St yard where inspection sheds do not fit full-length 600-foot ten-car trains, and we won't have any spare eight-car trains for the job. So they'll have to pull ten-car trains from Concourse and Coney Island yards, with one only large enough to serve the D and the other being disconnected and far away. (At least there *will* be enough ten-car trains to go around.)
Third, I don't want subway runtimes to be too long, primarily to make it easier on train crews. Today, the longest subway trips top out at 100 minutes, according to schedules.
To make some of this less confusing and recap so far, I'd label routes differently (again, each train on this list would run every 6 minutes):
- A: Far Rockaway-179 St (Jamaica) via Fulton/8 Av/Queens Bl exp
- C: Lefferts Blvd-179 St (Jamaica) via Fulton/8 Av/Queens Bl exp
- E: Euclid Ave-Jamaica Center via Fulton *local* + 8 Av/Queens Bl exp
- K: 168 St-WTC via 8 Av/CPW local
- V: Bedford Park Blvd-WTC via 8 Av/CPW local
- B: Inwood-Bay Ridge via CPW/6 Av express
- D: Norwood-Coney Island via CPW/6 Av express & Sea Beach
---
Now let's talk long-term extensions, with the assumption that this will take a long time, giving MTA time to buy enough subway cars and build storage and maintenance facilities for expanded service. Starting with the B via Fordham Road to Co-op City. According to schedules based off existing routes, it would be 75 minutes from Bay Ridge to Inwood-207, which is why I don't want to bring it to Coney Island after extending it via Fordham Road.
Next: what's *my* answer for a subway to Staten Island? A branch off of the IND Culver line. (Caveat: Steps 1 and 2 can happen even if the extension never happens. 👍🏻)
1) First the M would be taken off Chrystie St/6 Ave and replaced with the H. The F continues to run to Forest Hills while the H serves QueensLink and maximizes capacity through Queens Blvd local, Manhattan (6 Av local), and Brooklyn. The H would terminate at either Kings Highway or Avenue X, since Coney Island is a low-capacity terminal. Side benefit: eight-car trains would be freed up for the K.
2) With the H running to Brooklyn, there's not enough space to run the F, H, *and* G local between Bergen St and Church Ave. So the F and H would run express full-time, cutting 10 minutes off total runtimes (this is important), and resulting in 20 TPH service between Kings Highway and 63 Dr-Rego Park. As a consequence, the G would be fully deinterlined, allowing *it* to run at max frequency as well, and facilitating local/express transfers as both would be super frequent.
3) Finally, I'd have the H go to Coney Island and build new tunnels diverging off the F just north of Church Ave, going all the way down Fort Hamilton Pkwy and over into Staten Island. Why the F? It would be much shorter than the H to the Rockaways, terminating at Forest Hills. Unlike a subway via 4th Avenue, it would also enjoy higher average speeds by avoiding slow zones around DeKalb Ave and the Manhattan Bridge.
After all of the above, I estimate a 85-minute runtime between Forest Hills and Grasmere.
I'd make up for the loss of the M to Midtown with other extensions:
I) This is not an extension but a reminder that the H would double capacity at Essex St. A new transfer connecting Bowery to Grand St (B/D) might also help.
II) SAS via Houston St, S 4 St, and Utica Ave instead of MTA's proposed Phase 4. In terms of subway capacity, it would be like building a second 6 train, making it so L riders, including people transferring to the L from the G (Lorimer St) and M (Myrtle/Wyckoff), don't have to transfer at Union Square or Bway-Lafayette St, relieving overcrowding at those stations themselves. It would also relieve the 4 and 5 in Brooklyn because this is what I propose for the Utica Ave subway, connecting with the deinterlined 4 and 5 at Crown Heights and then taking a more direct, shorter route to SoHo. Caveat: I don't know of a yard that can serve this line.
