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

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, subwaykid256 said:

Question is there any viability to expand the (A) past Lefferts Blvd via Liberty Av? Perhaps to Sutphin Blvd?

Also thoughts on my (T) line

Sorry just making some edits

Dyker Heights -Crospey Av/ 14 Av

86 St/14 Av

Bay Ridge Pkwy/14 Av

Bay Ridge Av/14 Av

New Utrecht Av - 62 St 

(D)(N)

54 St/14 Av

46 St/14 Av

39 St/14 Av

Church Av - McDonald Av

(F)(G)

Coney Island Av/ Church Avs

Flatbush - Ocean Avs/Church Av

(B)(Q)

Linden Blvd - Caton Av/ Bedford Av

Empire Blvd/Bedford Av

Eastern Pkwy/Bedford Av

transfer at Franklin Av for (2)(3)(4)(5)(S)

Fulton St - Atlantic Av/Bedford Av

transfer at Nostrand Av for (A)(C) connection to L.I.R.R

Gates Av/Bedford Av

Lafayette Av/Bedford Av 

(G)

Myrtle Av/Bedford Av

Flushing Av/Bedford Av

Rodney- Keap Sts/ Bedford Av

turns left to S 10 St

Williamsburg - S 10 St/ Wythe Av

 BQX

(tunnel on Grand St Manhattan)

Grand St/East Broadway

East Broadway- Rutgers St

(F)

Chatham Sq/East Broadway

X ( Red Hook- LaGuardia Airport via Hanover sq & 63 St tunnel)

Grand St / Chrystie St

(B)(D)x (Possible transfer to (J) via Bowery)

2 Av - Houston St

(F)x (Teal (Z) from Broadway Junction - 242 St :20x20_px_01:)

14 St/ 2 Av

(L)X(Z)

23 & 34 Sts are local stops served by the X & (Z)

 

42 St/2 Av

(4)(5)(6)(7)(S)X(Z)

55 St/2 Av

 

72 St/ 2Av

(Q)(Z)

86 St/ 2 Av

(Q)(Z)

96 St/2 Av

(Q)(Z)

106 & 116 Sts are local stations served by (Z)

125th St/2 Av

(Z)

3 Av - 138 St

(6)(Z)

3 Av - 149 St

(2)(5)(Z)

163 St & Claremont Pkwy are local stops served by (Z)

Bronx - Tremont Ave

(Z)

183 St- Lesandro Junior Way/3 Av

(Z)

goes via Lorillard Pl turns right on Fordham Rd

 Arthur Av - Fordham University/ Fordham Rd

Pelham Pkwy - White Plains Rd (2)(5)

 

Pelham Pkwy - Esplande (5)

 

Seymour Av/ Pelham Pkwy

(turns left to Seymour Av)

Allerton Av/Eastchester Rd

Gun Hill Rd/ Eastchester Rd

(D)(5)

Boston Rd/Eastchester Rd

222 St/Eastchester Rd

 233 St/Laconia Av

turns right on 233 st then left on Baychester Av

Nereid-Pitman Avs/Baychester Av

Wakefield 241 St (2)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My B Division Proposal is this, i don't know why many of you are against this proposal but it would benefits commuters from Deserted Areas like Eastern Queens, Flatbush, Staten Island and etc.

(A) *Same as Today

(B) Brighton Beach to Co-Op City

(C) 168th St to Cambria Heights-234th St

(D) Coney Island to Co-Op City

(E) WTC to Queens Village - Springfield Blvd

(F) Coney Island to Floral Park - Little Neck Pkwy

(G) Oakland Gardens-Cloverdale Blvd to Fort Hamilton - 92nd St

(H) Hanover Sq to Whitestone-14th Avenue

(J) Broad St to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd

(K) WTC to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th St

(L) Canarsie-Rockaway Pkwy to Upper West Side-72nd St

(M) Maspeth - Queens Blvd to Floral Park - 263rd st

(N) *Same as Today or Coney Island to Little Neck - Little Neck Pkwy

(Q) Coney Island to Co-Op City

(R) Bay Ridge-95th St to Floral Park - 263rd St or (Staten Island) South Beach-Newberry Ave to Floral Park-263rd St

(T) Broadway-125th St to Cambria Heights-234th St

(V) Hanover Sq to Throgs Neck-Schurz Ave

(W) Astoria-Ditmars to Chelsea-Travis Ave (Staten Island) or College Point-14th Ave to Chelsea-Travis Ave (Staten Island)

(Z) Full Service, Chambers St to Rosedale-Hook Creek Blvd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2019 at 10:58 AM, subwayfan1998 said:

My B Division Proposal is this, i don't know why many of you are against this proposal but it would benefits commuters from Deserted Areas like Eastern Queens, Flatbush, Staten Island and etc.

 

it’s because you be overdoing it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These ideas are great and all, but here's a proposal that's probably really pressing - stop running trains every 12 minutes because no one is willing to wait around that long.

