Theli11

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

Why not just connect the  to the Second Av subway via the transit musuem and a new tunnel and have it run 125th-Court Sq via Hoyt?

Like an East River loop route? Not sure if anyone is incentivized to take the  when you can just take... almost any East River route for faster service.

This route only benefits you if you need to go from East Harlem to Clinton Hill/Bed-Stuy. There's better routes.

41 minutes ago, TDL said:

And leave 2nd Ave as is, with an extension from Hanover Sq to South Ferry

South Ferry doesn't need more trains considering the fact that 5 lines are already in the area, I think Brooklyn is the best route for the SAS

19 minutes ago, TDL said:

Or here's another plan (that actually might operationally work better than the current plan):

-207th St-Far Rockaway, via 8th/Fulton EXP (no lefferts service)

-Brighton Beach-Jamaica Ctr, via. Brighton/6th/63rd/QBL EXP

-205th St-Lefferts Blvd, via Concourse LCL/8th EXP/Fulton LCL

-145th/BPB-Coney Is.

-168th St- Coney Is, via. 8th LCL/Culver LCL, switching at W4. 

-Jamaica 179th-WTC, via 6th Ave LCL, switches to 8th after West 4th

-Extended to Forest Hills via. QBL Local

-Broad St-Jamaica Center. Express in peak direction between Marcy Ave and Broadway Jct.

-Metropolitan Ave-Chambers St.

-unchanged

-unchanged

-Bay Pkwy-Forest Hills, via. West End/4th Ave/Bway/QBL LCL

-unchanged

- Bay Ridge- Broadway Junction via. 4th Lcl/Nassau LCL

All of this and I have no idea why you're doing any of it. There's a place for you and it's here.

Most of these don't have anything to do with 63rd St being shut down. 

On 1/23/2024 at 2:57 PM, 7-express said:

https://new.mta.info/document/131306

Not present in slide 5 diagram, called out in slide 19.

Kinda sucks how they're not thinking in advance on this option. The bellmouth will leave them with a lot more options for the future like an expansion to the Bronx which I do think the SAS should have if they can get around to it 50-100 years.

35 minutes ago, Chris89292 said:

What if I’m scared and I don’t want to, cause those thing spill some weird liquid substance, I don’t want it sticked in my shoe

Roach Spray + Lighter?

4 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Here’s an idea extend the metro north to lower Manhattan. The station would be 14th street canal street city hall and Fulton street This is just a proposal please don’t take this too seriously

Is there any space of the Metro North left on Lower Manhattan?

On 7/14/2023 at 3:00 PM, TMC said:

That shouldn't matter, it takes pressure off of the subway by acting as a super-express, going where the majority of people commute to.

Yeah but you'd be making people transfer to a downtown train if they need to go further down. Why take Metro North if they can just take 1 train right where you need to go. 

Would having both be too hard? 

1 hour ago, 40 to 241st said:

I want to find a way to directly connect the Bronx to the JFK airport. Originally I got an idea of extending the q44 there I got the idea from Mystic Transit but I realized that it would be hell of a long route thank you to those who helped me realized that it was a bad idea . I want to hear 👂 your ideas of a good Bronx to JFK connection. 

Bx14 Rush Route to JFK. Have it stop at any one of the terminals and loop it back at Lefferts Blvd. Have it go up to Lefferts Blvd , 121 , Van Wyck , Briarwood then no stop until Flushing-Main St then via Linden Pl (making some local stops) until Whitestone Expressway. Making local stops, along Bruckner Blvd and up Rosedale Av, (connecting to the  and the ), then turning on Tremont, going up Webster, stopping at Fordham Plaza, then turning to Kingbridge Road and Rush Route to Marble Hill where it terminates.

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

How is that worse interlining? The  is the biggest flaw in the operations for WPR because of 149th St junction and East 180th St. While the  adds on a little bit, the benefits would be better overall.