III) Uniting the K with the M by rebuilding the Myrtle Ave el with a portal underground near Ryerson and Steuben streets, and eventually connecting this to 8th Ave local at Canal St. So the M would replace the K, running between Middle Village and Washington Heights, and the V would run between Bedford Park Blvd and WTC (both with 8-car trains). Then I would extend the M beyond Metropolitan Ave in the direction of Corona and LGA. Why? This gives northern Queens more connections to Brooklyn without traveling all the way around Manhattan, including a transfer to my proposed SAS at Myrtle Av-Bway. Unlike the IBX, this new M would also serve downtown Brooklyn as well as lower Manhattan. I'd build this in the style of the 63rd St tunnel/East Side Access, in order to connect the LIRR to NJ, creating frequent through-running regional rail between Far Rockaway/Long Beach and the Main, Bergen County, and Pascack Valley lines (with deinterlining at Jamaica). Finally, this would fully deinterline the J, so it can run 4-car trains at 24 TPH.
Speaking of regional rail, before a subway to Staten Island, I'd extend the Metro-North to Staten Island first, and have that take over the S.I. Railway. I also have a regional rail plan but this wall of text is already long (1,270 words 🤐). Running Harlem line trains to SI would:
1) also relieve Lexington Ave subways
2) relieve NJT at Metropark station as well
3) replace express buses, so those buses can run to other destinations or be replaced with more frequent local buses
4) retire the polluting Staten Island Ferry and eliminate 2 mandatory transfers and 20 minutes of travel time
5) connect SI to more transit leading out of the city, further helping compete with driving
@@samuelitooooo yeah but understand that even though 10tph is somewhat ok it can be better with 24tph with the A as we would maximize capacity on Concourse so here is how we will improve it remember as much as we want Both branches to be express it can’t happen as that would cause capacity limits and reverse branching. Which is why the C is removed from CPW and placed on the QBL instead, as C Trains replace the R Trains there and the F and M would use the 63rd St Tunnel. While the C and E Trains use the 53rd St Tunnel.
Service would be as Follows
A: Norwood 205th St to WTC (8th Ave/CPW Local)
B: Inwood 207th St to Coney Island via Sea Beach (6th Ave/4th Ave/CPW Express)
C: Jamaica 179th St to Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway (Queens Blvd/8th Ave/Fulton St Express)
D: 168th St to Bay Ridge 95th St (CPW/6th Ave/4th Ave Express)(Local South of 36th St)
E: Jamaica Center to Euclid Ave (Queens Blvd/8th Ave Express/Fulton St Local)
K: Discontinued
H: Discontinued
M: Rockaway Park to Metropolitan Ave
N: 96th St to Coney Island (Brighton/Broadway Express
Q: 96th St to Ocean Pkwy (Brighton Local/Broadway Express
R: Astoria Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island via West End (Broadway/4th Ave Local)
W: Discountinued
Z: Discontinued
The D Train Extension to Staten Island would have a shorter run time than the B so therefore the D gets that extension as the D ends at 168th St. The M also replaces the Rockaway Park H Shuttle, whereas the C only has to alternate between two Branches. The Express in CPW only saves like 3 minutes so it wouldn’t matter and the A route I proposed would be shorter as Concourse Riders get 24tph and If they want 6th Ave Service there’s a Cross Island Transfer to either the B or D Train that run at a combined 30tph.
@@Reformperson The pros of this plan are that the A can be exclusively served by Concourse Yard, and that the D runtime between Washington Heights and Fort Hamilton is 60 minutes, which is admittedly better than my proposed F extension running between Forest Hills and Grasmere in an estimated 85 minutes.
The cons of this are
1) Concourse does not have room to store all trains needed for 24 TPH A train service, which would require about 46 trains (The yard currently stores 33.5 trains)
2) The closest yard to the D is 207, so the D would have to run 8-car trains for reasons I already wrote in my last mega-comment
3) The M remains interlined, prohibiting capacity increases on the IND Culver, and using 8-car trains that the D would need
4) The Fordham Road extension is no longer feasible, as the B train runtime between Inwood and Coney Island would be about 82 minutes
5) Both C branches east of Rockaway Blvd would remain at 5 TPH, which is definitely substantially better than today's schedules, but vanshookenraggen's plan enables 10 TPH on those same segments.
