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.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

This isn’t theory. This is what nearly every other transit system in the world does at their terminals, and indeed what we once did. I completely understand that there are good reasons for which we operate terminals as we do today, but to accept said reasons without any examination of potential changes is bad form/policy, and is emblematic of the mentality that got us into this operational mess in the first place. 

I want to be absolutely clear about what I’m proposing, too. I’m proposing that crews and terminal dispatchers simply follow the bulletinS that have been issued about operations at relay terminals. Said bulletins state that relays should be double ended and not fumigated (eliminating the real risks you and other point out) if they are returning into service promptly. This should hopefully answer all questions as to a) whether NYCT is capable of operational change (yes, they already made the damn change) and whether crews/platform crews need to interact with customers outside of some otherwise attention-needing sick/unruly passenger scenario (no, no need to clear trains out). 

I, too, think that for the sake of expediency in clearing out layups and dealing with times when no switch crew/outbound crew is available, NYPD and maybe a platform CR should be on hand, but once again, those situations are largely outside the purview of this discussion as most relay terminals are not dealing with all that many (if any) moves of those types when turning peak service. 

Once these changes are complied with, I would imagine that (signals/geometry  permitting) full capacity is possible at all relays. 

I'm not forgetting the bulletins,  I've seen my share,  thought up by someone who has either never been there or forgotten where they came from.  Whom do I blame when there's a hazardous or unhealthy situation on my train when it's not located in the first or conductor's position ? The ridership?  Some of them won't say anything until they reach their stop. People have had heart attacks and have died on the train and they weren't noticed by RTO/PD for hours because no one noticed. Hey, the train left the terminal on time. A delay enroute shows up as a passenger delay anyway. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The (C) would run express south of 50th so it's not going to crowd out the (A) . As for the rest of your response, its been addressed numerous times and you clearly won't listen so you can look thorough past posts. 

Well that's never going to happen anyway because (C) need to serve all of the Local stations. Queens Blvd will keep (R) service and no (K) and no (M) via 63rd St.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm not forgetting the bulletins, I've seen my share, thought up by someone who has either never been there or forgotten where they came from. Whom do I blame when there's a hazardous or unhealthy situation on my train when it's not located in the first or conductor's position? The ridership? Some of them won't say anything until they reach their stop. People have had heart attacks and have died on the train and they weren't noticed by RTO/PD for hours because no one noticed. Hey, the train left the terminal on time. A delay enroute shows up as a passenger delay anyway. 

WAIT, did our veteran T/O, @Trainmaster5 just forget his signature ending of writing "Carry on."?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

WAIT, did our veteran T/O, @Trainmaster5 just forget his signature ending of writing "Carry on."?!

Actually your veteran M/M, Trainmaster 5, didn't forget the ending but I'm using a tablet right now and things are going haywire. One post just disappeared,  a long reply I wrote,  and the option to restore it appeared for a moment and vanished.  Better charge the laptop tonight.  Carry on. 😁

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm not forgetting the bulletins,  I've seen my share,  thought up by someone who has either never been there or forgotten where they came from.  Whom do I blame when there's a hazardous or unhealthy situation on my train when it's not located in the first or conductor's position ? The ridership?  Some of them won't say anything until they reach their stop. People have had heart attacks and have died on the train and they weren't noticed by RTO/PD for hours because no one noticed. Hey, the train left the terminal on time. A delay enroute shows up as a passenger delay anyway. 

I fail to see what’s so controversial about (paraphrasing) “Relays should be double ended. Trains should not be cleared out. Conductors should make appropriate announcements.” There sure have been plenty of ridiculous bulletins over the years, but I daresay this bulletin falls far from that tree. Once again, this is what every other subway does, and what we did/need to do in order to provide some basic level of consistent/frequent service to riders. 

