Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
LandoftheLost

(C) extension to Inwood-207 St?

Recommended Posts

it will be helpful if (C) will extended to 207 street inwood in rush hours

only.( 207 street - eculid Avenue. ( (C) will be able to use (R)(4)(6)

in rush hours when if it extended to 207 street in rush Hours only)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it will be helpful if (C) will extended to 207 street inwood in rush hours

only.( 207 street - eculid Avenue. ( (C) will be able to use (R)(4)(6)

in rush hours when if it extended to 207 street in rush Hours only)

 

Im not too sure on the ridership patterns on that particular line going that far up north but may I ask why you propose this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me neither. The (A) does a fine job by itself and you never have to wait too long for an (A) train, unlike the (C).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

207 St. can't handle the amount of (A) traffic during rush hours, hence the fact that some trains terminate/originate at Dyckman.

 

Maybe an extension to Dyckman may be possible, but 168 is a terminal by design, with a mini-yard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
207 St. can't handle the amount of (A) traffic during rush hours, hence the fact that some trains terminate/originate at Dyckman.

 

Maybe an extension to Dyckman may be possible, but 168 is a terminal by design, with a mini-yard.

 

and so THIS must be why C train terminates at 168th correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didnt the (C) use to go Bedford Park Blvd. Why just extended to Bedford Park Blvd and the (:( go to 168th, but unsure about it since the (C) share cars w/ the (A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Didnt the (C) use to go Bedford Park Blvd. Why just extended to Bedford Park Blvd and the (:( go to 168th, but unsure about it since the (C) share cars w/ the (A).

 

The (C) did previously go to Bedford Park Boulevard. But the (C) and the (:P swapped terminals because it would be easier for equipment to managed much better with the different terminals. The (C) went to Bedford Park Boulevard and there were R32s and R38s winding up at Concourse, which weren't shared with the (D), and Slants, which ran on the (:P in the 90s were in 207th I believe (or R68s maybe) and weren't shared with the (A). So with the swap the fleet sharing was more manageable. Some (B)s come from Concourse instead of Coney Island, which is okay, especially during rush hour when service is expanded. But personally if it were up to me I'd have it back to the old way because I'm a nit of a conservative when it comes to old subway patterns because I would always favor them compared to today's service pattern.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, I don't think the crews on that train would like an all local trip from Brooklyn to upper Manhattan.:tdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consider this, the A runs a good amount of trains. Now let's assign an arbitrary amount of trains, say 30, on the A. There are 18 C trains assigned. Can one terminal, 207th Street, handle that many trains? 168th Street is an adequate terminal itself. Sending C trains up to 207th Street would require some switchwork and can reduce capacity. So, no thank you.

 

Again, read this: http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11605

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me neither. The (A) does a fine job by itself and you never have to wait too long for an (A) train, unlike the (C).

 

that is so true. i always thought that the (C) would be the slowest line via 8 Av. just like the (R) via Broadway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope leave the (C) at 168th NYPH. But now if we are talking about to Lefferts then that would be better, Instead of 3 (A)s Rkway Pk, Mott, Lefferts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope leave the (C) at 168th NYPH. But now if we are talking about to Lefferts then that would be better, Instead of 3 (A)s Rkway Pk, Mott, Lefferts

 

I've brought this up so many times. Expanded service on the (C) by making it operate to Lefferts Boulevard and have all (A) service to Far Rockaway would see better service on both lines, especially the (C). I don't have a problem with it being a local (take the express my friend!), but it's so infrequent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've brought this up so many times. Expanded service on the (C) by making it operate to Lefferts Boulevard and have all (A) service to Far Rockaway would see better service on both lines, especially the (C). I don't have a problem with it being a local (take the express my friend!), but it's so infrequent!

It is a good idea, but consider the position of the community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
®I(D)(E)(R)(S)(H)IP (W)OU(L)(D)(B)(E)(R)(E)(A)(L)(L)Y (L)O(W)

 

Hi there, please watch your CAPS and use of the smilies. Consider this a warning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it will be helpful if (C) will extended to 207 street inwood in rush hours

only.( 207 street - eculid Avenue. ( (C) will be able to use (R)(4)(6)

in rush hours when if it extended to 207 street in rush Hours only)

 

Alas, it is always hard if you live on the fringes of a particular line's service pattern. The (A) above 168th and south of Howard Beach can be exasperating at times.

