Jonathan English at Urban Omnibus has proposed an extension of the 3 train that seems perfectly reasonable.
When we talk about subway and transit expansion, it’s easy to get blinded by large and ambitious plans to transform the city. We talk about the Triboro RX line, reactivation of the Rockaway Beach Branch ROW or countless other pie-in-the-sky routes (including that Brooklyn-Queens Connector the mayor is pushing), but sometimes, we should take a step back and look at something easier. Not everything has to involve multiple stops spread out over many miles or a new-to-New York mode of transit.
In a way, that’s what New York state may be trying to do with the Penn Station Access proposal. For the relatively affordable price of $1 billion, Gov. Andrew Cuomo thinks Metro-North can construct four new stations in the Bronx along a preexisting right of way and provide commuter rail service into Manhattan’s Penn Station on the West Side. It’s not the sexiest of projects, but it provides a vital connection to Penn Station. It’s also an important reminder that low-hanging fruit can pay off.
Recently, a post on the Urban Omnibus blog had me thinking of even lower hanging fruit. This one concerned a plan to expand subway service in East New York. It involves the construction of a station only and some reallocation of yard space along a currently-active ROW in an area underserved by transit. I’ll let Jonathan English tell his story:
Imagine there were the possibility for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to extend a subway line to a major concentration of new affordable housing — and a neighborhood with some of the longest commutes in the city — without building a single foot of new subway track. That chance exists right now in East New York, where the 3 train’s tracks continue nearly a half-mile beyond their current terminal at New Lots Avenue to the Livonia maintenance yard, near the Gateway Center mall, Spring Creek Nehemiah, and several large public housing projects. Using these tracks for passenger service would significantly enhance transit access to a major development area at a low cost, and spread the city’s current subway expansion program beyond Manhattan…
Building such an extension is far less expensive than building a new subway line from scratch. Since the tracks already exist — and the yard makes land available for a surface station — there is no need for multi-billion-dollar underground construction…The only other cost would be replacing the converted train storage tracks. (Only a small part of the yard would need to be converted, and the existing maintenance facility could remain.) Trains could be stored at other yards in the “A division” of the subway (the narrow-car ex-IRT), where the MTA has indicated that slack is available. Much of the work could be joined with the $91.4 million renovation at the Livonia Yard that is included in the MTA’s 2015-2019 Capital Program.
Spring Creek, which would be served by the new extension, is both fast-growing — no Brooklyn neighborhood has added more residents since 1940 — and transit-deprived. It has been the site of major new affordable housing construction in recent years, including the Bloomberg-era 2,200-unit Spring Creek Nehemiah project. The nearby Spring Creek Towers, which opened in 1974 as Starrett City, comprise 5,881 Mitchell-Lama units. Right now, Spring Creek has some of the longest average commutes in the city, at 48.9 minutes. The extension would follow part of the route of the B6, which has over 40,000 riders on an average weekday and is one of the busiest bus routes in the city. And it would shorten or replace the route of the B84 shuttle, which takes riders from the Gateway Center to New Lots Avenue station.
English compares the cost of the work favorable to the in-fill Yankee Stadium Metro-North stop which the MTA was able to open for around $91 million as opposed to the one-stop $2.4 billion extension of the 7 line. For minimal amounts of money — a rounding error in the MTA’s capital plan — the 3 train could expand its reach through a neighborhood soon to be upzoned as part of the Mayor’s affordable housing project. That such an easy transit project isn’t on anyone’s agenda is problematic at best and a fatal flaw at worst.
These types of low-hanging fruit aren’t readily available in too many places throughout the city. Most expansion efforts — even modest one-stop plans above ground — require construction of new tracks, new tunnels, new stations and the land acquisition costs that go along with it. Here, in East New York though, the opportunity exists for a low-cost subway extension along an existing active ROW. Why not indeed?
76 comments
I’m less sanguine about Penn Station Access. A billion dollars is an extraordinary sum of money to spend on four infill stations for an at-grade line, and the payoff is dramatically reduced by American commuter rail’s costly 19th century labor-heavy, frequency-lite operational style.
Relatedly – does anybody know what the ridership projections for the new Bronx stations are?
$1 billion is an extraordinary sum of money and I’m not sure what precisely we get out of that other than four new stations and Metro-North to Penn.
That having been said, I’m really not sure why investing into our physical infrastructure (which won’t change) should wait for cleaning up operations (which can change much more easily than physical infrastructure.)
