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.

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: (M) Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing (J) line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the (G) line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the (M) providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- (J) Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the (V) would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the (F) could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 11.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: (M) Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing (J) line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the (G) line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the (M) providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- (J) Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the (V) would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the (F) could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

Was there a horse?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: (M) Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing (J) line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the (G) line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the (M) providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- (J) Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the (V) would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the (F) could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

Running an M route to Prospect Park doesn't necessarily mean that we will be severing the connection from Broadway Brooklyn to Midtown.  Why can't the trains that emanate from Jamaica run to Broad St and the trains from Broadway Junction run up 6th Ave?  I can seriously envision that many riders of (J) or (M) would transfer to the new express at the first opportunity.  That would at least relieve Essex.  And perhaps, if only a small segment of the Broadway Brooklyn line (between Marcy and Broadway Junction) needs longer platforms, perhaps we can still increase train car capacity on QBL.  [I believe Marcy, Myrtle, and Broadway Junction stops themselves can accommodate 10 car trains, but the other stops cannot.  Since there are only 3 tracks here, an express will only stop at those stations in the peak direction but will stop at all stops in the reverse peak direction.]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this on the 2nd Avenue trend but just wanted to show this new proposal for 2nd Avenue line that expands capacity 

In Harlem a new 125th Street Crosstown Subway line would be build with transfer to the 1/2/3/4/5/6/A/C/B/D. The T train would be sent there this gives People on West Harlem easier access to the East Side of Manhattan taking pressure off the 7/L trains. 

As for the Bronx the most popular proposal is to rebuild the 3rd Avenue line so I split it up into multiple phases in order to better manage the costs phase 1 would be to build a new tunnel in the Harlem river and extending the Q train to 3rd Avenue 149th street. Phase 2 would be to extend the Q to Fordham Plaza. And phase 3 would be to extend the Q to Gun Hill Road. A optional phase 4 to Co Op City should be studied too.  This would balance out west and east side TPH. And maybe even reduce crowding on the 2 train since now people would have a another option of getting to the West side of Manhattan. The 3rd Avenue line would have three tracks to allow for a peak way express and creation of a new <Q>Express Train. The express stops would be Co Op city, Gun Hill Road, Fordham Plaza, Tremont Avenue, 3rd Avenue 149th street, and 3rd Avenue 138th street. 

 

Now usually it’s the T via Bronx and Q via Harlem y’all used to but the reasoning for it is that currently they is 50 trains during rush hours heading to east midtown the 4/5/6 trains vs 25/30 trains heading to west midtown the 2/D. The 1 is further west away from the rest of the Bronx line and only three stations so technically we could exclude it in this scenario. The B is a rush hour only extension and runs on the same route as the D so it doesn’t really count as it’s own Individual line. Add the Q train would balance the ridership access out. And Broadway is a much more attractive line to be extended to the Bronx since it stops at a bunch of major transfer points in midtown ETC (Times Square Herald Square Union Square).

And sending the T to 125th street crosstown would give the people on Harlem easier access to the east side of Manhattan reducing crowding on the 7/L trains.

And people are saying that the Q train might be too long while I agree with this at first. Realistic that argument is moot cause I believe we overestimated the length cause let’s be honest the Q train won’t be anywhere near as long as the A or F trains. It would be around the same length as the B train. In fact my proposed K train route would be longer than the Q train

My estimate on the Q train length.

Longer than the N train, Shorter than the D train.

On queens a new 4 track Northern Blvd subway line would be build two new new 2nd Avenue lines will be created these are both currently defunct services the K and V trains. 
 

The K train would start off at Springfield blvd then it will meet up with the V train at Utopia Parkway  the V train would run local while the K train would run express. The local only stations are 

164th Street

Kissena Blvd 

Main Street Elder Avenue 

College Point Blvd

108th Street

100th Street

85th Street

78th Street

Local and Express stops 

Utopia Parkway

Willets Points Blvd (transfers to flushing line)

Junction Blvd

Broadway Northern Blvd (transfers to queens blvd line)

Both trains are based out of Sunnyside Yard 

The K train would branch off Broadway stoping at 
 

31st Street (transfer to Astoria line)

21st Street 

Then a lower level at 72nd Street 2nd Avenue would be made then the K train rises up at 42nd street as the express service. 
 

