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.

Coney Island Av

Member
  • Content count

    701
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

537 Excellent

Social Info

2 Followers

About Coney Island Av

  • Rank
    Railfan

Profile Information

  • Location
    Upper New York County

Recent Profile Visitors

3,342 profile views
  1. Coney Island Av

    R179 Discussion Thread

    All this train debating aside, 3122-3125 and 3134-3137 are now in regular service. Which means that we now have nine R179s in service on the !
  2. Coney Island Av

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    But why Bronx-Queens over going to LGA? There's more demand for it to go the latter, as opposed to much less demand for the former. And exactly how many people are commuting from the Bronx to Queens on a daily basis? Not enough to justify building this IMO. Even if people were going from the Bronx to Queens without backtracking, the Triboro RX would already accomplish it much better than the ever would. Fully agreed. We can't let MTA be an embarrassment because of two city blocks.
  3. Coney Island Av

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    If you need a software to create a future subway map, use Google My Maps. Most on this forum use it to present their proposals. I, however, use Inkscape and will have a fantasy map coming out soon. Anyways: Definitely with you on the to LGA and deinterlining Broadway. Transit planning today is extremely shitty (cough cough LGA AirTrain) and NIMBYs are so irritating. It's worth the risk to propose it once again. In 2003, the only reason why the NIMBYs won is because the city was in dire need in a post-9/11 state, and funds needed to be allocated to improve infrastructure in Lower Manhattan. Though the could just be discontinued entirely to avoid redundancy. Another thing NIMBYs don't realize is that they only live mere yards away from Ditmars. Any effect the extension would have on communities would just be the same as the current Astoria line. For your QBL deinterlining plan, does Parsons mean Jamaica Center? I almost thought you meant to terminate the at Parsons Blvd itself (not Parsons-Archer) while the goes to 179 St. Other than that, I do see the reasoning for deinterlining QBL, but IMO isn't needed. It could partially be solved by having the run via 53rd and the via 63rd. For Brooklyn, why would a line to Red Hook be needed? Reviving the B71 should do the trick, as well as improving bus service in the area. If not, then maybe a light-rail could be built. My proposal is similar to your (P), but it runs on Northern instead of the Port Washington Branch. It also involves the instead of SAS. However, the (P) isn't necessary because the could easily assume its role on the PW branch. I also agree with a Union Turnpike Line. It serves a large transit desert in Eastern Queens, though I would have provisions on the south end for potential further expansion south into Glendale, Bushwick, and Williamsburg. My short-term plan would involve the being extended to Lakeview Rd, the staying as-is (or extended to Laurelton/Springfield respectively), and the goes to 179 St. I've looked at a similar idea of sending the to College Point, though my would kill two birds with one stone, serving both Whitestone/College Point. I do see the need for a subway extension to the latter though! Overall, this is a good plan, but could use a few changes/corrections.
  4. Coney Island Av

    R32 Fleet Swap Discussion Thread

    Get your pictures of R32 trains NOW. They will be leaving the line very soon because every time an R179 enters service on the , a set of R32s will get displaced to the . In a few weeks, it is very highly likely that most of the 's fleet will be NTT (R143, R160, R179), with only a small minority of R42s (though the latters will also get displaced too).
  5. Coney Island Av

    2038 Subway Map

    Excuse my somewhat foul language, but for the purposes of providing constructive criticism, this just needs to be said, because stupid threads/ideas like these are getting very annoying and hateful. In life, you cannot always be attracted to one thing forever. The dude can't just seem to let go. That's why he's so attracted to these pointless extensions like a magnet. Autism isn't the free card in this scenario because life can't care for him every step of the way. It's okay to have an opinion, but rebranding the same damn topic, just under a different name, will not make dumbass proposals like this one look any different, and especially wouldn't even entice people to agree with him...in fact, it does the opposite. It discourages actual contributive members from participating in discussion. And if all that's gonna be said from topics like these are just negative reactions from a majority of the audience, it's best to just not post them at all. A forum is supposed to encourage a friendly discussion, not some brawl-out between someone who's autistic and offended members... In conclusion, we shouldn't waste time trying to have a civilized discussion with this dude. We've been roasting the idea ever since he first joined the forums back in February, and not once has he taken off that extension from the map. Just let him be the autistic hypocrite he wants to be and he'll eventually learn his lesson after crying wolf several dozen times. Not trying to be mean here, but all of this is true, and everyone just has to chill and relax...
  6. Coney Island Av