 

I still think the (C) can and should be extended to Lefferts Blvd. Don't know about conditions in Upper Manhattan and whether a (C) northbound extension is feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the (C) can be a 24 hour train service why not continue the tunnel under Pitkin Ave

http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigbklyn-1.png

 

Just before it reaches the tracks going across the Broad Channel/Jamaica Bay the tunnel will ascend above ground curving to the right around Bristol & Eckford Aves near Aqueduct Racetrack station.

So now

1. (C) can continue to Lefferts Blvd solely by itself while the (A) on the other hand continues under Pitkin Ave w/ brand new stations.

2. Or the (C) can act as an Lefferts Blvd shuttle from Euclid Ave to Lefferts Blvd late nights while the (A) is local in Manhattan and Brooklyn late nights

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (C) to Lefferts Bl would be a pretty long ride, especially if it stays local. Also, sending the (C) to 207 St would only work if the New Jersey track extension that was truncated into the 174 St Yard was built and the (A) was sent over it. However, I like the idea of extending the Pitkin tunnels to differentiate Lefferts-bound trains from Rockaways-bound trains. The idea I had was this:

 

1)Lefferts-bound trains continue via the old routing as far as Rockaway Blvd. Demolish the old (A) trackage east of Rockaway Blvd and send a new elevated line via 109 Av to Springfield Blvd with these stops:

 

104 St (on Rockaway Blvd)

111 St (on 109 Av)

Lefferts Blvd (on 109 Av)

126 St (on 109 Av)

135 St (on 109 Av)

Sutphin Blvd (on 109 Av)

Merrick Blvd (on 109 Av)

Liberty Av (at Brinkerhoff/109 Avs)

Hollis Av (on 109 Av)

215 St (on Hollis Av)

Springfield Blvd (on Hollis Av)

 

2) Continue the express tracks east on Pitkin, making these stops:

 

76 St (on Pitkin Av) :(

83 St (on 136 Av)

Cross Bay Blvd (on Pitkin Av)

 

From there, the tracks would leave the ground just north of Eckford Av, under the two currently unused middle tracks on the Rockaway line. Insert switches allowing trains traveling in either direction to switch to/from the middle tracks, which then become non-revenue until they end south of Howard Beach, and leave the track from Rockaway Blvd to Aqueduct in place for use during GOs. To return to an earlier idea, it might be possible to designate a little over a third of (A) trains as (K) 8 Av Express trains, and send the (K) to Lefferts Blvd all times. Late nights, the (K) would terminate at Euclid and act as a shuttle while the (A) would continue to Far Rockaway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the (C) can be a 24 hour train service why not continue the tunnel under Pitkin Ave

http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigbklyn-1.png

 

Just before it reaches the tracks going across the Broad Channel/Jamaica Bay the tunnel will ascend above ground curving to the right around Bristol & Eckford Aves near Aqueduct Racetrack station.

So now

1. (C) can continue to Lefferts Blvd solely by itself while the (A) on the other hand continues under Pitkin Ave w/ brand new stations.

2. Or the (C) can act as an Lefferts Blvd shuttle from Euclid Ave to Lefferts Blvd late nights while the (A) is local in Manhattan and Brooklyn late nights

 

The (C) to Lefferts Bl would be a pretty long ride, especially if it stays local. Also, sending the (C) to 207 St would only work if the New Jersey track extension that was truncated into the 174 St Yard was built and the (A) was sent over it. However, I like the idea of extending the Pitkin tunnels to differentiate Lefferts-bound trains from Rockaways-bound trains. The idea I had was this:

 

1)Lefferts-bound trains continue via the old routing as far as Rockaway Blvd. Demolish the old (A) trackage east of Rockaway Blvd and send a new elevated line via 109 Av to Springfield Blvd with these stops:

 

104 St (on Rockaway Blvd)

111 St (on 109 Av)

Lefferts Blvd (on 109 Av)

126 St (on 109 Av)

135 St (on 109 Av)

Sutphin Blvd (on 109 Av)

Merrick Blvd (on 109 Av)

Liberty Av (at Brinkerhoff/109 Avs)

Hollis Av (on 109 Av)