The solution is a bit harder to pinpoint but probably involves overhauling the existing work and flagging rules.

  • Thanks 4
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

you also be overdoing it as well just like be, by extending (R) from Astoria to Euclid Avenue.

I don’t know about you, but I think a Montague-Hoyt tunnel would be much better in terms of cost-benefit than a slow ass (R) to the county line or a unnecessarily long (F) to Floral Park...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I don’t know about you, but I think a Montague-Hoyt tunnel would be much better in terms of cost-benefit than a slow ass (R) to the county line or a unnecessarily long (F) to Floral Park...

so you are against extending (F) or (R) to Floral Park?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

Why?

It's overkill. The (F) and (R) already have reliability issues and the last thing we need is for them to be longer... you also have to consider that residents out there don't want a subway and that we really only need extensions in areas to decongest bus lines like the (7)  to FLB, (F) to Springfield (with it maybe running express after 71st to counter the effect of a longer route), and (N)(W) to LGA and then Flushing to siphon some (7) riders.

Share this post


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

It's overkill. The (F) and (R) already have reliability issues and the last thing we need is for them to be longer... you also have to consider that residents out there don't want a subway and that we really only need extensions in areas to decongest bus lines like the (7)  to FLB, (F) to Springfield (with it maybe running express after 71st to counter the effect of a longer route), and (N)(W) to LGA and then Flushing to siphon some (7) riders.

I Have Friends from these Neighborhoods they said "it would be great to use Subways than Slow Ass Buses"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, subwayfan1998 said:

I Have Friends from these Neighborhoods they said "it would be great to use Subways than Slow Ass Buses"

That's probably a small group of fanners. I doubt the average people of Glen Oaks and Floral Park want a subway and would be fine with a 10-20 min bus ride to the subway.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

That's probably a small group of fanners. I doubt the average people of Glen Oaks and Floral Park want a subway and would be fine with a 10-20 min bus ride to the subway.

ok, u know more better and i'm new to this forum.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wether you are against or not, More than a third of all New Yorkers don’t live within walking distance of a subway or train station especially those in Low-Income and Middle Income Neighborhoods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

you also be overdoing it as well just like be, by extending (R) from Astoria to Euclid Avenue.

that’s not a bad idea and that’s still within the current subway limits , you be tryna have trains go from the middle of Long Island to Washington Heights 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Maxwell179 said:

that’s not a bad idea and that’s still within the current subway limits , you be tryna have trains go from the middle of Long Island to Washington Heights 

Middle of Long Island is Mineola, Nassau and Suffolk.

I'm saying Extending Trains from 168th Street to Cambria Heights is not a bad Idea nor does extending trains from Bay Ridge and Coney Island to Floral Park is a bad idea either, it improves travel options for residents from transit deserts in Queens like Queens Village, Pomonok, Fresh Meadows, Floral Park, Bayside and Cambria Heights, open up new economic opportunities, reduce traffic congestion, providing more space for repurposing of roadways for pedestrians, bikers, and goods transporters. Large parts of Queens are not on the subway system, although many of these neighborhoods have Long Island Rail Road stations. Ridership is very low at these stops because service is infrequent and expensive. These improvements would substantially improve access to major open spaces, such as Alley Pond Park, Cunningham Park and Floyd Bennett Field.

Edited by subwayfan1998

Share this post


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

It's overkill. The (F) and (R) already have reliability issues and the last thing we need is for them to be longer... you also have to consider that residents out there don't want a subway and that we really only need extensions in areas to decongest bus lines like the (7)  to FLB, (F) to Springfield (with it maybe running express after 71st to counter the effect of a longer route), and (N)(W) to LGA and then Flushing to siphon some (7) riders.

I’d be glad to see any one of these extensions get built, but especially a (7) extension to FLB (since that would be closest to me) though I think the heavy traffic on Northern Blvd between FLB and Bell Blvd definitely warrants subway service at least up to Bell. Though I’d be just as glad to see central Flushing get a second line in the (N)(W) (or the (R) if Broadway is de-interlined as it should be) to siphon riders off the (7).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see (F) extended to Springfield Blvd or further it would reduce bus riders. Most riders especially during rush hours going to and from work or school from Eastern Queens take buses to Subways (7)(F)(E)(J)(Z) and some do not use LIRR. If those subway lines were extended further East it would reduce the need for buses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I could see (F) extended to Springfield Blvd or further it would reduce bus riders. Most riders especially during rush hours going to and from work or school from Eastern Queens take buses to Subways (7)(F)(E)(J)(Z) and some do not use LIRR. If those subway lines were extended further East it would reduce the need for buses.

It would make Buses less overcrowded than it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, subwayfan1998 said:

you also be overdoing it as well just like be, by extending (R) from Astoria to Euclid Avenue.

