LGA Link N Train

Drew up a hypothecial situation on What if the had decided to completely shutdown the Rutgers Tube until Rehabilitation was complete. I wonder how much money and resources they could've saved by implementing a complete shutdown. But knowing them, they probably haven't considered this option. Other than that, here's what would've been changed in my opinion: Trains would've terminated at Delancey Street instead of the Trains could've been sent to Coney Island on Weekdays in Place of the , maybe running some 160's in the process. Maybe some trains could've terminated at Jay Street to then wrong rail into Bergen Lower Level. (Not sure how feasible that is) *Work in the Rutgers Tubes could've gone by much sooner, and assuming that the budget allocated to this tunnel rehabilitation stayed the same, a CBTC conversion of signals could've been added into the mix. (So that the signals could at least be CBTC Ready) *East Broadway I know is getting a rehabilitation, would've been nice if York Street got one too. Now, ADA Accessibility, while I think that both stations should receive it, its a shame that it outside of the scope of the Rutgers Tube Shutdown (even though thats not the main focus) Here's the map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1s8MbZWOpUMy7mpFgXZ0dzUOt-1EKUnVz&usp=sharing

this might interest you then: http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/2ndave.pdf

how.....? why...?

Just looking at the 2 ideas that you wrote here. It makes me question the following: "Do these people even ride the transit system to begin with?" Now I understand that the is in a budget crisis, but why are they considering ideas that not only hurt them in the long run, but also have proven to be ineffective in practice?

Don't know why, but I see this as being the most likely outcome for a Atlantic Avenue Subway Conversion, it could also make an RBB connection a lot easier IMO:

IDK, I just skimmed through all of it

@Lex was referring to the part of RBB that is south of Rockaway Blvd, where the line currently runs. So his point still stands.

Thing is, if they wanted to experiment with this service, they'd have to install Interlockings just north of 45th Street (which there's spece for), but I wonder how much of a hassle (political wise) it would be to get it installed.

It was drawn by Vanshnookenraggen about 10 years ago. The blog he posted regarding that was written before the 2010 cuts if I'm not mistaken. Here's the article where that picture came from: http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/06/the-futurenycsubway-queens-flushing-trunk-line/

As per usual, you do bring up valid points given your past experiences, and I also find it interesting to see some of my own ideas from a different perspective, however with all due respect, I'm still going to rationalize my position on what I think about deinterlining as a general idea. 1. This is something that I'll take note of, but focusing on cross platform connections for now. Looking at this from the perspective of a passenger, I don't think a cross platform connection is something that adds a lot of time to my commute (under normal circumstances) so I wouldn't worry too much. However, from the perspective as a counductor, I'm guessing the main reason that they're generally avoided is because it'll add to the dwell times of both trains in the station, which doesn't help with run times as you pointed out. Can't blame you but I don't see it as a compelling enough reason (in certain cases) to not deinterline, which brings me to my next point. 2. Now regarding that whole mess that is the IRT Nostrand/Rogers/Franklin Junction (whichever name you prefer), if riders along Eastern Parkway and Nostrand Avenue in particular, advocated for mid-day Express Service, then why would the recommend sending all 7th Avenue Service to Nostrand and all Lexington service to Utica/New Lots everytime they initate a study regarding Rogers Junction? (and I'll admit to putting forth that proposal here on the forums) Interestingly enough, I found a document from 2009 IINM showing diagrams of Rogers Junction being rebuilt into a Y-Junction, (Don't remember if it was alternative 4 or 6 that proposed this), but after thinking about it, I fail to see how rebuilding this junction would justify deinterlining unless the wants to avoid a 59th Street situation, but I also fail to see how deinterling Rogers would increase dwell times at Franklin Avenue unless you were to reduce service on all lines involved. Then again, a rebuilt+deinterlined Rogers is something we won't truly know how it will play out until its put into practice. As a little something extra, here's something I pulled out from the MTA NYCT Subway Speed and Capacity Review Report: 3. I'm aware of the crowding that Lexington-53rd faced (pre-COVID), but If you don't mind me asking, how bad was it before the debut of the Line? Now regarding everything between 50th Street and 36th Street-Queens, I've initally had mixed feelings about swapping the and back in 2017, but afterhearing that an / swap was seriously considered and almost had a polit program, I saw that the goal was to reduce merging conflicts at Queens Plaza, which I don't mind TBH because any local-express merge that occurs mid route IMO, is a detriment to the overall corridors reliability. Now regarding your point about how services are routed in certain ways to benefit the passengers riding said services, that something that I have a csonfslicsting opinion on. Now while the subway is meant to take passengers from Point A to Point B, I don't think that passenger convinence should be prioritized at the expnse of the system's overall reliability, and same goes vice versa. I guess thats why I (along with a few others on here) like to get experimental with these types of ideas. Cause I want to see what works and what doesn't with our current system. And if an idea doesn't work, I want to know what factors will have to come into play in order to make said idea work. 4. I'm not really sure where CBTC falls into all of this, but given that the ran more trains back then, I'm assuming that dispatchers were a lot more strict with you along with the rest of your coworkers when it came to a Train's schedule, correct me if I'm wrong, and like I said in my last point, while theres nothing wrong with having services being geared towards riders, I don't think that passeneger convinence should come at the expense of overall service reliabiltiy. Also, was the system AT capacity during the time that you worked for Transit or no? On a side note, I find it crazy how I was having a very similar discussion to this with a friend of mine who loves to study the history of the subway system and whatnot. I don't recall if we ever came to a consensus though.

