LGA Link N Train

what a way to start a reputaion from their end

Too easy! I’m certain that everyone is tired of these foamers ruining it for the rest of us and giving the Transit Community a bad name. And come to think of it, that is a trend with every trip… do these kids have nothing better to do?

What a mess. I’m planning to attend the 2nd and 3rd trips (if they happen). I hope things are more orderly in the next Farewell trips

Pretty Sure thats still the plan. By any chance, do you or anyone else here know which stations are set to become ADA Accessible within the next year?

Maybe, although I still prefer building a flyover at Myrtle Junction given how popular the current day service is. I just wanted to play with a new idea.

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me. Hypothetical: Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following: Gates Avenue DeKalb Avenue (Maybe) Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?) Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines. - Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. - Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the could handle that service Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service - Emininent Domain Required - Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

Well if you rebuild Rogers into a Y-Junction, sure. That isn’t a new idea (it is one that I’ve warmed up to) whatsoever as referenced here: http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IRT-Nostrand-Junction-Report.pdf also, I may be in the minority here, but I don’t see the Yard Issue being a big deal under a to Flatbush, Utica/New Lots alignment under the condition that the R262’s completely replaced the R62/62A’s. It would just be a similar case with the .

Who says you need to abandon 50th Upper under an Express; Local alignment and vice versa? Wouldn’t that be shortsighted thinking because lets say a G.O. Or delay requiring reroutes happens. You’ll still need those platforms ready for use in case something happens.

Not his exact quote but thats what I interpreted from him. Here's the article in question: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2021/07/29/mta-to-get-new--acting--chief-as-agency-undergoes-leadership-shakeup

Today's Monday so that's probably why

None to be honest.

I personally think that 21st Street as is does well for the Q69 and Q100 as those buses move very fast already, but that BRT-like Option (Option #3) looks interesting. What do you all think? https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/21-st-bus-priority-safety-study-cab3-jun2021.pdf

With Ridership still being down as a result of the pandemic, Now is a really good time for the to rethink how the money is spent and to rethink what practices need to be reformed or eliminated in order for them to burn less money so that they stop proposing stuff like this: https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-mta-mulls-big-service-cuts-despite-fed-bailout-20210721-afkxnz5gjnggzn3e2zcpl4dasy-story.html

One thing that I'd suggest in order to redo the G.O. Process [and this is more of a draft idea rather than a finalized proposal] is to something similar to what was almost did with the Train shutdown. Have complete shutdowns take place in certain corridors within certain timeframes so that maintenancte crews don't have to worry about setting up and cleaning up every 4 or so weekends so that they can do the work they need to do right away then not have to worry about whatever corridor they did maintenance on for however many years to come. In some places would be easier to do this than others. If possible, FasTrack, CBTC Installations, ADA-Accessibility, and whatever Capital Plans could be incorporated into this new G.O. system so that crew does all of this work can be done at once instead of being spread out on weekends and nights. As a byproduct of this, other procedures such as flagging could be rethought or eliminated entirely so that the work isn't too disruptive. Basically, short term pain for a long term gain.

Isn't Bowery already long enough to fit 10 car trains though? Essex, Canal and everything below it I understand

Thats true. Also it seems like I misunderstood as I thought we were talking about the BMT Eastern Division EAST of the Williamsburg

No they're not, but I think we can both agree that extending them to 600' would be a good investment

By the time Phase 3 opens. The system will probably have phased out all 75 footers from passenger service. (I personally think that whatever replaces the 68/68A’s is going to be a 60 footer train model similar to the 143, 160, 179 and 211) The issue with a Williamsburg Extension is the lack of Connections to other subway routes. The most you’d get is the and trains and a few SBS routes whereas an SAS-South Brooklyn Connection provides much more from Atlantic Alone. I’m personally on the fence about a Williamsburg West End/Brighton idea but the network benefits of such an idea are undeniably present. Now to stray a little bit from SAS, what are your thoughts on upgrading the BMT Eastern Division to widen curves, remove bottlenecks and accommodate 10 Car Trains?

Thought about how Weekend and Overnight Service can be reshaped under a partial Deinterlining Plan. Please note that this does not account for G.O.'s as I personally think that the G.O. process should be radically be reshaped to cut down on maintanence costs. Weekends: Service is increased into the Weekends and runs from 168th to Coney Island Service can be truncated to 145th Street on weekends as the will handle Concourse. Service will be increased into the weekends and will run full route. Brighton Riders will gain an Express Service from the months of March-October in order to promote taking the train to the beach similar to how the Rockaway Park gets extended to Rockaway Blvd every summer. Late Nights: and Trains will Swap roles from 145th Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle in order to keep things consistent. Trains will run to Norwood-205th During Late Nights to cover the lack of Service. Lastly, to make up for the Lack of Express Service, and Service will increase, and Trains will run Express in Manhattan Overnight. Trains run either as a Sea Beach Shuttle or up to Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center Trains will be extended to Jamaica-179th Street overnight. Trains will continue to run local and Trains will be Express Full Route Trains will Terminate at Prospect Park and run via Montague. Service will be extended/truncated to Queens Plaza.

