Routes that aren't around that should be

[Trainmaster5]

Mike, keep those history lessons going for those not familiar with why the service patterns are set up the way they are today. Some of these proposals were actually tried and dropped because they didn't work or actually hampered service. Ladies and gents, instead of imagining these changes or using Wikipedia try reading the actual service guides from the past on nycsubway.org. Many variations of these plans have been thought of before. Just keep that via Culver to yourself though. Please.

[Fresh Pond]

Why do that?. I think the should be extended down to Dyker Heights, because of the schools, the park, and the businesses down at 13th Avenue to Fort Hamilton Parkway. It should be an underground line dug via cut, and cover to offer service to a community which should in my opinion should get subway service. The buses around that neighborhood gets packed with people either heading to the or the . If the goes to Dyker Heights it would see an increase in ridership for people trying to get to the .

 

So you want to extend a route AND build a new connection cuz a few buses are mildly crowded

 

Good luck getting that to fly, there are places in the city that deserve subway service more than the area you just mentioned

[Shortline Bus]

So you want to extend a route AND build a new connection cuz a few buses are mildly crowded

 

Good luck getting that to fly, there are places in the city that deserve subway service more than the area you just mentioned

 

 

I guess Roadcruiser is rich like Bloomberg and has billions out of his own pocket to bulid this new line in Dyker Heights/Bensonhurst or w/e in SW Brooklyn.

[Vistausss]

If he is that rich, he'd be better off donating his money to help the MTA coming out of the crisis

[Shortline Bus]

If he is that rich, he'd be better off donating his money to help the MTA coming out of the crisis

 

 

Could not agree more.:tup::eek:

[Roadcruiser1]

I am not rich I am only Middle Class.

[Bonanza123d]

Revamp the 70(SS) Culver Shuttle for a connection to the

 

Whoops i mean extend the to take the 70(SS). I think it would be good. The only problem would be that there is no current trackage along the Culver Shuttle. That would be another great expansion project that can work great. and expand lines past Avenue X

[Roadcruiser1]

The Culver remaining stations, and tracks have had been ripped, and destroyed a long time ago.

[Luis1985]

And this conductor knows this how? The MTA Changes there mind 24/7 we just have to wait till SAS is done up to 96th st... Which should be when the R160's retire...

 

it doesnt matter. when the goes to 2 Ave, they gonna have to bring back the for weekday, or maybe even rush hour only service. now if the is gonna plan to keep the by itself, then its whatever, but as far as im concerned, i see the appering on the NYC Subway Maps once the hits up 2 Ave. i know this for 2 reasons:

 

1. The cannot handle the Astoria crowd alone during the weekday rush hour (Unless they increase service on the , but i doubt that.)

 

2. Theyre not make up any other route go up there. believe me, its gonna be the all over again. i can see the happening. i could be wrong, but i could also see it happening.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

When I read all the speculation about the Astoria line(s), ,,or(W), I find myself mildly amused. There was a time in the mid sixties when the Sea Beach and Brighton terminated at 57th St-7th Ave. The "T" West End Express served Astoria rush hours, along with the QT Brighton Broadway Local service. Since the West End service now travels via 6th Ave perhaps all that's needed are a few Astoria to Whitehall runs, signed as (N)s, for the am and pm rushes. IMO it's not necessary to bring back the designation for a few daily rush hour trains. Save that for a full-time route in the future. I'm not sure but perhaps there's a to Whitehall programmed in the R160s or can be added to whatever fleet the might run if this comes to pass. Just my opinion though.

From 1976 to 1986, there was such a service, except that it ran to/from Continental because that was the (N)'s Queens terminal at the time. It was shown on the maps and trains as a diamond when the MTA adapted the current line coloring scheme. But I believe they were planning to rename that service as the (hence the diamond <W> on old rollsigns) What stopped them from doing that in the 80s was the Manhattan Bridge construction. It wasn't until all four bridge tracks were open in 2004, that the began to operate the way the MTA originally intended.

[pelhamlocal]

two letters &

[Guest lance25]

Two other letters: & .

 

The runs the entire length of the former and continues to Euclid Av

There's no Brighton Express service, so there's no need for the . And when express service is restored, people can transfer to the (.

[Roadcruiser1]

The will not be making a comeback not even as an Eighth Avenue Local. You would cause mass confusion, and there will only be one . Only letters I can see is the , and . Though why are we saying all this when BRT(SBS), and Light Rail is the cheaper, and faster option.

