Lex

33 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

If the M35 is extended anywhere west of Lexington, then it should be only a 125th Street Crosstown (M125) to take over or supplement the east-west sections of the M100/M101/Bx15.

Thank you.

5 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

It'd probably help if you were to, you know, actually say what your plan is.

There's not really spare capacity on Fulton, the Atlantic Branch isn't a subway and doesn't go to Manhattan, dead-ending in Williamsburg or Bushwick also isn't helpful since most people will transfer (and there's no money for it), and there's no money for a new tunnel under the river.

If there's no money for a tunnel under the East River, then that'll complicate matters, particularly since the plan people seem to favor is one that'll give the MTA an excuse to cut service while failing to better serve those heading to destinations north of Eastern Parkway.

Having trains follow Myrtle Avenue and Utica/Reid allows people to have an easier time reaching multiple points in Brooklyn at once. This would feed into Second Avenue (Hanover Square will not be built under this plan) and a maintenance facility would be built beyond Kings Plaza.

Honestly, I don't like this idea (doing too much in Brooklyn, not to mention the aforementioned yard being in a flood zone), but I don't particularly like any of the ideas being floated. Capacity issues aside, I can't imagine that Fulton or South 4th Streets would really do anything notable, and Eastern Parkway would require some change in routes that would not be conducive to running one or more of them (aside from not doing enough or the fact that their service is hindered by several areas that are more removed from the potential line). Of course, doing nothing is also a terrible idea.

31 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Forgive me as I am very unfamiliar with the Brooklyn bus network, but is there demand for an express bus to Manhattan Beach? I'd assume most people now take the bus to Brighton Beach, but is there demand for an express bus?

Given that the bulk of people going out there are KCC students, I can't imagine so, especially since the number of people going between there and Lower/Midtown Manhattan is unlikely to be high enough to justify. Not helping is the fact that it's so removed that in order to be time-competitive, it would basically have to have its last stop in the vicinity of the Brighton Line, and even with that, it would still have to try to beat the  there. To make matters even worse, the bulk of that (small) area is residential, with business only having a small presence just outside the gate.

3 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The heavily used Lefferts Blvd branch would not like a local service from Lefferts Blvd during the day. It would be too slow.

The  is just barely slower by virtue of being a local.

If anything's likely to be too slow, it's the .

37 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The route is alright, but it can be improved. There is potential for the route to do better.

Yes, by better adhering to the schedule than it currently does (traffic).

38 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

The people of Harlem recognized this need, and they were the creators of the M100 extension. They know how the routes work, and they know what is right. 

The people of Co-Op City proposed having some routes run to rather asinine areas because of "need", regardless of reality. This is no different. If anything, the proposal comes with the implication that they don't know how these routes work, thereby being unable to know what is right.

43 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Borough Hall is partially ADA accessible. Only the northbound  platform has access.

As do the Broadway-7th Avenue platforms and the platforms at Fulton Street.

2 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

In Bergen Beach where?

Follow the B41. (No, they won't be serving Bergen Beach together, as that designation would only apply to buses running from Kings Plaza to Downtown Brooklyn.)

And no, I'm not suggesting that it actually should be implemented, but if reinstating the B51 is really worth looking at, something needs to change on the Brooklyn end.

53 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I was thinking having a B51 operate from Downtown Brooklyn, and over the Manhattan Bridge, like before, but instead of going to City Hall like it did before, I a proposing it be a Canal Street Crosstown route, terminating at Canal Street and Washington Street. This would provide a crosstown bus service between Houston Street (M21) and Chambers Street (M22). The B51 Downtown terminus is undetermined, but would eventually tie into the Downtown Bus terminal and shuttle proposal i mentioned a while back.

You'd be better off tying the route into Bergen Beach. At least it would have a shot at attracting people.

37 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Now, you're right, we could Dekalb-ify that area, but that'd be a billion-plus dollar investment to...eliminate a cross platform transfer? I'd rather that money be spent on Utica. 

Except the idea is to make running trains along the entire line easier, not just at that one spot. Given the other issues surrounding Eastern Parkway's routes (most of which are removed from there),

55 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Flatbush cannot turn more than 18 trains per hour, which means that to run any throughput above that figure you'd need to pull from New Lots.

Perhaps not, but there's an obvious solution that also allows for more coverage and a more capable terminus. It would be better than trying to connect Eastern Parkway down Utica Avenue (for what it's worth, I wouldn't do it with Fulton Street, either, though we'd still have service down the corridor).

To make a long story short, trying to limit all stations east of Franklin Avenue to one trunk will only lead to a slight boost (at best) during rush periods and a sharp decline outside of the AM rush-early evening periods in service. Sure, the  might see some small increases in weekend service to offset the issue, but even then, the  was bound to be little more than relief after Lenox Yard was downsized (the decision to make them all express happened shortly after they announced that the shops would be abandoned, thus exacerbating the issue), and at this point, nothing will change that. The best thing to do at this point is to make the infrastructure more conducive to running the existing routes in order to avoid those losses and make more practical extensions that would make those routes more attractive without placing a larger burden at an awkward point.