The V train 

would branch using the existing 63rd street tunnel than connects to 55th Street running local with the T train.

The reasoning why I propose Northern Blvd/2nd Ave express trains using the 63rd St tunnel. Is that It would allow would allow riders coming from 6th Ave, Queens blvd, Hillside the chance to easily transfer to the 2nd Ave Subway.

2nd Avenue would be expanded to 4 tracks the K train would extend to a new Williamburg Utica Avenue  line first it would stop at Clinton Street and Bedford Avenue 

The proposed Utica Avenue line would include 8th Avenue and 2nd Avenue services

The E train would also be extended to Williamsburg using the Worth Street provisions with the stations at Worth Street Chambers Street, Chatham Square, East Broadway and finally Montgomery Street. The Benefits are that it opens up new transfer options for riders in lower Manhattan. World Trade Center terminal will continue to get service but during rush hours only. The World Trade Center would be used to terminate extra C/E train during rush hours if their isn’t capacity on the Brooklyn routes when CBTC is Installed on the 8th Avenue, Fulton street, and the proposed Williamsburg lines. So a total of 8-10 rush hour trains would terminate there 4-5 rush hour C/E trains each would be sent there. But that might limit capacity on the Fulton street and the proposed Williamsburg lines. At all other times WTC is closed so you have to take the E to canal street for an A or C train I mean the Chambers street and World Trade Center are literally the same station complex so shutting it down shouldn’t be too much of a problem, however it does have a ridership count so some people might not like the sound of being forced to transfer at Canal Street for a A/C train. The World Trade Center would still be used for emergencies or G.O work.


 

The E train will also make one stop at Bedford Avenue before meeting up with the K train at Havemeyer street 

 

This route would run south 3rd street and Utica Avenue it would be a 4 track line the E train is the local and the K train is the express. 

 

Local exclusive stops 

Flushing Avenue

Lafayette Avenue 

Halsey Street 

Prospect Place

Empire Blvd

Church Avenue 

Avenue D

Flatlands Avenue 

Avenue N

 

All local and express stops

Havemeyer Street 

Broadway South 4th street

Myrtle Avenue 

Utica Avenue Fulton Street

Crown Heights Utica Avenue 

Kings Highway 

Kings Plaza Utica Avenue 

 

This proposed south 3rd street and Utica Avenue line would help balance the load of new commuters from Williamsburg, Bushwick and Bed-Stuy which currently use the L or M to get to Midtown or take the J to get to Lower Manhattan. The J train and the BMT Centre St Subway in general suffer from being built when everyone from northern Brooklyn were headed to lower Manhattan and the Financial District. Today commuting patterns have changed that now both lower Manhattan and midtown are popular designations but the high cost of new infrastructure has hampered the ability to make needed service changes. The new Williamburg line that would be served by the E and K trains would give communters more alternatives for folks in Williamburg other than having to use the congested J/Z M and L trains. And it’s would be very attractive as it offers both west side and east side access to Manhattan. 
 

Phase 4 would be build too
Hanover Square would be expanded to 4 tracks the inner tracks used for terminating trains the outer tracks used for Brooklyn service. Both the T and V trains would be extend to Fulton street local using the Court Street transit museum link. T/V meets up with the A/C at Hoyt Street the C train would be moved to the Express tracks with the A train on Broadway junction the T train would branch off to recapture the Atlantic Avenue branch and run up to Jamaica Center. The V train would continue to Euclid Avenue. The C train would be extended to Lefferts Blvd. All A trains can than be diverted to Far Rockway and Rockway Park. During Evenings/Weekends the V train would only run up to Hanover Square the C train runs local only up to Euclid Avenue. The A train also goes to Lefferts Blvd during these hours. Rockway shuttle also operates weekends and late nights. During late nights V train won’t operate at all the K train operates local in its place. Lefferts shuttle still operates during late nights.