“Sorry, Co-op City, you’re not getting Metro-North until they learn about OPTO and through-running” doesn’t impress me as an argument.
Metro-North to Penn means the well off who live in Westchester and Connecticut can get a 1 seat ride to the new offices above Hudson Yards
I’m not sure that getting a train to Penn and then a looong walk to Hudson Yards is really preferable to a two-seat ride (Metro-North to Grand Central, 7 to Hudson Yards) with not much walking.
Many people would rather walk three blocks than have to transfer onto a crowded subway. In any event – people dream about connecting GCT and Penn. That’s not likely to happen. What ESA and Penn Access do is draw us close to that ideal in practical purposes. Even though you still wouldn’t be able to catch NJT to GCT – all the other suburban lines would connect at the two main hubs. That certainly increases functionality throughout the whole region.
There are/were plans to run the Hudson Line to Penn too but that would cost too much right now because the bridge connecting Inwood and Riverdale needs replacing. The Harlem line is left out – I don’t know what can be done about that…
NJTransit trains could have gone to Grand Central but that plan was canceled.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_the_Region's_Core
That having been said, I’m really not sure why investing into our physical infrastructure (which won’t change) should wait for cleaning up operations (which can change much more easily than physical infrastructure.)
Because the cost per rider on other projects (phase 2 of the Second Ave. subway?) is probably lower.
Absolute costs matter too.
Additionally, the funding streams may be different, funding may be available for project A but not B, or funding may be time limited. In all cases, the cost per rider being lower doesn’t really matter since the choice is not, in fact, “invest in Penn Station Access OR [other project here]”, it’s “invest in Penn Station Access OR don’t invest in it.”
Since investing in it doesn’t preclude any other project from happening, why not?
Well even if it was “just” access to Penn – it sure is more cost effective than East Side Access.
Well forget that… That’s less money than the Regional Connector in LA – which will have less riders… So considering that – it’s not a bad deal at all.
http://www.latimes.com/local/l.....story.html
Seems like the capital cost is (typically) absurd, but does this really add much of that labor? I’d think the trains are already running, at least for the most part.
The point isn’t that it adds a lot of labor cost. It’s that Metro-North isn’t very useful to city residents, due to high fares and low off-peak frequencies, both of which are caused by high labor costs.
Guess that may’ve been his point, but when you control capital costs you probably don’t need a lot of added ridership to justify an infill station. If the station pays for itself and doesn’t require operating more trains to be useful, it’s not a loss.
In a 21st century, first-world country, the capital expense would be like a quarter of what it is, and the ridership would be like four times what it will be. I think it’s uncontroversial to say that we’re looking at something like an order of magnitude worse return on our money than they’d get in any other country.
I’m not totally sure, but based on the documentation I’ve seen the bulk of Penn Station Access costs are tied up in track work that’s not strictly necessary. With a little power work the trains could start running tomorrow, but Amtrak wants significant track upgrades at MNR’s expense. It’s unclear to me whether they “just” want quad-tracking at station or are demanding four tracks along the whole line, but there’s no indication that the billion-dollar figure even includes grade-separating the interlocking in New Rochelle, which would probably actually be worthwhile. Maybe someone else can fill in the details?
As no-stop expresses from New Rochelle to Penn, sure; but since part of the point is actually adding new infill stations along this line, those stations actually have to get built out.
Amtrak wants, needs, and will be getting a four-tracked Hell Gate Line at some point. I don’t think it’s at all fair to ask for any work that gets done on the line in the meantime to either push that goal farther along or, at minimum, not go out of its way to preclude it with absolutely brain-dead decisions like building two side platforms on a three track line in such a way so as to require extensive station modification if and when money for the fourth track is found.
Grade separation of Shell Interlocking should happen. I have no idea if it’s part of this project; if it’s not, it needs to be added.
A 4 track Hell Gates ROW makes no sense for passenger service. East River Tunnels to Penn are 4 tracks. ESA is 2 tracks.
Sunnyside gets 6 LIRR tracks and 2 Hell Gates tracks today going into 4 Penn tracks. 8 vs 4.
With your proposal, it would be 6 LIRR tracks, 4 Hell Gates tracks (10 tracks) going into 4 Penn tracks and 2 ESA tracks. 10 vs 6.
Where is the capacity to swallow 2 more hell gates tracks?
MNRR already except for 1 hour a day in the morning, and 1 hour in the evening, has no overtaking on New Haven line. Expresses leave before locals and always catch upto the next local by the time they reach 125th. Why would this pattern change for Penn Access. 2 amtraks per hour per direction on Hell Gates (1 regional, 1 acela) and 1 or 2 MNRRs can be done on 2 tracks.