2 hours ago, Calvin said:

On some IRT terminals, I wonder what was the cause of the two platforms not being used, except the middle platform is the only one in-use?

 

Img example:

 

Simply put, those stations aren't busy enough.

25 minutes ago, RR503 said:

stuff

I'm well aware that it kills capacity as-is. What I take issue with is the idea that a quick "fix" will magically make everything better, even though the line's design is the whole reason for it killing capacity in the first place. Improving the design will allow for real improvements in throughput without leading to service actually decreasing to levels lower than we currently have.

15 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

How does getting rid of a major bottleneck at Franklin Avenue - the  merging with the  and  before turning down Nostrand with the  - decrease service? And please don’t say “it takes away a one-seat ride” (we know it does). That one-seat ride is what’s decreasing service.

Directly, it doesn't. The problem is that it comes with certain other issues that will cause a reduction in service. For one, the  loses direct access to a maintenance facility (again), and would need to rely on pooling with the  in order to retain some semblance of reliability, but with its current headways and stock, that becomes a chore for no good reason. (We'd probably end up retaining some amount of weekday service, but you can say goodbye to evening, weekend, and overnight service in order to give the cars a chance to go to a maintenance facility or rest at Lenox just to cut down on wear and reduce merging conflicts in Manhattan at a different flat junction. Naturally, that would be a giant middle finger to those in Harlem, particularly those in the 140s. If they somehow decide to restore maintenance capabilities at Lenox Yard, then the northernmost Lenox stations will also fly out the window just to cut down on awkward moves and storage losses.) The Nostrand Avenue Line is also dead on weekends, hence why we only have three routes on Eastern Parkway. (If it hadn't been for the need to make sure  trains can go back to the Bronx fairly quickly while still covering a substantial part of Brooklyn, we wouldn't have the , either, as the only other thing really propping up that route is the  carrying decent loads from the Bronx, but hardly anyone in Brooklyn.)

For that matter, the bottleneck was built into the line a century ago because it was deemed better to preserve some surface element than to make something functional. Making the Eastern Parkway Line under its namesake functional is how you address that issue, as well as issues further east.

24 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

While transferring will obviously increase, you would be able to drastically increase service on all the IRT expresses as that flat junction is a major inhibitor of service... IIRC we lose about 12 tph and lots of time when trains are forced to wait for another one to pass; this would allow you to give some well-deserved relief to Bronx and Manhattan commuters. While transferring at Franklin will obviously increase, waits for trains would be much shorter since trains would flow seamlessly through the junction and come much more frequently (the only track needed to be installed would be one between the SB local track and SB Nostrand track).

And in the process, put the  right back where it was before 1983 while losing the ability to pool between the  and  in order to stroke someone's ego. Meanwhile, absolutely nothing is done to fix the issue that's actually caused deinterlining to be viewed as a solution (it isn't) in the first place, nor make short-turning at Utica Avenue easier. To add further insult to injury, any move of the sort will pretty much guarantee the closure of two Harlem stations in order to keep costs down and minimize the pressure of non-revenue moves, which will totally fly with people.

As far as I'm concerned, nothing on Eastern Parkway should be used to facilitate Utica Avenue service, especially since there's a fair number of people heading/located further north of there on the Utica/Reid corridor. Moreover, while the  has the greatest amount of unused space for the bulk of its run in Brooklyn, running to New Lots Avenue also allows the  to be able to short-turn at Utica Avenue, and with the Lexington Avenue Line's ridership and existing unreliability that has nothing to do with Brooklyn, that's crucial.

8 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

At the very minimum I hope they do something like reorganize Rogers to fix the IRT and increase capacity; I would hope the service proposal would look like this:

 unchanged

 to Flatbush

 to New Lots via express

 to Utica via local (underground cut and cover stops at Remsen, Church-Linden and Avenue D; elevated stops at Kings Highway, Flatlands-Avenue J, Avenue N and Avenue U-Kings Plaza)

And in the process, decrease service...

2 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

Not in this case...

10 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Cracks me up that these idiots rush to scrap the functional RTS fleet and now there's shortage that requires loans across the borough...oops.

That's what happens when people decide to play the hero while conveniently forgetting to look into the finer details.

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

How about this: 

 express between Van Wyck and Forest Hills

 179th- WTC via QBL express, 53rd and 8th local

 via QBL local and cut back to Forest Hills

 extended to 179th (to relive Forest and speed up commute times at 179th)

 to Astoria,  to 96th,  eliminated

While this problem does get rid of the merge issues and provides the 53rd corridor with two express services, you would lose the Broadway transfer (6th still has one at 7th-53rd). While it’s not really a major issue, I wouldn’t see that sitting well with riders. (maybe a QP to QBP transfer?)

Sending the  via 63rd is an awful idea. In doing this not only have you combined two unreliable lines onto one set of tunnels but have also added a merge at 57th and 63rd. Doing this with  would be a bit better but still an awful idea as that 63rd merge would unnecessarily interline and kill capacity.

How about no?

I don't know if you've noticed, but your 8th Avenue-related "proposals" already exist (under the same lone designation, no less).

