Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

I have a proposal,but it is for LIRR, hopefully still allowed to post this here

Line: Sands Point Branch

Stops:

Penn Station

Woodside

Jamaica

Hollis

Queens Village

Bellerose

Floral Park

Hillside Manor

Hamlet Estates

Plandome

Port Washington

Sands Point

Edited September 23, 2020 by Bklyn Bound 2 Local

[Armandito]

3 hours ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

I have a proposal,but it is for LIRR, hopefully still allowed to post this here

Line: Sands Point Branch

Stops:

Penn Station

Woodside

Jamaica

Hollis

Queens Village

Bellerose

Floral Park

Hillside Manor

Hamlet Estates

Plandome

Port Washington

Sands Point

You're just extending the PW Branch one stop north. And I'm not sure if there's enough demand north of the current terminus to warrant it.

Edited September 23, 2020 by Armandito

[Vulturious]

4 hours ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

There is controversy about naming the line P, as unfortunately, some New Yorkers are a little too immature for this to work. Yes, this is true.

And that hasn't stopped anyone being too immature for any other Lettered trains?

[Theli11]

23 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

And that hasn't stopped anyone being too immature for any other Lettered trains?

D isn't that... head on though.

[bobtehpanda]

A bunch of babies.

Here we've got the South Lake Union Trolley.

You can even buy a t-shirt.

[MottAvFarRockaway]

Proposals for reform on the Eighth Avenue Line

•  207th Street to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street (replaces the Rockaway ) [Express]
•  168th Street to Lefferts Boulevard [part-time Local] - allows more room for K and H services
•  Jamaica-179 Street to Church Avenue [Express] - will run as express instead of local to boost times
•  Euclid Avenue to Mott Avenue (Far Rockaway) [Local] - replaces parts of service
•  207 Street to Jamaica-179 Street [Local] - adds additional local service to the Queens  Boulevard Line

Rockaway  will be scrapped when this proposal happens

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by MottAvFarRockaway

[Armandito]

Just now, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Proposals for reform on the Eighth Avenue Line

•  207th Street to Rockaway Park-Beach 116th Street (replaces the Rockaway ) [Express]
•  168th Street to Lefferts Boulevard [part-time Local]
•  Jamaica-179 Street to Church Avenue [Express]
•  Euclid Avenue to Mott Avenue (Far Rockaway) [Local]
•  207 Street to Jamaica-179 Street [Local]

 

Useless. During my early times here, I learned the hard way that you can't make up a proposal out of thin air like that. You need to have a solid, justifiable rationale behind it, and have dialogue with others to see if it should be changed or scrapped altogether.

[Deucey]

8 hours ago, Vulturious said:

And that hasn't stopped anyone being too immature for any other Lettered trains?

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-will-erase-fml-from-station-signage

[MottAvFarRockaway]

Proposals

• Proposal A : Extend the W to 95 Street, and make the R terminate at Whitehall.
• Proposal B : Eliminate the D by extending the B's northern terminus to include 205th Street and making the B a full-time route.
• Proposal C : Eliminate the M and parts of the M will be served by E and F trains.
• Proposal D : Eliminate the J/Z skip-stop, and replace it with the J peak express.
• Proposal E : Include the K/T but run Chambers Street (K) or Metropolitan Avenue (T) to 95 Street and make it a full-time route, instead of a part-time route.
• Proposal F : Extend the G towards Flushing-Main Street and include an express counterpart, the H.
• Proposal G : Eliminate the Franklin Avenue Shuttle totally.

Edited September 24, 2020 by MottAvFarRockaway

[Theli11]

4 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

• Proposal A : Extend the W to 95 Street, and make the R terminate at Whitehall.
• Proposal B : Eliminate the D by extending the B's northern terminus to include 205th Street and making the B a full-time route.
• Proposal C : Eliminate the M and parts of the M will be served by E and F trains.
• Proposal D : Eliminate the J/Z skip-stop, and replace it with the J peak express.
• Proposal E : Include the K/T but run Chambers Street (K) or Metropolitan Avenue (T) to 95 Street and make it a full-time route, instead of a part-time route.
• Proposal F : Extend the G towards Flushing-Main Street and include an express counterpart, the H.
• Proposal G : Eliminate the Franklin Avenue Shuttle totally.

