Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[LGA Link N Train]

Ummm... ok

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

So leave the line as is and just rehabilitate Chambers Street Station????

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

But then if you were to make use of the Abandoned Bowery and Canal Sts, what would they be used for (and please don't say employee purposes)

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[Wallyhorse]

It has been noted that you cannot link up the  with the  at Bowery many times before. The eastern end of Bowery lies under Chrystie St, which the  will run down as it is a continuation of 2 Av. So the  can't stop at Bowery because it would have to make a really sharp S-curve to connect with the  . Instead what you could do is sever the Nassau line south of Chambers and have the  take over south of there and use the capacity in Montague. And what would take over the Fulton St Line if you plan to run the  to Jamaica? And please don't say the  .

EDIT: I assume the renovations would include lengthening the platforms to acccommodate 10-car trains.

Lengthening the platforms (where needed) would have to be part of any work on the Nassau Line since long-term that is going to be needed for ALL of the stations on the Nassau Line as well as the Canarsie Line.

 

If you do decide to connect to the Nassau Line, you would have to do it where the SAS comes in at Canal Street because of as noted the issues with Bowery.  You would have to re-do the tracks where the would come in on the "express" tracks at Bowery and Canal Street (re-opening the abandoned portions of both of those stations with the (and rush hours) terminating at Chambers) while the would come in on the "local" tracks at Canal Street (via new connections in the area south of Bowery and north of Canal Street).   For that to happen, however, work would have to be done to allow DeKalb Avenue to take more trains like it once did when many more lines operated through that station (since any that went through on Nassau would likely continue to the 4th Avenue line in Brooklyn via Montague).  

 

While I suggested that myself originally, I do like better the idea of having the run to Hanover Square and then via a new Schermerhorn Street tunnel run to what currently is the Transit Museum at Court Street, coming in on the as-present unused track/platform at Hoyt-Schermerhorn and then becoming the Fulton Local to Euclid.  This would allow the and to both run express on Fulton all the way and make the the full-time Lefferts line and the the full-time Rockaway line (in my plan, late nights the would replace the as the Lefferts line).   

 

EDIT: Another option that could be done to get the SAS to Brooklyn I previously suggested would be to move the SAS to 1st Avenue south of 23rd (like the 2nd Avenue EL used to be, possibly with a station on 23rd between 1st and 2nd Avenues) and then add a connection south of Houston so it can access the Rutgers Street/Culver Line south of Houston (possibly with the becoming the Culver Express in that scenario), then otherwise the SAS running down Allen Street (which 1st Avenue becomes south of Houston) and then on East Broadway to Chatam Square.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Wallyhorse

[RR503]

But then if you were to make use of the Abandoned Bowery and Canal Sts, what would they be used for (and please don't say employee purposes)

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Nothing. They're redundant now.

 

And for whoever asked how we make the Nassau line more attractive, you'd have move offices to Lower Manhattan. Which, seeing as we're neither socialist nor Washington DC, won't happen.

 

Things change. Yeah it's sad that there's abandoned trackage, but such is the nature of progress. Deal.

[LGA Link N Train]

Nothing. They're redundant now.

 

And for whoever asked how we make the Nassau line more attractive, you'd have move offices to Lower Manhattan. Which, seeing as we're neither socialist nor Washington DC, won't happen.

 

Things change. Yeah it's sad that there's abandoned trackage, but such is the nature of progress. Deal.

Deal, however there could be suggestions to turn that into an underground park similar to the low line

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

Yeah, or more transit museum space (which would be nice because then you could take a the subway to it).

[LGA Link N Train]

Yeah, or more transit museum space (which would be nice because then you could take a the subway to it).

I would love for that but for some reason I feel that it could be used for something better

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

by LGA N AirTrain, who should be posting here:

 

I think I mentioned something similar with the running to Bensonhurst bay Pkwy, but with the abandonment of the DSC for that area, it's for naught.

If the Chrystie Street connection was rebuilt by putting Second Avenue local trains in the middle tracks to that they continue south to Hanover Square or Broad Street or further south, the Sixth Avenue will be put on the outer tracks but will still connect to the Manhattan Bridge. North of Grand Street will be 3 double crossover switches. As for second Avenue Express tracks, they will be connecting to the Williamsburg Bridge, additional layup tracks will be added somewhere underneath Houston Street connecting to Broadway - Lafayette

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Remember when I used to be that energetic and fixated? 

