Threxx

I feel like at some point we'll have to make a decision whether we'd want to deal with overcrowded platforms or delayed trains. As they keep trying to push more trains onto Lexington, that junction keeps getting more and more crowded. We could possibly start turning more and trains in Manhattan at Bowling Green but that isn't a great solution either.

Has it ever been considered to send the to Flatbush while the and go to New Lots and Utica, respectively? It would solve a lot of the switching issues at Rodgers Junction (only requiring a slight modification to the tunnel to allow and trains to pass to Flatbush southbound without interrupting express service.) I'd assume the reason why this hasn't been done is to allow riders on both branches direct access to both Lexington and 3rd, but with some rehab, Franklin Avenue can easily become more utilized as a transfer station.

Then I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You're clearly not being realistic about fixing the problem at all, and seem to be more interested in creating a bunch of other problems elsewhere.

1. I used the and as an example. I realized that taking from the would be difficult since the line there actually will require extra sets for Second Avenue service, but Coney Island has more surplus cars than East New York does on any day, so it's more feasible to try and get the cars for the than it is for the . 2. Are you seriously taking post-9/11 service as a benchmark for permanent service? Are you seriously taking service from 30+ years ago as a benchmark to decide current service? It doesn't matter what I think, if the was useless then it damn well would have been eliminated by now like the was. The MTA has had multiple opportunities. to get rid of it and they haven't. And I definitely hope you aren't suggesting adding even more riders on to the overcrowded and, frankly, shit line. Your location interests me. Considering you live in New Jersey, do you really have a handle of how Brooklyn subway service actually works? Based on this discussion I really don't think you do.

Let's see... 1. It runs directly with the in Manhattan, providing direct support for the route all the way to Lexington and 59th... 2. It is a lower frequency route already, not requiring as much rolling stock, and the extra trains required for the extension can easily be found and/or taken from other routes. 3. It doesn't have to deal with riders coming from a trunk in South Brooklyn since it would end right at 9th Avenue (which is the issue that making the local would cause). Your idea... 1. Would create hell for scheduling the skip-stop properly. 2. Requires East New York yard to make more sets appear out of nowhere. 3. Would ultimately decrease reliability for riders in Queens. You can't keep saying "eliminate the (Z)" because that isn't a reasonable option. (And even if you did, you'd have to address the other two issues, the 3rd of which is further exacerbated by eliminating the ) You can't take away service from other people to suit your own needs. It's not that I can't back up my idea, it's just that you don't want to pay attention to it.

He has a point nonetheless. You want to support the on 4th Avenue and in Lower Manhattan, but you have a flimsy idea of how to do so and can't support it properly. A more reasonable alternative [ to 9th Avenue] was proposed and you essentially wrote it off and ignored it.

We already established that service is necessary, and if you're suggesting reducing TPH to Queens for 9th Avenue service then you seriously need to re-evaluate things. And what would local service do but increase unreliability on yet another route? Plus, that does nothing to help the Montague tubes or Lower Manhattan service. to Brooklyn is the only real solution here. You can take 1-2 trains off of the and to support rush hour 9th Avenue service, since neither of those routes have as severe of an unreliability issue as the .

The doesn't have the equipment but the does? Please. The already goes down 4th Avenue, unless you're suggesting runs to 95th Street...

Do you use the ? Don't say something's useless if you have no experience with it... Consider how many stops there are heading out to Jamaica. The skip-stop speeds up service and makes using the coming from Kew Gardens and Jamaica more viable. (As opposed to using the , which is express over Queens Blvd). Considering the is being restored relatively soon, one could have trains run to 9th Avenue at rush hours if the demand is that pressing. I doubt that will happen anyway.

1. Skip-stop synchronization with the and would be a nightmare, for one. Secondly, after superstorm Sandy, there was apparently something installed that prevents traffic from entering the Montague tubes from Nassau Street for now. Likely something to do with the storm gates they said they were going to add. The former issue is far more prevalent and isn't temporary. It's not happening as long as skip-stop service exists (which isn't going away anytime soon). 2. ...yes? Why does it matter? They were already using diamond symbols on the / so a route that was literally just a but express in an outer borough only made sense to be labeled similarly. So yeah, they could have used a different symbol, but what would be the point?

The bridge is ~2-3% of the route, while Hylan Blvd is probably about ~70%. What section of the route do you think would more likely determine what stock to use on the route?

1. Never. 2. Manhattan Bridge construction cut off the from Brighton and they wanted to maintain express service.

I was reading the thread (good job on getting way off topic guys, just like old times) and multiple kept bring up extending the or to 149th Street in the Bronx... I want to attempt to address that realistically. The cost of a new underwater tube would be astronomical. Look at how expensive East Side Access has become on the LIRR. Obviously since the Harlem River is much smaller than the East River, the costs would be lower, but that is the first problem. The second issue would be the timing of such an extension. Would you propose it take priority over Phases 3 and 4, or come after those are both done?

Perhaps someone who actually lives/works in SI can actually elaborate, but I see two problems... -Residential neighborhoods. Most of the routes you selected stay on fairly wide streets, but I could see some routes like the S57 and S61 having problems with artics. And as IAlam said, many residents would be inclined to complain. -Capacity. Do any of these routes actually need artics at all? The only route I would even remotely consider is the S79, and that's only due to its SBS status (it also doesn't enter any deep residential neighborhoods at any point).

