Theli11

22 hours ago, Rogue6 said:

It’s hard to choose, I Grew up with both IND and BMT respectively, the  /  with its elevated track along Queens and Brooklyn, And The Speeding Along Fulton and 8th ave, the  was Meh, but it was useful just in case,  always came in handy so did the 6th ave and Queens blvd lines and . 
 

For IRT? I always used the   And Once and while the  or , i And only remember one (ironically) experience with the   it was slow but the stations were beautiful, and there isn’t much to Say about the  I used it, but, yeah, it’s just there. 
 

since I’ve been watching a lot of videos, I must say, You can see the Age of basically all of the lines, Especially the Lexington ave line, which still has its winding curves and tight tunnels, the Nassue St line, It was basically an ambiguous project as you can see by chambers st, But it’s now the runt end of the line for the  /  

One hell of a way to revive a 10 year old thread.

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Maybe what they should have done for that period would have been to if necessary cut the to five-car trains and have it run late nights via Nassau after Court Street as a "Brown R" to Chambers or Essex Street (with perhaps if it Chambers done to where the would come into Chambers southbound directly before a so there are no issues at Broad Street).  

Why?

On 5/8/2021 at 1:34 PM, CenSin said:

If they could take either the or wouldn’t that mean in the AM, there are those transferring from the as well? Or is the lower number of transfers attributable to the fact that people would rather stand on the same platform than walk the stairs for the (4)?

Yeah, plus people would also wait for the at the station they're on unless it was a local station then, they might head to either 149 St stations for trains. Majority of the movement will be to the train (either from Jerome Av or from the .)  Not much need to transfer to Lexington Avenue unless you're on the  transferring and it doesn't matter which level you're at, you can still take either or , most people would opt for the on the same platform. 

10 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I was looking at crowding data (from Google) at 149th St, and it seems that more people tend to transfer between the and the during the PM rush then they do during the AM rush. Perhaps it's because the is running and people will take whatever express comes on Lexington first?

AM Rush is always towards Manhattan, most riders don't need to transfer to another Lexington Line since they both go to the same place. PM Rush is away from Manhattan to the outer boroughs. it's likely that like you said, people will take whatever comes first on Lexington and will take either the or at Grand Concourse. 

15 minutes ago, ActiveCity said:

Send the   to 2 Av-Houston St via 6 Av Express / Concourse Local / Central Park West Local.

Send the  to Bay Ridge-95 St via Broadway-Brooklyn Local / 4 Av Local / Canarsie Local.

Send the to Astoria-Ditmars Blvd via Broadway Express / 4 Av Express / Astoria / Sea Beach. 

Send the to Forest Hills-71 Av via Broadway Express / Brighton Express / Queens Blvd Local. 

Send the  to 96 St-2 Av via Broadway Local / 4 Av Local / 2 Av Local / West End.

Send the  to Broad St via Broadway-Brooklyn Express (rush hours only) / Jamaica Av.

Extend the platforms on the Franklin Av Shuttle to accommodate 8 car-60 ft trains or 10 car-60 ft trains and restore the second track. Then, extend the Franklin Av line and connect it with the Myrtle Av line running from Coney Island-Stillwell Av or Brighton Beach to Metropolitan Av-Middle Village via Brighton Local / Myrtle Av. Finally, there will be 4 new stops added along the way at Lafayette Av, Spencer St, Tompkins Av, and Myrtle Av-Broadway. This new line, if built, would bring back the brown M train and will provide transfers to the G, J, L, and Z trains. 

I don't think you have to bring back the  because people do like the on seat ride of Midtown. That  will definitely carry air.

Canarsie Local? I'm wondering how service is going to get to Jamaica Av during off-peak?  Or even rush hour? 

trains are going to have some merging issues.. the are running express and the  (assuming there is no  ) will have to cross into the local tracks somewhere.. 

Don't know where the  is in this plan, but the  running to 2nd Avenue means there's no Brighton Local ( is on Brighton Express) to manhattan. 

Actually I don't even know where the would even go, but with the entire plan 6th Avenue is only served by and  trains, Grand St isn't being served by anything (Unless the is running to... Bay Ridge via Broadway Express? it feels like this is incomplete.. 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I know this one's a bit old,. but the Broadway-Brooklyn-to-Canarsie-Line could very well work.  You would need to re-build Atlantic Avenue to at least four tracks and two island platforms (which as I remember can be done as not all of the old structures were torn down) where perhaps for example the becomes a full-time Canarsie line while the continues as it does and the terminates at Atlantic Avenue with a simple cross-platform transfer at Atlantic (in most cases) to the .  

