Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

257 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

1,258 profile views
  1. @T to Dyre Avenue I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What would the route be in that scenario where the serves Forest Hills instead?
  2. I doubt that Forest Hills and Middle Village would want their services cut in half, I suppose. Once Phase 3 of the SAS is complete, how about running a between Forest Hills and Houston Street (ultimately Hanover Square)? There's a way for it to serve 36th Street with the before sharing Queensbridge and Roosevelt Island with the , ultimately taking a southerly turn short of Lexington–63rd and heading down Second Avenue with the . I'm not sure whether that would force the up 96th or otherwise a restoration of the , but perhaps serving Bay Ridge with the this time instead of Bay Parkway.
  3. That got me thinking... What if the were to run from Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue to 96th Street at all times, and then the original service could be restored as it was before being discontinued? That would be a fairly equitable division of routes with minimal confusion.
  4. Absolutely, that should all be done too. It still delays the expense of 125th Street, since you're just pushing the current terminus north, along with all the modifications that such a transposition requires.
  5. If we want anything more finished within our lifetimes, I propose creating a Phase 1.5. The space leading up to 106th Street and from 110th to 120th has already been excavated decades ago. If you clear out four blocks of dirt, the line will reach up to 120th Street continuously, plenty of space for tail tracks. Why not get the 106th Street and 116th Street stations open before digging that expensive curve to 125th? Let's get East Harlem some better service sooner than later, yeah?
  6. In preparation for a future SAS "Phase 5" to Brooklyn, might it serve as a good intermediate stage to construct a short connection between the Montague Tunnel and the unused Court Street station (currently the Transit Museum) leading to the underused Fulton Line via Hoyt–Schermerhorn? This would branch off before normal service reaches the extant northern Court Street station. This would alleviate turnaround issues and make better use of the Montague Tunnel and Fulton Line, all the while getting the southern Court Street station up and running in anticipation of future service. Precisely my thoughts. Changes to service needn't all happen at once, so rush-hour service to Bay Ridge would indeed be a good provisional stage (serving as a trial period) before permanent service is tentatively implemented.
  7. With some clever modifications, the abandoned sections of Chambers, Canal, and Bowery could be used for a new service to Bay Ridge. I don't think Essex Street has the space though, does it?
  8. "Raise it to three and let it be" EDIT: at least until it's time to raise it to four in like 2030...
  9. Well, if it's not too long a service route for the and together, then I say go for it! A capital idea, indeed!
  10. Well, a temporary stepping-stone solution is now clear to me: the should run through 4th Avenue to and from Bay Ridge in peak directions during peak hours. Since these peak directions are opposite those of the from Jamaica, and since the two stretches only overlap in Manhattan, they should not be in any conflict. The is underused, the Montague tunnel is underused, the 4th Avenue corridor is underused, and Bay Ridge needs more service. The would keep all of its current functions, but also assume the duties of the long retired service with a sprinkle of , except the needs no new bullets to be added or restored.
  11. This piggybacks on some of T to Dyre Avenue's ideas, but since Bay Ridge is in need of better service, wouldn't the easiest stepping stone be to run the to Bay Ridge in peak directions during peak hours? The peak direction of the northern is opposite that of the peak direction of the here proposed southern , so they shouldn't ever come into conflict. 1) The is underused and only plays a role northeast of Essex. 2) The Montague tunnel is underused. 3) The 4th Avenue corridor is underused. 4) Bay Ridge needs more service.
  12. As long as they go through with the conversion from maintenance track to station platform, I'm sure they'll find a clever way to do it reasonably. If they keep the spirit of saving costs, why not just build phases 3 and 4 as originally envisioned, making use of existing tunnels?
  13. This is my first time seeing it, but I like that idea, actually. The would still have to be capped off at Chambers Street for now, which is a bit of a choke, but perhaps future renovations could bring it along through Canal and ultimately Bowery, where it would terminate at the unused/underused track(s). The Manhattan section of the line would thus be until the at Essex, a nice division of bandwidth. Otherwise, I think it would be neat to connect the to Nassau somehow, or even terminate it at 2nd Avenue alongside the (where the used to terminate) if money gets tight.
  14. According to Joe Wong: Maybe the and termini should revert and switch back—then the could run as well as intended. Then again, that might obsolesce the .
  15. Since the 125th Street terminus is being reduced to two tracks, we need those bellmouths more than ever so they can serve as two additional trail tracks aiming up to the Bronx. Yeah, there's definitely ample platform space, thank heavens, but I worry about structural load shifts since two out of every three columns will have to be (re)moved. My solution would be to pull back every two columns out of three towards the center of the new platform to take on the weight. Then again, you have sections of this tunnel that are completely column-free from wall to wall, so...
  • Create New...

Important Information

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