Also, [I can't believe I didn't check this earlier, but] CPW express saves closer to 5 minutes, according to existing schedules, and probably more with CBTC since that enables higher speed limits but doesn't enable shorter dwell times. Today, express trains take 11-12 minutes to travel between 59 St and 145 St, and local trains do the same in 15-18 minutes. In other words, local riders can switch to an express train and then "skip the line", passing two local trains (if at 24 TPH) by the time they get to 59 St, and hop back on the local.
@@samuelitooooo a run to Grasmere with the D from Washington Height would be around 65 minutes, and if we extended it to Richmond Ave in Victory Blvd it would be approximately 80-85 minutes of run tile with the D going there. Also the A on Concourse would allow for peak direction express service and I remember TTA mentioned that 24tph on Concourse is possible and the D won’t have to use 8 car sets, as it would use 10 car sets. The Staten Island Extension would serve the Grasmere Station and Places along Victory Blvd for more riders serving residents, and the College of Staten Island as well, the station would be elevated located at the gate, and would end at Richmond Ave which would have tail tracks that lead to a new yard as there is space for development of a new yard West of the Richmond Ave Station I Proposed, and would replace the s93 LTD and would be repurposed as a rush hour variant of the s53.
The C without QueensLink would run 8tph on 3 branches, on Lefferts, Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park, which is better that what the A does today. Some A Trains would end at Bedford Pk Blvd maintains the 24tph on the Local tracks and Concourse. The E however maintains its 12tph as it would end at Euclid Ave instead of WTC. But it would be 10tph on each branch of the E ends at Lefferts Blvd while all C Trains go to the Rockaways. 10tph on both Far Rockaway and Rockaway Pk would easily replace the inconsistent H shuttle.
If Concourse can’t handle that amount of trains then the A would have between 16-18tph which is much better depending how Norwood 205th St does as a terminal, also with the D to Staten Island and the new Yard I propose at Staten Island after Richmond Ave, we can give those trains there as a new subway would need extra capacity giving the D 18-21tph which is what Staten Island could have as the run time to Grand St in Manhattan to Grasmere would be 30 minutes with the D.
A #6 extension should at least to co-op city in my lifetime.
Exactly 💯% right on that. Pelham Bay park is definitely way over Crowding just like main street Flushing. You have to remember the metro North railroad Connecticut is going back to Pennsylvania station Manhattan Hunts point moriss parkchester and co op city. Just make it to stop and make a over pass just like they did on the Thrid Avenue Elevated line when it pass the mayge
Mayjor highway.
I agree. It will help Bronx residences significantly! I just wish it was the #1 because of the whole mileage issue with the "D" But the terrain won't allow something like that to occur.
I would love your final option of the B train going its own route after Fordham Road to Co-op City Blvd, it brings prestige to an already almost-dead service and definitely would help with overcrowding issues on the BX12 route. A MUST HAVE!!
B train extension from Bedford park boulvard and at the end of extension tons of layup tracks 12:04
While there is a lot of demand for Cross, Bronx train services, I think Gun Hill Road is the wrong corridor. The intent is to focus on other projects, like the second Avenue subway, Interboro express, and improving commuter rail service. When it finally comes time to look at Cross Bronx services, we should focus on the light rail across Fordham Road, and speeding up the bus service on other Corridors. If it was going to be a subway, perhaps go across Burke Avenue to co-op city
You are underestimating how many commuters would use the Cross Bronx subway if it was a thing. We are talking about over 100k riders wanting to go crosstown and would rather take the subway over whatever slow BRT that the city implemented with the Bx12. Currently, it takes around half an hour to get from Grand Concourse to Eastern Bronx. It should not take half an hour for commuters to go three miles. The Cross Bronx subway absolutely should be a priority, and yes, SAS, IBX, and regional rail should also be a priority. They all should be a priority, combined with numerous other projects, like the Queenslink, 7 Train Project, Utica Ave subway, Nostrand Ave extension, rehabilitation of the J/Z, SE Queens Line, and so much more. NYC largely ditched expanding its system after 1940, and since then, the city has grown to the point where the NYC Subway system is overcrowded and needs new subway routes.