I gotta admit this will cost FAR MORE than the current proposed second ave subway but what I trying to say is that the current plan only helps people in the east side of Manhattan travel a bit better. It does practically NOTHING for riders from The Bronx Queens or Brooklyn. I mean the biggest flaw is that there no express tracks HECK they isn’t even a third track that could be used for emergencies. Meaning that if something goes wrong at one station THE ENTIRE LINE is screwed up. I mean at least make room for the express for when ridership increases they can be build easily. The current transfers to 2nd Av require riders to use multiple stairs long corridors and transfer to multiple train routes all because planners are either too scared or don’t want to even bother design their projects to full potential. If the 2nd Ave Subway is not designed properly then it will be one of if not the most expensive mistake the MTA makes. The NYC Subway has a long history of poor planning mistakes which have limited service ever since; 2nd ave subway is the PERFECT  opportunity to redeem ourselves. 

 I’m concerned about the cost of course. But government please fund the mta. The government really needs to invest more money to the MTA.

The 2nd Ave subway is a subway line needed to not just relieve congestion along the east side of Manhattan Lexington Ave subway but also many other subways that service the entire city. My main concern about the 2nd ave proposal is that MTA will try and build the cheapest subway it can which the MTA will regret DEARLY when the population grows. The ideal for some 2nd Ave subway proposal is that it adds capacity ( 2nd ave line should be incorporated into existing lines so that existing trains could be used for improved service elsewhere)

The community and the MTA should also work together to find a solution that works out best. Costs must be brought under control cost should not be an excuse to build a less effective subway line. Transit should be built where it’s most effective not where it’s cheapest to build. 

I’ll make a map on this plan later please give feedback 

 

 

PS routings 

T train Broadway 125th street - Jamaica Center (2nd Avenue Local Fulton street Local Atlantic Avenue Local)

K train Springfield Blvd - Kings Plaza Utica Avenue ( Northern Blvd Express 2nd Avenue Express Williamsburg Utica Avenue Express)

V train Utopia Parkway - Euclid Avenue (Northern Blvd Local 2nd Avenue Local Fulton Street local)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/25/2020 at 11:57 PM, EvilMonologue said:

The Nassau line definitely needs to be looked at in a critical way, especially given the popularity of the (M) (look at that it only took me 20 posts to figure that out haha). Sending the Brown (M) to Bay Ridge isn't really that much more valuable just because people still ultimately want to go to Midtown, and this is just an inherent flaw with the Nassau line. 

In the medium term (hopefully) maybe you could do it this way. The (B) and (D) take over the (J) and (M) in Brooklyn and Queens once the southern section of the 2 av (with provisions for 4 tracks) replaces (B) and (D) service on the Manhattan Bridge (under a de-interlining scheme). Stop consolidation should occur along today's (J) line, also making sure to combine Hewes and Lorimer stations for a better transfer with the (G). A 3rd track connecting to Cypress Hills station and platform extensions should be done as well. The Manhattan portion of the (J) is now a downtown shuttle.

In the long term (again hopefully but realistically never), this is what I'd like to see. Start the Utica av line as a (4) extension, but with the intention of shaving back platforms for eventual B Division conversion. The line would go first from Av U to the (4). And then once it was converted, extended to the (A) and (C), then to the (at this point) (B) and (D), and as far as the (L) and the (G) eventually. The goal would be to have a line with an obvious connection to the (B) and (D) and 2 av, you'd just need to build the tunnel. When the other 2 tracks for 2 av are built, they would take over the (J) south of the Bowery station. To have the (B) and (D) connect to the Utica av line, introduce a new 5 av line which would go over the Williamsburg Bridge and would go to Middle Village and Jamaica on today's (J) and (M) lines. 

Breaking up the Nassau line, in the long term, is probably the best way to increase ridership along the corridor to provide Midtown access. In the medium term this can be done by replacing (J) and (M) service with (B) and (D) but in the long term, we'd hope to see the number of services in the outer boroughs increase with the number of services in Manhattan. Sending the (B) and (D) down Utica av and the (J) and (M) up 5 av might be the long term solution to that.