Metro North wants to run, during rush hours, 6 trains. Amtrak and CDOT are busy upgrading the line between New Haven and Springfield. A few hours a day, someday, that’s going to be a third Amtrak train per hour.
Amtrak discarded separating the interlocking when it was rebuilt. Not cost effective – at the time. If Metro North is going to running 6 trains an hour and Amtrak is running at least two, it’s probably going to be more, it has to be done. And the New Rochelle station rebuilt. That’s outside of the scope of the studies.
Not sure about Metro North – but I believe long term (by 2040) after Gateway and their hoped for High Speed Corridor – Amtrak does plan to run more. Metro North of course will go by population changes (which in our region are only increasing at this time).
Oh, yeah, I wasn’t disputing anything you said. Was just wondering what we’re getting really. 😀
But I’m also not too sure how the costs break down; at $1B, how much of that is the stations/capital and how much is other (mainly labor) stuff? If the ridership is healthy-ish, and operating costs don’t increase too much, I’d probably be inclined to grin and bear it.
True – but reverse commuting from The Bronx to Westchester and Connecticut is actually the highest urban to suburban commuting rate in the country. That said – legislation is in Albany to make City Ticket full time (part of Move NY)… If that happens – of course more riders will use Metro-North (and LIRR) within the city.
Hopefully by then there’ll finally be a new unified regional transit card system, and riding MNR/LIRR within city limits can be charged at the same rate as, well, riding the subway or bus. It would be super useful along the ESA-modified New Haven line, and the Harlem Line could finally get some use out of the local stops along the Bronx (and maybe reopen those old Manhattan stops on 86th/59th).
Well part of the “Move NY” legislation introduced would make City Ticket available at all times at all MNRR and LIRR stations… Not as cheap as the subway or bus – but better than what exists now. Hopefully it passes.
http://web.mta.info/mta/planni.....esults.pdf
PSA report from 2002 had ridership projections for the proposed and rejected station locations.
Because it is more than just the 4 stations… Other things have to be done along the ROW. Bridge work needs to be done in the section near Pelham Bay Park for instance.
Ridership projects will be terrible, just like Metro North Harlem line in Bronx and LIRR in Queens. Anyone who can afford the intra-NYC commuter rail tickets will drive to work anyway.
It’s an interesting idea. Staring at Google maps however, it looks like a station would take up nearly a third of the yard space.
The yard appears 13 tracks wide in its second half. I assume you might need 4 track widths for a station (2 for the trains and 2 for the platform).
Can that much room be spared? Each yard track looks like it can store 2 full-length trains, so the loss would be 8 trains.
Cue the discussion about the type of switches that might be needed…
I thought the exact same thing. Each track holds two full-length trains. So is the benefit really there? Unless there is plenty of yard capacity elsewhere, the MTA will have yard capacity problems. Granted, you could use only 3 tracks with one of the platforms over the street on the west of the yard (like how the L does at Sutter and Livonia).
In switches discussion, a diamond crossover should do with some space between the end of the platform and the bumper blocks. New Lots handles a lot of trains during rush (because trains layup in the yard during the midday) and if they terminate at New Lots and relay in the yard, then the platforms can be placed farther south into the yard/station because you could have 2 terminals (New Lots/Linden Blvd).
A more important consideration would be the operational awkwardness of the resulting station. After arriving at the station the train will have to reverse out of it and then reverse again to get into the yard. The crew will have to walk through the train twice while fouling the tracks to the station itself so another train will not be able to get to the proposed station while this is taking place.
For that reason alone this will not happen. I am sorry, but whoever proposed this should first educate himself/herself into all issues related to running a heavy rail transit system before proposing half baked ideas.
As desirable as an extension of the line might be it will not be happening any time soon. The area is too built up for it already. The only way to extend the lime further is by going above the yard and turning onto Linden Ave which is wide enough and probably noisy enough that an elevated on concrete pilons similar to the AirTran would not have much of an impact. Such an extension would be much much cheaper than drilling underground, but would still be much more expensive than what the original proposer of this envisioned.
The proposal talks about using the covered storage which is bordering Linwood St. I wonder if they could shift it slightly further north so that they could add a switch back into the yard after the station.
Alternatively, if the station is on the Elton St side, then the tracks after the station would lead into the yard and the only challenge would be redesigning some of the switches to feed the other yard storage tracks.