[LGA Link N Train]

by LGA N AirTrain, who should be posting here:

 

I think I mentioned something similar with the running to Bensonhurst bay Pkwy, but with the abandonment of the DSC for that area, it's for naught.

Ummm... ok and my profile name is LGA Link N train, where did you get "AirTrain" from??

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

Let's get back on topic...

Ok

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[MassTransitHonchkrow]

Ummm... ok and my profile name is LGA Link N train, where did you get "AirTrain" from??

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

the consequences of a showboating governor mixed with my misinformation.

My bad

[LGA Link N Train]

the consequences of a showboating governor mixed with my misinformation.

My bad

No no its all good

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

Getting back on topic with an idea:

The * both are extended to Fort Totten-Cross Is Blvd via 19 Av, the GCP, ***the PW LIRR branch, and Bell Blvd.

**Stops are as follows: LGA-East Elmhurst, Willets Point-Flushing Meadows, Flushing-Main St, Parsons Blvd, 154 St-Murray Hill, 162 St-Broadway, Utopia Pkwy-Auburndale, F Lewis Blvd, 212 St-Bayside, 38 Av, 33 Av, 26 Av-Bay Terrace, and finally Fort Totten-Cross Is Blvd.

A peak express track would be constructed between Ditmars and Fort Totten.

trains would run peak exp, making stops at 26 Av-Bay Terrace, 212 St-Bayside, 154 St-Murray Hill, Flushing-Main St, Willets Point-Flushing Meadows, LGA-East Elmhurst, Ditmars Blvd, Astoria Blvd, and Queensboro Plaza.

This would mainly take relief off of the train and the PW branch, and provide access to LGA and Bayside.

*A new yard would be built on ConEd land to allow the and to swap.

**LIRR stops between Flushing and Douglaston are eliminated.

***The EL would run on top of the LIRR branch.

Of course, the big issue are the NIMBYS.

Well since Patrick Foye is the President of the MTA and Chief of the Port Authority, and the Port Authority does own Laguardia Airport, the NIMBY'S may have such little choice but to deal with it or move out. I remember reading something from an older post that one of the main reasons that NIMBY'S don't want a train to go to Laguardia is because they don't understand the benefits of this proposal which would allow for and trains to swap permanently

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

Well since Patrick Foye is the President of the MTA and Chief of the Port Authority, and the Port Authority does own Laguardia Airport, the NIMBY'S may have such little choice but to deal with it or move out. I remember reading something from an older post that one of the main reasons that NIMBY'S don't want a train to go to Laguardia is because they don't understand the benefits of this proposal which would allow for and trains to swap permanently

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

However, this would be the case and if Patrick Foye really wanted to extend the and to LGA for better transportation, then he'll do it without thinking twice. In other words, he might pull another Robert Moses on those NIMBY'S

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

Most Astoria residents don't go south of 34 St, because they mainly work in Midtown. But if they were going south of 34th, the would be better as they serve Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. Plus, there would be no merging at all with the express or locals if the swapped, leading to faster and improved service. The would return to Queens Blvd, but it runs via 63 St and skips 49 St.

Isn't that the point of this whole proposal

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LongLiveRock]

Most Astoria residents don't go south of 34 St, because they mainly work in Midtown. But if they were going south of 34th, the    would be better as they serve Chinatown and Lower Manhattan. Plus, there would be no merging at all with the express or locals if the    swapped, leading to faster and improved service. The  would return to Queens Blvd, but it runs via 63 St and skips 49 St. 

 

 

But it necessitates a merge with the after 36th and then a merge with the after Lexington...

[RR503]

Well since Patrick Foye is the President of the MTA and Chief of the Port Authority, and the Port Authority does own Laguardia Airport, the NIMBY'S may have such little choice but to deal with it or move out. I remember reading something from an older post that one of the main reasons that NIMBY'S don't want a train to go to Laguardia is because they don't understand the benefits of this proposal which would allow for and trains to swap permanently

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Que? 

 

No, the benefit of this proposal is more terminal capacity in Astoria... Then you can send the (or as has been suggested elsewhere becomes and becomes ) up Second Avenue and make the  a primary service for Astoria. That eliminates all merging on Broadway. 

 

Not only does swapping the not accomplish this, but then you're leaving the without a yard. This has been hashed and rehashed ad infinitum. Move on? 

[LGA Link N Train]

But it necessitates a merge with the after 36th and then a merge with the after Lexington...

True, but if that happens then would trains have to be rescheduled????

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

Que?

