Coney Island Av

I think I'd be a pragmatist because I propose a few cheap extensions (eg. Bronx Crosstown, Hillside, Laurelton, Bypass, Third) but at times I also propose somewhat expensive extensions (eg. South 4th St, 10 Av-Northern, Culver/4 Av to SI, Fulton-Cambria, four-tracked SAS, and so on). However, I try to be as close to realistic even with expensive proposals. For example, I propose a four-tracked SAS only south of 63rd as opposed to the full length, but it will still cause a tight fit north of 63rd if we're gonna expand further into the Bronx. But it's not a matter over whether extending X line to Y destination is doable because it's least expensive. It's a matter over whether building this is even worth it despite the cost, whether cheap or expensive. I'm also opposed to dumb ideas like Cuomo's LGA AirTrain, to Red Hook, to NJ, etc. Those types of proposals could be handled with either more superior extensions that would logically be fit as subway, increased bus service, or just letting any commuter railroad (LIRR, NJT) handle it instead.

I think we've all lost it at this point... *sigh* This thread's gonna suffer the same fate as Canarchy from what it's looking like... *double sigh*

*sigh* There are so many problems with this repetitive response of yours, so I'll just share my overall thoughts. You explicitly stating that " ridership aren't as big as the !!!!" just proves you don't use the on a daily basis. Why don't you bring up actual ridership stats instead of your preferences or personal experience? Just because lines lose their NTTs is not a reason to bicker about old rolling stock running on a certain line. We should only be concerned with old rolling stock if they have mechanical issues, breakdowns, etc. It's not a matter over whether a certain car type (NTTs) look prettier than the R46s. I don't remember any opposition to the R62A swap, so your point about people whining over losing their R160s is moot. In that scenario, the R62As could actually last longer until the 2020s, and they currently do fine, as opposed to the R32/R42, where they look worn out. That's why many riders don't mind riding the R62As compared to the R32s/R42s. And the reason with the R46/R160 Jamaica swaps is because MTA wants to prep in advance before CBTC goes into effect. Plus, the are much shorter than the , and have outdoor terminals at both ends. Don't jump to immediate conclusions with how the will be affected during the shutdown. The to Fulton is way faster than the , plus the is local to Manhattan. The only go to Lower Manhattan, so what's the only express train to Midtown? The . People will actually use the if they don't want to hissle-hassle with transferring, and just want to get to Manhattan fast. Also, why don't you go to every line station in the AM rush during the shutdown? Maybe THAT will make you reconsider your thinking that the will be underutilized. The MTA expanded the to full length for a reason. The 's ridership will explode because of the displaced train riders, and the fact that current train lengths and frequencies aren't enough to handle the crowds. Yet you claim that "R68s are supposedly unable to handle ridership on the ," but claim that "ridership will be fine with full-length R68s" despite the increased ridership. You're only claiming ridership won't be high solely due to the fact that it doesn't touch the metropolis. And no, this isn't "a dumb fantasy." What we're speculating about for the future assignments are based on FACTS, not our preferences or rumors. Some would actually prefer otherwise instead of agreeing with subject-to-change info. We actually consider increased services, line lengths, ridership, and spare cars, as opposed to your decision to put things wherever without actually considering any of the factors I mentioned earlier. P.S. No offense, but your obsession with fat people is getting pretty overkill.

We present to you "The Hippie Hipsters Stupid Show!" A few words for these hipsters: STUPID STUPID STUPID. -Heavy

I don't know why people are saying "the R179s are going downhill." Just because 3015-3019 were sent back is not indicative that not all cars will be on property. The 5-car and 4-car sets are completely separate entities from one another. The reason why the four-car sets entered service first was because they had the least amount of issues. 3058-3065 did have issues, but was in best status, hence being the first R179 to enter service. 3050-3057 on the other hand, had noticeable issues and probably haven't entered service because the issues were more major than the ones found in 3058-3065. 3010-3019 failed the most in OOS testing, so if you're saying that 207 St could iron out the issues in time to put all the 5-car sets in service, think again. 207 St isn't top notch as Bombardier in fixing the R179s, since that's not where they were originally manufactured. If they failed the most, only the professionals/designers have a fit for the job, and that's Bombardier. I'm sure they'll iron out all the issues more quicker than MTA could, and would probably only take about a month. Afterward, they'll resume testing, and I can say that the cars will wrap up burn-in testing in the Rockaways/Brighton much more quicker and faster than we saw previously. The cars were sent back to Bombardier for a good reason. Even though testing has currently halted for the 5-car sets, I guarantee that the time lost will be compensated with less issues and the extensive work currently being preformed. But for now, let's see what happens.