I personally disagree with anyone who eliminates the  or the train. Only two trains on 6 Av, and it's a  train that's local from 59 St to Norwood. I like Proposals A, D, and F. As long as the and goes down Northern Blvd (and a shuttle to LaGuardia airport.) 
Proposal E could be helpful, but you can just extend the <J> that train is gonna carry nothing but air [along with that <J> also, but if it's a part time route and only supplementary it won't ruin the route.

Proposal G doesn't make any clear replacements, but I'm assuming that H train is going to be replacing the Franklin Shuttle. As long as you make the single tracks, two tracks, and DON'T extend to Brighton. 

[MottAvFarRockaway]

I agree with A, D, E and F. Why you are disagreeing proposals B and C? The elimination of the D, M and Z services makes the system simpler and easier to use. The K imitates the brown <R> service, while the T is for trains running to Metropolitan Avenue via the Nassau-Fourth Avenue connection.

I propose a new West End Line service, the V, that should run exclusively only from 62nd Street to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue on the West End Line. When that happens, it would use a periwinkle bullet and the remaining section from 62nd Street to Ninth Avenue and the connection to BMT Fourth Avenue Line must be demolished.

Edited September 24, 2020 by MottAvFarRockaway

[MottAvFarRockaway]

I also agree with proposal G. The H train, which it should run from Flushing-Main Street to Franklin Avenue, could possibly replace the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. The H will run mostly express on the IND Crosstown Line, supplementing the G local service. This would require additional lines and connections that the proposed route needs to be constructed.

[Armandito]

51 minutes ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

I also agree with proposal G. The H train, which it should run from Flushing-Main Street to Franklin Avenue, could possibly replace the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. The H will run mostly express on the IND Crosstown Line, supplementing the G local service. This would require additional lines and connections that the proposed route needs to be constructed.

But the Crosstown Line doesn't have express tracks...

[Bklyn Bound 2 Local]

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

But the Crosstown Line doesn't have express tracks...

It might be able to work like the  north of Grand Central.

[Theli11]

44 minutes ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

I agree with A, D, E and F. Why you are disagreeing proposals B and C? The elimination of the D, M and Z services makes the system simpler and easier to use. The K imitates the brown <R> service, while the T is for trains running to Metropolitan Avenue via the Nassau-Fourth Avenue connection.

I propose a new West End Line service, the V, that should run exclusively only from 62nd Street to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue on the West End Line. When that happens, it would use a periwinkle bullet and the remaining section from 62nd Street to Ninth Avenue and the connection to BMT Fourth Avenue Line must be demolished.

the is essential to connect people from Middle Village to Midtown, people like it and I don't see a reason for it to be eliminated. the  train is important because it connects riders from West End to Midtown. I don't understand why there's a need for demolishing the connection at all. Unless you're moving the to Brighton, or making an adequate replacement (Like having the on West End) or both, there's no reason for the to removed from South Brooklyn (without reason).

 

57 minutes ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

I also agree with proposal G. The H train, which it should run from Flushing-Main Street to Franklin Avenue, could possibly replace the Franklin Avenue Shuttle. The H will run mostly express on the IND Crosstown Line, supplementing the G local service. This would require additional lines and connections that the proposed route needs to be constructed.

Are you replying to your own proposals?

[Armandito]

24 minutes ago, Bklyn Bound 2 Local said:

It might be able to work like the  north of Grand Central.

In that case you'll need to use the layups at Bedford-Nostrand to build them, and even then it'll lead to a bottleneck between locals and expresses at that station. Realistically speaking, I don't see sufficient demand along the Crosstown Line to warrant an express service. It would be more logical for trains via Franklin Avenue to run local and supplement the , given that it's not possible to increase service along this route alone. This is due to the sharing of track space with the more popular train south of Bergen Street, which means the gets more priority since it serves Manhattan.