Ahhh, So if I'm understanding this correctly, given the current circumstanses that the is in, deinterlining just wouldn't be a practical solution, and if done incorreclty under ideal circumstances, would cause more problems than it solves? Interesting. I don't have a problem with the whole idea of Deinterlining because it has potential to benefit the system, but given all of the arguments that I've seen against it (both in these forums and in chats with some of my friends who don't use these forums), I've decided to chillax with the idea and rethink a few things because I don't want to put forth proposals that hurt more than they help.

For those talking about Short Turn 's being sent to LaGuardia, here's a map I made a while back: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/2/edit?mid=1fQr2_IuJhZbXrm1__q2j2L-IFwWs56R7&usp=sharing

The bus was detoured away from Costco (saw some NYPD Vehicles so I assume something happened) but only 1 person got on near it. The whole ride, it was just 2-5 people (not including the operator)

Took the Q103 today from the first Stop (Astoria/2nd Street) all the way down to the last stop (Vernon Blvd/Borden Avenue). Even with a detour, I reached LIC a lot faster than I was expecting today

I'm not too concerned about runtimes, because even without CBTC, I think that the would save a few minutes of runtime compared to the (I could be wrong though). To answer your first Question, I think the could remain as a local overnight and only run Express in Manhattan. For your 2nd Question, I was intendint to display that Trains would replace service to 207th during Weekends and Overnights, because this plan only focuses on swapping the and , which would require changes at 59th. Had I taken the whole DeKalb plan that was mentioned earlier, then sure, I'd make the a full time route. To respond to your first part, the whole merge at 145th is staying the same way, only with the and being rearranged, so I don't see what point you're trying to make. I don't mind any ideas involving deinterlining at 59th, but 145th has to stay inerlined IMO unless you were able to do any alterations in that area or if it were feasible to do some sort of peak express on the which I don't believe is feasible. Now regarding everything below 59th, I understand your concerns with the fact that I didn't get rid of the merge at Canal Street, but that wasn't the point of my proposal so I left it alone. I also didn't want to mess with QBL so thats another reason I left it as is.

Which doesn’t make sense because the 68/68A’s won’t retire anytime soon. At the very least, we’ll probably see them within the mid-2030’s which (hopefully) things will be better by then. I thought of something similar to this, just running all Short Turn (both 111th and Willets Point bound) runs to LGA, at least it does provide a better alternative to the AirTrain but the Length and Width of A Divison Train cars is where my concern is at regarding this proposal. Guess you can’t argue with that, but it shouldn’t stop one from brainstorming ideas and scenarios with the intent to improve Transit within NYC (not just the subway system, but also the buses and railroads too)!

I mean, that could explain why I saw a and moving at the same time at Rockefeller and 59th Street-Columbus Circle. If I’m not mistaken, the transponders couldn’t read whether the train was a or .