    2038 Subway Map

    Do I really have to explain for the millionth billionth septillionth quintillionth goddamn time about why this proposal is so bad?! Yeah, I'm not gonna waste my time for you...
  7. Coney Island Av

    R179 Discussion Thread

    Can we confirm if any new cars have been delivered? It's been a couple of weeks already...
  8. Coney Island Av

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    My proposal for the Jamaica EL/Nassau St lines: -Chambers St gets an extensive renovation. This is very self-explanatory since we've all seen how dilapidated it is. -Bowery also gets a renovation, but not as extensive as Chambers. -Essex St will be converted to a four-tracked station, to allow for it to be a more efficient terminal. -The abandoned platforms at Canal/Bowery are reopened. -The current bottleneck at Myrtle will be replaced with a curve on Lewis Av. A new track would split from the Jamaica-bound track, traveling down the latter street until Myrtle, where it would obviously connect to the upper level and continue onwards to Metropolitan. Forest Hills-bound trains will still stop at the current platform it does so today. -The segment on Fulton is replaced with a reroute of the line on Jamaica Av. Now, while it's partly cemetery, it'll still eliminate the bottleneck at Cypress Hills and reduce wear/tear. It will also speed up commutes to Manhattan since there will only be two new stops constructed in place of the five closely-spaced stops on Fulton. And riders on the Fulton St portion also have the as an option. -An express track should be built between Broadway Junction and Sutphin Blvd-JFK. It would pull passengers off of the even moreso than the skip-stop pattern in service today. The current train will run express all the way from Sutphin Blvd to Marcy Av. would become fully local. As part of this, Woodhaven would get converted into an express stop. -Obviously, I'd throw in a new Nassau St service, presumably , running from Essex St to Bay Ridge so it can divert the to Fulton. -The should be extended from their present terminus at Broad to 9 Av or Bay Parkway. This is to provide additional service along 4th, as there can't just be one Nassau line service doing the job. Another reason why they are extended is to avoid holding up southbound trains between Fulton and Broad. For example, back when the ran to Bay Parkway, it usually got held up due to fumigating and trains. -Weekend service should be extended to Broad St so that riders have a multitude of transfer options while also keeping its route fairly short. -The platforms at 104 St should either be extended westward like @R68OnBroadway mentioned earlier to allow for a connection to RBB, or it should be relocated to 102 St. Same with 121 St, with the option of relocating to Lefferts. I would go with relocating the two. -New station will be built at Union to shutter Hewes and Lorimer, and also to provide a good connection to the .
  9. Coney Island Av

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    Marcy is 116th in terms of ridership. That's pretty damn high, considering all the new luxury high-rises being constructed by the waterfront. Take a look at Bedford Av on the , with a whopping 31 out of 422 in terms of ridership! It's the most busiest stop on the Canarsie line, and is why the is an overcrowded mess in the AM rush. With all that said, I can say that there will definitely be warranty for this giant-scaled proposal, as the will only see continued growth. Besides, whenever we extend the subway, we always look at how dense the areas are! And in this case, Williamsburg and Bushwick are especially going to become dense to enough to warrant building this! Anyways I should describe each of the following lines that will branch off the main trunk: Union Turnpike Line- This line will run under Myrtle Av, then it would follow the existing Lower Montauk ROW from Cypress Hills St to Union Turnpike itself, and finally continuing on Union Turnpike until the Nassau County Border. It would serve a large transit desert in Central Queens and allow for express service to Midtown, local service to Lower Manhattan, and a crosstown service to Downtown Brooklyn. To reduce costs, there will not be full mezzanines at stations east of 188 St, and the line will go elevated after Francis Lewis Blvd. There would be warranty for building this because of the limited transit options in the area, however, it will be the most expensive part of the plan. Utica Av Line- This line is pretty much the IND version of a line down Utica except it will travel via Malcolm X Blvd north of the existing Crown Heights-Utica Av stop on the and would have four tracks instead of two. The will provide local service while the will be an express to Midtown. It will serve an arguably dense area in East Flatbush, and would be a big help for the B46 SBS today. Bushwick-Jamaica Subway The on the other hand will continue east to Broadway Junction under a new subway running under Bushwick Av, replacing the existing elevated before finally ascending at Cypress Hills to connect with the remaining portion of the Jamaica EL. And to reduce costs, the line will be two track, local service with provisions for express service, and space for a third track east of Broadway Junction. service will be truncated to Essex St as the Queens Bypass and Atlantic Av-Super Express (both of which served by SAS) will make the 's presence redundant. Like you said earlier, some of the cost will be used to provide funding for adding express tracks to SAS (a must need for extending into the Bronx) and other miscellaneous extensions.
  10. Coney Island Av