That is not “covered” storage, but maintenance building with a ditch under the tracks and cranes to lift heavy equipment, maybe even whole cars. Moving that stuff is expensive.
Unless trains going out of service on the 3 keep using New Lots Av as their final stop, and then proceed directly to Livonia Yard without going to Linden Blvd .
And then you defeat the purpose of the station, by not having all trains serve it. Why would anyone want to take a train only to get off before their destination, see his train go to the yard and wait until the next train to go the additional one stop? Most people would just walk. A few with physical disabilities will wait. The same problem occurs at departure. How fun it is to see a train depart the yard and pick people from the subsequent stations while you wait extra 10-12 minutes dependent on the headway?
Not every train goes out of service once it reaches its terminal. Some do late at night, but during the day wouldn’t the majority simply remain in service and go back in the other direction?
There are cases where this happens already for the same basic reason. A trains going out of service proceed straight to the yard from Dyckman rather than going to 207th. 7 trains going out of service terminate at Willets Point rather than Main St. E trains going out of service terminate at Union Turnpike rather than Jamaica Center. There are probably other examples but those are the first ones that come to mind.
This doesn’t have a significant impact on operations because the vast majority of trains do not terminate early to be taken out of service, they go to the terminal and then run back the other way. It’s mostly an issue on the tail end of rush hour.
Other examples, L trains terminate at E 105 instead if Canarsie and then head into Canarsie Yard. A trains terminate at Euclid and head into Pitkin Yard. J trains terminate at Bway Junction then head into ENY Yard. F trains terminate at Avenue X then head into Coney Island/Av X yards.
With a little more money, it could be an elevated station and only cost the yard 1-2 tracks
If the station is on the south side of Linden, with one platform extended partly over Elton St, then the second platform takes up two tracks, but at the south end of Livonia Yard. That would leave space for a train on each track of the two tracks north of the platform. Just build heavy-duty crash barriers to prevent a train from crashing into the platform.
Interesting proposal, especially since this exact thing happened on the other end of the 3 train, since 148 St was a rail yard converted to a station too.
The other end of the 3 train is a blight on the system. 145 St really needs to be closed no matter what, and only hasn’t been because of neighborhood demands to keep the station open at any cost. I imagine the whining will be even worse if closing both of those stations becomes seriously talked about, however, closing both of those stations would allow the 3 to be sent across the river to either join the 4 or replace the 5 (thereby allowing the 5 to join the 4).
That has very little impact on what to do at this end of the line, other than as a question of “which useful transit expansions might this come to preclude in the future?” – either due to poor design outright or simply due to precluding the line from continuing in some other direction elsewhere.
Yeah – the A and the 3 should have both gone over the river into the Bronx. We still don’t learn though. Even if they don’t replace the old 3rd Ave. El – at the very least the SAS should go up into the Bronx and connect with the 6 at 138th street and then the 2 and 5 at 149th Street. In fact they could probably do one better and connect all of them at 138th street between the Grand Concourse and 3rd Ave. (ridiculous that one has to walk outside or go all the way to 125th St to change between the 2/5 and 6). That could be considered “mid height fruit” – but it’s not in the plans.
Demographically, the MTA should be thinking about subway expansion.
Financially, it should be thinking about what parts of the network to stop maintaining until eventual abandonment to preserve the rest.
In any event, I don’t believe that yard space is so abundant as to be without value, at least in the overnight hours. The MTA could use another yard, perhaps south of the LIRR Hillside Shops in the area used for school bus parking along the LIRR eight of way, but that is even more off the charts expansive.
If the Utica Avenue line ever happens, the MTA can use the footprint of the Flatbush bus depot and combine the depot with a yard. alternatively there’s tons of open and – relatively – cheap real estate down there, although its in a flood plain.
Financially they should be focusing on automation and reducing labor dependency.
Then which Silicon Valley tech start-up would compensate for those lost jobs?
There is indeed a risk that automation would lead to a jobless future except for the 1%. So hiring flesh and blood human beings is a form of corporate citizenship.
But MTA employees and contractors do need to be paid a bit less. You simply should not expect getting a six-figure income by driving a train…
Why compensate that way? There is plenty of fairly labor-intensive work to do. Like digging new subway lines. Letting people do jobs that can already be automated is wasted effort.
The top of the 1% already enjoys the jobless future. But I don’t have a problem with a jobless future. No point in paying people to do boring, degrading work like burger flipping when a robot can do the job.