 

No, the benefit of this proposal is more terminal capacity in Astoria... Then you can send the (or as has been suggested elsewhere becomes and becomes ) up Second Avenue and make the a primary service for Astoria. That eliminates all merging on Broadway.

 

Not only does swapping the not accomplish this, but then you're leaving the without a yard. This has been hashed and rehashed ad infinitum. Move on?

Yeah, but if you were to extend the and to LGA, a new yard at con Ed would be built, which would allow the to go back to Astoria

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

As for the , don't send it up Second Avenue, just keep it at Queens Blvd and at 63/Lexington, just reschedule the trains

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

Exactly! Also, I didn't say I would leave the at Astoria. They would both be extended to Fort Totten-Cross Is Blvd, and serve Bayside, Flushing, and LGA. I even said there would be no merging at all WITH THE EXPRESS AND LOCALS.

I know, and I said that only the Express would have to merge at 63, there is little demand for the at second Avenue, leave at Queens Blvd and reschedule trains or just wait for CBTC to arrive

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

Yeah, but if you were to extend the   and   to LGA, a new yard at con Ed would be built, which would allow the   to go back to Astoria

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

As for the  , don't send it up Second Avenue, just keep it at Queens Blvd and at 63/Lexington, just reschedule the trains

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

Yuh huh, and eminent domaining one of the most important pieces of our grid's infrastructure is smart how?

 

ConEd needs that space as a staging area for repairs, and as a location for vital electrical infrastructure (transformers, rectifiers, etc). 

 

Also, I love how y'all thing that "rescheduling trains" will solve merge delays. By that token, there should never be merge delays, because trains are technically scheduled not to conflict. As we can all see, that doesn't hold water. 

 

Finally, by making one of the QB local services go via 63rd st, you are cutting of vital transfers for those passengers at Queens Plaza, which will increase crowding on trains. And just in general, 63rd st is a much lower demand corridor than 60th and 53rd. There are no transfers to the 4/5/6, and it is just a tad bit too far north to serve offices directly. 

 

Also, your claim that there will be no added merges is very clearly false. If you send s via 63rd, you're adding a merge with the at 36th street, and the at 63rd street. That is x more delayed trains every day. What's more, the Queens Boulevard express tracks are at capacity, so an cutting in front of an at 36th will cause delays that will cascade down the line.  

Edited August 23, 2017 by RR503

[LGA Link N Train]

What I meant to say by no merging was that THERE WOULD BE NO MERGING WITH THE EXPRESS AND LOCALS ON BROADWAY. In other words, the express/locals won't interact with each other and will only interact with theirselves. Also, that ConEd land is vital for improved service that was mentioned earlier. And thats because the 60 St Tube won't be congested, and no merging at 34 St anymore.

Thank you, at least you get my point. However I do want to point one thing out. If stations were added at 20 Av, Steinway Street and Hazen Street then would it be a good idea to promote any business, bus routes, etc. In the Area????

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[RR503]

What I meant to say by no merging was that THERE WOULD BE NO MERGING WITH THE EXPRESS AND LOCALS ON BROADWAY. In other words, the express/locals won't interact with each other and will only interact with theirselves. Also, that ConEd land is vital for improved service that was mentioned earlier. And thats because the 60 St Tube won't be congested, and no merging at 34 St anymore. 

 

I get that there will be no merging at 34th -- what I'm trying to communicate is that you're effectively moving the source of delays to 63rd/36th sts. 

 

60th street is currently below capacity. The limiting factor on more trains is that merge at 34th, so once you get rid of it, you can run more trains through there. I'd use that route. As I said earlier, Queens Boulevard Passengers find services that have transfers (Queens Plaza, Lex-59) useful, not ones that go off by themselves (63rd st). 

 

Second Avenue also is in need of more trains -- as has thoroughly been documented -- so why not? 

[LGA Link N Train]

It wouldn't run via Ditmars and the GCP to LGA because the curve on Ditmars has to be super sharp. It will run up to the ConEd plant and turn right on 19 Av into the airport. There would also be no intermediate stops since its mainly industrial and wouldn't really serve a lot of people.

Well, who know's, that area could develop within time so leaving provisions would be a good choice

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

[LGA Link N Train]

I see your point. That area could develop just like Hunts Point.

Funny, I've been to Hunts Point (mainly to visit my cousin who used to be into transit when he was 3) and I have noticed that within the time period of 2009 - Now, that area has developed a lot

 

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk