LGA Link N Train

MTA considered that for the SAS EIS but chose to not do it due to the cost and disruption to area residents.

Why is the EIS still in effect???

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Here’s a crazy proposal that’ll never happen, but is an interesting thought nonetheless.

 

So, it’s no secret that the Nassau Line is considerably underused (has two abandoned tracks) and lacks is probably the most under maintained. Well, if Phase 3/4 gets going on the SAS, here is my proposal: Instead of terminating the down in Hanover Square (which would only further reduce the number of Nassau passengers), you could combine it down a newly renovated Nassau Avenue Line.

 

Here’s what I suggest: Close the on Nassau Avenue for 3-5 years, and completely renovate the line from top to bottom. It would be considerably less expensive, since all the structure is in place and there would be an extra incentive to renovate the Nassau Avenue Line (the extra passengers.)

 

While the Nassau Avenue Line is being renovated, you could combine the and the , by running the down through W4st, Christie St, and running the route between Essex Avenue and Jamaica Center.

 

Then, when the Nassau Line is fully renovated, the Teal will run down to the new Broad St with the . Far out there, but thoughts?

I might as well have the terminate at Chambers and Have the (if it still exists at this time) run down to Broad St or further

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You have read the forum rules right? Necroposting is frowned upon.

Oh, my bad

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

The train tunnel shutdown will be over long, long before a Queens Blvd bypass is ever built, so it is completely unnecessary to extend the to Queens Blvd.

 

If the is rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel, then what 6th Avenue train will take its place in the 53rd St Tunnel? (Please don't say the !)

And why are you responding to a post from 2011 by someone who doesn't post on here any more?

A. Cause some Queens Blvd riders might work at Greenpoint or Williamsburg

B. Cause I can

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Operations planning isn't done based on whether or not something will be weird to transit fans; they're done based on what's practical and makes the most sense. One again, your suggestions don't make sense.

I know

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Shoot me.

 

We. Don't. Need. . Service. On. Queens. Boulevard. 

 

If the bypass is built, it will likely be after phase 3 of SAS, so that's where the trains will come from. I'd say via bypass, (second ave-179) via QB exp, as now, to rockaways, as now (cause riders need those QP xfers, unlike riders...). 

Well, this is how I see how Queens Boulevard Should be.

train stays as is but extended to Larueton using the LIRR ROW

Gains that bit of extra bit of express service past Forest Hills

in the weekdays will terminate at Roosevelt Avenue or Jamaica 179 St to pick up riders who want to go to Williamsburg or Greenpoint from Queens (this would be good for the train shutdown

could be a revived as either an 8 Av, 6 Av, or 2 Av service using the rockaway branch

could use the bypass at 63 St and run local to 179 St

and should swap for better local/express service (just get through the NIMBY's first)

the World fair line could be rebuilt for better service to LGA but I don't see this happening anytime soon.

If you're not okay with that then we could rearrange the trains at Queens plaza so that trains could terminate there instead

-125th Street to Hanover Square. We can all keep dreaming or pretend to create that, because budget problems would never allow it to be fully completed.

Why bother completing the whole thing when you could just integregate it to existing lines

If all of the 4 car 179's go to the J/Z what are you going to do with the surplus of R160A-1's? Also, the R68's don't need to be replaced in the immediate future either so why are you putting them on the D?

 

Your plan doesn't make sense nor is it worth it financially.

The Additional R160-A 1 sets will just increase capacity or sit out while other trains operate, what do you think I'm supposed to do, put them on the ??? Cause that'll be weird

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Anyways, back to the R211's, They should be 5 car sets and 5 car sets only. R179's will currently be on the and lines. Once R211's come in and replace ALL R32's and R42's and some R46's, all R179 trains can go on the and and the can have someone R211's. The rest of the R211's can go on the Rockaway and (SIR), if any extra R211's come in then .......

They could go on the or replace the R68 on the or the in Franklin Avenue

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

I'm starting to think the R211s might already be RETIRED before the full second avenue subway project is complete [emoji19][emoji19][emoji19][emoji19][emoji19][emoji19][emoji19]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What's the point of completing the Second Avenue Subway??? The only thing we need from this line is A third storage track at phase 2, express tracks at phase 3 and a better integration with the existing system. If the current SAS stays the way it is, it's going to be the most expensive mistake the city has ever made

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Anyways, I think the R211 should only be assigned to the and trains, and maybe the

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

And IINM, that's the definition of "CBTC ready", so yes, the R179s are CBTC ready.

