Jump to content

Armandito

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Armandito

  1. @ActiveCity Link to route map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1xxOviuFLs1P8LiFK-DurKk2yPp54nKbV&ll=40.761120935853526%2C-73.88149849999999&z=10 Track map:
  2. IIRC you did mention about a Kissena subway being best routed as a Queens-Bronx corridor, correct? In my perspective, this could be a better deal than routing it along Northern Boulevard after Flushing.
  3. Along Sanford Avenue and Northern Boulevard to Bayside/Bell Boulevard. Bayside is dense enough to warrant a new subway and is the most direct destination for a Northern Boulevard line.
  4. Me neither. Needlessto say, while the IRT and BMT have the and lines as their own respective routes that don't interline with other services, the IND doesn't have one of its own, partly because this sub-division of the subway was intentionally designed for interlined services right from the start.
  5. On the other hand, taking history into account, any potential subway service to Springfield would most likely be an extension of the Queens Boulevard Line beyond the 179 St station, as originally envisioned by urban planners in the 1940s and 1950s.
  6. It's about time we hoped that would happen. The R211s will be the most luxurious subway cars yet, with open gangways, free Wi-Fi, and USB charging ports for phones so we can all commute in comfort and convenience.
  7. We'll have to stretch our patience to the limits unfortunately, because the R211s will be delayed in their deliveries AFAIK.
  8. I wouldn't be too sure about having two Broadway services going to 96th. IIRC there's a steep grade just where the layup tracks start, and that itself could limit terminal capacity at that station. More importantly, the subpar brakes of the R46 trains that make up the majority of their fleets could mean safety concerns as well, as T/O's are afraid these trains could slip off the top of the grade and careen down the tracks.
  9. UPDATES: New airport symbols on subway and strip maps; resolution increase for strip map
  10. Revised train maps with relocated stops in Manhattan, plus a new station at 5 Av and 50 St Subway map: Track map with Flushing Yard: Strip map:
  11. For those who favor a extension, wouldn't it be ideal to extend it to Whitestone instead of Bayside? That's another transit desert you have there.
  12. So what you're saying is, instead of stops at 6th and 8th Avenues, have them at 5th, 7th, and 9th Avenues? In that case, I'd locate the entrances and exits at these locations: Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 and Lexington Avs (transfer to ) 5 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 and Madison Avs 7 Av/50 St: at 6 and 7 Avs (transfer to ) 9 Av: at 8 and 9 Avs (transfer to )
  13. Opted for fewer stations with greater catchment areas as opposed to more stations spaced closer together with smaller catchment. These would be the proposed locations for the entrances and exits: Lexington Av/50 St: at 3 Av and Park Av 6 Av-Rockefeller Ctr: at 5 Av and 6 Av 8 Av: at 8 Av and 9 Av (and 7 Av via transfer passageway) Clinton-42 St: at 44 St and 42 St
  14. One reason why I opted for a 9 Av exit is because it's already difficult to access any subway line in Midtown west of 8 Av. After all, the walking distance to 9 Av is longer than the distance to Broadway.
  15. Not a fan of extending the for two reasons. One, that line is already beyond capacity during rush hours, and two, the layout of the entrances at Lippmann Pl will surely make any extension beyond Main St unlikely. Capacity constraints are also why the and trains can't be extended beyond their respective termini at Jamaica Center and 179 St. Also, one important purpose of the is to help relieve overcrowding on the rest of the in Queens and Manhattan.
  16. Photoshop. My plans call for the 8 Av station to have an exit to 9 Av with a new transfer passageway to the trains at Broadway and 7 Av.
  17. How the line would look on the subway map: (Note that I used an older map because the current one doesn't have enough space to show the route)
  18. Question, does anyone here know a thread where I could get custom-made R142/143 strip maps? It would be nice if I could get one for my line...
  19. Realistically speaking, the would most likely be extended along Tenth Avenue to around 20-23rd Streets near Chelsea Piers. That part of Manhattan is still relatively isolated from the subway, which means this should be a bigger priority than another expensive tunnel under the Hudson into the Garden State.
  20. @Bklyn Bound 2 Local no need for an express on the line. It would be impossible to build express tracks and platforms underneath the existing local-only route... unless you want to shut down the entire line for it to happen.
  21. Since this is likely to be a busy line, I'd rather have it as its own route with no interlining. (Stay tuned as I'm in the process of editing the track map)
  22. I'll be editing the route and track maps soon. Stay tuned 👌
  23. You mean, have the terminate at 42 St/10 Av rather than to Hudson Yards like @LaGuardia Link N Tra said?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.