    Plans move forward for LaGuardia AirTrain

    My proposals for any line to LGA whether bus, train, or AirTrain: Option 1: LaGuardia Link train This option is obviously the best. The NIMBYs only won the battle in 2003 because the city was in dire need post-9/11 and needed funds to repair Lower Manhattan infrastructure. However, it's still worth considering it despite those NIMBYs. It will allow for a very fast commute to Midtown, even moreso than a two-legged transfer. The will both be extended to LGA, allowing a proper connection from the airport to Manhattan. Option 2: Casey Stengel Bus Terminal Besides the subway, buses will also do good. I fully agree with @LGA Link N train's proposed Casey Stengel Terminal. It will even do more good than this AirTrain (which would close the depot for absolutely no reason) and would improve the current inefficient bus terminal layout in Flushing. In this case, all of the buses that terminate in Flushing will all be diverted to the terminal, while the Q25/Q34, Q44 SBS, and Q65 will have some short-turns that will terminate there. Option 3: Having the AirTrain go to Long Island City This option would make the AirTrain run via the BQE to Roosevelt Av, then follow the LIRR Main Line to Long Island City. Stops will be at LGA, Roosevelt, Woodside, Sunnyside, Hunterspoint Av, and finally LIC. It would do more by bringing it closer to Manhattan, but to LGA is still the better option. Option 4: Extending the to LGA This is the most craziest option out of all of them. The would continue as-is to Roosevelt, but would stop on the upper level of Roosevelt and from there, run via 41st Av, 83rd Av and the GCP to LGA. It will mostly parallel the existing Q70 route and since it would be underground, it won't face as much opposition. However, it'll be the most expensive, and would cut service to the more busier QBL local stops east of Roosevelt, as they would only have the . But since terminal capacity at Forest Hills is freed up, it means that the could be thrown into the mix (not going to dive anymore deeper into that).
  11. Recent photos and videos. These all are a tad bit unusual, and I hope you all enjoy! Now for the photos: -oney island v Productions
  12. Dang. Idiots these days...
  13. Coney Island Av

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    My take: - train to Gun Hill Rd via 3rd and via Brighton Express to Brighton Beach - to Flushing/College Point/Whitestone via 86 St, Broadway, and Northern Blvd Express - train rerouted to Flushing via proposed Northern Blvd extension (runs local), extended to Dyker Heights in Brooklyn - to Euclid via Atlantic Av Tunnel/Fulton Local, also rerouted back to Astoria and extended to LGA - to 125 St-Broadway - to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63rd or 125 St-Broadway - rerouted to SAS, captures Atlantic Branch to Jamaica - via 63 St/Queens Bypass to Jamaica, also extended to Kings Plaza via Utica Av Exp - to Laurelton, extended into Brooklyn as a local alongside the to Kings Plaza - to Springfield - rerouted to Williamsburg/Eastern Queens via South 4th, Myrtle Av, and Union Turnpike Express - rerouted to Staten Island via Culver Express, extended to Co-op City - extended to Bay Pkwy rush hours via 4th Av Local, West End Local - sent back to Nassau, runs to Coney Island via 4th Av Exp, peak express on West End, also runs as a local to Fresh Meadows while is express - truncated to Essex St, replaces service to Bay Ridge (Optional) -A new service runs as a supplemental service to the , running via the proposed Myrtle Av-Union Turnpike Line mentioned above to join the and out to Fresh Meadows. It would finally replace the old Myrtle Av line (which was demolished decades ago). This however, is optional, and isn't necessarily mandatory. I'm now gonna list all of my reasoning for all of this: I prefer sending the via 3rd because it's more centric in the transit desert than Webster is. And the reason why the and aren't flipped is because sending the into the Bronx will only make it even longer of a route. The , on the other hand, would be a much shorter line. The should be extended as-is to Flushing, with provisions to extend the line further east to Whitestone/College Point. However, I'd send it via Broadway instead of 30th because it's a much wider street, and sending it via 30th would require going via Newtown (which is narrow). I also sent the via the because it needs a more efficient terminal, and would provide a direct connection from Northeastern Queens to Brooklyn. It will also serve the developing Sunnyside Yards, and would gain more connections in Queens. The to Laurelton, to Springfield, to Fulton, and to South Brooklyn should all be self-explanatory. The reason why I don't send the via a wholly new tunnel under 79th is because capacity through 63rd is just wasted in doing such. It would be more cheaper/more preferable to send it via 63rd because the existing infrastructure is already there, plus it uses up that large remainder of capacity. Yes, it would interfere with the , but if the tubes are running below capacity, the addition of the will certainly not pose a problem and there would still be more room for interlining. Now for the . Yes, I know it will merge with the . But Queens needs all the extra service it can get, even moreso than SAS. Something has to take the 's place, and it cannot be the current . However, I guess I should clarify that there's really no perfect solution to this. One will be a pain in the heave-hoes operationally, while another would just ignore customer preferences. Building the new South 4th St trunk line that would involve the trains will ultimately accomplish much more. Despite its cost, this would reduce congestion on the (cough cough Bedford Av), provide access to those in underserved neighborhoods, and would be able to handle new growth in Williamsburg/Bushwick. It will also allow SAS to take over the north tracks of the Manhattan Bridge so that it can be better integrated into the system. Now for the Staten Island thingy. Yes, I do know it goes via Brooklyn instead of being direct. But, a tunnel under the harbor is completely non-realistic and costs will be too astronomical for it to be viable. The point of building it off of Culver is because the infrastructure is already in place. And if any line went to SI I would make it go towards the center of the island, as it sorely lacks any kind of heavy rail. The SIR should be left alone, and the North Shore Branch should be rebuilt as either heavy or light rail. I'm not really a fan of BRT-style service on the North Shore. Anyways the and would run together south of Fort Hamilton Pkwy, with the running express and the running local. The will terminate at Dyker Heights-86 St while the continues under the harbor to St. George. From there the would run via Castleton/Jewett Avs or Victory Blvd to Richmond Av, where a park-and-ride terminus would be located. This is more beneficial than capturing SIR because it serves areas that SIR doesn't access, would be more cheaper, gives SI riders a one-seat ride, and finally allows for the return of Culver Express service. Any thoughts? Sorry for the long post.
  14. Coney Island Av