Given that they entered service around 1984-1986, I speculate that they’ll retire between 2034-2036 in order to complete the 50 year cycle, that would be my best guess

I've been thinking about a certain idea for a few reasons, and if this idea would be an operationally feasible one. SInce Queens Blvd is getting CBTC and 8th Avenue is supposed to get CBTC at some point in time. Neighborhoods such as Bed-Stuy and East New York are also Slowly Gentrifying, all of which Fulton Street and Pitkin Avenue Pass Through, how feasible (in terms of an operations standpoint) would it be to enact the following idea? - (15 TPH) Jamaica Center/Jamaica-179th to Lefferts Blvd/Far Rockaway via QB-53rd-8th-FUlton Express - (10 TPH) 168th Street (207th on Weekends/Overnight) to WTC via CPW/8th Local - (10 TPH) 145th Street/Bedofrd Park Blvd to Euclid Avenue via Concourse/CPW/8th/Fulton Street Local - (12 TPH) 207th Street to Brighton Beach via CPW/6th/Brighton Express - Stays as is The only 2 bottlenecks eliminated in this plan are the 2 Y Junctions below 59th Street and 50th Street. https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?mid=1VFJjSxL455GRPODxIIM-6nJXDsb3UyYk&ll=40.72070333815391%2C-73.93235774123153&z=13

I've seen the track map and @Lance, Ima piggyback on what you stated given that I agree with most of your points. I don't mind that this new map is using a geographical "layout", IMO it makes it easier for me to see where everything is, but (as you stated), the map has a bunch of geographical errors that I personally take issue with. I was mainly focused on how they showed the South Side of the Manhattan Bridge as an entirely seperate East River Tunnel (which NGL, we'll need at some point), aside from that, the Chrystie Street Connection, the Brooklyn End of the Williamsburg Bridge, the Archer Avenue (UL) Line, I don't even want to know what they have going on with the Franklin Shuttle and Eastern Parkway Lines, the between Grand Centra and Hudson Yards, the 11th Street cut just to name a majortiy. (Wow, they even got the M60 and Q70 geographically inaccurate although thats somewhat minor) Another thing is that since the wants to show the locations of Trains in real time, then I think that a Track Map would've have been better suited for this job as it would give a more accurate description of where trains are at any given point in time. (personally not the biggest fan of how 3rd Party apps display the real time location of Trains) although there would be no point in showing non revenue connections, yards or abandoned stations. Last but not least, presenting GO's and unlanned reroutes are something that are a step in the right directions as they will help riders determine what their next steps will be without getting caught in too much mess (if any), but these are just my 2 cents on this whole beta map. (A little extra comment is that the addition of SBS routes would be nice)

68/68A’s would remain though unless the R211’s (if all Options are exercised) managed to replace some of them

The only way I see that happening is when people whom (like Byford) actually care about improving Transit are appointed. But I don’t see that happening under our current governance. Also (slightly off topic), what role does the mayor play (or is the mayor supposed to play a role) when it comes to The ?

This right here is why I’m reluctant to support any Deinterlining arrangement for Queens Blvd, and all because the is 8 cars. If we were to go with the 8th>53rd>QBLocal; 6th>63rd>QBExpress arrangement, then that means that either the would have to be split into the and again or the BMT Eastern Division would need to be expanded in order to handle 10 car trains. I prefer the latter option but I don’t know how feasible that would be. Now on the inverse: if we were to do 8th>53rd>QBExpress; 6th>63rd>QBLocal, then riders between 65th and 36th lose access to Queens Plaza and Court Square. Although Lexington 63rd has an OOS Transfer to Lexington 59th (which isn’t that bad IMO), any QB Local Rider would have to make a Transfer to any nearby Bus Line. Either that or Jackson Heights will be overcrowded, unless you were able to convince some riders to transfer at 7th Avenue-53rd.

If that’s the case, wouldn’t the have to look into Expanding Essex and creating a Bowery-Grand Transfer?

True, but in the case of DeKalb and the proposal put up by Vanshnookenraggen, the idea would be dependent on adding switches just north of 45th Street. Otherwise, I agree with you on this one.