“Thou shalt work 40 hours a week” isn’t a commandment. Or “Thou shalt work 50 weeks a year”.
…and flipping burgers isn’t degrading. There are whole cable channels devoted to the subject.
Flipping burgers for an obscenely low pay is degrading and not likely to remain a necessary part of the economy.
Interesting. How much you get paid determines how worthy your work is? Hmmm. Does that mean the volunteers at ( pick your favorite volunteer organization ) are even more degraded?
There’s a solution to the low wage problem
https://berniesanders.com/issues/a-living-wage/
Which is sorta kinda tied into 40 hour week 50 weeks a year problem.
I don’t see what worthiness has to do with anything. Setting aside volunteers who are actually exploited, volunteering isn’t generally something people must do in order to survive.
Agreed. I think people underestimate automation. I mean they are even actively trying to replace secretaries with software right now. yes – really. I think there is risk for greater upheaval than the end of industrial jobs (which is still continuing).
But yeah – the public jobs get too much – including MTA jobs. It’s actually not the salary they get. I rather give them the salary and make them contribute more to their healthcare and retirement (kind of like most of us). That’s actually the killer to expenditures.
They replaced secretaries with software 20 years ago.
Hmm… Strange see I see a few every day of the work week…. And I know quite a few more… Some of whom hold masters degrees and are only in their 30’s. They call them “executive assistants”. The Department of Labor sure gets it wrong too. You should tell them they are wrong.
Software has HELPED them for 20 years. That is completely different than replacing them. Outlook helps them right now to set calendars. That is VERY different than the start ups grooming AI to read emails and set your calendars and pay bills. Not the same thing at all.
Secretaries haven’t had masters degrees since the 50s. They had masters degrees because that’s the job they were offered.
The reason they call the person, who answers the phone for the executive when he or she isn’t there, an assistant is that they don’t take steno or transcribe from the dictaphone much these days. Or get coffee. Back in the day she would have had a typist/stenographer or two assisting her. Or there was a “pool”. And telephone operators and data entry clerks….
Semantics – but ok – back to transit.
Not semantics. Men didn’t have typewriters. They then got PCs and women-who-typed and their typewriters disappeared.
So you seriously think women in offices don’t type things on Microsoft Office for their bosses??? Like I said – but to transit.
Not from their steno pads or dictaphone. Not compared to the hordes that did back in the day. Men do it these days too. One of the other reasons it’s not called secretary anymore.
After throughly analyzing the proposed route via Google maps, what this project could do is be a pretty cursor to the extension of the 3 to Gateway. Put tracks over Elton St, continue south and Gateway will be even more transit accessible, besides the buses. And another part is that it would be squarely in the middle of the shopping center (half east, half west). So you can kill two birds with one stone here. Now it is time to find funding…….
Ah, Auto Correct. Pre-cursor. And the two birds are train access to the neighborhood and train access to the expanded mall at Gateway.
Not a bad idea. There are definitely important details to be worked out, but it would serve quite a few major trip generators at relatively low cost.
If you want to talk about things that others places do, how about a bicycle parking garage for those past the end of the line(s)?
This is true for other terminals in the city. The Jamaica Yard in the south end of Flushing Meadows could in theory serve Kew Gardens
While I don’t know the details – it really is strange that “simple” things like that aren’t done…
AirTrain to JFK Infill Stations at Liberty Ave, Linden Blvd, and Rockaway Blvd!!!!
Linden Blvd & Guy Brewer Road on LIRR & Junction Blvd stop on the Port Washington LIRR Branch
And what about making some local stations express? Like Simpson St on 2/5 or 74th St on 7 train?
It’s honestly incredible to me that 74 St isn’t already an express stop. Converting it to one really should be looked at; so to should converting 59 St for the 7 Av lines in Manhattan.
I do wonder if in some odd way it might not be better off that it isn’t. Consider this: currently anyone transferring to the Queens Blvd line (a not insubstantial number of people) is forced to use the local. The express, meanwhile, despite lacking this connection, is plenty well utilized picking people up from stations it does serve. If 74th were an express stop, you could end up with a situation where the express trains get packed to the gills while the locals would remain relatively underutilized.
That’s EXACTLY why they don’t make 74th an express stop. The express trains are already often packed to the gills, or nearly so, largely with people going to/from Flushing. If you make 74th express, the balance gets thrown way off.