Also, I would not give Fordham Rd a light rail service. Remember that Cross Bronx is very heavily used (over 100k riders), and Seattle's light rail system, which carries 80k riders, already uses huge rail cars to handle that ridership, meaning that at that point, just go for a heavy rail system. Also, you are running the risk of turning the project into a gadgetbahn, as there is no doubt that the project will go over budget, causing massive scaledowns where light rail will mix into traffic, meaning a glorified Bx12. At least with a subway, you have to commit to it. Finally, light rail cannot connect with the NYC Subway system, meaning that the MTA/city will have to pay for new maintenance crew, new drivers, and new yards. What you will end up with if you pursue the light rail option is potential trains mixing in with the street, causing delays, small trains that cannot adequately serve the potential 100k riders, and no interoperability.
@@jointransitassociation OK, maybe a subway would work. But I'm always reluctant to agree with subway expansions and find it hard to believe that such a big system needs so many expansions. If the Cross Bronx Subway is so important, why does no one talk about it? Also, a light rail can use existing crew and drivers, from the buses it replaces. Subway is not always feasible. I see a new second avenue subway esque-scale and fiasco here. I see a lot of struggle to make it, and while I think it would help riders, I don't see an easy way to make it possible, so this is why I want light rail and bus improvements
@@jointransitassociation Fuck the interbourgh Express. It's not going to be useful and it ended up being dead like the Brown M and 9 trains.
@@transitcaptain The same thing will happen to light rail. Part of the reason why I think that is because of what is happening to the IBX. The MTA claimed that it will be a light rail, but due to cost overruns, we got trains mixed with the street. At least for subways, they have to commit to it from day one, and build the project on how it was intended because people at least know how a subway works, so any scaledowns (like street running) will be politically infeasible.
Even if the MTA cleans itself, I still don't think light rail is okay here. Part of the reason why light rail can traverse hilly regions is because rail cars are light and small, but light and small does not match the ridership of Cross Bronx. The Cross Bronx Subway can see 100k riders, and since Seattle's light rail system sees 80k riders and uses huge rail cars to move people, anything bigger would become subway/heavy rail.
Also, as stated in the video, I do not like the entire Fordham Rd corridor to be a subway, because as you stated earlier, Bronx is more hilly to the west than in the east. But Cross Bronx ridership is concentrated east of Concourse, a branch to Co-Op city via Fordham Rd and Pelham Pkwy will work the best. A lower level at Fordham Rd would be perfect, as it is deeper, so by the time it gets to Co-Op City, even though the tracks will remain level, it will become elevated because the land will continuously slope down.
Furthermore, just because NYC has a huge subway system, it does not mean it needs more. Another reason why I support Cross Bronx is also the same reason why I support Queenslink: it provides a radial rail line that can connect all of existing rail lines. All Bronx lines are north-south, and there is no east-west line, so even though Bronx on paper looks covered, if you don't travel north-south or into Manhattan, then you can't use a rail line. That is the case for more than 100k commuters in the Bronx. Same thing with the Queenslink. All Queens lines are east-west, so even though on paper Queens looks covered (for the area around the Queenslink), if commuters want to go north-south, then they cannot do so by rail, meaning using a bus or driving in traffic heavy roads. That is the case for 26k riders that use the Woodhaven Blvd corridor (Q11, Q21, Q52, Q53) alone, and not factoring other heavily used bus lines.
And yes, Cross Bronx is talked about a lot in the transit community. Mystic Transit and Nerdy Nel have talked about this, and they are major figures in the transit community, so I wouldn't say the Cross Bronx subway is an obscure topic.
@@jointransitassociation mystic transit actually only talked about it once or twice but OK
Between 167 and 170th street station there is a 4th pocket track directly to the west of the southbound track. This means that every southbound platform on the line was designed to be the downtown local track and the existing track was supposed to be the downtown express track.
Please do an extension of the [1], [6], [7], [E], [J], [W], & [Z] to Brooklyn. I would also like an extension of the [A], [M], [N], & [W] to The Bronx.