    R179 Discussion Thread

    While all of you are talking about manufacturing/jobs, I'm just gonna go ahead and post yet another myriad update regarding the R179s... Status of all R179s: 3010-3019: *still* at Bombardier for modifications 3050-3057: In service on the 3058-3065: In service on the 3066-3069: In service on the 3074-3077: Recently arrived, testing at the Rockaways 3078-3081: In service on the 3082-3085: In service on the 3086-3089: In service on the 3090-3093: In service on the 3094-3097: In service on the 3098-3101: In service on the 3102-3105: In service on the 3106-3109: In service on the 3110-3113: In service on the 3114-3117: In service on the 3118-3121: In service on the 3122-3125: Burn-ins on the 3126-3129: Testing in the Rockaways 3134-3137: Burn-ins on the Things to note: -3010-3019 could be back in the city by August/September. -The with the R32s/R42s will stick around until fall. -3074-3077 arrived about two weeks ago. -IDK if any new cars have been delivered, I need someone to verify if this is the case. -The will soon have over nine R179s in-service. -We're almost halfway through the delivery of the four-car sets!
  15. Coney Island Av

    R179 Discussion Thread

    I think I should clarify why all the nonsense with the 179s is going on: Firstly, look back to when we started receiving the R160s in a large majority. The R38s/R40s were dwindling more than their fellow R32/R42 cousins, so that's why they were the first to go. The 160s were intended to retire all R32 through R42 rolling stock, but the meddling R44s ruined the plan. The latters' structural issues are the main reason why they were retired, and why the R32s/R42s are still alive today. If the 44s didn't mess up, the R32s/R42s would've certainly been retired by 2010. Another impact that the retirement of the 44s had was very critical because the majority of the 179s were originally conceived as being five-car links, as opposed to majority being in four-car links. Due to the R32s and R42s still active at the time, transit had to go with the latter plan, since the R179s would be replacing the 60-foot latters. But fast forward a few years, and we're constantly experiencing problems with the order. Bombardier is doing a terrible job, and five-car sets are treated like oddballs due to not enough of them being ordered. However, despite all of these problems, they would've eventually replaced all remaining R32s/R42s no matter what, as seen with the R142s having problems and eventually broke through. But oh no, the R179s are stopped again all because of the Canarsie shutdown! It will essentially be living hell for most, because the will be truncated, headways increased, and service would have to be increased, etc. As a result, to allow for this, every single rolling stock, whether old or new, has to stay, including the R32s/R42s. So it looks like they'll be staying for yet another half-decade. So the R32s/R42s were indeed planned to be retired sooner, but were saved twice. Long story short, it's essentially all the R44s fault that this nonsense is happening.

×

Important Information

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