It's worse interlining because there's 3 trains being merged into each other. On the southbound track the merges with the and the which have already merged with each other at E 180th St (or Jackson Av) and on the northbound track the and merge with the at 149th-GC. Personally I don't think the is the way to go here at all and the SAS would be the best line for 3rd Avenue. If you want to send the into the Bronx I'd say send it to University to alleviate some congestion off of 149th - GC. Make 145th St the last stop in Harlem and make the first stop Yankee Stadium (barely hitting the southern end of the station) then running under the El Grant stoping at Plimpton Av ending the line at Kingsbridge- South Riverdale. 

On 6/29/2023 at 4:25 PM, Isaiah Billings said:

Z for zero. Zero speed. Zero service. Zero consistency. I mean, a rush-hour only train? What? Not even local during non rush-hour, just not running at all?

ZERO SPEED?! ZERO CONSISTENCY? The might be the train that runs the most on-time 6 trains in one direction a day and about 48 minutes from end to end. I'm not saying the is the cream of the crop but there's many reasons to hate the  for everything that it stands for and i don't think speed is one of them. 

On 6/29/2023 at 4:25 PM, Isaiah Billings said:

4 train: A-
On paper the 4 is probably the fastest train in NYC. It stops very little on Lexington Avenue and is even express in Brooklyn. However, it has problems like delays and crowdedness, making it a good express, but not as good as the 2/3.
5 train: B+
The 5 runs on the same line as the 4 for most of its route, so why is it rated lower? Well, I've heard some people say the 5 is really bad, which I haven't heard about the 4 for some reason.

The and the  only have the issue of overcrowded-ness and the just has the issue of merging with the . If you ever need to go downtown from Grand Concourse I'd always tell them to take the or unless they really need to be on the West Side. 

On 6/29/2023 at 4:25 PM, Isaiah Billings said:

The F is like the E, it's a great connector train between Manhattan and Queens. It also goes farther than Manhattan, which I'd nice. However, below W4 it's pretty slow, so it gets an A-.

The should get points off for being too long by your criteria. (You should take points off for the damn  not f**king around for more than 2 trips 

1 hour ago, TMC said:

I don’t get why 3rd Avenue is proposed so much, there’s a parallel commuter rail corridor that’s ripe for improvement, and 3rd Ave itself has demand levels in line with a tramway, not a subway line, judging by the Bx15’s ridership. It certainly shouldn’t be a branch off of WPR, causing worse interlining under your configuration. 

I agree with your assertion that it shouldn't be branched off of WPR, but I disagree with the fact that the commuter rail corridor is enough. The second avenue subway can go up 3rd/Webster, through 3rd Av-138th/149th St, and go crosstown on either Fordham or Gun Hill Road. I think that the train will provide connections that will satisfy people more than the Metro North can because it's local and because it's going to be a quicker way to connect Central Bronx with the  to Central Harlem, the  to East Midtown and the multitude of trains in midtown. the will now be more accessible meaning that it's easier to get to Queens than before on the subway providing better connections to LGA and JFK. Not only that but by sending the to Co-Op City, You'd be serving both Fordham, Pelham Pkwy and Central Bronx with a two stop ride to anywhere they want in Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens. It's easier for people to do that with the subway than it is for people to do that with commuter rail. In my eyes, Third Avenue is really just a means to get to Fordham Plaza and branch out from there. 

On 6/28/2023 at 2:13 PM, Kamen Rider said:

meanwhile not a single person on the island of Manhattan is more than a 20 minute walk away from a subway station.

 

Avenue D says hello /s

Seriously though, I'd rather do a branch straight to the Bronx instead of one through Central Park West to the Bronx/Inwood. A subway on either Third, Webster or Park Avenues to  Fordham Rd to Co-Op City while also branching the to Co Op City via Gun Hill Road. I'm not saying that 125th Crosstown is viable but I think it's a piece of SAS that we should be looking at. Columbia University doesn't need another train to get there though, i think the  and the does it's job mighty fine.