I know I'm off topic but why not revived the Third Ave El that runs up to Fordham Rd then head east on Fordham Rd all the way to Bay Plaza? The train can be branched off the 2/5 at the hub then proceed to Third Ave?
I don't like reviving the Third Ave El, because you can achieve regional rail service on Metro North with a fraction of the cost. Also, branching off the 2/5 is a non starter. The 2/5 runs borderline abysmal frequencies and branching will introduce 10+ minute wait times. Even with deinterlining, that is every 6 to 8 minutes, during rush hour. The IRT White Plains Rd line sees very high ridership, meaning decreasing frequencies are a no go.
Finally, Grand Concourse and Jerome Ave are major destinations, but by using the Third Ave el, you cut off those major destinations. If you want to build the Cross Bronx subway, starting at Grand Concourse is an absolute must.
If you are interested, here is an article that address your concerns: www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2021/04/the-future-of-the-2nd-ave-subway-a-bronx-tail-track/.
Hope it helps!
The first proposal makes sense because when it comes to the east west crossways, this opens up another option for any Bronxite. And I live in that area.
I heard that, when the Concourse line was proposed, people along the Concourse were given the choice of having it built right away as a 3-track line, or having it built perhaps a decade later (when the City expected to have more money) as a 4-track line. They chose the 3-track option by a wide margin.
The option of extending the Concourse Line down Gun Hill Road seems like the most reasonable and feasible option. As for relief for the M12 Bus, a cross-Bronx shuttle subway between Marble Hill and Throggs Neck could be a good option.
people would confuse stillwelll bronx with the major stilwell avenue terminal in coney island that also happens to be the other teminal of the D line. 'also dose the bronx have a proper downtwon n . if so where is it.
They should have extended the A line towards Van Cortlandt Park and do the split like in Rockaway Blvd. One goes towards Van Cortlantd and the other goes across The Bronx towards Co-Op city and connect to all the lines including Metro North and New Haven Lines.
At one time, the A train was to commandeer the elevated tracks now used by the 1 train....
TBM Boring will likely be needed. This will allow construction under the game Reserve or via the Polo Grounds route.
This can of worms got opened with East Side Access.
I do support subway extensions to Co-op City, a dense residential area with 24/7 ridership. A very solid anchor for heavy transit services. With my proposed extension of the deinterlined (B) from Inwood to Co-op City via Fordham Road, the articulated buses on the BX12 can be repurposed towards hyper-frequent Orchard Beach shuttles. I also propose expanding Eastchester Depot from 140 buses to 300 so that, among other reasons, routes like the Bx29 can run every 6 minutes all day. Of course, there should also be a station for frequent, through running regional rail over by Section 5.
I think certain extensions would carry a high price tag, but would also carry a high return on investment. An extension from 207th would follow one of the 3 busiest bus routes in the entire city, and the elbow room this would provide with 6-minute service would surely induce ridership as it alleviates overcrowding that riders currently experience on buses. You can then upzone around Pelham Parkway, since much of eastern Bronx is lower density with more single family homes.
Finally, yeah, the terrain of western Bronx would indeed make it difficult to build an elevated line. Leaving tunneling as the remaining option, and of course, expensive, But as a line that already starts underground, you don't have to do as much elevation changing after crossing the Harlem River, you might be able to cut across the street grid (e.g. using 190th St) where the elevation is high. The terrain calms down east of Webster Avenue (you can also take advantage of the downhill leading towards Webster, though more people would probably protest a portal here), so at most you'd need a 2 mile tunnel, and the remaining 4 miles can certainly be elevated.
Also I'd extend the deinterlined (A) to Co-op City via Burke Avenue the best way to go about it is to follow the original 1933 plan per of the way. When the line was originally built, it was done so in a way to have the line cross over the park in the lower deck of a viaduct connecting 205th and Burke Avenue. Don't worry. Such a connection can still be built for trains and it won't negatively impact the park (the road portion of the viaduct won't be constructed. From there leave the park as quickly as possible, the line would then operate along Burke Avenue for much of the way (going to Gun Hill would have too much of a negative effect on the park). Given Bronx development, the whole extension from there on out would be underground via Burke Avenue until Wilson Avenue, then the line would diverge from the 1933 plan and finally shift onto Gun Hill Road for the rest of the way to Co-op City.