Wouldn't this make the Broadway Line a lot worse.. I'm not sure how many people need to take a one seat ride into Manhattan via the Bridge when the Canarsie tunnel is perfectly fine. Making the  full time would also mean cutting service past Broadway Junction in half at all times. It's already bad enough in Skip Stop rush hours. And you're still forcing people to transfer at Atlantic rather than Broadway Junction.. yes it can work doesn't mean it should happen.. 

32 minutes ago, Storm said:

Ok, good points. But this is only if they'd make a new tunnel for this . If they don't, then well, trains will run less frequently and the riders won't be happy..

Even if you had a different tunnel, you still would just have a short train with no difference between ending at 57 and 96 St.  Might as well just run it through 63 St. I don't see the reason why anyways. It doesn't improve service on SAS or Broadway.

19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Though QBL is still a tough nut to crack for deinterlining, because without that infill station -  which I like very much - running the  local cuts off the inner QBL local stops from Queens Plaza and Court Sq, whereas running them express forces one of the QB express lines to get 8-car  trains and much worse crush-loading. I’m not sure which is better overall: build the infill station in LIC or lengthen all of the  line platforms in Brooklyn and on the Myrtle Ave el. The infill station would allow for more connections, including one between the Astoria Line and the QBL and would bring back a transfer point between all QB local and express trains that was lost when the  was rerouted to the 63rd St Tunnel - albeit via a connecting passageway instead of a cross-platform transfer like we used to have.

18 hours ago, Caelestor said:

• It's totally possible to run all QBL express trains via 63 St with 10 cars, but it requires the  to go back to Nassau St and the  to run to Church Ave, at least until the BMT Eastern Division platforms are lengthened. There may be some merit to doubling service along the Culver Line and removing the capacity limits that comes with interlining the 6 Ave and Jamaica lines via Chrystie St.

 

I think the entire plan would have longer trains since there's longer stations along the Jamaica El, and Essex St. No need for the  to go back to Nassau, you'll upset who like the single train going to Midtown - Myrtle. the train won't do much either, it'll just be a shorter with no benefits for service. 
 

On 2/17/2021 at 7:46 AM, Maxwell179 said:

not what I asked but ok..

I think they meant that *west* of Myrtle is Towards Manhattan. The 4 stations are closed and there's no way to go through them. 

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The Harlem  proposal is going to get a lot of pushback and it won’t be cheap to do because fare control at 135th St is at platform level - like most of the original local stations on the IRT - so there’s no mezzanine at that station.

 

The station would probably look something like 110th St (Lenox) with fare control being at the end/middle of the platform. 

2 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I was thinking the exact same thing with CPW, Fulton, and QBL. Although, I'm not really concerned as much with CPW since of course people still are going to be affected for those that are on 8th Av trying to take an express train uptown or trying to take an express train downtown but cannot access it because it's all local.

However, the reason I'm not really having any mixed feelings is because it solves so many issues,  trains would have direct yard access which is 207 St, so it wouldn't have to share a yard with Concourse if Vanshnook kept it going to the Bronx. Nothing is changing with the  because it's basically still running its current route only rerouted via Sea Beach. The  is still full time, but now it's just running the  route all local and the  is still local, but now running from the Bronx to WTC. It wouldn't hurt the  as much since it only interferes with just that, even the  has it easier than the  because it still has to merge with the . At least the  would be full length guaranteed in this scenario. 

I 100% fully agree with you about the  and especially the  since it also is technically long, but it has to run more stops than the  does. Both lines are super long, I highly doubt it would've been an improvement over the  and . To be fair, there aren't exactly any other improvements that can be made to improve Fulton service, only other way I can think of that doesn't involve too much construction at least would be to connect Montague Tunnel to the old Court St station which is currently a museum. That would probably be the  that goes there with the , but a new switch at just south of 50 St. TBH, I become more convinced that there should be a shuttle from Jamaica Center to Union Turnpike and as horrible of an idea that is, just hear me out. The new Jamaica Center  wouldn't interfere with  service, the  would return to Jamaica-179 St with the  still terminating at Forest Hills, but the  runs local with the  to Forest Hills.  trains would then be able to run via 53 St with the  and of course the  would miss Queens Plaza leaving no express service along that station.  trains would return onto the express tracks south of 50 St with  trains running to WTC with the . A dumb idea I know, but there aren't any better alternatives I can think of, then again I doubt this is any better and probably worse.