I’m not in any way suggesting that we should ignore dying/disturbed/otherwise incapacitated passengers. I’m merely pointing out that the transition from fumigating — wherein people who are only disagreeable when confronted with some authority figure telling them to leave the train have a chance to display such action as well as those who would cause delays otherwise — to, well, not fumigating — where only those who would otherwise cause en-route delays would be dealt with — is likely to massively reduce the number of such incidents (and thus delays) at relay terminals. I’d love it as much as you would if NYPD were stationed at relays, but I think that, especially given the prevailing rider demographic during the peaks, this is more than sufficient to bypass the problem. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I fail to see what’s so controversial about (paraphrasing) “Relays should be double ended. Trains should not be cleared out. Conductors should make appropriate announcements.” There sure have been plenty of ridiculous bulletins over the years, but I daresay this bulletin falls far from that tree. Once again, this is what every other subway does, and what we did/need to do in order to provide some basic level of consistent/frequent service to riders. 

I’m not in any way suggesting that we should ignore dying/disturbed/otherwise incapacitated passengers. I’m merely pointing out that the transition from fumigating — wherein people who are only disagreeable when confronted with some authority figure telling them to leave the train have a chance to display such action as well as those who would cause delays otherwise — to, well, not fumigating — where only those who would otherwise cause en-route delays would be dealt with — is likely to massively reduce the number of such incidents (and thus delays) at relay terminals. I’d love it as much as you would if NYPD were stationed at relays, but I think that, especially given the prevailing rider demographic during the peaks, this is more than sufficient to bypass the problem. 

I'm not totally against what the author of the bulletins had in mind but...... In my last 3 years on the road I had occasion to relay my own train at Utica Avenue.  A light train  with absolutely no one aboard coming from Atlantic.  My conductor detrained at Utica Upper. I took my train into the relay tracks.  There were at least four times when things felt apart n/b in the IRT in the Atlantic-Nevins area.  No service in either direction for a duration of 45 minutes and up to almost two hours. Twice the number 4 relays didn't fumigate and had people ( who shouldn't have been there IMO) who suffered panic attacks.  I don't know what your work experience entails but to hear the T/O's on those trains pleading for assistance was painful.  I've been caught up in power off and full blackout conditions and I think it's foolhardy to potentially put people in a situation like that.  As someone taught our generation of RTO years ago " it's a paper railroad " where everything on paper can be erased or countermanded by someone else with the power to do so. Carry on. 

Edited by Trainmaster5
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I'm not totally against what the author of the bulletins had in mind but...... In my last 3 years on the road I had occasion to relay my own train at Utica Avenue.  A light train  with absolutely no one aboard coming from Atlantic.  My conductor detrained at Utica Upper. I took my train into the relay tracks.  There were at least four times when things felt apart n/b in the IRT in the Atlantic-Nevins area.  No service in either direction for a duration of 45 minutes and up to almost two hours. Twice the number 4 relays didn't fumigate and had people ( who shouldn't have been there IMO) who suffered panic attacks.  I don't know what your work experience entails but to hear the T/O's on those trains pleading for assistance was painful.  I've been caught up in power off and full blackout conditions and I think it's foolhardy to potentially put people in a situation like that.  As someone taught our generation of RTO years ago " it's a paper railroad " where everything on paper can be erased or countermanded by someone else with the power to do so. Carry on. 

That’s a bad story, but essentially the same thing can happen anywhere on the railroad. There is many a report of people being trapped in normal service between stations, and suffering panic, exhaustion and even bodily harm as a result. These are risks one incurs when operating a transit system, and putting trains in tunnels is the action that creates that risk; passengers really don’t care whether they’re in relay or in between stations when they’re stuck. As such, I don’t think torpedoing fast, high capacity operation (a good in its own right) for the sake of this potential is a good idea.

Additionally, and I’m a bit more shaky on this part given how large a role terminal convention plays in operations, the bulletin I saw seemed to suggest that conductors were to stay on relaying trains. Whether or not a CR would be of much help in these situations is itself a potential subject of debate, but I don’t think the conductorless situation you describe is at all an inflexible reality. 