Why do you hate the J train. What do you have against the B/D to Coney Island. Clearly you never ridden these routes. Removing B/D from Coney Island pisses off 6th Avenue communters and overwhelms the Broadway. Removing the J train pisses off people going to Williamsburg. Ride the subway before posting stuff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/26/2020 at 7:56 AM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

I have a similar plan with Fulton service replacing the Jamaica Line past Bway Junction, then branches to Utica Ave and a Metropolitan Ave extension to the LIE which would be the (D)<D> on utica and (B)(brownM) on LIE

Just build PHASE 4 will provisions for Fulton street connections. LEAVE THE J TRAIN ALONE ON WILLIAMBURG. And let the B/D ALONE on the Manhattan Bridge. Build 2nd Avenue to Williamburg on a different route. It less likely to piss off communters

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2019 at 9:34 AM, KK 6 Ave Local said:

Here is an updated plan of mine showing what an SAS with 4 tracks should look like. 

(T) - Second Ave Local, Express between 125-72nd. Fordham Road/3rd Ave to Bay Ridge via 3rd Avenue in the Bronx, SAS, Water Street or Nassau, Montague, 4th Avenue

(U) - Second Ave Express, Bartow Ave/Bronx to Coney Island via 3rd Avenue, SAS, north side Manhattan Bridge tracks, Brighton Express

(V) Second Ave Local, 179th Street/Queens to Brighton Beach via Hillside Ave, Queens Blvd, Queens Bypass, SAS, north side Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local

 

Notes and other plans:

(G)(L) will run to a 3 track Northern Blvd line

(U) (V) displace (B)(D) to Metropolitan Ave and Bway Junction respectively, and (Q) to West End.

(T) displaces (R)(W) to Fulton, (R) will run to Hollis and (W) to Euclid

(J) runs as a rush hour service between Essex and Jamaica

(E)(K)(F)(M) plan for QBL, (K) will run to RBB, splitting off at 63rd Drive.

(A) and (C) will run the same routes so they might have to be integrated to an (A) service, another option is that Lefferts runs can be (C) while Far Rock runs can be (A)

Thoughts?

I hate it. I hate that you clearly never ridden the B/D trains in southern Brooklyn. You will piss off the thousands of communters heading to 6th Avenue. I hated that people have no respect for the riders that live off of the J train. Stop trying to screw over communters. U train sounds like you so no. Just switch at Atlantic Avenue for Lexington Avenue if you heading to the east side. Send the 2nd Avenue to Fulton street. Leave the R train on Bay Ridge.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Why do you hate the J train. What do you have against the B/D to Coney Island. Clearly you never ridden these routes. Removing B/D from Coney Island pisses off 6th Avenue communters and overwhelms the Broadway. Removing the J train pisses off people going to Williamsburg. Ride the subway before posting stuff

 

19 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Just build PHASE 4 will provisions for Fulton street connections. LEAVE THE J TRAIN ALONE ON WILLIAMBURG. And let the B/D ALONE on the Manhattan Bridge. Build 2nd Avenue to Williamburg on a different route. It less likely to piss off communters

The Jamaica Line in its current form looks to be a relic from a bygone era. The line is also a slow alternative to Lower Manhattan due to it's indirect routing, and is not any more quicker than using the (E) train or transferring at Broadway Junction to the (A) and (C). Population and travel pattern changes have also occurred since there is more demand for Midtown Manhattan due to the popularity of the (M) and there are few alternatives to the (L).

By altering the Jamaica Line, you would have more direct service to Lower Manhattan and provide enhanced service to Midtown at the fraction of the cost of a new subway. Admittedly, I have come up with something similar two years ago, and since then I refined it to make things more efficient, as seen in this link below:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1QfJN268FDI5whFQqlImHKARjpU_UUh9U

Note that I did not take into account Phase 3 and 4 of the Second Avenue Subway since this plan is solely focused on increasing Jamaica capacity to Midtown Manhattan, providing more direct Lower Manhattan service, etc, all without having to wait for Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway. That is why you see the (B) and (D) still using the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn, though the long term plan I am drafting up they will not be staying there.

