Bay Ridge Express

10 hours ago, RedLine said:

No

What a beautiful statement!

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm referencing this, which is probably the first thought of a second cross-river IND tunnel:

If only we even had half of what was originally proposed here... (save for the new branches that have already additionally been built)

This is actually kind of my first time taking a look at the proposed network, so I'll just comment a few things that a lot of you may have already discussed:

QT22: so they basically chose to deny service to Seagirt residents between B 35 and B 19? And how exactly, will that work? Also, why have it run all the way to West Broadway? Also, wouldn't be too happy about being forced to take a Nassau bus to the east of there...

QT44: Interestingly, they chose to extend the route to Fordham... considering that the bus is sometimes dead air in the Bronx, do they expect such an extension to create an increase in ridership? Regardless, I do not believe that extending the route and potentially exacerbating its reliability should be a good solution. I can sense many bunches emerging, especially for a route so long...

QT50: I don't necessarily understand what was wrong with the Q48 to warrant such a route. Why would people coming from LGA, not readily going into Manhattan, opt for the East Bronx... unless of course, the  decided they wanted to kill two birds with one stone and just combine the Q48 and Q50 together (which would likely be the more realistic scenario...)

QT52 (and elimination of the Q53): absolutely not happy about this. Not necessarily from the Rockaway point of view, but the fact that they chose to deny service to Jackson Heights in Queens... perhaps if Woodhaven Blvd (subway) was an express station, I'd be more tolerant but with the function that the Q53 has as a subway supplement, I'm not happy.

QT48: This, I actually like. Hopefully it will be a full-time service.

QT1: I guess same comment as the QT50 scenario.

10 hours ago, RtrainBlues said:

Once bus fares resume, I will get out my bike instead.  And family members with shorter distances will drive or walk.  We will all stop taking the bus.

I'm biking regardless of whether the fare is free or not... ain't no way I'm getting COVID for a ride that's slower than the average biker.

8 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

However I also do think more people are scared of the subways now because of the reputation the subway has had for being dirty.

I don't see why, though. I mean, subways are closed 1-5 for cleaning every night, while buses are still running... you'd think subways might be a bit more safe (esp. with lower ridership)? After all, the level of safety depends on how many people are willing to use the service.

3 hours ago, Armandito said:

(PS - I'm already using the X designation [see my profile pic] for my proposed new service between Court Square and Brighton Beach via the Crosstown, Franklin, and Brighton local tracks)

You don't own that designation... especially one that's officially nonexistent... lol

2 hours ago, loveofelevators said:

And That's Why : Amsterdam Av/10 Av Lcl, and (X) *grey like *: Amsterdam Av/10 Av Exp. Get Used To It!

Amsterdam is too close to Broadway north of 72 and I would say your stops parallel the  too much for the line to be that useful...

Not surprised from someone who "proposed publicly shaming turnstile jumpers by publishing security footage of farebeaters who are caught in the act."

2 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

It also does not indicate whether passengers are traveling farther to get to their bus, or if they have fewer buses on the route that they use, etc. Sure, the buses that are running are somewhat faster (some of which is due to the fact that there was zero traffic from March 16 until about June), but that doesn't really mean much by itself.

The reality is, the MTA will definitely not deny that their whole "innovative redesign" was a failure or that it has flaws... they like focusing on the sole benefits as a way to attract customers. The bolded text brings up a good point that should've also been met with review.

Place your bets.

I'm gonna go ahead and say August 24.

Poor B103 Limited... 

Seriously, 10 people were injured.

On 8/12/2020 at 7:42 PM, CenSin said:

50 Street was originally not supposed to have a lower level when it was planned. It was added by community request.

What was the reason?

12 minutes ago, Armandito said:

If the and X could possibly benefit from an Astoria extension via 21st Street, why not extend them further east to LaGuardia Airport too?

Because it would be better to invest that money into building a Manhattan connection (to/from LGA). 21 St and LaGuardia Airport are two different corridors that require their own respective routing.

7 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Question for those who proposed the to be rerouted up 21st Street, how exactly would that make deinterlining Queens easier and would it be better for QB Express to go via 53rd or 63rd?

Deinterlining wouldn't really be affected. As is, the  doesn't really interline itself with anything in Queens except before 2010...

As for the second question, I would say if you had to deinterline that section so that the QB Express/Local would each respectively go on either 53/63, I would say to put the QB Express on 53 and QB Local on 63. Reason being is you wouldn't lose local connectivity to Queens Plaza since the  would make local stops. However, you would lose express connectivity at 21 St-Queensbridge and the  would further increase its stop count. Therefore, I wouldn't deinterline it this way. 

12 hours ago, B61In2002 said:

: increased by 50%. The 50% will operate Astoria-Dimtars - Brighton Beach via Brighton Exp, skipping 49 St. Normal late night service, with some late night service running to Forest Hills.

No 2 Av service?

3 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

92nd St is westbound west of 4th Av.

So? I was clearly talking about all buses east of 4 Av... there are no buses running to the west of there...

I would like to see a transfer from 57 St-7 Av  connecting to both 59 St-Columbus Circle  and 7 Av . But if I had to choose, I would say 57 St w/ 59 St.

1 hour ago, B35 via Church said:

I have two 2-part questions for y'all here:

1] What was the longest unlinked trip you've ever endured on any MTA bus route? (express or local, doesn't matter)

• If you can remember, what bus route was it & what were the circumstances behind it?

2] What's the most amount of modes (you can include rail transit) you've ever used to complete one linked trip within the city for a commute? (Do not include joyrides/fantrips)

• ...of those unlinked trips, how many of them included buses?

 

1. Longest unlinked trip: I guess B63 from Brooklyn Bridge park to Bay Ridge? Had to take my grandma and accessibility on the  was (and still is) shite.