Whatever services goes down Fulton St is going to be long automatically. I'd actually prefer keeping the on Fulton because it doesn't force a transfer on passengers trying to get Uptown. The are already in Queens and Lefferts is 33 Minute Walk from Jamaica - Van Wyck. (For reference, Broadway Junction to Euclid Avenue is 43 minutes off). There's more customers who would need to go from Washington Heights to Euclid (Note that they're similar community demographics there [Specifically Harlem and Brownsville].) The can easily be swapped with the because the  can just run express past 50th St. (Or even just swap and ). You end up with similar results and better customer service while keeping the at a reasonable length. 

As fun, exciting and dreadful as that conversation was..

https://new.mta.info/transparency/fares-and-tolls-2020/proposals#:~:text=In the event that the existing base fare for cash,increase to up to %24139.00.

I know this is old but is there any time in place for when they're going to implement it.. 

 

Quote

Walk-Up Reduced Fare:

Eliminate option for eligible riders to show identification at ticket booth or on buses to obtain reduced fare (which would require riders to register for reduced fare benefit), or maintain the walk-up reduced fare option.

Also can someone clarify what this means exactly?

On 2/15/2021 at 6:16 PM, Vulturious said:

I forgot to mention the downside to the  and  on QBL, both of the stop at Queens Plaza, but there are no local trains running at all to Queens Plaza at all. 

Is it possible to convert 36th St to an express stop? It'd probably have to be bi-level, that way people can transfer at 36th Street for Queens-Bound local service. It might be a stretch but what's the chances of there being better running if the  and were local via 53 St (w/ 36 St), and the  were the ones extended (with all the adjustments, the  would be at full length and could end at either 179th or Jamaica Center.) [I'm just asking if swapping the local to express would be better than previously or if there would be an equal amount of change/pos. neg.]

Sorry if this is long winded of me. 

On 1/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Mtatransit said:

I believe more people use Jerome over GC for some reason (I think its because the  runs like crap). You may be right about the transfer load though. But hopefully under my proposal, people transfer at 3rd Av-149th to the SAS service, alleviating the loads at 149th-GC.

Regarding Fordham Rd, if they could convert the bus lane into a LRT Track that would be great. But we should also consider looking at an extension of the  to Co-Op or something

We should problem solve the issue of the train running horrible before extending it to Co-Op. 

On 1/19/2021 at 4:35 PM, Lex said:

It helps to avoid overloading the  in Manhattan (well, beyond what it's already handling, anyway). It's easier to understand when comparing normal loads, as opposed to pandemic loads.

Rockaway Park gets a small amount of peak service to/from Manhattan, while Franklin Avenue has its own niche of connecting people between the southern and eastern parts of Brooklyn, as well as some parts of Queens, all without touching Manhattan, a bus, or the LIRR. Any Lenox Avenue shuttle proposal would lack unique connections or the ability to substantially offload crowding. As such, the only thing it would be good for is setting it up for permanent closure, save for a limited amount of non-revenue moves.

On 1/19/2021 at 2:24 PM, Mtatransit said:

Regarding Lenox Avenue, while I understand that some people will be left with bus service. The two stations are no more than a 15 minute walk from 145th Street on the IND or 135th on the  . I just don't think its worth the expense maintaining a shuttle between 148th and 135th (I don't see a need for that Times Sq shuttle either, but I guess MTA maintained it for some reason)

 

On 1/17/2021 at 9:13 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

For the part in bold here - No. For one, if we were to abandon 145th and 148th, that section of Harlem would only be left with bus service and I don’t think that’ll bode well with Harlem Riders. Secondly, while I did support the idea of sending all 7th Avenue Trains to WPR (which still happens in this proposal) and all Lexington Trains up Jerome, that would require a massive expansion of the 149th/Grand Concourse Station to deal with that potential transfer load. Also, while Jerome Avenue could use better service, I don’t think duplicating services would be a good idea. Especially when you have the  and under Grand Concourse a few blocks away. With White Plains Road, its different because trains Branch out after East 180th Street whereas Jerome doesn’t have that Luxury. With a  (cross platform) Transfer under 3rd Avenue-149th Street, it at least WPR Riders will still have access to Lexington if they choose not to transfer at 149th-Grand Concourse. 

 

The train should stay in Harlem. trains are usually the emptier trains because they stay there. It's not for the benefit of Harlem Riders, it's for the benefit of 7th Avenue Express Riders. I'd rather just do SAS with two branches (Bronx and 125th St  ). 

Just now, Bay Ridge Express said:

I like the idea of connecting to the Rockaways considering it will mostly be used for Queens-Manhattan travel but I might prefer a direct North-South Queens line.

That would probably be a separate line,  perhaps even the Queens Super Express, from the Rockaways to Hanover Square.