Given the MTA construction issues, should the MTA get costs under control this whole extension should be built in phases. Phase 1 would be the short bridge to a desperately needed new terminal and crew facilities at Burke Avenue/White Plains Road. From there, Phase 2 would be the rest of the route along Burke Avenue, Gun Hill, and Bartow Avenue to Co-op City. Phase 3 will be the optional extension to Orchard Beach.
As for the Fordham extension it should be built into two phases with Phase 1 being a 2 mile tunnel portion of the Western Bronx to about Webster Avenue and with Phase 2 being a 4 mile elevated structure east of Webster Avenue and would be the rest of the route to Co-op City Blvd following the Bx12 alignment along Fordham and Pelham Parkway to Co-op City Blvd.
11:14 It's pronounced "ES-PLAH-NAHD" not "ES-PAH-LANDAY" 😆
Also, the "Bay Area" Shopping Center is actually Bay Plaza.
Nonetheless, great video!
interesting, never realized Cross-Bronx was a necessity, but, if the bus ridership numbers confirm it...
I mean, the fact such a dense if shrinking neighborhood is so much underserved when it comes to transport, that is a problem, especially, if the neighborhood is already an underprivileged part of the city,
Crossovers just ahead of terminal stops are common, but not universal. Placing a switch behind a terminal station is acceptable so long as trains empty of passengers, are moved onto the tail track switch and then moved back into service on the opposite side. 179 St - Jamaica is a terminal that has no crossovers between it and 169 St. The crossovers are located on the tail tracks. Also, you might look at Stillwell Av - Coney Island. Look at the diagram in both directions.
Yeah, I know, The reason why Norwood 205th is unique is because there are no crossovers before the station, which every other terminal station has.
The B/D train should get an extension that goes to Eastern Bronx
The D train should go to Co-op City due to a lack of Crosstown in the Bronx.
@@ECRALSE40LPS And it would make it easy for me to get to Gun Hill Road
@@ECRALSE40LPS AND connect with an extension of the 2nd avenue line into the Bronx....
Aside from the Bronx River Parkway, and the old Bronx River Parkway, there really isn't that much of the Bronx Park corridor that would be touched by the extension. You just have to concentrate largely on running it under Gun Hill Road.
The k train then from the bronx to queens 11:02
I propose these stations for the [K]:
Ⓜ Co-op City
Ⓜ 222nd Street
Ⓜ Eastchester Road
Ⓜ Boston Road
Ⓜ White Plains Road
Ⓜ 205th Street
Ⓜ Bedford Park Boulevard
Ⓜ Kingsbridge Road
Ⓜ Fordham Road (K)
Ⓜ 182nd-183rd Streets (K)
Ⓜ Tremont Avenue
Ⓜ 174th-175th Streets (K)
Ⓜ 170th Street (K)
Ⓜ 167th Street (K)
Ⓜ 161st Street-Yankee Stadium (K)
Ⓜ 155th Street (K)
Ⓜ 145th Street (K)
Ⓜ 135th Street (K)
Ⓜ 125th Street (K)
Ⓜ 116th Street (K)
Ⓜ Cathedral Parkway-110th Street (K)
Ⓜ 103rd Street (K)
Ⓜ 96th Street (K)
Ⓜ 91st Street (K)
Ⓜ 86th Street (K)
Ⓜ 81st Street-Museum Of Natural History (K)
Ⓜ 72nd Street (K)
Ⓜ 66th Street (K)
Ⓜ 59th Street-Columbus Circle (K)
Ⓜ 50th Street (K)
Ⓜ 42nd Street-Port Authority Bus Terminal (K)
Ⓜ 34th Street-Pennsylvania Station (K)
Ⓜ 28th Street (K)
Ⓜ 23rd Street (K)
Ⓜ 18th Street (K)
Ⓜ 14th Street (K)
Ⓜ Perry Street (K)
Ⓜ West 4th Street-Washington Square Park (K)
Ⓜ Spring Street (K)
Ⓜ Canal Street (K)
Ⓜ Chambers Street (K)
Ⓜ Fulton Street (K)
Ⓜ High Street-Brooklyn Bridge (K)
Ⓜ Jay Street-Metrotech (K)
Ⓜ Hoyt-Schermerhorn Street (K)
Ⓜ Lafayette Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Clinton-Washington Avenues (K)