To the point of the paper railroad, I think that’s a key element in understanding why (necessary) reform is so hard in the system. The persistent incompetence of upper management combined with the sheer scale of the operation has historically allowed middle level functionaries a lot of say in things like whether or not ops get written up for tripping on a miscalibrated timer, whether trains fumigate at terminals, etc. — they were in charge, in many ways unaccountable, and frequently the only halfway competent authority on their territory. So when reforms to decentralized functions are implemented, you run into exactly the problem of countermandates that you speak of. To this day, I still see rush hour relays being fumigated, and still hear about TSSs persecuting TOs — neither of which should happen. One of the greatest benefits of a truly competent upper management (should that ever uniformly come to pass) would be the potential to effectively and authoritatively recentralize some of that power, so that the good folks at Church can be pushed to operate their relay as well as does, say, Norwood. 

Edited by RR503
Clarified my point
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The temp, platforms that were at Sea Beach are taken down, as the CI bound (N) trains are running over the (D) line 

Edited by Calvin
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Well that's never going to happen anyway because (C) need to serve all of the Local stations. 

I've been on multiple (C) trains that have run express during both rush hour and midday to avoid merge delays at Canal, even though the (C) is supposed to be the "8th Avenue Local" so this is not the hard and fast rule that you think it is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

When they killed skip-stop on the (1) , did they ever consider having express service between 137th and 96th?

I always asked myself the same question. But I guess not because 1. There would probably be opposition from the stops being skipped. And 2. The people in general probably would have opted to take the (A) or (D) to go Express uptown. If it did happen though, it would need a different subway bullet. I would say (9). There is no diamond (1).

Edited by Q23 via 108
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

I've been on multiple (C) trains that have run express during both rush hour and midday to avoid merge delays at Canal, even though the (C) is supposed to be the "8th Avenue Local" so this is not the hard and fast rule that you think it is. 

Well both (A)(C) operating Exp could never become permanent, because one of them needs make all of the local stops, plus it feeds into the CPW line meaning both (B)(D) would both make local stops from 59 St until 145 St and one of them needs to be Exp. (E) and (K) can't make all the stops because they go into Queens. Plus where would the (K) come from? World Trade Center with (E) or Brooklyn with (A)(C) along Fulton St line both would cause more congestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Well both (A)(C) operating Exp could never become permanent, because one of them needs make all of the local stops, plus it feeds into the CPW line meaning both (B)(D) would both make local stops from 59 St until 145 St and one of them needs to be Exp. (E) and (K) can't make all the stops because they go into Queens. Plus where would the (K) come from? World Trade Center with (E) or Brooklyn with (A)(C) along Fulton St line both would cause more congestion.

Can you get a brain implant or something? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Can you get a brain implant or something? 

No something is wrong with you. You are trying mess up the system with these meaningless service changes. You want a new blue (K) to run with (E) in Manhattan and in Queens. Both (A)(C) Express unnecessary. You want to take away (R) service from Queens Blvd Line. And both (F)(M) via 63 St between Manhattan and Queens. What you doing except trying to mess the system for riders. More congestion, headache, bottlenecks.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

No something is wrong with you. You are trying mess up the system with these meaningless service changes. You want a new blue (K) to run with (E) in Manhattan and in Queens. Both (A)(C) Express unnecessary. You want to take away (R) service from Queens Blvd Line. And both (F)(M) via 63 St between Manhattan and Queens. What you doing except trying to mess the system for riders. More congestion, headache, bottlenecks.

The (C) would only be express between 50th and Canal, so you could build a faster switch at 50th and kill the Canal merge. In the end you’ve lost direct CPW access to a grand total of two stops which have cross platform transfers one stop away anyways. A (K) train would be able to give relief to the (E) as it’s been proven that the (M) hasn’t helped since it doesn’t cover all of 53rd and doesn’t reach 8th. Moving the (R) to Astoria would be great in terms of reliability for the line and you’d actually see a decrease in merges since the (E) would now only merge with the (F) and (K) while today it merges with the (C), (M) , and (F). The (R) would also only merge with the (W) . The (M) via 63rd wouldn’t have much of an effect and the mergers at 36th would be much easier to handle with CBTC.  While the connection to Lex express is lost, you have the (6) at 51st and the express wouldn’t make a difference at that point unless you wanted to go past 14th (in that case you should be taking the (F) to 63rd for the (Q) to Union Sq anyways).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Well both (A)(C) operating Exp could never become permanent, because one of them needs make all of the local stops, plus it feeds into the CPW line meaning both (B)(D) would both make local stops from 59 St until 145 St and one of them needs to be Exp. (E) and (K) can't make all the stops because they go into Queens. Plus where would the (K) come from? World Trade Center with (E) or Brooklyn with (A)(C) along Fulton St line both would cause more congestion.