As of right now no, the R179's are not CBTC ready

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You mean like this? http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2017/05/the-future-of-the-2nd-avenue-subway/

Kinda, but not exactly like vanshnookenraggen

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

What if the Chrystie Street connection was rebuilt to make room for the Second Avenue subway

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

You mean the / ? They are one line. You extend one, you extend the other.

Yeah, but I want to make the and 2 seperate lines and there are multiple ways you can do that

Wouldn't sending your proposed  to Lefferts or Rockaway Park cause a bottleneck at Grant Av? It has to switch to the local at Hoyt, but suddenly share the same track as the   at Grant. Also, sending it to Rockaway Park would make it wayyy to long. And why would the R32s need to have a few upgrades if the Canarsie shutdown is only for 15 months? The 32s would be retired shortly afterward.

 

- to 96 St 

The whole point of upgrading the R32's is to accomindate current needs for the city before the R211's come in. As for creating a bottleneck, a simple solution is to build a connection from Montague Street and connect it to the transit museum so that trains can run local to Euclid Avenue due to lack of demand from south Brooklyn, allowing trains to run express to Lefferts or Rockaway Park. Also, if sending the to rockaway Park is wayyy to long, then howcome this isn't a problem on the line??? Doing this may potentially replace the huttle

Oh, by the end of the year? No way... Next year or 2019? Plausible.

I don't know why but I feel as if the line would be the best candidate for a second 4 Avenue Local Service

Let me add my two cents and add a few facts. You can't hold a grudge with the MTA for halting SAS in the 40s and 70's. During the 70's the city was in a financial hole. In the 40s, everything went to the War effort (WWII). Now you actually don't need service north of 96th st to help the Lex. Have you SEEN the stations from 96th down on the 6 alone? PACKED. These aren't Bx riders. They are UES riders! SAS up to 96th alone WILL help the Lex. @Wallyhorse: stop. Just stop. Please stop. For the love of everything pure and decent I beg of you please stop. I understand stand your wholwe "future views" but no one has any idea. Of ridership patterns 30-40 years down the road. And please leave Rockaway out of it. I'm from Rockaway. We don't need a 5/3 split between Mott and 116th. We need a faster trip to manhattan (and a little more frequency) and we could use a N/S queens x-town. And as far as the idea of future T service to brooklyn, the only thing I feel that ruins the concept is the repeated notion to use the museum. Stop it. It will never be done. It will never happen. To use What's now a museum? Seriously? A new station a block north or south in a new tunnel that would connect to an existing one (doesn't have to be Fulton st) I can suT

The only fast and effective plan to put Court St (NY Transit Museum) into normal train service is to build a connection from Montague Street where the over night and rush hour trains run underneath to Court Street where the museum is and extend trains to Euclid Avenue due to lack of demand from south Brooklyn. This expansion will make service on the and flexible enough so that trains could run express to Lefferts Boulevard and trains could run a flexible service to Far Rockaway. This service change would be a boon to everyone. As for the Transit Museum, there are a few good spots to relocate it such as the 9 Avenue lower level or using one of the South 4 Street provisions (I think that Utica Avenue on the and lines is a good place.

Isn't it too soon to start assigning equipment to the ? That's phase 3 (below 63rd), and I don't even hear that being forecasted yet. Now, they seem to be saying phase 2 will face delays. So that will be more decades.

Phase 2 is delayed to to lack of funds, and if you want it built correctly, then heres what you do....

A middle non-revenue track should be built between 106 Street and 116 Street stations where they will have side platforms up until 120 or 121 Street. Past that, a new connection to Lexington Avenue under 125 Street should be built, with the Manhattan Local track splitting into 2 at 120 Street with one track going up to an employee 125 Street Station where it will meet with the middle track using a double crossover switch just south of the employee station. past 116 Street station. A single crossover switch will be installed so that in case capacity is full at 125 Street station, trains and future trains can terminate at 116 Street so that they can connect to this employee station and rest at the middle track. this  proposal is similar to 111 Street on the line.

What I'm thinking is that the 4 car R179's should be CBTC retrofitted and placed on the and lines. I'm not sure if the should get any R179's. As for the R179 5 car sets, ALL OF THEM should run on the line, putting some R46's on the just to lengthen the trains along it's route. As for the remaining R32's (which in my opinion should be about 140 left, don't know for sure) they should run as 10 car trains on the and the should run up to at least Ozone Park or Rockaway park for A/C purposes. As for the R32's on the and lines, they should remain the same with a few upgrades on the interior's. R211's in this case, should ALL BE 5 car sets and only 5 car sets to allow flexible service and full length trains on the and lines. Though trains will most likely still be using R68's during this time.