Ⓜ Franklin Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Nostrand Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Kingston-Throop Avenues (K)
Ⓜ Utica Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Ralph Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Rockaway Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Broadway Junction (K)
Ⓜ Liberty Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Van Siclen Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Shepherd Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Euclid Avenue (K)
Ⓜ Grant Avenue
-P-O-R-T-A-L-
Ⓜ 80th Street
Ⓜ 88th Street
Ⓜ Rockaway Boulevard
Ⓜ 104th Street
Ⓜ 111th Street
Ⓜ Lefferts Boulevard
Ⓜ 124th Street
Ⓜ Van Wyck Expressway
Ⓜ Princeton Street
Ⓜ Tuckerton Street
Ⓜ Brewer Boulevard
Ⓜ Jamaica Avenue
Ⓜ Highland Avenue
Ⓜ Grand Central Parkway
Ⓜ 169th Street
Ⓜ 76th Avenue
Ⓜ Jewel Avenue
Ⓜ 59th Avenue
Ⓜ 50th Avenue
Ⓜ Hollis Court Boulevard
Ⓜ Northern Boulevard
Ⓜ Crocheron Avenue
Ⓜ Francis Lewis Boulevard
Ⓜ 24th Avenue
Ⓜ 19th Avenue
Ⓜ Clearview-Willets Point Boulevard
I like the A extension.
I think a better solution is to extend the ( 6 ) Pelham Bay Express to Co-op City and construct a light metro under and over Fordham Road - Prlham Bay Parkway.
It would be neat if the city would extend the Concourse line to the Dyre Av line; connecting the two lines thus allowing the D to terminate at Eastchester.
EDIT: Bay Plaza, Esplanade (ˌe-splə-ˈnäd).
Why not have the D train take over the unused center tracks of that Dyre Avenue line?!
@@CraigFThompson: Yes.👏🏽
@@CraigFThompson: Right.
Why not lay tracks over the (future) Cross Bronx Expressway deck project and run surface transit along an established ROW for a lot less money than the MTA could possibly squander.
I think that is too far south to where most of the people are going and will cut capacity to heavily used stations (Tremont Ave, Fordham Rd).
@@jointransitassociation Lets not make perfection the enemy of the good.
After all, they're going to install that idiotic deck over the road anyway ... as in out of sight, out of (their) minds instead of fixing the problem by adding another 6 lanes.
Ask yourself this - What would Big Bob Moses do?
@@tobygoodguy4032 Usually, I would agree with that statement, but that statement only applies if a plan is not terribly flawed. Branching at Cross Bronx Expressway will cut capacity in the places where you have capacity, and is too far south to where people want to go. The reason why we have urban planning is because people want to move as many people as possible, and highway alignments, although tempting to use, need to be contextualized. Fordham Rd and Pelham Pkwy, where most of the ridership is at, is over one mile away. If most people need to walk a mile to where they need to take the train, it makes it way less effective. Always build transit in the places where it would be the most effective, not where it is the least expensive.
And we wouldn't make these big decisions. That is up to experienced transit planners. We are just people who like trains and read a lot about it in our spare time. We are always going to have opinions, but take them with a grain of salt. The real work that should be taken seriously are the transit planners.
Also, the Cross Bronx Expressway needs to be left alone and be decked over. No road widening should take place because of the rule of induced demand: you build it, more is going to come. You widen that road and I guarantee you that the expressway will be congested, just like when the Kosciusko Bridge was widened.
@@jointransitassociation When 14 lanes are aimed at the Bronx from the GWB cannon (Caro's book), its hardly "induced demand".