Not this again... We've told you many times why this won't work. The will amount to 30 TPH at 179, and adding the will only make one big conga line even worse. You'd just be moving it from Forest Hills to 179 St. And skipping 169 St won't do anything, considering that there will still be conga lines, as two trains have to relay on each level. The would have to relay on top and on the lower level. Then there's also the constant need for the HIllside Local being the QBL express, which is why the currently does so today, running local east of 71 Av. Having a fully-local train stop there will only have people bail at Parsons, Union Turnpike, and 71 Av, since the local will be slower to Manhattan. In fact, this will only make people's commutes slower given the crowding you would see at each express stop if this were a reality. And this proposed combination is pointless, given the Willy B might not have the capacity, and the is already slated to have an increase during the shutdown. The 6 Av Local might also not have capacity given the current levels of service, which amount to 25 TPH. But yes, your could be just the extra TPH the is slated to receive, but just call them s. Sending them as s will only confuse riders. If the is slated to receive a service increase, call them s. Not . Just send a few rush hour s to 179 St. Period. Just because the ran express east of Forest Hills, the went to 71 Av, and the went to 179 St in the past does not mean this proposal will be feasible and/or justifiable. Don't make the proposed service patterns even more complex, because it'll only cause more congestion.

I think there won't be time savings for deinterlining, because Nevins St and Franklin Av will become overcrowded with riders trying to get to either side of Manhattan. There would be time savings for deinterlining, however platform congestion is too strict, and will completely negate the time savings deinterlining would've had. In fact, it will either just take the same amount of time to get to Manhattan, or it will be a lot longer. You cannot increase TPH either because terminal capacity is limited. If you were a daily commuter off of the Nostrand Av line and worked on the East Side, would you rather be delayed on a train but in a no-stress situation, or be in a hectic situation in which riders cram onto the trains, causing platform congestion? The only problem I see with rebuilding Rogers is the cost. However, will the cost be worth it despite the expense? I say we rebuild Rogers because it allows additional capacity for the Nostrand Av line to be extended, as well as a new Utica Av line off the IRT. This not only allows for TPH on the to be increased, but also allows additional expansion into underserved neighborhoods. Simply deinterlining the branches won't allow additional expansions off of the Brooklyn IRT, and saves little to no time given the platform congestion. The same case goes with the 149 St Junction. EDIT: @R68OnBroadway oh yeah. The time for rebuilding the junction would take probably years to complete. If so service should look like this if the flyovers are rebuilt. : Wakefield-241 St to Wall St : Harlem-148 St to Wall St (some rush hour train terminate at Times Square-42 St) : Woodlawn to Atlantic Av-Barclays Center : Dyre/Nereid Av to Atlantic Av-Barclays Center (Bowling Green weekends) A transfer to the at Junius St should be established, and a shuttle train will run from Utica to New Lots.

@Lance And he's also that one person that worships the new technology trains like they're goddesses. It's not the end of the world if the NTTs leave a specific line... Judging by your name, I'm sure you'd love sitting in the express fully NTT...now I understand...

It's supposed to be called the @LGA Link N train for a reason.... This extension would be pointless if it doesn't serve the airport. It's like saying to tourists "your subway line is right outside the airport, but you're still a step farther!" Yes, it would provide access to underserved neighborhoods, but just because we're stuck with Cuomo's stupid AirTrain doesn't mean we should cut it from going to the airport entirely. Instead, despite the expense, extend the via my fully proposed Northern Blvd line to Flushing/College Point. This way, you could have the take care of East Elmhurst, and the to LGA. You'd be pissing off NIMBYs for a less-supported proposal instead of bringing it to the airport.