The  is long and unreliable, but doing that addresses neither issue. Moreover, much of no one's looking to have stations east of Forest Hills served by a local train (hence why previous permanent patterns involving such died so quickly), and this will only be exacerbated by using 8-car trains that will run into potential conflicts with (still more frequent) terminating trains.

I won't even begin getting into the Broadway-related stuff.

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

A "perfect-world" subway map I created (yes I know some plans may never happen); feel free to give thoughts on it.

 

If that's a "perfect world", then I'm the president of Zimbabwe.

43 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

There are 90 2012-13 XD60s (4710-4799) in the entire fleet. Are we expecting all 90 of them to be transferred over from their current assignments at Gun Hill and Kingsbridge to various depots in Brooklyn, and that's assuming there will be enough for everyone?

You do realize that only three Brooklyn Division depots are currently capable of handling artics, right?

38 minutes ago, East New York said:

Yes the 4700’s were always bound for Brooklyn due to Fleet uniformity. The timeline however has changed 19 times. GA was under review for arrive and LFSA’s just doesn’t make any sense at all. If the plan is to move them from Brooklyn anyway, why in the hell they would go to Grand was beyond me. 

Looks like we are back to what things should be. As I said 3 years ago, I expect every last 4700 series bus to end up in BK. 

With any luck, Flatbush will receive some for the B41, while the rest go to GA for the B38 and Q58.

Of course, I'm pretty sure that won't happen without substantial talks of conversion, but the MTA has a tendency to throw curveballs.

5 hours ago, Brillant93 said:

Also looks like the 4700s to bk is looking like it’s back on the table. 

Wait, what?

2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That would be a great idea, and this brings me to another proposal.

Back in 2010-11, the NYC DOT did a study on the traffic conditions in Downtown Brooklyn. Link is here: https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/dbstc_final_report.pdf. Buses were also looked into as well. It was found that overlapping bus service in key corridors, especially Fulton and Livingston, is a big problem, as all these bus routes compete with each other and other vehicles for street space. Result: delays, congestion, and unreliability for theses buses, as well as rider confusion on which bus goes where.

One of the solutions looked at to solve this was a Downtown Brooklyn Shuttle system operation on Fulton and Livingston Streets. Modeled after the Denver RTD 16th Street Mallshuttle, the shuttle system would replace all routes operating on both the Fulton Mall and Livingston Street between Flatbush Avenue and Adams Street, the western end of the mall. A new bus terminal would be built away from the corridor, though the Ashland and Fulton intersection was used for conceptual purposes. The DOT though it was an excellent idea, so they made this a long term solution.

My proposal would be to implement most, if not all of the recommendations in the study. The Jay Street Transit Priority would be implemented almost exactly how it was outlined in the study. However, north of Tillary street, the bus stops at Chapel and Concord Streets would be moved further north to Nassau Street, away from the Charter School, to speed service and improve crowding conditions when school lets out. Everything else is the same, but the routes on the street keep the same travel path.

The meat of this plan would be a new bus terminal away from the Fulton Mall corridor. Using Ashland/Fulton as a conceptual location, like in the DOT study, the B25, B26, B37, B38/LTD, B41/LTD, B45, B52, B67, and B103 LTD would all terminate at this new transit center. To replace Fulton Mall and Livingston Street service, a slightly modified shuttle route would be implemented. In my proposal, this shuttle would be named the B88 Downtown Brooklyn Link, and operate between terminal and Fulton Landing, using the routing shown on the map in the link below. Fulton Mall would become a one-way westbound busway (tying into Joralemon Street at the end of the mall), and Livingston Street would be one way-eastbound, with the south side of the street consisting of two bus lanes next to the curb. The northern end of the B67 would be replaced with an extension of the B61.

The B88 would operate 24 hours a day, with 3 minute headways throughout the day, and an unspecified headway during the night hours. Fleet for this service would possibly be either a New Flyer XDE40 with BRT specs or a New Flyer XE40 with BRT specs, with electric chargers installed at the terminal, or at East New York Depot, where the route would be based at.

This would reduce confusion, end traffic conflicts, and improve bus reliability for those outside the study area. In addition, access to the Downtown Brooklyn area would not be lost under these proposals.

Link to the map for future reference: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1aaXd-yTdXiN-VwmqmbvN5cmPIIZaoUp1&usp=sharing.

Note: This proposal is INDEPENDENT of any other route changes. Because of this, current paths of the routes outside of the study area affected are shown. Any other change is beyond the scope of this proposal.

Stop trying to push that BS. It's honestly becoming painful.

9 minutes ago, Just New York said:

Not every M100 maybe every other could work.

That will only lead to another QBx1 situation.

34 minutes ago, Enjineer said:

If only Fulton could get a 30 tph local...

That would require much more pull for local service, and I honestly doubt that shuffling the deck chairs to get Broadway off of Queens Boulevard and onto Fulton Street will do much to change that.

2 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

As for an M100 extension.....why!?

Because the M35 is somehow useless.

Of course, the fact that such a short route even has the ridership to justify articulated buses is completely overlooked with that "analysis"...