@@tobygoodguy4032 The Third Avenue Elevated line should of been left alone also right un
Above the Express Highway. Leave the B D trains alone And focusing on the extra iRT lines like the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains and just extending the Pelham 6 line to co op city mall and call it a day. The 6 Pelham line could definitely be extended to co op city mall because they have the Connecticut metro North going back to Pennsylvania station Manhattan Hunts point moriss parkchester and co op city in the future. Bring back the 9 V 8 trains.
Bay Plaza not Bay Area.
🎼🎶🎵"I was on a Paris train/I emerged in London rain...." 🎵🎶🎼
The Q should be extended into the Bronx
To be PHYSICALLY connected to the extended D train t'boot!
An advantage of having the D so close to the 4 line is that, if you live in Washington Heights like I do, you can take a downtown A train to 145th St and then transfrer to the D train to get to, say, Yankee Stadium or Alexander's Department Store at Fordham Road back in the 1980s or to The Bronx High School of Science (which I attended in the mid 80s and which my brother later attended and which is a short distance from the Bedford Park Blvd station) or to get to the Bronx Botanical Gardens (which is also a short distance from the Bedford Park Blvd station but in the opposite direction, east rather than west that is), and you can do all this without having to transfer to the 4 train... But, for all other intents and purposes, the D and 4 lines run too close together and thete is too much distance between the D line and the 2 and 5 lines (and there is also too much distance between the 1 and 4 lines, and don't even get me started on the Riverdale section of the Bronx because that's a whole other story which I'll save for a whole other post on a whole other video if you make one on the northwest Bronx).
I'd pass on all of these. What I think would be best would be the Cross Bronx to connect to the new IBX and to be built all at once. Connect Cross Bronx to LGA/Rego Park /Forest Hills/Jamaica down to the Brooklyn Army Termina all in one solution.
The problem with the IBX is that it will run way too south of where people want to go. Pelham Pkwy and Fordham Rd is the corridor where most people want to go.
I JUST FOUND OUT Y'ALL ARE AT MY SCHOOL
feel free to join then
You forgot about the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line could definitely be extended between Gun hill road Clearmount Avenue Webster Ave Bronx and Queens plaza connecting to the 7 N W trains.
They all should be done, but the state and the government will not pay for it. China has made hundreds of miles of track and even a train station in a record 8 hours. So why can't we?
SIMPLE. In the USA, the people own the government; in China, the government owns the people.
We do not use slave labor. However, the subway needs to be extended
@@dannythunder3180 However, other nations worldwide, including the E.U., has expanded their Metro systems. We can do it, but the socialist state refuses funding, so that they can regress society instead of progressing.
Extending the 6 line to co op city is more feasible.
But it won't give Bronx commuters Cross Bronx service. Extending the D will. However, we do also favor the 6 being extending to Co-Op city though, along with the D.
Elevated lines are an eyesore.
BIG DEAL! Elevated rail lines are better all around than elevated STUPERHIGHWAYS!!
Extend the 5 to co-op after Dyre
That would result in a massive U turn after Dyre that will go on for more than a mile, which is not attractive to the average commuter. Extending the D and the 6 would be better options.
You forgot to mention bringing back the V
Why do we need to bring back the V?
@@jointransitassociation He really doesn't like the current M service or even anything resembling a one-seat ride from the Myrtle Avenue and Broadway-Brooklyn corridors to Midtown Manhattan, despite the service being well received. This is all out of spite, whereas my versions cater to the majority of riders' needs and balance things out.
Bring back the 8 Thrid Avenue Elevated line back also . Bring the 9 trains back to teaming up with the 1 Broadway line like they they did before.
@@leecornwell5632 we need more NYers like you. Back when MTA made sense
@@TheRailLeaguer please dont speak for me. Thank you troll
The A is too long a ride as is. Extended service to CO Op would be impractical for operation ans costly to construct. The Fordam cutoff on the B/D would be the better choice with the D to Co Op and B to 205th
Oh, and don't even get me started on travelling east-west in the Bronx (except to say that the Bx 12 line has greatly improved since the 1980s because now it makes fewer stops and you have to get a ticket from a machine beforehand so the driver doesn't have to wait for people to pay).