1 hour ago, Chris89292 said:

There is no reason to walk between cars when the train is in motion

You'd be stopping the train for so many reasons. People wanting to change cars to be closer to the staircase, people wanting to move away from something inside the cars (like a unhygienic person or someone making a disturbance), people wanting to go to another car with more space on it, and list goes on and on. Eventually they're gonna stop caring about the detections because honestly, it could be anything. Hell it could be a pigeon setting it off, who knows? 

Some Bus Time errors I've noticed:
On MTA Bus Time (and subsequently all apps/entities that use MTA Bus Time like the Transit App and the Onboard Announcements), the M9 skips Avenue C/12th St and puts Avenue C/14th St before the light on the Northbound Side, which is where the stop had previously been but it's now moved to across the light. The M14D on the other hand has the route go on 13th St, 14th St and the 14th St Service Road for some odd reason (which also displays in other apps). It still lists the M14A stop as being separate from the stop on 14th St with it stopping after it turns the corner, and still has the L92 listed (though the stops listed are just M14A stops). 

2 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Outside ordering and maintaining a specialized fleet, would there be any real cost to having the  being it's own separate "division"? The MTA already sort of did this with the R188s which aren't really meant to be switched back to mainline IRT anytime in the future.

 

But.. why? There's no real point to doing this and the fact that the and the rest of the IRT are in the same division makes things easier. They can swap cars if need be, whenever new cars come in for the IRT, you won't have to make a separate set for the that'd require a whole new fleet of trains (and probably a completely different bid/train all together). It's just easier to keep it the same division than to spend money making it a new division for no reason. The cost would be the fact that we've already spent time putting CBTC for the current subway cars and line and you're spending money for no reason. Ordering and maintaining a specialize fleet is a significant amount of money the MTA can't be wasting on an issue that is as frivolous and unimportant as this.

4 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Also  is basically separate from the rest of the subway system. It doesn't have any direct track connections to the rest of the IRT, and while it does have a connection to the 60th St tunnel, it's trains are too narrow to run revenue service through it. In a lot of subway systems worldwide where each line is Independent, different lines will have different specs and different rolling stocks based on when the line was built and it's busyness level. For all intensive purposes, the  is it's own separate thing and MTA should prioritize doing what's best for the , even if it makes it incompatible with the rest of the IRT.

This would actually be more expensive. It's easier to have 2 divisions of trains rather than 3. 

4 hours ago, Chris89292 said:

 Other subway lines are crowded too, I don’t see why the  should run 11 cars, the platforms don’t need to be removed, they could stay there, but a 10 car  would save money when ordering future fleets, I don’t get the confusion here, it’s simple, the 11 car set was designed for the worlds fair only, but the IRT if it existed at the time, decided to leave it as a permanent feature

11-Car line alleviates the congestion on the line. Removing it and making the entire line 10 cars would mean the train would carry roughly 170-180 less people per train. Seeing as how crowded the line is compared to other lines (it being the only line that goes to Flushing and has one of the most crowded terminus, and unlike other stadiums, the only subway to serve Mets Stadium. 11-Cars is very justifiable and costs can't be that bad that they'd screw up the line. Yes it was designed for the worlds fair but now it has other purposes like making the crowding on the line better. If the Flushing line was built with to do 12-cars, I'd push for it. 

They should add a stop at the World's Fair Marina/Flushing Bay and just have a shuttle take them to Flushing-Main St . The route should probably just run Wall St > 34th > Astoria > Soundview/Classon Point > Flushing. With maybe a stop at College Point. I'm sure people would think of it as a nice alternative to the Subway and to the section of Queens.  
 

7 minutes ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Speaking of the subway map, I just noticed today they added "mini"  and  roll signs to indicate DeKalb, which I honestly think makes it more confusing; people might think it's some sort of "special"  stop.

I'd just think it's a way to indicate that the two trains skip that station. Don't think it'd be confusing considering every other station has both station and the lines of the stations beneath. Perhaps a " Don't Stop Here Weekdays" would work but not sure how that'd fit on the map. 