[Luis1985]

There's no Brighton Express service, so there's no need for the . And when express service is restored, people can transfer to the .

 

agreed

[Tokkemon]

Why do that?. I think the should be extended down to Dyker Heights, because of the schools, the park, and the businesses down at 13th Avenue to Fort Hamilton Parkway. It should be an underground line dug via cut, and cover to offer service to a community which should in my opinion should get subway service. The buses around that neighborhood gets packed with people either heading to the or the . If the goes to Dyker Heights it would see an increase in ridership for people trying to get to the .

 

Nice way to steal my fantasy map idea.

[Roadcruiser1]

We need to build more crosstown lines damn it. Our commute times for the people that work out of Manhattan are one of the worse in the nation. Read the newspapers, and you would find out, and I still haven't changed from my Elevated rant. Let's build more El's.

[CTK246]

We need to build more crosstown lines damn it. Our commute times for the people that work out of Manhattan are one of the worse in the nation. Read the newspapers, and you would find out, and I still haven't changed from my Elevated rant. Let's build more El's.

 

Or we could use the bus...just sayin'.

[Joel Up Front]

The will not be making a comeback not even as an Eighth Avenue Local. You would cause mass confusion, and there will only be one . Only letters I can see is the , and . Though why are we saying all this when BRT(SBS), and Light Rail is the cheaper, and faster option.

 

Seriously? Buses being faster than subway trains and light rail? I'm trying not to laugh. Stick to making horrible fantasy maps.

 

Light rail is absolutely pointless and shouldn't even be brought up in a city like ours. Why does it work in NJ? Because no one lives there anyway. Buses are still speed limited and still have to follow the rules of the road. Hitting 45 MPH once on a large stretch of road and then having to stop for lights along the way is slower than hitting 30 MPH and staying there. And sounds like when you say train.

[Grand Concourse]

Just a thought.... the and switched nothern terminals. The terminals at Forest Hills via 63rd St and Queens Local and the at 179th St via 53rd St and Queens Exp. Less stations for the to handle alone, then have a express to Coney Island and local to Church Av

 

All you are doing to do is make things worse. An 8-car as an express cannot take on the load a full 10-car train can. Queens Blvd needs more capacity on the express than the local. If you really wanted to cut the additional stations off the line, you could switch the and northern terminals.

But in Brooklyn, an and [or a ] could be useful to splitting the line. Not sure if that can work, but it is a way to reduce the load over '2 lines' vs 1.

Ideally maybe you have the '(V)' run express from 179th [or start from 71st then express via 63rd like the ]. Then express in Brooklyn and then going to Coney, while the as is and ending at Church Av?

 

=

[directed at 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 and take the there making those trains empty all the way to Euclid. So you are basically wasting trains that could be trains. I'd rather the current set up be left alone over sending the 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 is to rename one branch as another letter.

 

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

[Luis1985]

All you are doing to do is make things worse. An 8-car as an express cannot take on the load a full 10-car train can. Queens Blvd needs more capacity on the express than the local. If you really wanted to cut the additional stations off the line, you could switch the and northern terminals.

But in Brooklyn, an and [or a ] could be useful to splitting the line. Not sure if that can work, but it is a way to reduce the load over '2 lines' vs 1. ?

 

yup.:tup:

[CTK246]

You know what's not around that should be? Canarsie skip-stop :tup:

[Roadcruiser1]

There isn't a track for that. The Canarsie Line would need to be three tracked to allow the trains to bypass a station. Too bad it's only 2 tracked.

[Dynamic Vaudeville]

There isn't a track for that. The Canarsie Line would need to be three tracked to allow the trains to bypass a station. Too bad it's only 2 tracked.

 

Do you know how skip stop works?

The (J)/(Z) skip stop uses only one track, and as did the (1)/(9), though I'm not 100% sure about the latter.

[Roadcruiser1]

Oh wait my mistake sorry. Yeah Canarsie is a skip stop choice.

[Grand Concourse]

Do you know how skip stop works?

The (J)/(Z) skip stop uses only one track, and as did the (1)/(9), though I'm not 100% sure about the latter.

 

Both used 1 set of tracks per direction, but the worked because their stations are more even in terms of ridership. (1)/(9), had uneven amounts and thankfully the service stopped.

 

Not sure the ridership levels on the , but since it's heavily used towards the western end, I don't think skip-stop will solve the problems. Ideally the should be 10-car trains.