Same reason you wouldn’t want to make Bleecker or 51st into express stops for the 4/5 (assuming it were even infrastructurally feasible), nor 9th St. in Brooklyn for the D/N. The 4 and 5 are already totally overwhelmed, and the R is often under-utilized (or just used as a shuttle to the nearest express stop) while the D and N get plenty of riders. Even when it barely saves any time at all, people will abandon a seat on a local train to jam themselves into an express train and supposedly save a couple of minutes. The best way to discourage this is to make some of the connecting stations local stations.
Agreed on 74th, but not 4th/9th. It’s one thing for an express to skip an important stop when there’s a frequent local service. It’s another when the local is infrequent and unreliable.
Then why don’t we fix the R train in the first place? That’s better than slowing down the express on one of the system’s fastest runs and making even fewer people rely on the local, which would give even less reason to fix it.
I really don’t understand why the MTA doesn’t invest in fu3king light rail why does everything have to be so damn difficult
What about extending the 3 to a station on the A line (ideally Howard Beach), for a smooth connection to JFK? Would this even be possible (apart from obtaining funding)?
Overall it is an intriguing idea although I guffaw at the proposer’s suggestion that the new station would serve Starett City and Gateway Center when it would be over mile (walking distance) from both of these destinations. It be possible to serve both with a further extension but that one station wouldn’t do jack for them except maybe give the latter a slightly (negligibly) shorter bus ride.
It would serve the NYCHA property at Boulevard Houses, though, so there’s that.
Really, we’re going to spend limited capital funds to give door-to-door service to NYCHA developments, who already get free bus-to-subway transfers. How about we spend the money to help actual taxpayers.
A better idea for a (3) extension to me would involve adding a third track from the tunnel portal past Utica Avenue to where it would have to merge with the other two tracks at New Lots (mainly as a backup track) and then after New Lots go as follows (all of this would be elevated):
If possible, continue the New Lots line along New Lots itself to where Dumont Avenue is and then across Fountain Avenue (with a stop on Fountain Avenue where you have a major school complex) to Sutter Avenue, then across Sutter Avenue until it reaches Pitkin (with stops at Euclid Avenue, Lincoln Avenue-Eldert Lane and 79th-80th Street) before continuing on Pitkin (with stops at 87th Street and Cross Bay Boulevard) before then going on new trackage built above the existing Rockaway tracks of the (A) with stops above the existing (A) stations at North Conduit (and possibly also Aqueduct Racetrack) aMy thinking would be if possible to continue the New Lots line along New Lots itself to where Dumont Avenue is and then across Fountain Avenue (with a stop on Fountain Avenue where you have a major school complex) to Sutter Avenue, then across Sutter Avenue until it reaches Pitkin (with stops at Euclid Avenue, Lincoln Avenue-Eldert Lane and 79th-80th Street) before continuing on Pitkin (with stops at 87th Street and Cross Bay Boulevard) before then going on new trackage built above the existing Rockaway tracks of the (A) with stops above the existing (A) stations at North Conduit (and possibly also Aqueduct Racetrack) and a terminal at Howard Beach (the terminal being four tracks). This could be done where the (3) and (4) both operate full-time to Howard Beach in this scenario and provide alternatives to the (A) (and obviously transfers to the (A) at the last two stations noted). nd a terminal at Howard Beach (the terminal being four tracks). This could be done where the (3) and (4) both operate full-time to Howard Beach in this scenario and provide alternatives to the (A) (and obviously transfers to the (A) at the last two stations noted), providing new options to get to JFK.
Reposting this because somehow it became jumbled the first time:
A better idea for a (3) extension to me would involve adding a third track from the tunnel portal past Utica Avenue to where it would have to merge with the other two tracks at New Lots (mainly as a backup track) and then after New Lots go as follows (all of this would be elevated):
My thinking would be if possible to continue the New Lots line along New Lots itself to where Dumont Avenue is and then across Fountain Avenue (with a stop on Fountain Avenue where you have a major school complex) to Sutter Avenue, then across Sutter Avenue until it reaches Pitkin (with stops at Euclid Avenue, Lincoln Avenue-Eldert Lane and 79th-80th Street) before continuing on Pitkin (with stops at 87th Street and Cross Bay Boulevard) before then going on new trackage built above the existing Rockaway tracks of the (A) with stops above the existing (A) stations at North Conduit (and possibly also Aqueduct Racetrack) and a terminal at Howard Beach (the terminal being four tracks). This could be done where the (3) and (4) both operate full-time to Howard Beach in this scenario and provide alternatives to the (A) (and obviously transfers to the (A) at the last two stations noted).