SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[B35 via Church]

19 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

How would NYC Subway would have look like now, if September 11th Terror Attacks never happened?

Dirtier & less modern looking.

[SubwayFan3000]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Dirtier & less modern looking.

are you talking about just the Cortlandt St? or just the NYC Subway in general?

if you talk about the NYC Subways in General, why would it be Dirtier and less modern looking?

[SubwayFan3000]

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Dirtier & less modern looking.

I thought, it would look the Same except the Cortlandt St it would look dirtier and less modern looking.

[B35 via Church]

38 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

are you talking about just the Cortlandt St? or just the NYC Subway in general?

if you talk about the NYC Subways in General, why would it be Dirtier and less modern looking?

General.

I refuse to believe that the drive to willingly initiate as many subway construction projects (aesthetic or otherwise) that took place post 9/11 (save for any other catastrophies that occurred after the fact... like that of Sandy) would've existed otherwise..... Which would mean matters would've continued to linger (in terms of filth) & for damn sure we wouldn't have ended up with as many newer (or, more modern) looking stations that we have now - not counting the "new" South Ferry & the new SAS stations.....

[Cabanamaner]

On 5/8/2019 at 8:53 AM, Q23 via 108 said:

The Subway is going to have two types of cars. The NTTs and the open gangway R2XXs. Its going to be really bland since the post 90s cars are so similar. A Transit fan will tell the difference. But to the average person, they are nearly identical. The only main thing separating the NTTs are the Propulsion sounds. Other than that, they look the same on both the interior and exterior.

Besides sound (and maybe some little things here and there)

What's different about a R142 - R142A - and R188?

What's different about an R143, R160A, R160B, R179. 

To me, they are all the same train. And the subway system is getting more stale by the day. 

There is a reason why people mainly fan on the  and . There's mad diversity (R32, R46, R68, R179, R211 in the future) Compare it to the  where it just has 1 car type. 

Liked it better when you could on any line and expect anything to show up. Now I don't hate NTTs, but when we got a fleet that has very cars similar on almost every subway line, its going to become stale. Like besides the noise it makes, what's the difference of catching an R160 Alstom vs a R160 Siemens on the . Or catching a R143 or R160 on the . Its all the same.

50 years from now I'm probably going to find the Subway Stations more interesting than the actual rolling stock we will have. (I love the newly updated  28 St, the stations in 50 years are going to look great).

But the NTTs do their job, and I hope they last long, but you gotta admit that the subway is loosing its "charm".

Oh please. There have PLENTY of stock in the past that have been near identical to other fleets. Compare the R33s to the R36s, R32s to R38s, R40M to R42, R44 to R46, R62 to R62a, etc. Most of these share the same propulsion, and some (R32 and R33) have essentially the same interior. Let’s take off the nostalgia goggles, huh? The R211 is already evidence that the MTA is still open to new designs, no reason to expect that they won’t keep experimenting moving forward.

 

 

[ABOGbrooklyn]

Random question: why are the elevateds painted green? Is it a not durable color or is it just because it's a cheap color? Why not make them navy blue, which I think would look better.

Edited May 11, 2019 by ABOGbrooklyn

[SubwayFan3000]

2 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

General.

I refuse to believe that the drive to willingly initiate as many subway construction projects (aesthetic or otherwise) that took place post 9/11 (save for any other catastrophies that occurred after the fact... like that of Sandy) would've existed otherwise..... Which would mean matters would've continued to linger (in terms of filth) & for damn sure we wouldn't have ended up with as many newer (or, more modern) looking stations that we have now - not counting the "new" South Ferry & the new SAS stations.....

so without 9/11, there wouldn't be no "New" South Ferry and the New SAS Stations??

In my scenario, I Think there would still be SAS and but no New South Ferry since New South Ferry was part of recovery effort for 9/11.

SAS and to Hudson Yards has nothing to do with 9/11 at all, it was planned and constructed long before 9/11 but it came to a halt due to fiscal crisis during 1970's. SAS would still be built anyways even without 9/11 and also Hurricane Sandy has nothing to do with 9/11. 

Also there would still be ESI as well even without 9/11.

[Maxwell179]

Is the  super-express still a thing ?

[mine248]

2 minutes ago, Maxwell179 said:

Is the  super-express still a thing ?

after Mets games or some kind of big event at Citi Field

[Maxwell179]

Just now, mine248 said:

after Mets games or some kind of big event at Citi Field

 Glooks

[B35 via Church]

34 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

so without 9/11, there wouldn't be no "New" South Ferry and the New SAS Stations??

Re-read the post.

[SubwayFan3000]

3 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Re-read the post.

Ok

[SubwayFan3000]

On 5/9/2019 at 7:42 AM, JeremiahC99 said:

Yeah why not? It would be really great for the Upper East Side. Provides direct service between the Myrtle Avenue corridor and all of the weekend shopping that exists in SoHo and Midtown (Essex Street is not even close to SoHo).

I am also proposing both the  and  be extended to Jamaica-179th Street and have the  moved off the express tracks at all times except late nights, when it would continue to make the slow switching maneuver at 75th Avenue (which delays  train service). This would allow for direct service between Hillside Avenue and the Broadways corridor for Broadway theater goers and those looking to see The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. 6th Avenue riders would see an increase in trip time by 3-5 minutes but everyone else would save time.

Also, late night  service should also be extended to Essex Street to permit easy travel between Brooklyn and the nigh life that exists in the Lower East Side.

To accompany this, I would also propose either extending the  /  lines together to Bay Ridge-95th Street or a separate route from the  /  that would either operate between Broadway Jct and 95th Street or overlay the current  (NOT replace it) and operate between Metro Avenue and 95th Street. This would improve service.

Finally, I am proposing that  service have headway increases. During weekdays, service would operate with 14 trains per hour, with  /  service operating at 10 trains per hour. This would provide more frequent service for  riders.  service may be reduced, but given how passengers north of Church Avenue has the  train and south of Church Avenue have an easy crosstown walk or bus ride to other train lines, like the  and , all of which can take on additional riders, they’ll be fine.

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer and to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

from Staten Island to College Point.

Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

[ABOGbrooklyn]

8 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer and to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

from Staten Island to College Point.

Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

Why does Rockaway Park need two lines for a line that has barely anybody on it?

[LGA Link N Train]

9 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer and to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

from Staten Island to College Point.

Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

nice ideas! wrong thread

 

[Bay Ridge Express]

11 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Guys, I have a New Idea

I Prefer and to be extended underneath Union Turnpike to Floral Park - Langdale St.

to be extended to Co-Op City via Gun Hill Road.

to be extended underneath Tremont Ave, Eastchester Rd, then into Gun Hill Rd to Co-Op City.

to be extended to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy.

from Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck - Lawton Ave via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, Third Ave, Longwood Ave, Lafayette Ave and to E Tremont Ave.

from Hanover Sq to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St via 2nd Ave, Avenue C, 2nd Ave, 63rd St Tunnel, Newly Built Queens Superexpress (Underneath LIRR Line) and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch

from WTC to Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. via QBL and Former LIRR Rockaway Branch (Rego Park to Ozone Park),

to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy via New Elevated line north of Ditmars Blvd then turn towards 19th Ave, New Tunnel Portal between 45th Street and Hazen St, Ditmars Blvd at Jackson Heights/Corona, underneath Flushing/Corona Park into Booth Memorial Ave, 64th Ave and 60th Ave.

to Co-Op City via Third Ave and Gun Hill Rd.

from Staten Island to College Point.

Train from Fort Hamilton - 92nd Street to Whitestone - 150th Street via New the Flushing Trunk Line underneath Sunnyside Yards and Northern Blvd then turn into 154th St at Flushing.

from Broad St to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

to run 24/7 Hours except weekends and late nights from from Chambers St. to Rosedale - Hook Creek Blvd.

 

-A lot of these ideas just create route that are long and unreliable, specifically the  ,  ,  , and  

-Any route originating from Whitestone deserves to go to Manhattan, otherwise it'll just end up being an  situation where the majority of riders will have to constantly transfer

-For that  route, my proposal would be to go via Fordham Rd instead, seeing as that is the busier corridor (with the Bx12 SBS)

-Is it really necessary to have the line go all the way to Avenue C just to get back on 2nd? I get you'd want to serve East Village and Stuyvesant Town better, but why not just move the line to 1st Av for that portion at least? This would add so much more extra travel time

-If you're going to have the  go to Rockaway Park, then at least eliminate the  there. It wouldn't be needed anymore.

-For the  , can you provide more information about how exactly you plan to connect those two destinations?

-Your  ,  ,  , and  ideas I like... only thing about  is that it would be long and indirect for those living east of Corona Park

Edited May 11, 2019 by Bay Ridge Express

[bobtehpanda]

19 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

General.

I refuse to believe that the drive to willingly initiate as many subway construction projects (aesthetic or otherwise) that took place post 9/11 (save for any other catastrophies that occurred after the fact... like that of Sandy) would've existed otherwise..... Which would mean matters would've continued to linger (in terms of filth) & for damn sure we wouldn't have ended up with as many newer (or, more modern) looking stations that we have now - not counting the "new" South Ferry & the new SAS stations.....

SAS had the study initiated in the '90s. The "new" post 9/11 stuff was New South Ferry and Fulton St.

It's a shame Pataki never managed to pull the ultimate hoodwink over the feds and get them to fund LIRR to WTC, or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

[P3F]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

SAS had the study initiated in the '90s. The "new" post 9/11 stuff was New South Ferry and Fulton St.

It's a shame Pataki never managed to pull the ultimate hoodwink over the feds and get them to fund LIRR to WTC, or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

Wouldn't combining the with the PATH be detrimental to both the and PATH? Considering the fact that it would simply be a connection between the two lines without any capacity being added, it would reduce capacity on the PATH north of 9th Street and on the south of wherever the connection would have been.

[SubwayFan3000]

4 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

-A lot of these ideas just create route that are long and unreliable, specifically the  ,  ,  , and  

-Any route originating from Whitestone deserves to go to Manhattan, otherwise it'll just end up being an  situation where the majority of riders will have to constantly transfer

-For that  route, my proposal would be to go via Fordham Rd instead, seeing as that is the busier corridor (with the Bx12 SBS)

-Is it really necessary to have the line go all the way to Avenue C just to get back on 2nd? I get you'd want to serve East Village and Stuyvesant Town better, but why not just move the line to 1st Av for that portion at least? This would add so much more extra travel time

-If you're going to have the  go to Rockaway Park, then at least eliminate the  there. It wouldn't be needed anymore.

-For the  , can you provide more information about how exactly you plan to connect those two destinations?

-Your  ,  ,  , and  ideas I like... only thing about  is that it would be long and indirect for those living east of Corona Park

is the most Longest ride ever, Anyways I'm Happy to see some one agreeing some of my ideas and disagreeing with some of my idea. I respect your Opinions, should e streched from Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St to Far Rockaway - Mott Ave.

Also there was a Plane Pre-WW2 and post-WW2 to extend Astoria Line to East of Corona Park underneath Long Island Expressway that time it wasn't a highway, I Prefer not building a Subway underneath a Highway.

If Any rout originating from Whitestone should go to Manhattan, then I Would extend the train to Whitestone and eliminating the to Just Corona.

For and Trains, There were Plans to Extend the Line underneath Jewel Avenue, but i prefer to extend underneath Union Turnpike.

For , There were plans as well to Extend to Hollis or Floral Park.

[bobtehpanda]

4 minutes ago, P3F said:

Wouldn't combining the with the PATH be detrimental to both the and PATH? Considering the fact that it would simply be a connection between the two lines without any capacity being added, it would reduce capacity on the PATH north of 9th Street and on the south of wherever the connection would have been.

It's a pair of tracks leading to a pair of tracks. Today those pair of tracks end in an arbitrary fashion 2000 feet away from each other.

Presumably you would need to extend station lengths on the PATH to accommodate such a service but IIRC Parsons-Brinckerhoff considered it possible.

Edited May 11, 2019 by bobtehpanda

[SubwayFan3000]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

SAS had the study initiated in the '90s. The "new" post 9/11 stuff was New South Ferry and Fulton St.

It's a shame Pataki never managed to pull the ultimate hoodwink over the feds and get them to fund LIRR to WTC, or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

Exactly, NSF and Fulton St. Hub was a 9/11 Recovery Effort, Without 9/11 there would be No New South Ferry nor perhaps Fulton St. Hub, the SAS and Hudson Yards would still be built. NYC Subways would look the Same but except the South Ferry, Cortlandt St and Fulton St.

[Lance]

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

... or that Port Authority decided to be a dick about combining the 6 with the PATH (which the MTA was actually not disinterested in).

It's probably for the best that didn't happen. Port Authority would love for someone else (the MTA) to foot half the bill for PATH expenses seeing as that "railroad" costs much more per rider to operate than the subway. Not surprising since they never wanted to be the railroad business in the first place and only are because of the World Trade Center. I could quite easily see that happening should the MTA ever build a track connection to the PATH network. 

[RR503]

6 minutes ago, Lance said:

It's probably for the best that didn't happen. Port Authority would love for someone else (the MTA) to foot half the bill for PATH expenses seeing as that "railroad" costs much more per rider to operate than the subway. Not surprising since they never wanted to be the railroad business in the first place and only are because of the World Trade Center. I could quite easily see that happening should the MTA ever build a track connection to the PATH network. 

I mean, is that such a bad thing? MTA maybe has to overpay a little, but we get a good interstate subway. Seems like a win to me. 

I'd imagine that costs would have changed if the various operating waivers that would have been necessary for such an operation had been put in place, FWIW

[Lance]

It kind of does matter when neither agency can manage their finances worth a damn. PATH, and the PA in general, hemorrhages money with their expenses and that FRA stipulation that the PA cannot get out of does not help matters in the slightest. For what it's worth, it'd be a really beneficial expansion with very little work involved, and that's not something I'm against. I just don't see the two agencies working together on this, nor do I see them playing fair with the costs of operation if such a combined route were to ever come to fruition.

[Lawrence St]

Was there a reason why the subway was never built into the outer suburbs?

DC's WMATA enters an entirely different state, so is the reason why we didnt do is because of money or something else?