It is also of note that these plans are a variation of what Vanshnookenraggen has proposed before in this link, which also proposed modifications to Jamaica Avenue and Second Avenue Service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/21/2021 at 6:06 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

 

The Jamaica Line in its current form looks to be a relic from a bygone era. The line is also a slow alternative to Lower Manhattan due to it's indirect routing, and is not any more quicker than using the (E) train or transferring at Broadway Junction to the (A) and (C). Population and travel pattern changes have also occurred since there is more demand for Midtown Manhattan due to the popularity of the (M) and there are few alternatives to the (L).

By altering the Jamaica Line, you would have more direct service to Lower Manhattan and provide enhanced service to Midtown at the fraction of the cost of a new subway. Admittedly, I have come up with something similar two years ago, and since then I refined it to make things more efficient, as seen in this link below:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=1QfJN268FDI5whFQqlImHKARjpU_UUh9U

Note that I did not take into account Phase 3 and 4 of the Second Avenue Subway since this plan is solely focused on increasing Jamaica capacity to Midtown Manhattan, providing more direct Lower Manhattan service, etc, all without having to wait for Phase 3 of the Second Avenue Subway. That is why you see the (B) and (D) still using the Manhattan Bridge into Brooklyn, though the long term plan I am drafting up they will not be staying there.

It is also of note that these plans are a variation of what Vanshnookenraggen has proposed before in this link, which also proposed modifications to Jamaica Avenue and Second Avenue Service.

The J train is not useless in fact it has a HIGH RIDERSHIP. Gentrification has caused a SURGING GROWTH of (J)(Z)  ridership between Chauncey Street and Marcy Avenue. Midtown is popular but their is no need to cut off direct service to lower Manhattan. The BMT Eastern Division could be expanded to 10 cars. You argue that more riders transfer to Broadway junction cause “Fulton street” quicker than Jamaica when in reality not everyone does that most people actually remain on the (J) the (J)(Z) ends up being quicker than the (A)(C)(E) if your trying to get to lower Manhattan. The (J) route is shorter than the  (A)(C)  (E)     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The J train is not useless in fact it has a HIGH RIDERSHIP. Gentrification has caused a SURGING GROWTH of (J)(Z)  ridership between Chauncey Street and Marcy Avenue. Midtown is popular but their is no need to cut off direct service to lower Manhattan. The BMT Eastern Division could be expanded to 10 cars. You argue that more riders transfer to Broadway junction cause “Fulton street” quicker than Jamaica when in reality not everyone does that most people actually remain on the (J) the (J)(Z) ends up being quicker than the (A)(C)(E) if your trying to get to lower Manhattan. The (J) route is shorter than the  (A)(C)  (E)     

There will be access to Lower Manhattan via a same platform transfer at Essex Street under my plan, which would be rebuilt to provide a cross-platform interchange with (J) trains terminating there. In the meanwhile, all the Jamaica service would be rerouted to Midtown in the form of the rerouted (E) train to address ridership concerns and the gentrification on the section that you cite. During overnights, the (J) would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace (K) train service over there.

A majority of people on the (J) transfer at Broadway Junction for the   (A) and (C) since the (A) and (C) will remain the fastest alternative to the (J) for access to Lower Manhattan. In fact, if you look at my plan, I have the (R) train via Broadway serving the Fulton Street Local and Jamaica Line east of Broadway Junction (the stations would be expanded to 10 cars), with the (W) going to Euclid Avenue, also via Fulton Local. As a result, riders would be able to save 15-20 minutes compared to current options today, creating net benefit for all riders on the segment. (R) train service is temporary, and in the future, with the Second Avenue Subway expanded, we could have Second Avenue Subway trains coming over here instead, with Broadway Line trains rerouted back to 4th Avenue. Either way, we could see much faster service compared to today.