This is not overkill. An (R) from Astoria to Euclid only Requires a new tunnel between Whitehall and Court Street (NYTM). Doing this will increase capacity on the Fulton Street line by 50% and allow (C) trains to run Express to Lefferts Blvd or the Rockaway's. 

While it’d be nice to have subways in outer Queens, I wouldn’t extend everything cause it’s overkill and some of these proposals are not feasible. Psersonally, I prefer these ideas: 

(7) To Francis Lewis via Northern or a Branch to College Point. A new bus terminal will be built somewhere close to Francis Lewis (Which I’ll go more in depth later). 

(F) to Springfield (Express between Forest Hills and 179. In order for this to work, either (M) trains would need to be extended to 179, the Queens Bypass would need to be built, or Queens Blvd needs to be (mostly) De-Interlined. Maybe this can work with the (E)(F)(K)(M) arrangement with one of the locals going to 179. And just like the (7) extension. A bus terminal would need to be built around Hillside and SpringField/Braddock since the current set up for the Street won’t allow for it. Doing this would allow for a variety of Route Changes to Buses along Hillside and Adjacent Streets. 

LaGuardia Link (N) Train (Or (R) when Broadway is De-Interlined. Nuff said. 

(E) to Laurelton because there is Space for a New Yard along the LIRR Atlantic/Rockaway Branch. Or to Cambria Heights via Merrick Blvd and Linden Blvd. I prefer the First Option TBH. 

(J)(Z) One Stop Extension to Merrick/168. If possible, you could extend THAT to Cambria Heights instead of the (E). It could Stop Short of Merrick, then Turn Down 168, then Head via Merrick and Linden Blvd’s. 

With only Extending the Current Subways in Queens, you can achieve the following benefits: 

• Making a Better Bus Network for Queens 

• Promote Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)

• Better Subway Access throughout Queens. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

This is not overkill. An (R) from Astoria to Euclid only Requires a new tunnel between Whitehall and Court Street (NYTM). Doing this will increase capacity on the Fulton Street line by 50% and allow (C) trains to run Express to Lefferts Blvd or the Rockaway's.

That is exactly what’s I was thinking as well when doing my service changes related to building a new Nassau-8th Avenue Line connection along with the Whitehall connection to the Fulton IND. In my plans, I have the (R) having a train frequency of 15 trains per hour. That’s essentially one train every 4 minutes. With the line going to Astoria and on Fulton Local, this alone means more frequent service on Fulton Local. I also have the (C) operating express on the Fulton Street line to one of the (A) terminals (hopefully NOT Far Rockaway) at 6 trains per hour, supplementing the (A) train’s 15 trains per hour. Note that the 15 trains is split between the two remaining terminals. With the (R) going to Astoria, the (N) going to 96th Street at 10 trains per hour with the (A) and (C) having a combined throughout of 25 trains per hour, we should see not only more reliable service for (R) riders, but both Fulton Local and Express riders would see more frequent service. Big boon for all of Central Brooklyn.

Granted I’ll have to replace Queens Blvd service with other routes, but that’s another story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

That is exactly what’s I was thinking as well when doing my service changes related to building a new Nassau-8th Avenue Line connection along with the Whitehall connection to the Fulton IND. In my plans, I have the (R) having a train frequency of 15 trains per hour. That’s essentially one train every 4 minutes. With the line going to Astoria and on Fulton Local, this alone means more frequent service on Fulton Local. I also have the (C) operating express on the Fulton Street line to one of the (A) terminals (hopefully NOT Far Rockaway) at 6 trains per hour, supplementing the (A) train’s 15 trains per hour. Note that the 15 trains is split between the two remaining terminals. With the (R) going to Astoria, the (N) going to 96th Street at 10 trains per hour with the (A) and (C) having a combined throughout of 25 trains per hour, we should see not only more reliable service for (R) riders, but both Fulton Local and Express riders would see more frequent service. Big boon for all of Central Brooklyn.

Granted I’ll have to replace Queens Blvd service with other routes, but that’s another story.

Maybe make your planned (R) a (W) train running Euclid to Astoria and leave the (R) as it is now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see any Broadway service on Fulton Street performing anywhere near better than on Queens Boulevard (at least, not where it counts).

The best we can do for Fulton Street Local is to directly connect to 8th Avenue Local and tie the resulting service to Lefferts Boulevard (the (C) would displace those (A) trains currently serving it to Rockaway Park). The Astoria Line needs to be extended to LGA, and a maintenance facility needs to be established on that end. South of 95th Street, tail tracks or a storage yard would be constructed so it would be easier to make service for the day. In addition, there would be a small change in Sea Beach service (during the day, service would still favor the (N), but there would be no less than 5 (W) trips per hour in order to provide extra service and address night service). The main problem with that happens to be the (T) with Phase 3, but the implication seems to be that we'll cross that bridge once we get to it...

  • Upvote 1

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.