On 11/13/2020 at 8:58 PM, ActiveCity said:

Or another option could be using the Morningside avenue line bellmouths, but would not be on the same level as the Q. Instead, the bellmouths could be used to eliminate the sharp curve on the 60th st tube and to allow space for the new Northern line which would have the option for the express tracks or local tracks rather than just the local tracks. If you take a look at vanshnookenraggen's track map, you'll have a very clear observation on where the tracks go. It would also improve efficiency on the Broadway line. And now that I think about it the should be the northern line cuz the and are express and should not interfere with the local tracks.

Having the train on Northern isn't as.. messy, but it does make the route long at full Northern Blvd length. The  is a local route, but it's considerably shorter. Only going to Whitehall. With the Northern Blvd line, you have many opportunities to fix current problems with routing. Your Northern Blvd Line isn't doing much about anything and feels like adding an extra merge. You could've removed the from Queens Blvd and put it on Northern Blvd. You can create a yard for service and increase service to Bay Ridge. You can even remove the from Astoria and move it to 96th St. That way the and have 60th and the had 63rd St. What you suggest doesn't correct anything and is just a removal and extension. The best expansion plans of the subway fix issues while being extensions. There aren't many issues with the  and  train itself, but it's counterpart has plenty due to QBL and that Lower Manhattan/4th Avenue Local sections and the overall length of the line. Your idea with the going to Northern is also fine, but it leaves the needing more service to Astoria (because it shares capacity with the and can only run 21 TBH through Lower Manhattan combined. [The arguably needs more service because it's running to both Bay Ridge and QBL though you can extend the train, you'll still be having less service on QBL since the train runs 12 TBH and has shorter cars..]

TL;DR Fix stuff while you expand to make the expansion have more of a payoff. 

10 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

The IND 6th avenue line also has 4 branches FYI, the F and M go via 53 St or 63 St while the B, D go through the same tunnel up to 59 St colombis circle where it will switch from the local track or the express track, vice-versa. Same scenario will happen on Broadway, the Q and W will go via 63 St or 76 St, while the N and R go through the same tunnel for a short distance and will split off at lex 59 st bound for Astoria or Forest Hills.

You're right, but the 6th Av Line goes to two places. You can take both and to concourse, and both to QBL. You have four separate branches going to four separate places. It's not as much as an issue, but on Broadway, you'd have full time services since they have to serve their respective lines. As said before, the train going to Northern isn't as good as an idea. train don't have to run to Concourse all the time because it can be replaced by service. Same with the train since there is extra local service and trains to QBL. There are no alternative trains to Northern Blvd, Astoria, or Second Avenue. 

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

Leave the alone. Extending it in any way, shape, or form will doom the entire line to become unreliable and serpentine like the currently is. Doesn't help the fact that the has already been overcrowded thanks to the gentrification of Bushwick and Williamsburg.

You're right, but CBTC and it having no other trains on the line definitely helps. The  It won't be like the and perhaps half the trains can short turn at 8th Av. I think the furthest the  should go to is 72 St - Amsterdam/Broadway. I'll backtrack on that previous comment.

On 11/9/2020 at 10:35 PM, ActiveCity said:

I've heard multiple proposals for the need of a new subway line under Northern Blvd, but here is my ideal Northern Blvd subway alignment. The W would be cut back from Astoria-Ditmars Blvd to 57 St-7 Ave. Why? Just north of the 57 St-7 Ave station on the local tracks lies two bellmouths that would have been used for the planned Morningside Ave line as part of the 1939 IND Second System plans. The W would then claim and repurpose these bellmouths that will go under Central Park up until 76 st, then curve east onto 76 st with transfers to the 6, Q, T. Once the W reaches Queens, it'll then run via Broadway with a transfer to the N. However, once the route hits Steinway St via Broadway, the current M and R trains run under that street too, so instead of utilizing the current section, it'll instead be built under both stations with two new track ramp connections to and from both levels in the event of a possible reroute on the Queens Blvd line or the Northern Blvd line. Once the W leaves Broadway, it'll then curve east as a four track line onto Northern Blvd in order to add capacity on the line. The other proposed line would be a Canarsie line that'll run via Northern Blvd local up to College Point-7 Av. Finally, once the W hits Main St via Northern Blvd, it'll then curve south via Main St to a transfer with the 7 line with the possibility of running via the Long Island Expressway. This new line would also help reduce capacity on the existing 59 st tunnels.

While i think this plan is *fine* if I ignore the building portions because that's a just a flaw in most plans anyways. This is pretty much adding 4 branch lines on Broadway (2nd, Astoria, QBL, and your Northern Blvd.) It's not really changing anything and the amount of trains is limited due to  service on the Local Tracks. Now the Canarsie line being extended to Northern is something I can get behind (being the is looping via 10th Av.). As long as the  and are on separate tracks I'll be fine. But it'd be better as a two tracked line serving either service or it's own independent service.

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

• 3 months since I last used the bus
• 6.5 months since I last took a train

I never thought I'd say this, but if passenger volumes start following a downward trajectory as a result of working-from-home, then the subways should simply be shut off or made part-time. The subway needs the economy to run, but the economy might no longer need the subway to run.

If the city were to ever shut down subway service, it would have to be replaced by Taxi's or MTA Buses. You'd get public outrage because people still use the subway and there's places where people can just be disconnected. There would have to be a lot more bus routes (to connect Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, and Manhattan) and that would screw with traffic as a whole. You can't close it down entirely, and you can't close down the parts of it. All you can do is give less service, and even that might move people to other modes of transportation. I haven't been on a bus or train either, but there shouldn't be a complete close off ever. 

On 10/27/2020 at 6:46 AM, Armandito said:

Thoughts?

 Second Avenue Local/Queens Boulevard Super Express: Hanover Square to Fresh Meadows (all times) or 179 St (all times except nights)

*Woodhaven Blvd converted to express stop

Yes, but I'd think that the  or train with  on Astoria would be a better candidate for the Super Express rather than the SAS. It would be better than the  since it will have less connections on Second Av. than the Broadway Line which runs through the center of Manhattan. 

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Can someone please explain to me why Chambers St is shown as a different station then World Trade Center, despite being the same station and station complex?

If it weren't separated on the map, it would be very confusing to people. Especially Tourists  It would look like trains are on the same platform when they aren't. Reminder that the  [Cortlandt St] and  [Park Place] are also in that complex, yet called different names. It's really just for clarifying the two platforms connecting to two different things (Chambers St and World Trade Center). One's a terminal and one is a through station. 

4 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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. 

The point I was trying to make is that you eliminated some merges and kept others because it is impossible to deinterline that entire route. Best case scenerio using the track switch to merge  express trains on the local track and keeping the on Grand Concourse. Like all Deinterlining plans you'll force a transfer to either 145 St, or 125th St, depending on the stop.

3 hours ago, Vulturious said:

Well, I never said said anything about converting the rest of the IRT division at all, I don't know where you got that idea. I do agree it would cost a lot of money, however I said in the long run. Maybe not as beneficial as I thought it would be, but if it happened around the time the MTA has grabbed BMT/IND and IRT, might've been a different story.

It was generally to everyone who suggest the idea of converting everything to the same standards, too much money for something that MIGHT be beneficial.

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If we are going to do three tracks, why not go the extra mile and do 4 tracks?

Expensive, especially since it's going UNDER 36th and the QB Express. I don't want it to have express service if it's going to be spaced out as it usually is. Three tracks is good if there's no express service.. 4 tracks for express service. You don't need it if the stops are going to be spaced out like it is currently.

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

Which is why I designed my Northern Boulevard subway line ( train) to be its own route instead of a trunk line serving multiple services. You get to maximize route capacity and there's much less propensity for delays due to the lack of interlining.

(Needless to say, I got rid of the third track in the latest revision of my proposal and settled for just two tracks like the SAS.)

I would say a third track COULD be beneficial in Queen just in case something happens on either local tracks.

51 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

I know it's a tight fit, again converted. Last I heard, the tunnels at Flushing are wide enough for B division equipment, just the tunnels from Hunters Point all the way into Manhattan are tight. It'll probably cost a lot of course to get them converted, but maybe in the long run, it would be beneficial

Beneficial for who? I think it's better that it's better as it is now. Both and trains run perfectly fine because they're isolated lines (isolated as in they share minimal trackage with other lines). I think it'll cost MORE getting them converted for benefits that might not even exist. This goes for any other conversions of IRT to B-Division. It'll cost more than you'll get out of it.

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

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

 

Yes but you're creating a merge between and , and trains twice (after 145 St and before . By removing the 59 St merge, mitigating a new 145 St merge. It's pretty much what happens in every CPW deinterlining plan. It's made to be interlined. Simply put, there has to be a Local-Express pair going to 168/207 St, and Grand Concourse. If you deinterline below 145 St, it will be interlined above it. 

Below 59th St [] trains, you'll have the a merge between and trains at Canal, and and  trains going on Fulton. I genuinely think that 8th Av is going to be impossible to interline unless there's a switch between local and express tracks on the upper 145th St level.