215 St (on Hollis Av)

Springfield Blvd (on Hollis Av)

 

2) Continue the express tracks east on Pitkin, making these stops:

 

76 St (on Pitkin Av) :(

83 St (on 136 Av)

Cross Bay Blvd (on Pitkin Av)

 

From there, the tracks would leave the ground just north of Eckford Av, under the two currently unused middle tracks on the Rockaway line. Insert switches allowing trains traveling in either direction to switch to/from the middle tracks, which then become non-revenue until they end south of Howard Beach, and leave the track from Rockaway Blvd to Aqueduct in place for use during GOs. To return to an earlier idea, it might be possible to designate a little over a third of (A) trains as (K) 8 Av Express trains, and send the (K) to Lefferts Blvd all times. Late nights, the (K) would terminate at Euclid and act as a shuttle while the (A) would continue to Far Rockaway.

 

And where the heck is the MTA going to get the money to do this? If the community doesn't need new stations, none will be built. Bus service around the area is adequate enough. We don't need any new lines except for Second Avenue which is coming as late as 2017 (yeah, right!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was stating my opinion about improve (C), of course I know (MTA) doesn't have the money to do this or probaly finish the Second Ave Subway. But my idea is a matter of if the money is available in future timing to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was stating my opinion about improve (C), of course I know (MTA) doesn't have the money to do this or probaly finish the Second Ave Subway. But my idea is a matter of if the money is available in future timing to do so.

 

Well, the only thing that's coming to the ©'s way are 10-car R32s, and R44s and R46s. And even if the MTA had the money to do this, is the demand high enough for the pattern? Will there be space for the (C) to go to 207th Street? Even one user stated previously, some (A) trains short-turn at Dyckman and go back to Queens because there are too many trains during the rush hour. Same thing at Euclid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The continuation of the tunnel under Pitkin Ave that I came up with the only new station I was thinking was Cross Bay Blvd and 87th St-133rd Ave(that's all I planned out) while the (C) goes to Lefferts Blvd. But the (C) is fine running to 168th St in Washington Heights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The (C) to Lefferts Bl would be a pretty long ride, especially if it stays local. Also, sending the (C) to 207 St would only work if the New Jersey track extension that was truncated into the 174 St Yard was built and the (A) was sent over it. However, I like the idea of extending the Pitkin tunnels to differentiate Lefferts-bound trains from Rockaways-bound trains. The idea I had was this:

 

1)Lefferts-bound trains continue via the old routing as far as Rockaway Blvd. Demolish the old (A) trackage east of Rockaway Blvd and send a new elevated line via 109 Av to Springfield Blvd with these stops:

 

104 St (on Rockaway Blvd)

111 St (on 109 Av)

Lefferts Blvd (on 109 Av)

126 St (on 109 Av)

135 St (on 109 Av)

Sutphin Blvd (on 109 Av)

Merrick Blvd (on 109 Av)

Liberty Av (at Brinkerhoff/109 Avs)

Hollis Av (on 109 Av)

215 St (on Hollis Av)

Springfield Blvd (on Hollis Av)

 

2) Continue the express tracks east on Pitkin, making these stops:

 

76 St (on Pitkin Av) B)

83 St (on 136 Av)

Cross Bay Blvd (on Pitkin Av)

 

From there, the tracks would leave the ground just north of Eckford Av, under the two currently unused middle tracks on the Rockaway line. Insert switches allowing trains traveling in either direction to switch to/from the middle tracks, which then become non-revenue until they end south of Howard Beach, and leave the track from Rockaway Blvd to Aqueduct in place for use during GOs. To return to an earlier idea, it might be possible to designate a little over a third of (A) trains as (K) 8 Av Express trains, and send the (K) to Lefferts Blvd all times. Late nights, the (K) would terminate at Euclid and act as a shuttle while the (A) would continue to Far Rockaway.

Before you post something like this again, please read my note on "expansion threads". Please address "how will this affect other services" and "how can you maximise the service put onto the new line". And please consider the cost... if it is not cost-efficient, there is no financial incentive in doing so. You must also study the environmental impact and everything.

Putting a gutload of words in a post doesn't resolve an issue. Besides, the topic here is about 207th Street Station terminal capacity, not about subway extensions in Queens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.