Lex

It may not be sexy, but it's certainly identifiable.

What you're proposing would be a 6/5/0 split in Brooklyn (in Manhattan, all Broadway trains will skip 49th Street, and that'll be 6/5/5). What the MTA is doing is 5/5/5 (far from great, but it's still closer to normal service, especially considering that the will still have to take on Sea Beach passengers).

Give up on it. The IRT waiting until the initial structure had already been partially constructed under Flatbush Avenue and deciding to tack a bunch of stuff onto that killed the idea before it was even brought about. Making the station deeper at this point would require extensive reconstruction of largely or completely unrelated structures just to make it feasible, which would serve as a detriment to service within and beyond Brooklyn. Had conditions been more favorable, this wouldn't be an issue, but everything works against this station.

As I've stated earlier, the staircases between the street and fare control barely count as adequate. They're narrow because trying to make them any wider is impossible (trains would be shaved, and said staircases are hugging the curb). Adding this would be utterly foolish, as the need is to get people between the street and the trains as efficiently as possible (while passing through fare control).

Is the software the only thing holding them back?

You'd be better off running the Bx29 overnight, especially since the only bus that currently serves both Pelham Bay Park and Co-op City (in some capacity) through the night is the Bx12.

And what, pray tell, would it be anchored to?

The staircases we have now (from the street to fare control) barely count as adequate. There's not enough space below for them to be any wider, as the "mezzanines" hang low enough to give the trains a shave. (You can see this just by standing underneath while a train is in the station.) Ramps need far more space as it is, and ADA-compliant ramps need even more than those that would be used to get boxes off of a moving truck (assuming it had been extended to cover the same height). As for having elevators, they would still need to have fare control, so they can only be implemented as replacements for the staircases between fare control and the platforms (which wouldn't make much sense, given the necessary evil of how fare control is set up). The only way to rectify a deficiency created in 1905 is to make the station deeper, but the impact such an endeavor would have isn't worth the expense, especially with nearby stations and buses being accessible. (Perhaps it would be somewhat easier without the IND...)

Granted, the concept isn't entirely foreign, but it definitely doesn't make any practical sense. (At most, they'd have any artics on the route there to make service if shit hits the fan.)

Because we totally have adequate space for that...

That's exactly it.

It also terminated at 86th Street on certain weekends.

I can tell you that this is patently false, and I have video evidence. (This was one of those weekends where trains short-turned, but not at 86th Street.)

And what does telling me this change?

Great opener. Seriously, give it up. That entire proposal is a load of 💩.

Did it ever occur to you that they didn't want to have more conflicts between and trains, particularly when the latter terminated at Grand Central?

As a matter of fact, I did, but I got sloppy and called out the wrong street (and I can't edit it because that window's passed). The Whitestone portion has very little effect on the route's speed, and there's far more worth serving along it than there is along the Q50's route. As for Linden Place (not Union Street, contrary to what my idiot self said in that earlier post), that street's just barely able to accommodate what it has now, and with the Q44 having artics and a higher frequency, the buses over there will constantly get stuck in traffic, resulting in the exact opposite of the intended effect. Then you have the community to contend with, and I'm certain that the people will not be happy about getting shafted like that (especially if we're talking about weekends, which will ensure that they'll be forced to use the Q20A instead of having options in some form).

Look at 39th Street. The B35 and B70 have enough difficulty along that street, and that's the portion of the former with relatively low frequency. You're basically saying to make Union Street (a street already having difficulty fitting the buses in) that on steroids. As soon as a bus can't continue on Union Street, it's stuck, as buses have no real way to pass each other, and that'll only become much more likely with the Q44's frequency. Moreover, if the reasoning for moving it is just because you want those buses to reach the Bronx faster, then you've utterly missed the bigger picture (not everyone is using the route to travel between the Bronx and Queens, nor should everyone using it be trying to go between the two). In addition, while the Q20 does run on the same route, the Q20A splits at 20th Avenue, whereas the Q44 breaks from the Q20B. The latter Q20 has nowhere near as much demand, nor is the MTA willing to supply much more of it (in part because of 14th Avenue's more residential nature). That's not even getting into the fact that the 26th Avenue and Bayside Avenue stops are in locations where the Q50's route is utterly incapable of being particularly useful (the former especially so, as there's no way across the freeway, hence the Q34's odd route).

Musical chairs isn't helpful.

You haven't actually seen Union Street, have you?

If that was in the Q12 thread, take it with a heap of salt.

No complaints about this approach. That pretty much goes without saying. My one concern with this is the possibility of a station's reopening being delayed due to some delay in accessibility, which would eat up the savings so long as the station remains closed (which will also put the system at risk of losing riders). I hope that's just an unfounded concern... No arguments here. That's not surprising.

I can already tell you right now that it is. The platforms are directly under the street, the "mezzanines" are literally just pairs of stairs with fare control sitting between them (with said staircases taking up most of the platforms' width, not to mention that the "mezzanines" leave too little clearance to even go over the trains, hence the crossunder), and the only staircases between fare control and street level are pretty much hovering over the tracks. All of that is because the station's design was changed from the original plan (unremarkable local station on a three-track line, though that would've been better for accessibility). The only way to reasonably rectify this is to reconstruct the station and the surrounding infrastructure (basically, the entire station would need to be deeper), a costly endeavor that hardly qualifies as being worth the effort, which becomes an even harder sell due to nearby stations either being accessible at this point in time (DeKalb Avenue and Atlantic-Barclays) or being better candidates for accessibility (Hoyt Street, Borough Hall). In addition, buses already serve the area, and there are plenty. Some of the other stations I'm concerned about have sharper curves, which only serve to make installation more difficult, as said curves would also need to be addressed.

People along the route (in the Bronx) have more than enough difficulty getting decent subway service. The last thing we should be doing is giving them a giant 🖕. (This is especially the case when the also sees its headways cut.)

I mean, the statement isn't entirely without merit. Just look at how Nevins Street was built.