 

9 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

No something is wrong with you. You are trying mess up the system with these meaningless service changes. You want a new blue (K) to run with (E) in Manhattan and in Queens. Both (A)(C) Express unnecessary. You want to take away (R) service from Queens Blvd Line. And both (F)(M) via 63 St between Manhattan and Queens. What you doing except trying to mess the system for riders. More congestion, headache, bottlenecks.

The parts in bold I want to bring up. 

As a QBL rider myself, I Agree with these changes that could be made. Your argument that these changes are meaningless and will harm the system more than help it are moot. It also seems like you haven't been paying attention to the discussion that's been going on here for the past ... year I believe. I'm going to counter argue your claims about this proposed service re-arrangement. 

Removing the (R) from Queens Boulevard DOES remove it's benefits of transferring to the (4)(5) Express along Lexington. But that DOES NOT MEAN that there aren't any benefits to such a service change. For starters, you're opening up capacity for a new service along Queens Boulevard. In this case, its the (K)! Before you go On about how the (K) would cause more congestion consider this Question, What's more important, a One Seat ride with services that are mingled on top of one another and can not operate at maximum efficiency, or a system that has efficient enough to provide the maximum capacity that its capable of while running the most simplistic service patterns possible?

This brings me to my next point. While introducing a (K) and moving the (M) to 63rd creates a bottleneck west of 36th Street Station, it allows for more service along the 63rd Street tunnel without screwing over 53rd Street (minus the loss of a one seat ride to 6th Avenue from 63rd Street). With both the (F) and (M) on 63rd Street, riders between Roosevelt and Lexington 63rd no longer need to transfer at Roosevelt unless you take the (K). As for the (R), it can be moved to Astoria while the (N) moves to 96th Street with the (Q), becoming a full express north of 34th Street. Like this, you remove a bottleneck on Broadway while increasing the 60th Street tubes and Astoria to it's maximum capacity limit while increasing service on SAS at the same time! 

Now for the (A)(B)(C) and (D) lines along Central Park West. While its true that moving the (A)(C) express  and the (B)(D) local slows down Central Park West, you do receive extra space to add in 4 more trains per hour.  but to not screw over passengers north of 145th, you have 2 options: 

Option 1 is to rearrange (C) and (D) service north of 145th by simply swapping them while leaving the (A) and (B) alone. That in itself has a few benefits and losses, or you can do Option 2 Like @R68OnBroadway has been saying within his last few posts. I'll refer to this article here: 

Quote

Option 2a: Convert 50th Street to an express stop with switches

The cheapest way to do this is to install switches both north and south of the station, allowing A/C express trains to stop there:

 [Figure 4] Snippet of NYC Subway track map with hypothetical switches north and south of 50th Street. The original track map belongs to vanshnookenraggen.

Since the E joins the 8th Avenue trunk immediately south of 50th Street, building the switches on the southbound side may require a northward extension of the southbound platform.

Option 2b: Convert 50th Street to an express stop with platform extensions

Alternatively, one could extend the 50th Street platforms over the current local tracks so that A/C trains can stop there without switching. This conversion is likely more expensive due to column demolition and replacement; in addition, this option also requires switches both north and south of the station like option 2a, but with the opposite orientation.

So basic conclusion, this deinterlining plan, re-arrangement or simplification of service (or whatever you want to call it) will do more good than harm like you're claiming it would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

 

The parts in bold I want to bring up. 

As a QBL rider myself, I Agree with these changes that could be made. Your argument that these changes are meaningless and will harm the system more than help it are moot. It also seems like you haven't been paying attention to the discussion that's been going on here for the past ... year I believe. I'm going to counter argue your claims about this proposed service re-arrangement. 

Removing the (R) from Queens Boulevard DOES remove it's benefits of transferring to the (4)(5) Express along Lexington. But that DOES NOT MEAN that there aren't any benefits to such a service change. For starters, you're opening up capacity for a new service along Queens Boulevard. In this case, its the (K)! Before you go On about how the (K) would cause more congestion consider this Question, What's more important, a One Seat ride with services that are mingled on top of one another and can not operate at maximum efficiency, or a system that has efficient enough to provide the maximum capacity that its capable of while running the most simplistic service patterns possible?

This brings me to my next point. While introducing a (K) and moving the (M) to 63rd creates a bottleneck west of 36th Street Station, it allows for more service along the 63rd Street tunnel without screwing over 53rd Street (minus the loss of a one seat ride to 6th Avenue from 63rd Street). With both the (F) and (M) on 63rd Street, riders between Roosevelt and Lexington 63rd no longer need to transfer at Roosevelt unless you take the (K). As for the (R), it can be moved to Astoria while the (N) moves to 96th Street with the (Q), becoming a full express north of 34th Street. Like this, you remove a bottleneck on Broadway while increasing the 60th Street tubes and Astoria to it's maximum capacity limit while increasing service on SAS at the same time! 

Now for the (A)(B)(C) and (D) lines along Central Park West. While its true that moving the (A)(C) express  and the (B)(D) local slows down Central Park West, you do receive extra space to add in 4 more trains per hour.  but to not screw over passengers north of 145th, you have 2 options: 

Option 1 is to rearrange (C) and (D) service north of 145th by simply swapping them while leaving the (A) and (B) alone. That in itself has a few benefits and losses, or you can do Option 2 Like @R68OnBroadway has been saying within his last few posts. I'll refer to this article here: 

So basic conclusion, this deinterlining plan, re-arrangement or simplification of service (or whatever you want to call it) will do more good than harm like you're claiming it would.

These service changes are no good all of you are creating some unnecessary reconfiguration and confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bwwnyc123 said:

These service changes are no good all of you are creating some unnecessary reconfiguration and confusion.

Seems to me like you didn't read a single thing I wrote and that you're either biased or heavily opposed to such changes. The thing about these types of proposals is that you have to look at both the pros and cons. From what it seems, you are very fixated on the cons. I'd suggest checking out these threads so you can get a better understanding of what is wrong with the current way that we run our subway services: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be clear since people keep on thinking otherwise, I am NOT deinterlining CPW. All I am doing is sending the (C) express south of 50th so it skips 23rd and Spring while still making all stops between 168th and 42nd.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Seems to me like you didn't read a single thing I wrote and that you're either biased or heavily opposed to such changes. The thing about these types of proposals is that you have to look at both the pros and cons. From what it seems, you are very fixated on the cons. I'd suggest checking out these threads so you can get a better understanding of what is wrong with the current way that we run our subway services: 

 

Nothing is wrong with current Queens Blvd Line, 8 Av. What you all are doing is creating problems not solutions. We don't need a blue (K) train, we need the (R) to stay on Queens Blvd because a lot of riders rely on it to access Broadway without transferring to another train. (M) doesn't need to operate via 63 St because (F) does it good by itself, also creating congestion at 36 St between local and exp track. Some riders from 6 Av need to get to station via 53 St. You all are creating disaster which is unnecessary. 

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Nothing is wrong with current Queens Blvd Line, 8 Av. What you all are doing is creating problems not solutions. We don't need a blue (K) train, we need the (R) to stay on Queens Blvd because a lot of riders rely on it to access Broadway without transferring to another train. (M) doesn't need to operate via 63 St because (F) does it good by itself, also creating congestion at 36 St between local and exp track. Some riders from 6 Av need to get to station via 53 St. You all are creating disaster which is unnecessary. 

I'm aware of the ridership demographics along Queens Boulevard and 8th Avenue. I live along the (E)(F)(M) And (R) lines myself and have taken the (R) to Lexington Avenue and points beyond myself. But that doesn't mean that our current service patterns are the most efficient in terms of operations and If anything, you're still missing the bigger picture here. Queens Boulevard and 8th Avenue have flaws because of design flaws and poor Operations Practices (I'm looking at Forest Hills and the Canal Street bottleneck). By putting the service changes discussed, you increase capacity on all lines involved while simplifying the system overall. 

And regarding 36th Street. Adding one bottleneck vs. Removing 3-4 Bottlenecks,(which I listed below) resulting in MORE TRAINS WHICH EQUAL'S MORE SERVICE is a big difference if you ask me. Also, you didn't answer my question yet. 

Quote

 What's more important, a One Seat ride with services that are mingled on top of one another and can not operate at maximum efficiency, or a system that has efficient enough to provide the maximum capacity that its capable of while running the most simplistic service patterns possible?

36th Street (West of the Station)

Broadway (Between 34th and 42nd) 

Queens Plaza 

Canal Street

53rd Street (between 6th Avenue and 5th Avenue)

59th Street-Columbus Circle (if you count that) 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

Nothing is wrong with current Queens Blvd Line, 8 Av. What you all are doing is creating problems not solutions. We don't need a blue (K) train, we need the (R) to stay on Queens Blvd because a lot of riders rely on it to access Broadway without transferring to another train. (M) doesn't need to operate via 63 St because (F) does it good by itself, also creating congestion at 36 St between local and exp track. Some riders from 6 Av need to get to station via 53 St. You all are creating disaster which is unnecessary. 

If so many people use the (R) , why can you often find seats ? The only people who might use it are people transferring to the (4)(5) . The (M) isn’t very busy on 53rd (neither was the (V) ) and if it is such an issue then take the (B)(D) to 53rd for the (E)(K). Are you obsessed with the 11th st cut or something?

As for merges, you would kill the Canal, 34th, 11th St, and 5/53 (E)(M) merge while moving the (F)(M) merge to 36th and keeping the merge at Queens Plaza with the (E)(K) . The only merge added is between the (A)(C) south of 50th.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

If so many people use the (R) , why can you often find seats ? The only people who might use it are people transferring to the (4)(5) . The (M) isn’t very busy on 53rd (neither was the (V) ) and if it is such an issue then take the (B)(D) to 53rd for the (E)(K). Are you obsessed with the 11th st cut or something?

As for merges, you would kill the Canal, 34th, 11th St, and 5/53 (E)(M) merge while moving the (F)(M) merge to 36th and keeping the merge at Queens Plaza with the (E)(K) . The only merge added is between the (A)(C) south of 50th.

Well I guess you don't use the Broadway line, plus they use (R) are as a connecter/feeder, and alot riders from local stops or transfer from (E) to (R) at Queens Plaza mainly to access free transfer to (4)(5)(6) at 59 St rather than at 51 St/53 St for (6) or to get to stops along the Westside and Eastside towards Lower Manhattan because they prefer one seat ride. Riders that normally use (R) would all have to transfer to get to another Broadway Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lawrence St said:

Have we ever thought of doing a subway redesign?

I’ve actually thought about it in my own time. If anything. We should let the Bus Redesigns be finished first before we move on to the subway System. I might use this concept that you brought up for an idea for a personal project. 

Speaking of personal Projects, I’m currently working on a (J) line analysis/proposal. When I finish with my draft, along with a map attached to it. I’ll release it in the Proposals thread. 

26 minutes ago, bwwnyc123 said:

iders that normally use (R) would all have to transfer to get to another Broadway Line.

Recommended: (M) or (K) > (F) from Roosevelt and points east to Lexington 63rd for the (N)(Q) > Union Square (4)(5)(6) 

(E)(F)(K)(M) > (7) > (R)(W) > (4)(5) 

Encourage the Free OOS Transfer at Lexington 63rd. (F)(M) to 63rd. > Walk 2-3 blocks to the (4)(5). Long term, we build a transfer between 63rd and 59th along Lexington. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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