Just to focus on CPW for a bit. I noticed that any proposal that does the 8th Express/6th Local alignment (while optimal under the current system) seems to have a few gaps in them. One's that have been discussed before and some that haven't. But just to get the pros out of the way even though everyone here knows: They keep consistency with the current service patterns. 10 car (600' length) trains, thus resulting in a 10% Capacity increase for all lines on CPW 8th and 6th Service is evenly allocated to Washington Heights and Inwood above 145th Street wether that'd be an / or / alignment. The former keeps familiarity on both Branches. Removing the Merge at Canal Street with the and thus resulting in removing 2 bottlenecks instead of one. And the Cons: 50th Street Upper Level loses service unless a G.O. or Delay were to happen Bedford Park Blvd Terminal Operations might mess with Service under this alignment. IIRC, it can only handle turning 6-7 TPH which is not good for West End Service assuming that we go with the Swap for DeKalb Junction. I was discussing this with a friend of mine and this is a concern that @T to Dyre Avenue has brought up in the past is the fact that 50th Upper Level would see no regular service and could end up becoming like Bergen Street's lower level. I may be one of the people who sees this as a non-issue because of the stations very close proximity to 59th Street , 42nd Street and 7th Avenue but still something to take into account regardless. But say that this alignment is implemented, then wouldn't making 7th Avenue and 50th Street ADA-Accessible in addition to adding entrances at the 52nd Street end of 50th Street mitigate this issue? Also, whats the most number of TPH that Bedford Park can Really turn?

It is

I think the tunnel might be deep-bored, if eminent domain NEEDS to be accquired in the are between Queens Blvd and the LIRR Main Line (I don't remember if this was mentioned in the study) then at most 4-11 buildings would need to be looked at or taken in the 66th-Wetherole/Austin Street area.

Yea. The Parking Lot for the Apartment Buildings and the Parking Lot for Trucks to load/unload at the Building where Stop and Shop is on Union Turnpike are the only things that are truly enraoched onto the ROW itself. The Baseball Field is DEBATABLE at best from my prespective because it seems like its been only enroached onto 1 trackway. I happen to live right next to the Right of Way in between these 2 sections so that's how I know. IDK where you got the idea that the Home Depot Parking Lot is enrhaced onto the ROW because its not.

Alright. This is still wrong because of the following. - Forest Hills-71st Avenue can only turn up to 20 TPH due to a poor fumigation process. The runs about 10 TPH while the runs about 8 TPH. If you divert 8 TPH from Forest Hills to run via the RBB without altering any service, then that means that 8 Slots open up at Forest Hills under the current system while only the serves 67th Avenue which is not a huge loss. - and both respectively run 15 TPH. 15 's + 8 's = 23 TPH on 6th Local between Rockefeller and Broadway-Lafayette. You can add 2 TPH on the having them both run to 2nd Avenue or full route without affecting the and . Preferrably, the and could Swap Tunnels between 36th Street and Rockefeller to get rid of those 2 nasty merges at Queens Plaza (the merge going S/B and the merge going N/B). The would HAVE to become a 24/7 route for its entire length if it were to be the primary line to serve RBB.

Well #4 answers a question that I've been asking for a long time on these forums (I've been asking how deinterlining would affect operating costs since 2018 IIRC). However, with all of this taken into account. I'm assuming the best way to make ANY Deinterlining proposal work is to tackle issue #1 before any rerouting begins which is terminal operations and Capacity wether that'd be through changing up fumigating practices or adding switches/layups where ever possible? I can get behind that. After Terminal Operations practices are changed and capacity is increased, the next course of action after that should be to increase station capacity at major transfer points (issue #3) through any means necessary? Stations such as 149th Street-Grand Concourse , Delancey-Essex , Canal Street (never been a fan of the Bridge Platforms, hate being there cause I feel unsafe walking/waiting there and I know for a fact that I'm not the only one that feels that way), Atlantic-Barclays , 7th Avenue , and whatever other stations that I missed? (Mind you, I'm not counting locations where new transers could be added or where station conversions could takeplace). Then once all of this is taken into account/solved, THEN would Deinterlining be more feasible?