Ignore this, see the post on the ~6th page. http://www.mediafire.com/download/n275lvo2gkuu958/1991+service+capacity+%28ver.+2%2C+orange+A%29.pdf

NY and Empire is a bad terminal. It's another terminal in the middle of nowhere like the B45/B65 terminal at Ralph and St. Johns. In addition, Brooklyn Avenue gets cut off partially by Kings County Hospital. Easy solution if you used NY both ways but still worth noting. That solution doesn't thrill me at all because. -Poor terminal location. It would do very little to take pressure off of the B46 and B35 if the route didn't either serve one of the Nostrand Ave. stations or Utica Avenue . -Redundancy to B44. A route along New York/Brooklyn still feels a bit too redundant to the B44, but the issue of Nostrand/NY/Rogers remains unsolved. Discussions in one of the other threads which indicated that the B44 local is more used than the SBS would imply that New York Avenue service is required in some way. That would lead me to prefer my proposal A, but perhaps with some further modifications. -B44 local service rerouted northbound to Rogers Avenue. -B49 service rerouted to Prospect Park via Ocean Avenue, then west via Empire Blvd to Brooklyn/Kingston, where it would then go south and terminate at Winthrop Avenue. This fills in the gap in service left on NY Avenue between Clarkson and Empire Blvd. (An alternate solution to implementing a part time B43 run to Kings County Hospital, which is an idea I've seen floated as well.) Below is an updated route map. The idea of splitting service between NY and Brooklyn was actually appealing to get more coverage eastward. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GCWo3JuzDlsxHGEOgVneaKQJVQg&usp=sharing The traffic issues on Flushing Avenue are mostly from Classon Avenue east, so that wouldn't do much to get the route out of traffic, and you would miss stops which receive use along Flushing Avenue itself. The B103 only makes about 3-4 actual stops on 3rd/4th in Park Slope so removing the B37 from there would create the problem we had before the route itself was brought back.

It also doesn't make much sense because the routes have no relation at all. People in LIC/Greenpoint are not necessarily going to be going to the Navy Yard. The B67 was used because it has a direct route to Downtown already, extending the B32 would just create another unnecessarily long route which gets inconsistent ridership. Creating a unique IKEA - Navy Yard route via Court/Smith would make sure that we are actually solving the issue of the "super-routes".

That doesn't really make sense, the Navy Yard route was clearly intended to source riders from Downtown Brooklyn, and the B32 would require an awkward extension to connect with the current B67 route.

Haven't been around much lately... not surprised I missed it.

Apparently an old proposal to send the to 6th Avenue... I forgot what exactly it entailed but it may or may not have included also sending the to 8th Avenue. Would have probably been a switching mess at @ W 4 which is why the idea was dropped.

Not sure if anyone's actually picked up on it, but I observed that they've begun installing joint strip maps on and R142's... it's about time it happened. If anyone's got good pics of them I'd appreciate it. Couldn't get on one of the trains that had them to see them well.

Gonna drag this thread up from the dead for a couple ideas... The simple one: Weekend B38 LTD service? At least Saturday service similar to the B6. Having used the route extensively while living in Bed-Stuy I know for a fact that the route gets sufficient service on Saturdays to necessitate the service. Sundays is debatable, but it can still happen on some days. Not sure how often the MTA reviews routes but I feel like if there was sufficient attention they should have realized that Saturday B38 LTD service would have potential. (I remember seeing something years ago that the DeKalb/Laffayette corridor was actually considered for SBS... that would probably be a bit extreme.) The more complex one: Combine the Navy Yard portion of the B67 and the Court/Smith potion of the B57 into a unique route, as a revival of the B75 or B77. I find it incredibly ironic how years ago the MTA broke up one such "super-route" in the B61, only to create another one with the B57... the extension to IKEA didn't help matters much either. I also know from experience that the B57 is infrequent and unreliable, and traffic along Flushing can be hell which brings further delays to the route. Cutting off the extraneous portion in Park Slope would help the issues in Bed-Stuy, and frankly the Navy Yard stuff doesn't really have much place being on the B67 at all. Living in East Flatbush now, I've also been looking at ways to improve things in that corridor. The most glaring issue I've seen is the lack of decent north-south service between New York Avenue and Utica Avenue, but the thing known as Holy Cross Cemetery poses a serious physical boundary to any such service. I'll come back on that one. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1GCWo3JuzDlsxHGEOgVneaKQJVQg&usp=sharing Two ideas for a supposed "B40" route... Idea A: Reroute northbound B44 local service to Rodgers Avenue. Reroute B49 service to Prospect Park via Ocean Avenue. B40 service would use New York Avenue to avoid having to route around Holy Cross. Fixes inconsistency in routing between B44 local and B44 SBS, but does little about the corridor issues, and is too far from the B46 to make a real impact in alleviating stress on that route. Idea B: B44 and B49 service would remain as-is. B40 service is in a more justified position between the B44 and B46, but has to take a meandering route around Holy Cross cemetery. Both have the issue of adding more congestion to the Flatbush Avenue turnaround, perhaps a turnaround at Kings Highway and Flatbush Avenue would avoid this? (The subway connection there doesn't feel as necessary considering the northern terminal is at Utica Avenue . Both routes have the benefit of adding service to the Utica Avenue station and Kings County Hospital.

Apple products are proprietary garbage which is designed to fail. You'd be better off getting literally anything else when your contract is up.

My first post on this website in a long time... I actually have returned to ask one random question that has bugged me for a while... At Utica Avenue heading towards Manhattan, the holding lights seem to always come on for the regardless of whether there is a train arriving or not. This occurred last weekend when there was not even train service in Brooklyn. Anyone know why this happens?