Jump to content

Routes that aren't around that should be


Bus Guy

Recommended Posts

because the (MTA) is not willing to build a tunnel to connect the 2 Av (T) subway to the (F) line in Brooklyn. unfortunately they're broke. if it wasnt listed in the (MTA) Capital Program from the get go, then its not gonna happen. its bad enough the (Q) train hasnt even started running via 2 Ave yet, and that was phase 1 of the project that was supposed to have been started already. Once Phase 1 is done, they gonna have to reroute the (Q) off the Astoria line and onto the 2 Av line as it was originally planned. Another thing the (MTA) is gonna have to do is bring back the (W) to make up for the loss of the (Q) in astoria. thats money right there. theres no way the MTA is gonna squeeze in a plan to connect the (T) tunnel to an (F) tunnel and have the (T) run via the (F) line. im not saying it cant happen in the future, but they gotta finish what they originally started. once the complete 2 Av subway is built, and IF there is enough money for it, then the MTA might go ahead and plan an extention for the (T) to go to and from Brooklyn. but as of right now, i really dont see it happening.

Phase 3 (which is when the (T) would debut) calls for the SAS to be extended from 63rd Street to Houston Street. The MTA could determine that it's prohibitively expensive to tunnel all the way to Hanover Square (the cost to tunnel will more than likely continue to rise over the years) Then building a connection to the (F) line would be a fairly inexpensive way to extend the (T) to Brooklyn. While the MTA currently has no funding for anything beyond the three stations at 96th, 86th and 72nd streets, anything can happen after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 466
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Anybody else see the contradiction there? First yo bash others for ideas using connections that are already built, then go turn around and pitch an idea for something that isn't even halfway built yet. The (T) is not going down the Culver, give up already

 

If that's not calling the kettle black, then I dunno what is

Well, this is not the pot calling the kettle black. You don't know that the (T) will never go down Culver. What if the MTA decides it's too expensive to tunnel to Hanover Square? What if they want to run the (T) to Brooklyn, but can't afford to build a new East River tunnel?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So?. These connections would never be built either the (MTA) has no money. So you are contradicting yourself too. We spend 76 years trying to dig that one subway line called Second Avenue, and so far we saw nothing. So we will never ever see any new connections being dug. One of the last few connections ever dug by the TA was the Chrystie Street Connection, and you saw how close the TA was to cancel that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's programming for the (A) to go to Coney Island via Brighton.

 

no theres not, only a (V) to C.I. via Brighton besides (:((D)(Q)...

 

I can see this thread is similar to "create you own subway route", only that your only allowed to use NYC subway tracks already here...

 

My route would be labeled (13), runs rush hours from Van Cortlandt Park-242 Street, Bronx - to - New Lots Avenue, Brooklyn, via 7 Avenue local / eastern parkway express, then skip-stop from Franklin Avenue to New Lots Avenue with (3).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for one you could send IRT lines to Coney Island, but you would have to give them their own platforms therefore raising prices, but the nearest IRT station would be Brooklyn College-Flatbush Avenue which is the (2), and (5)'s current terminal, but you could extend it farther down to Sheepshead Bay via Nostrand Avenue, and then turn it to get to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, but it would have to be underground, and have it's own ROW. Excuse my earlier post on the IRT lines. That was for using existing trackage. Though it would be useful giving IRT lines access to Coney Island which is one of the most busiest stations in all of NYC during the summer, and would be a tourist draw. It would also give IRT residents a one seat ride to the beach during the summer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

id let the (C) go to Lefferts. i dont see what the problem is with that. (A) to Far Rockaway with rush hour service to Rockaway Pk, (C) to Lefferts, (E) to Kings Hwy via Culver.

[not directed at just you but anyone that still proposes about sending the (C) to Lefferts over the (A)]

God, how many times must this be stated: Just because there are just 3 stops on the Lefferts part, it doesn't mean it should be shafted. Those 3 stops are pretty well used. Once those trains from Lefferts gets to Rockaway Blvd, the riders are just going to get off the (C) and take the (A) there making those (C) trains empty all the way to Euclid. So you are basically wasting (C) trains that could be (A) trains. I'd rather the current set up be left alone over sending the (C) to lefferts.

 

Far Rockaway has mostly length and the major stops like Rockaway Park, Mott Av and Howard beach. The other stations in between don't have that many riders individually.

The only thing that needs to be changed about the (A) is to rename one branch as another letter.

 

As for the (E) to CI, I've always said that they could send the (E) via the Culver and it switches with the (F). Then the (F) could go to WTC. Before the (M) came into service, things would've been more simple with the (C) and (V) switching routes respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wirelessly posted via (BlackBerry8520/5.0.0.900 Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/100)

 

So?. These connections would never be built either the (MTA) has no money. So you are contradicting yourself too. We spend 76 years trying to dig that one subway line called Second Avenue, and so far we saw nothing. So we will never ever see any new connections being dug. One of the last few connections ever dug by the TA was the Chrystie Street Connection, and you saw how close the TA was to cancel that.

 

You completely missed my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe one of my old ideas might work. Send the (E) down the Montague Street tunnel using the Nassau Street Line, and have it run local to Bay Parkway. That should help at least most people in getting close to Coney Island so they would transfer to the (D).

 

Going to have to send it thru 11st or 6Av after 5th Av for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure the (E) is at the same level as all the other nearby tunnels. Some digging would be required but you can send the (E) along with the (R) into South Brooklyn via the Montague Street Tunnel if you look carefully. You could have the (E) approach Wall Street with a lower level. Then you can have it come up via crossover, and run down into the Montague Street Tunnel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of the Second Ave line ending somewhere near South Ferry and hooking it into the (1) and (R) via transfer corridor. There riders have access to and from the Staten Island Ferry and Lower Manhattan.

 

as for Culver express, Ive always suggested they do it the way they used to, rush hour peak direction. (F) trains ending in Kings Highway are locals, and (F) trains ending in Coney Island are express. No need for additional letters and whatnot. The express tracks by Smith 9th and 4 Ave arent set up well for express service. The express trains would bypass the major transfer point, 4 Avenue station, so I would keep the (F) and (G) both local from Bergen to Church Ave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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