2. Ride share, subway, air train and bus. And yes, that was just legitimately to get to a relative's house.

Anything other than that, I would say is obvious fanning.

8 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

When you get slapped by an R62A....

 

 

Says a lot about society when the dude recording knows it's gonna happen and ends up recording instead of warning the guy...

1 hour ago, Armandito said:

How to reconfigure Court Square: 

I would realign the Crosstown tracks so that the  could be extended up towards Astoria via 21 St.

1 hour ago, shiznit1987 said:

Also, while not a subway, how easy would it be to do a light rail in the LIRR Bay Ridge cut? I'd see a line running from Broadway Junction to Brooklyn Army terminal doing very well. 

Why not take it a step further and have it run to Jackson Heights or South Bronx? Though, I'm not too keen on having it be a light rail.

9 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

Buses are free, That's why there's no shuttle bus.

Aren't shuttle buses always free?

7 hours ago, CenSin said:

C’m on! Think of all the weeping widows it’d serve!

I hear it'll be a quite a popular destination with COVID 😏.

10 hours ago, Armandito said:

Better yet, remove the infamous S-curve between Cypress and Crescent and reroute the entire segment along Fulton Street via Jamaica Avenue.

I have 2 ideas in mind when it comes to the  for that segment:

1. Run only  trains through an el via Jamaica Av that would connect on the west side at Bway Junction and on the east side at ~85 St.

2. Do what was mentioned previously in this thread, have  trains make fewer stops and discontinue the . I'm leaning towards the second option being more practical since a higher frequency of trains can pass through and the Fulton St corridor is still worth serving.

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

What's surprising is that most railfans think that the  was reliable. I was talking to a friend of mine today (who lives along West End and is more into the historical side of transit) and I told him that I didn't understand why most railfans love the so much, only to get the response of "It was reliable, useful, convenient, was a good supplement to the train, etc." I wasn't buying into it mainly because it carried air in the 2000's and whatnot. Funny thing is, this friend of mine isn't the first person to tell me all of this when I asked this. I spoken to other people (some of whom also happened to live near West End) and they also all think that the  was good and started complaining about 14 minute headway's on the  and what not. I sat there speechless because given the nature of trunk lines, people bail for the expresses in addition to the fact that most are headed towards Midtown as opposed to Nassau.

When people talk about the , they always point to its use on West End. The  simply doesn't need to go to West End; that's not the point of the routing. The point is for it to provide a split for the , which doesn't switch tracks at all in Brooklyn.

2 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I thought of something similar not too long ago. Is this map on par with what you're proposing? (There are a few things I have to change in it that don't make sense)

Yes, the 2 Av service would connect to S 4 St, but in my proposal, instead of the  running on Lafayette Av, it would also run on the S 4 St line and then go on its normal route. The 's route between Myrtle Av and Broadway Junction would also be intact for local access to Lower Manhattan. Thankfully, capacity wouldn't be an issue since there would be an optimal number of tracks on the new line for service to run smoothly.

3 hours ago, Armandito said:

Nice try but this could only work if there's a new storage facility built in Astoria; trains were sent over to the QBL in 1987 so trains could access the Jamaica Yard. And also note that such a plan would require trains to terminate at Court Street on weekends to allow for scheduled construction work to take place.

I personally don't understand what is so difficult about simply rerouting some  trips to the  past Lexington Av for access to the yard during times of low ridership/emergency situations only. It could also be based out of Coney Island and use the  or  express tracks.

11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Shower thought:

The old Jamaica Line is very old with parts of the line dating from the 1880s and stop spacing to match.

One thing that Chicago was considering when it was redoing its el for reconstruction was reconstructing either as a subway or el, but going from 4 tracks to 2. However, they were going to consolidate stop spacing (mostly by moving from stations with one exit in the middle to stations with two exits on either end), and the analysis showed that this would actually result in faster trips than even the current express runs on that line.

I wonder if it would be worth investigating something similar for the Jamaica Line, and if it would be possible to also replace the el with a concrete structure to reduce noise.

I'm working on what is essentially a "subway redesign" that would show what the system would look like in a few hundred years (or however long they take to get stuff done). In my proposal, a 2 Av Line (call it the  for simplicity sake) from Utica Av, the  coming from Myrtle Av, and the  from Jamaica Av all meet up at Myrtle Av in an underground Broadway/S 4 St line that has 4-5 tracks. The  runs express, some  trips are express during rush hours, and all  trips are local. Then they all go on their respective routes in Manhattan. Of course, there would also be a direct, local  connection.

10 hours ago, checkmatechamp13 said:

That is a terrible idea. As a matter of fact I don't think the 4th & 90th stop should even exist on the S53/93. Just have people walk to/from 92nd & FHP or 86th & 4th and call it a day.

Also how can they be orphaned if they connect to each other?

If the stop was at 91 or 92 (&4th) I think it might have more utilization, but that stop is just too close to the terminal (87/88 St) to be practical. 

Anyway, what would be the point of such a route? It would be much easier to backtrack and catch a SIM1C than have to go all the way to Downtown just to catch a different bus and exhaust mileage... and I guess the B63 should be cancelled then?

Finally, the 4 Av Line has accessibility that isn't just at Atlantic Av!

On 7/27/2020 at 12:22 PM, Armandito said:

How's this for a new subway line to Whitestone? https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1h0Q4cPzuGMCyrTqZiUQQ57lA9yeWhNYI&ll=40.76973725716101%2C-73.9411849956531&z=13

If built, the stations along its westernmost segment would lie underneath the existing Central Park West corridor with non-revenue tracks connecting to the  at Columbus Circle (the terminal).

I would add one small change to your proposal, though, which would be to have a stop at Northern Blvd/Main St in order to serve Flushing without putting all of the weight on the .