11 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

It's just a photo of the "current service" display at Smith-9th Street; the  train appears as a darker Green. I noticed the same thing again today at some other stations, and lowkey it's really starting to annoy me. Part of the  train's personality is the relative lightness, positivity, and youthfulness of it's green. It's quite literally a baby subway train with it's shorter 5 cars and relatively low demand

Adorable. 

On 4/1/2023 at 5:36 PM, bulk88 said:

Removing all seats from the 6/Westchester fleet would fix your 125/59/42nd capacity problem. At the height of PM rush hour, 1/3 or half of all seats on the 6 are empty, with people standing. High income privileged people simply refuse to SIT DOWN during rush hour. Taking out the seats on the R62 Westchester fleet like on the GS shuttle would fix dwell times.

.....

6 hours ago, TMC said:

I've said this before, but my main issue with Queenslink is that there's nothing on the corridor to connect to, it's just in an awkward place, away from anything, except for SFH development and parking lots. 

Wouldn't you just make developments in the parking lots? Is the MTA unable to buy them out? Replace the Parking lots with business, small malls, parks etc. It'll also be the fastest way to get to the North East portion of Queens, east of Utica Avenue. Queenslink isn't just about the trains either, it's about transforming a corridor to become a corridor where people want to go to.  Midtown isn't going to be the only place people want to go either. With gentrification creeping into Queens, Brooklyn, Harlem and eventually the Bronx, the subway should prepare itself for that. 

4 minutes ago, TMC said:

You're still not getting that no one is being cut off.

Bruh, if we make the QueensLink and connect it to the Rockaways you'd be eliminate the split for the train. Not just that, you'd be granting a faster commute between Brookyln and Queens. The connection to the Rockaways has more positives than negatives by creating this. the LIRR connection to the Rockaways doesn't really help out the subway or transportation as much, but the Queens link can. Closing the Rockaways off from the subway is inherently backwards. 

5 hours ago, TMC said:

My suggestion wasn’t along the entire corridor. My take is that the northern portion of the RoW is extremely meh for any kind of rail service. The benefit of coverage on that route doesn’t pan out, it’s mostly missing-middle and SFH, with auto-oriented commercial zones. I just prefer abandoning the entire cut-off and reactivating LIRR service to Rockaway Park from its current Far Rockaway terminus, a route that is only 4 minutes slower to Midtown on current schedules, and could definitely be made faster.

Wouldn't this also affect Students who go to school anywhere along the line? I know a lot of Rockaway kids use the train to get to school in Brooklyn and shorter trips to the mainland would be a lot harder to make if you took the train off of the Rockaway at all. These aren't just midtown commuters going to the Rockaways it's also people who live or go to school near City Line, Ozone Park, and Broadway Junction (and transfer to the or trains). Far Rockaway is still apart of Queens and at the end of the day, they also might have students who need to make shorter trips and the LIRR doesn't really provide that for students. 

14 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I saw someone propose extending the L train back to Canarsie pier in the brooklyn bus redesign thread, how could it be done?

Not that I agree, but I'd say extending the over New Lots Avenue (i.e. extending the two tracks out and and just making a new elevated over E 105th and Rockaway Parkway and just turn it down to the pier.

4 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

One person wanted the B39 to go all the way to Broadway Junction from Spring Street Station, with another person wanting the B53 to only run from Sunnyside to the Bridge Plaza, having the B39 cover the rest of the way to Broadway Junction.

Would making the B39 a rush route to Union Square be useful for riders? Going via Avenue A/Essex, stopping at Essex/Delancey, 14th St/Avenue A, to Union Square (on the M14 turn around) and turning back the same way down, stopping at Avenue A/14 St, then, Rivington St (before the bridge).

I've been interested in growing the B39s are in both Brooklyn and Manhattan for a while. I think Spring Street would be hard to turn around but if we do Union Square, we can get the B39 in and out of Manhattan quickly by making it a Rush Route in Manhattan. the B53 and the B39 could both potentially run down Broadway, I don't think there's a lot of routes that can connect to that part of Queens and that part of Brookyln as easily so I can see worth in doing that.