Why are people saying all R42s will be scrapped before the shutdown? As said before, they'll be kept as spares for the shutdown. The need for car assignments will increase during the shutdown in order to provide extra service, which is why all SMEES will be kept. If they weren't needed, then some R32s would get scrapped as well. Just because they're rusted up and in poor condition doesn't mean they'll be scrapped. But I think the R42s should follow the R32s wherever they go, possibly going to the . They won't be kept for backups.

The problem is whether having it curve onto Ditmars will be feasible. At least one building will have to demolished because it'll be similar to the curve between Cypress Hills and Crescent St on the . For me personally, I would have the routing via 19 Av with no stops so the yard could be built, and there would be less opposition. Cuomo's dumb AirTrain is useless and only forces riders to keep transferring. I would also extend to the actual airport itself, since that's the whole purpose of this extension. There will be provisions to have the line be extended further east to Flushing or Bayside. And also, LGA will be rebuilt to have all the terminals in one sport as opposed to being spread out. But either way, we could run the to Astoria/LGA, which would replace the .

Wow. This proves you honestly don't understand that any incidents in the subway aren't easy to fix. Simplicity doesn't always go your way, because that's how life works. And also, the ill passenger would only be spreading the sickness to other passengers if an unqualified person does so. Have the professionals do it instead of the ones with a history of being unqualified. Get your doctorates before you are eligible for medical careers.

Wally. I've walked from Whitehall to Bowling Green before, and it's a just a couple hundred inches away. It's literally Jay St-MetroTech distance. What's the point of restoring a shuttle if you can just walk instead? Just because the loops are unused does not mean we have to use them. You don't even gain operational benefit from doing this- you only create yet another chokepoint in place of the Bowling Green fumigation. And as mentioned earlier, the platforms can't be extended. Also, I don't think that the SF loops will have capacity for BOTH the and . You've now created not just a chokepoint at Brooklyn Bridge, but also ANOTHER another conga line in the loops. And also, who would demand for service off-hours? We already have several toppings of spaghetti serving the Financial District, and the do fine when they handle their respective stations. There will zero to no demand for this, and even if there was, service would simply be increased. More people will demand for the RBB more than terminating the at old SF. The answer is simple: Build a transfer/moving walkway. Period. This proposal is so hackneyed when it could instead be replaced with ONE SIMPLE TRANSFER. It's overcomplicated for absolutely no reason.

@RR503 fine. I guess I should just continue to speculate but not go overboard when anything relating to R32s are brought up. *Excludes test trains I'm going to see for myself if all 316 cars will be on property by next year.... Number of 4-car sets: 49 Number of 5-car sets: 24 Number of four-car sets (total) currently on property: 12 out of a possible 49 (6 trains) (3050-3053, 3054-3057, 3058-3061, 3062-3065, 3066-3069, 3078-3081, 3082-3085, 3086-3089, 3090-3093, 3094-3097, 3098-3101, 3110-3113) Number of five car sets (total) currently on property: 2 out of a possible 24 (1 train) (3010-3014, 3015-3019) Number of production car sets (four-car) delivered: 8 out of a possible 45* (4 trains) (3066-3069, 3078-3081, 3082-3085, 3086-3089, 3090-3093, 3094-3097, 3098-3101, 3110-3113) Number of production car sets (five-car) delivered: NONE Between January-March, eight production car sets were delivered. If deliveries continue to go at this rate, all four-car sets will be on property by February 2019, two months before the shutdown. However, they could change up the pace of deliveries, so it's not definite. But the will definitely be fully NTT at this rate, as it can simply use R143/R160s in addition to the R179s. Any leftover R179s should go to the , as the doesn't need them all. The five-car deliveries IDK, but the majority of cars will be on property. However, it also depends on what month 3010-3019 will finish revenue testing, as delivery of the production cars won't start until after testing is done. I'm sure all sets will be on property, but it's not definite.

So what? It's still considered bumping a thread. It doesn't matter if it shares ad nauseam similarities to other threads on this forum.

Dude. You've been asked multiple times that these stations are still open because of ridership. Come back to me when you have the ridership levels of each station and explain to me how it WON'T overcrowd existing stations. Then we can talk. Don't say "let's upgrade this!" when the best cost-effective solution is.... LEAVE THOSE STATIONS ALONE.

@LGA Link N train Let the subway handle the city and let Metro-North handle the state. Metro-North is meant for the state/countryside because of the fares, frequency, and single-tracked stations. You would never see anything like this in the NYC subway. The suburbs are less dense than the city, and the NYC subway is only meant to serve areas with higher density.

Speaking of the R179s, the assignments for where they're going are very controversial. And I'm reluctant to say what I'm about to say. I owe all of you an explanation as to why I'm doing this. I've had good forum etiquette up until January 2018. By November 2017, I got dragged into the R32/R179 debate, and at first it started out good, but things went haywire shortly afterward. I pissed off a majority of the forum's members at this point, and because of all this, I'm not going to post in the R179 discussion. I'll only come out of the background if I have/want to, but I'll be a bit nonexistent in this thread. Posting on this thread only ruins my reputation as a member on here and flames others. Many also say assignments are already set in place, only having to do with XYZ lines, but if they're already confirmed, then what's the point of speculating? That's only creating unnecessary garbage. Finally, no matter how much I try to change the way I post in this thread, it just never works despite the fact I'm saying things will change and aren't finalized. Until I get information about testing of the 5-car sets, or any upcoming deliveries, I'll be sipping tea like Kermit in the background while I watch you all speculate about the R32/R179 nonsense. Please don't make me regret posting this if you're annoyed. -

Don't close stations. most of the stops mentioned above (18 St , Beverley/Cortelyou Rd , Wall St , etc) have high ridership. The only reason why 18 St , and Worth St were closed was because of close proximity to Brooklyn Bridge, and low usage. Retaining the station would only slow down service, and none of the stops mentioned above do such a thing. And @Snowblock, I think the only reason why people want to close 18 St is not due to being symmetrical, but it's because the IRT Lex has a closed 18 St station, and want the same thing to happen to 18th on the . It would've been closed a long time ago if it really was too close to 14th. Another example of closeby stations are the two Aqueducts (Aqueduct Racetrack and Aqueduct-N Conduit), the Jerome Av stations (170, 176, Mt Eden, etc), and also on the West End line (50-55-62).

R142 ??? NVM...

Capturing the PW branch would be useful, I get where you're going, but it's long term. It would be good as it's the only LIRR branch that doesn't serve Jamaica. I remember @Union Tpke's to reroute the to the PW branch using a short elevated connection at Queensboro, and the would be increased to 15 TPH. I would rather extend the to Bayside though. But this might be infeasible because 1) the line is single-tracked east of Great Neck, and 2) the grade crossing at Little Neck Pkwy would need to be reworked. The ROW would have to be widened, and local residents will shoot it down. I would also agree with capturing the Atlantic Branch, but it should have SAS service. However, I would only capture the segment east of Broadway Junction, as the section between Atlantic/ENY would be too close to the . The East New York, Nostrand Av, and Atlantic Terminal stations would all close, however Nostrand could be preserved as a new home for the Transit Museum if the Atlantic branch was captured. Woodhaven will be reactivated. But the most important ROW to capture is the LIRR ROW (between Jamaica and Rosedale). It should be used for an extension to Laurelton, since SE Queens is very underserved. It would also provide a one-seat ride to Manhattan, since current LIRR service stub-ends at Atlantic Terminal. It allows for the to have a more efficient terminal, and also a new yard to be built.

Your points are very constructive about not wanting to build RBB, and I understand. But as @T to Dyre Avenue mentioned earlier, there are too many strikes against this line to make it be built. But I think that there's no point in discussing about the RBB unless there's something new to share. The thread started out good, we were getting along, but since page 7-8, we're all just arguing about the same thing over and over. But building it now would be rushed and hackneyed. We'd have to go the cheap way, which is extending the , and that alone comes with many problems. Reliability will dwindle on the for being long, and it will overload the . The area certainly has potential to develop. But overall, the RBB should be left as-is for now. building the RBB now would just be unpolished and rushed, and building a park now will be bad if the area densifies. The RBB should be in a long-term expansion plan. We should look at already-dense corridors that won't get a rushed solution for subway service, and get the top priority projects done, like SAS, Utica, Nostrand, Third, etc.

I can see the "Friends of the Queensway" got plastic surgery and injected themselves with a syringe to look like the residents on 14th St...

Keep in mind, that ALL assignments, whether speculated by us or planned by MTA, aren't final and are subject to change. However, they're not impossible to execute. We can't verify until, say for example, a set of said R32s pops up on X line, or Y line. But the assignment I'm about to post are just MY thoughts on the matter. It's might not be the MTA's, and even if it was, it's still subject to change. : R46/R179 : R32/R42 : R46/R68 : unchanged : 100% R160 : R32/R179 : R143/R160/R179 : R46 : R68/R160 The R32s being spilt between the , and should happen IMO because the is simply too long of a line and doesn't really spend enough time outdoors, while the others are either fully NTT or run on lines that restrict R32s. Yes, the R32s do a better job at handling crowds, but the R179s will cut it, considering they're NTT. This will be just like the R188s displacing R62A from the . Obviously the would be the best choice as it's almost perfect. But again, I don't wanna have this opinion to get flamed over forum users, considering the R32 speculation has had a pretty controversial past. The , meanwhile, doesn't spend much time outdoors compared to the , but those R32s are just there to make the 480 feet, and because the is a much shorter line. But now I need to explain why this should happen. After all four-car sets head to the , that's probably when the five-car sets will start arriving. By then, probably around September-December 2018, 3010-3019 would have finished testing and would've entered service on the . The five-car sets could then replace most of the R32s on the , displacing them to Coney Island, as Jamaica/ENY will be fully NTT. Now, yes, the won't be fully NTT, but it won't really get affected by the shutdown when compared to the . Besides, the shutdown will happen regardless even if lines aren't fully NTT. The will also get NTTs in this scenario, though part of it will be R32s. As mentioned earlier, Jamaica needs to be fully NTT for QBL CBTC. In preparation for such, the will become fully NTT, while the is unchanged. The R46s on the would head to the , while the ones on the head to the . In addition, most R68s on the will head to the to provide extra service. The remainder of R68s can be used on the , or can be used as spare factors for the . The 50 remaining R42s won't be scrapped, but they'll all head for the . They could be split between the , however, someone mentioned earlier that R42s can't align with the car stop boards. Again, everything I just rambled on about are only my thoughts. Nothing is, or will ever be final, so don't take this too seriously.

I would prefer to have the tunnel on 86 St, since that's a more major destination. It can serve as a crosstown route going onto Northern, and should also head of to College Point/Whitestone to serve communities that rely on buses to get to the nearest subway stop. However, the tunnel would have to curve a bit when entering Queens, as it would run on Broadway instead of 30th. As for the RBB, wouldn't it be similar to the low-ridership the has today? The has low-ridership stops probably because they're close together, so the ridership is split. If we spaced the stops on RBB more further apart, wouldn't it get higher ridership? FYI the has almost the same catchment area of the portion between Forest/Ozone Park. I think if we should build the RBB, spacing of stops should be like this: Metropolitan Av-Parkside Jamaica Av Atlantic Av Liberty Av Stops at 66 Av, Myrtle Av, and Union Turnpike won't have high ridership to justify building them. And yes, you could say, "why build any of them," but I think one stop in the vicinity will be enough to cater to those folks if the area is half parkland and if they really warranted such a thing. But yes, I do agree that Northern Blvd/Bypass are arguably more important, but I would build both. I have proposed the bypass as a turquoise , while the Northern Blvd line should be an extension. If you only build one, it will only relieve either QBL or Flushing, while the other will still be inundated with copious groupings of people.