I can see that his H proposal closely mirrors my X proposal with a couple of differences. Another thing to note, however, is that Prospect Park can only handle up to 6 TPH when used as a terminal from Franklin Avenue, given the design of the track layout at that station. Same with the at Whitehall which also has only one track for terminating trains.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Armandito

[Kamen Rider]

3 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

the remaining section from 62nd Street to Ninth Avenue and the connection to BMT Fourth Avenue Line must be demolished.

That is your problem. You are chucking an entire section of line AND an important yard AND one of two track connections to the mainline network in the dumpster.

and yet try to tell us you plan is “better”?

 

The West End Line is actually VERY IMPORTANT to the subway’s operation.

[Theli11]

2 hours ago, Armandito said:

I can see that his H proposal closely mirrors my X proposal with a couple of differences. Another thing to note, however, is that Prospect Park can only handle up to 6 TPH when used as a terminal from Franklin Avenue, given the design of the track layout at that station. Same with the at Whitehall which also has only one track for terminating trains.

If you use the crossover before the station (make one if there needs to be one that's closer), it'll work like 8th Av.

[Armandito]

6 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

If you use the crossover before the station (make one if there needs to be one that's closer), it'll work like 8th Av.

I suppose the crossover reconfiguration could be better presented graphically as opposed to words.

[Theli11]

2 minutes ago, Armandito said:

I suppose the crossover reconfiguration could be better presented graphically as opposed to words.

It would look something like this 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Street/Eighth_Avenue_station#BMT_Canarsie_Line_platform (See the map on the side) 

Where the switch will be a crossover at the station. it'll be like 14 St, but without the platform in the middle, it'll split. 

[Armandito]

18 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

It would look something like this 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Street/Eighth_Avenue_station#BMT_Canarsie_Line_platform (See the map on the side) 

Where the switch will be a crossover at the station. it'll be like 14 St, but without the platform in the middle, it'll split. 

I get your point there, but wouldn't that be inconvenient for passengers? There would be confusion as to which platform to board at if you'll have trains terminating at both of the outermost tracks.

[Vulturious]

9 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Proposals

• Proposal A : Extend the W to 95 Street, and make the R terminate at Whitehall.
• Proposal B : Eliminate the D by extending the B's northern terminus to include 205th Street and making the B a full-time route.
• Proposal C : Eliminate the M and parts of the M will be served by E and F trains.
• Proposal D : Eliminate the J/Z skip-stop, and replace it with the J peak express.
• Proposal E : Include the K/T but run Chambers Street (K) or Metropolitan Avenue (T) to 95 Street and make it a full-time route, instead of a part-time route.
• Proposal F : Extend the G towards Flushing-Main Street and include an express counterpart, the H.
• Proposal G : Eliminate the Franklin Avenue Shuttle totally.

5 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

I agree with A, D, E and F. Why you are disagreeing proposals B and C? The elimination of the D, M and Z services makes the system simpler and easier to use. The K imitates the brown <R> service, while the T is for trains running to Metropolitan Avenue via the Nassau-Fourth Avenue connection.

I propose a new West End Line service, the V, that should run exclusively only from 62nd Street to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue on the West End Line. When that happens, it would use a periwinkle bullet and the remaining section from 62nd Street to Ninth Avenue and the connection to BMT Fourth Avenue Line must be demolished.

1. I wouldn't mind this, but then you are going to have the  run as the old  that used to run to Astoria with no direct yard access.
2. No, no, and HELL NO. You are eliminating one of the most important service for no reason whatsoever. Eliminating  trains just for the sake of the  becoming fulltime is already a bad idea. The  in this case would have to run express in the Bronx, but now there isn't any local trains running in the Bronx now because the  is making those stops. Not to mention, WHY ARE YOU DECONSTUCTING THE WEST END LINE ONLY FOR IT TO RUN TO 62ND ST?! YOU ARE SCREWING PEOPLE THAT RIDE ON WEST END, the amount of reroutes I've seen running on West End. It is the most important line in South Brooklyn. Every line in South Brooklyn has been rerouted onto West End and I mean, EVERY LINE, that includes the , , , ,  and  trains. Hell even the  was rerouted via West End, which I have seen happen. You have no reason to demolish West End, at all. What kind of crack were you on to even think about this idea? Have you even taken West End at all?
3. Eliminating the  is also a bad idea, as much as I wouldn't mind it, you are also screwing people of service from Williamsburg to have direct access into Midtown.
4. This idea, I would literally not mind at all, they honestly should reconstruct Jamaica El because of the curves and stations.
5. The T is already going to be used which is the  for Second Av Line. This is basically the  running to 95th St instead of Bay Parkway.
6. This idea I wouldn't mind either because the  does deserve some love and like someone said earlier, unless it is running via Northern Blvd, by all means it's good. 
7. There is a reason the Franklin Avenue huttle is still around because people wanted it to stay around. The  has made so many mistakes by demolishing many lines such as the Myrtle Av El which could've also provided an alternative to 8th Av Local, and Culver Shuttle.

