Brooklyn

It's funny--I was just looking at an old bus map: There used to be a B40 that ran on Ralph av and turned on St. Johns Place and continued along East NY Avenue then onto Liberty av. It terminated on Pennsylvania av. So there used to be a service along this route.

I really think Ocean Hill and East New York need better designed routes. Some of the service patterns make little sense to me. That service gap in really without excuse. And you'd have to go there to see--it's actually quite a distance. But I agree, the prime candidate for extension is the B65.

I figured as much. There is a big east/west service gap in that area--didn't occur to me until I traveled there. Buffalo Av doesn't make sense as a terminal. I would have the 65 go to Broadway Junction. As for the 45, I was thinking of three possible eastward terminals: 1. East NY Avenue/Strauss st (simple and easy turnaround--just 3 more long blocks east and you get transfers to the B12 and B7) 3. Pitkin Av/Strauss st (Just 3.5 blocks away from current terminal. Meets up the 12, 14 and 7 routes and gives residents shopping access) 3. Broadway Junction Your thoughts?

Don't know if this has been mentioned, although I will assume it probably has. I really think the B65 should be extended eastward to at least East New York Avenue/Eastern Parkway. I've always thought Buffalo av was a strange terminal. Best case scenario, I think it should continue to either Broadway Junction or further east to Pennsylvania av. There is a gap of east/west bus service in that area. Thoughts?

These two are excellent ideas.

For the transfer at Fulton st, especially.

Excellent idea!

I would love if the ran local.... But if the ran more frequently, there would probably have to be less service.

Thanks for the constructive criticism. About the skip stop service, I understand distribution of passengers. However, if the J simply ran all local with MORE frequency, that would kill two birds with one stone. Point taken, though. The J to Broad street really would have helped last weekend when the A was cut in Brooklyn--passengers could have transferred at Fulton st and continued their ride at Broadway Junction. My larger point is about transfer options--a weekend connection the WESTSIDE train lines would be nice. As for the R train split, it's about maintaining consistent service in Brooklyn as well as providing relief when there are weekend diversions. And yes, the R train does find a way to delay the and ANYWAY. I miss that Jay st-Metrotech connection for the A and F trains. I want the back for one main reason: to keep the N and Q on the express track and the Q from going to Queens! I want more consistent service for Brighton riders. This will also take pressure off the . Only 5 or 6 TPH would be needed IMO. Some trains can terminate at 57th st if there is a train close to merging. As for the , I think the service is absolutely DISGUSTING. I didn't realize how bad it was up there. The would be extremely helpful. Again, we would only be talking 5 TPH. For the shuttle, once at 180th st, they can wait for two train lines. Sucks, but a compromise--I would rather Pelham Parkway and Gun Hill Road get the extra service.

Only changes I would make: Kill J/Z skip stop. Don't see the point after riding this line frequently for last year or so. What's the time difference? Not much when you factor in the time it take you to wait for your train. During rush hours, create (Jamaica to Broad) that goes express from Broadway Junction to Marcy Av peak direction only. I would also have the run to Broad St all times. Why? For the connections at Fulton Street. train to Essex st during the weekends and late nights (but I heard this will be done??). I have read a million threads on why this SHOULDN'T happen and won't happen, but I don't care. M and R trains to 179th street during the day. R train runs local from 179th st to Whitehall St ALL TIMES. It also runs from Court st to 95th st all times. train runs until midnight. gets increased service during weekends. gets restored during the weekdays (5 or 6 TPH). to 57th street express track, ALL TIMES. None of that merging business after 34th st. train runs from Nereid Av to Brooklyn College during weekends (5 TPH) to assist the train. Shuttle from to Dyre from 180st. Didn't realize how bad Bronx riders had it during the weekends.

Sorry about my part in that, but I had to make a point. I don't post here often, but I see a pattern among certain posters here who seem to always want to shut others down and their criticisms are always the same: "It's too expensive" or "The MTA should do this instead" or "the people don't want this" or some other vague BS to try to change the subject. And quite frankly, it's not nice...and it's wrong. Why in gods name would you come on a thread that ASKS PEOPLE to put a station on an existing line and then criticize it for "being too expensive"? That makes no sense. If that's the attitude, maybe this is not the right forum.

I will assume you are joking, because otherwise this would be a terrible rebuttal. VG8, you're still trying to attack me based on this concept of "cost", but you're still not absorbing my larger point: I will repeat for the third or fourth time: if you wish to attack it based on cost, then you might as well apply it to everything proposed in this thread. You might as well apply that to MOST OF THIS FORUM. VG8, that's cool if you still don't get it. I am moving on.

This is unbelievably funny.... You first tell me you don't like the station idea because you feel "it's too expensive" (no evidence, no cost-analysis, nothing--not to mention it was completely off base) Now you're arguing "no one would want to give up either station"......(based on what?) Red herring away. This will be my last comment on this.

Again, I really don't mean to be rude. What gives you the idea that the is "nearby"? The IS NOT NEARBY. It's about a mile and a half away from the at this point. Where are you getting this idea that the is quicker into Manhattan that the from that location? If one wants to go to East Broadway or 2av, maybe, but then again, those are stops on the anyway. why would someone want to walk a mile and a half (about a half hour) to get the ????? Have you even been in the area?? Av X gets blocked off by the train between east 15 and east 16th Sts....one has to completely walk (or drive) around a long block to either Av W or Av Y to continue. Again, if you are going to try to shut down someone's response to this thread, please know what you're arguing and back it up.

Partially--he was saying a lot of things lol...later on he might have hinted at this. But to answer you, I guess that would have to be done then....usually there's going to have to be SOME property acquisition when you put in a new station, right?

Agreed...I don't post often here, but I notice there are always a few posters (usually the same ones) who like shutting people down, and undeservedly so. I could understand if someone was going off on a tangent and off the topic, but this happens when people post on-topic and relevant answers to a thread. They have no relevant criticisms other than "it's too expensive" or "the MTA should do this instead"....it's frustrating. Even if I were to go along with the cost argument, again, there would be no real purpose of most of the forum then. Why post here then? And on top of it, they have no evidence to back themselves up (budgets, cost estimates, etc.)

Again, my responses are not "fantasy" far from it. I gave other reasons why, but I guess you are selectively reading my posts.... Part of it is to simply the system and make transfers easier too. I wanted the station for a transfer to the ...this could help during GOs of the line and ......I always felt that there should have been a transfer there anyway. This would give Williamsburg residents more options as well as give some riders another means of getting to Manhattan other than the or . In the process, why not make Lorimer/Hewes into one station with that connection? (right on top at Union AV). For Beverly and Cortelyou, just one station serving both streets....Beverly is literally a long block away from Cortelyou at this point. It doesn't make sense. In the meantime, perhaps a bigger station with more stairs. I wanted a station at 7th av because of the population and a somewhat large gap between stations from 36th to 9th av. But again, that station physically might not be possible since I have posters who presented physical EVIDENCE saying why that would be problematic rather than saying "it's too expensive" not only changing the subject, but with jack to back it up.

Also, if "it's too expensive" why would my explanations matter? Why would this thread matter? Or much of the forum for that matter? How can someone even argue with you saying that? Again, may I please ask why you're here?

Because that's the topic of this thread. I guess that's kind of what's done on this forum, you know, responding to thread topics.....right??? Or am I wrong?

Ok, then respond TO THEM....I am not responsible for what they said. I am responsible for what I said. The same way I responded directly TO YOU. That wasn't the only thing you questioned....we've been at it for a couple hours now. I have other reasons for why I want the stations built. But my point is you pointing to MONEY and dismissing the suggestions based on that. If that's your attitude, then pretty much most of this site and its threads should be dismissed by you. I really don't see why you're here then. That's my point. You can't come on a thread which was created to talk about NEW STATIONS and then say "well, it costs too much". That makes NO SENSE. Talking about new stations is the point. In addition you keep making these monetary arguments yet can't seem to even give any figures or cost-analysis backing them up. The only reason why I brought up the "saving money" argument was to somewhat back you off.....my core argument was about the purpose of you commenting on money in a thread like this.

I am sure.... I am also of what the topic is of this thread too and how some people are going off that. I don't post often here, but I will say that some posters seem to frequently distract and point threads in other directions with red herrings and such, and I wanted to point that out. If a thread is posted for a specific purpose, I really don't see what the purpose is of someone coming on it and saying "it's too expensive or do this instead or whatever" to try to derail an otherwise on-topic discussion. That's like going into a boxing match, wondering why two guys are in the middle of the ring with gloves punching each other and then screaming that the boxers should stop boxing and do something else. Again, I really don't see how this is useful or appropriate for that matter. A thread was started, and responses (which were totally on topic) were given, only to be responded to by some as too expensive or that the MTA should do something else. Those two responses are very common here. I won't press my case anymore.

This was the first post and thread starter. Sure you're making sense...and you are still following the red herring you created. You are ascribing things to ME that are incorrect. You bring up the station on the line, but that was not what I said. If you are going to say "it's too expensive", why participate? The thread starter says nothing about that. It was a rather simple and straightforward topic starter. No one is proposing new stations everywhere...I certainly did not. I had what I believe to be solid reasons for the ones I proposed. I even withdrew one of them after a couple posters gave ME EVIDENCE why that station wouldn't work--they referenced geography. That's my point. They countered me with geographical and physical observations while you countered me with "it's too expensive". Even if you wish people to take the trail of your red herring and bring up MONEY, at least come to the table with some actual figures supporting your contention. My comment still stands. PS...two of my proposals involved being RID of two stations--even if I were to follow your lead about money, wouldn't this save the MTA money in the long run?

Again, it's one thing to say that the station you suggest can't be put there because of physical and geographical reasons--and that's perfectly legit. Another counter is an analysis of population: one can say that the new station would hardly attract ridership. These are legitimate counters..... It's quite another to say, no, the MTA doesn't have the money or they should spend it on something else. Do you see the difference? The first two directly respond to the topic and the particular station suggested. The last one DOESN'T and changes the topic to funding, priorities, etc, things that are OUTSIDE the scope of the thread (and the forum for that matter). Am I making sense?

VG8, Pardon me, but these is where I am confused. This thread is about New Stations to be put on existing lines.... Why would you come on a thread devoted to such only to turn around and say that you want it, but the MTA doesn't have the money? What purpose does a comment like that serve? To top it off, you are using the same Don't do x, do y instead business.... I am puzzled, actually. You know these are called red herrings, right? You're changing the topic.....

Better.... I am actually being given PHYSICAL and concrete reasons why the stations might not work along with evidence to back it up. This is much better than "it would cost too much" or other nonsense that some posters use to shut others down. If someone is going to say 'it costs too much', then I guess this whole thread would be shut down then, and pretty much most of the forum. The very least a poster can do (who claims this) is actually put down evidence showing the actual numbers. Thanks for taking the time to present some actual evidence to back up your assertions. I now agree that a station on the at 7th av might not work, but not for the reason given by the OP "Don't do X, do Y instead". Again, I am not trying to be an A-hole....I just want some substantial discussion taking place....too people want to shut others down and not have any compelling arguments or evidence behind them. Also, sometimes I want to hear from the poster who is making the argument and give them a chance to respond. I never claimed that.