Edited September 24, 2020 by Vulturious

[Armandito]

7 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

There is a reason the Franklin Avenue huttle is still around because people wanted it to stay around. The  has made so many mistakes by demolishing many lines such as the Myrtle Av El which could've also provided an alternative to 8th Av Local, and Culver Shuttle

And my X proposal is aimed at making the Franklin corridor more useful in addition to providing a one-seat subway ride to LaGuardia Airport.

If NIMBYs in Astoria didn't want the extension because they rejected an el outside their homes, an underground line via 21st Street and the Grand Central Parkway would likely alleviate their complaints. I admit that it won't come cheap, given how ridiculously expensive it was to build Phase 1 of the SAS. If it were to be built after WWII, that's a different story.

[Theli11]

3 minutes ago, Vulturious said:

• This idea I wouldn't mind either because the  does deserve some love and like someone said earlier, unless it is running via Northern Blvd, by all means it's good. 

I said that it'll only work if the line is running on Northern, other than that I think it's a waste (plus there's no other main road that goes to Flushing minus Roosevelt.

35 minutes ago, Armandito said:

I get your point there, but wouldn't that be inconvenient for passengers? There would be confusion as to which platform to board at if you'll have trains terminating at both of the outermost tracks.

If it's only running 6 TBH, then there shouldn't be two trains in the station.  The departing train should leave as the arriving train arrives.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

14 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Proposals

I can agree with proposals A and D. Proposal E would be better as a K service running from Bay Ridge to Broadway Junction, which can also run peak direction local service between Broadway Junction and Marcy while the  runs express. Leave the  as is.

9 hours ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

I propose a new West End Line service, the V, that should run exclusively only from 62nd Street to Coney Island–Stillwell Avenue on the West End Line. When that happens, it would use a periwinkle bullet and the remaining section from 62nd Street to Ninth Avenue and the connection to BMT Fourth Avenue Line must be demolished.

What exactly would be the point of doing this?

4 hours ago, Vulturious said:

1. I wouldn't mind this, but then you are going to have the  run as the old  that used to run to Astoria with no direct yard access.  

 

5. The T is already going to be used which is the  for Second Av Line. This is basically the  running to 95th St instead of Bay Parkway.

In fairness, they could repurpose 38th St Yard in Sunset Park to stable  trains with the occasional trip to CI Yard for maintenance. It wouldn’t be all that different from the  whose trains are stabled at Fresh Pond Yard and deadhead via the  to ENY for maintenance. The old Astoria  didn’t have 38th St as a storage yard and its decrepit R27s and pre-GOH and no A/C R32s and R40s had no other option but to rack up even more miles deadheading over the  or  to get to CI. 

Personally, I don’t really see anything wrong with using T as the letter for the above-mentioned Bay Ridge-Nassau service since we currently don’t have a T train. We all know they’re using  for the main SAS service, because the  decided on that letter and published lots of glossy maps and diagrams showing it back in 2004. Not to mention all the -shirts and other merchandise you’ll find at the Transit gift shop, which put it in the public’s minds that we might be riding a  train sooner rather than later. Had the  not crowed so much over the four-phase SAS a decade and a half ago and been far more realistic about the construction timelines for each phase, this wouldn’t be an issue. Then again, they could just choose another letter later on. If I’m not mistaken, Y was the previous letter that was being reserved as the main SAS service.

Edited September 24, 2020 by T to Dyre Avenue