My original plan for the Nassau-8th connection had the (E) unaffected but the (J) interlining with the (K) to the new terminal at Broadway Junction, but it was changed to address concerns with interlining over the Williamsburg Bridge.

Again, you have to take a look at the Vanshnookenraggen plan for the Second Avenue Subway and related changes to the Williamsburg Bridge. My plan is a variation of that, and he clearly cites benefits for his version. 

Edited by JeremiahC99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that the key aspect of JeremiahC99's plan is a subway line along Broome Street that will connect the 8th Ave local to the Delancey Street subway on its way to the Williamsburg Bridge.  A key connection like this could really simplify alot and make deinterlining easier:

AC:  CPW express - 8th express - Cranberry tunnel

EK:  QBL line to 53rd street tunnel - 8th local - Williamsburg Bridge

BD  CPW local - 6th express - Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express

FV QBL line to 63rd street tunnel - 6th local - Rutgers tunnel to Culver line

N  2/96th - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton line

RW Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Tunnel

I do have issues with parts of this plan, like the lack of deinterlining along QBL, but I think a small connecting line from 8th local to Williamsburg Bridge is a key element that would allow more trains to flow in our system.  We (mostly) get rid of the WTC dead end which will allow full flow on the trunk lines along 8th, 6th, and Broadway.  What it basically does is connect 6 portals to the north (CPW express, CPW local, 2nd Ave, 53rd, 60th, and 63rd) uniquely to the 6 trunk lines (8th exp, 6th exp, Bwy exp, 8th local, Bwy local, 6th local) to 6 portals to the south (Cranberry, M Br N, M Br S, W Bridge, Tunnel, and Rutgers).  This is the goal of deinterlining: a one to one allocation form the portals to the trunk lines without any intermingling in the central parts of town.

My issues:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

Do we need Nassau trains on the Montague tunnel? No.  To me it seems that if we still want to maintain Downtown connection from the Will Bridge, then we can have 1/3 of the Will Bridge trains head down Nassau to Broad St and 2/3 of Will Bridge trains head to the 8th Ave local.  Likewise, if only 2/3 of the capacity of the 8th Ave local is going to the Will Bridge, it will leave the possibility of 1/3 of the 8th locals that can reach Lower Manhattan and terminate at WTC.  [If designations are easier, then E will run from 8th Ave local to WTC, K will run 8th Ave local to Broadway Junction, M will run 8th Ave local to Metropolitan, and J will run Broad St to Jamaica (with express sections in peak direction west of Broadway Junction) so EKM on 8th local and JKM on the Will Bridge].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mrsman said:

It seems that the key aspect of JeremiahC99's plan is a subway line along Broome Street that will connect the 8th Ave local to the Delancey Street subway on its way to the Williamsburg Bridge.  A key connection like this could really simplify alot and make deinterlining easier:

AC:  CPW express - 8th express - Cranberry tunnel

EK:  QBL line to 53rd street tunnel - 8th local - Williamsburg Bridge

BD  CPW local - 6th express - Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express

FV QBL line to 63rd street tunnel - 6th local - Rutgers tunnel to Culver line

N  2/96th - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton line

RW Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Tunnel

I do have issues with parts of this plan, like the lack of deinterlining along QBL, but I think a small connecting line from 8th local to Williamsburg Bridge is a key element that would allow more trains to flow in our system.  We (mostly) get rid of the WTC dead end which will allow full flow on the trunk lines along 8th, 6th, and Broadway.  What it basically does is connect 6 portals to the north (CPW express, CPW local, 2nd Ave, 53rd, 60th, and 63rd) uniquely to the 6 trunk lines (8th exp, 6th exp, Bwy exp, 8th local, Bwy local, 6th local) to 6 portals to the south (Cranberry, M Br N, M Br S, W Bridge, Tunnel, and Rutgers).  This is the goal of deinterlining: a one to one allocation form the portals to the trunk lines without any intermingling in the central parts of town.

My issues:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

Do we need Nassau trains on the Montague tunnel? No.  To me it seems that if we still want to maintain Downtown connection from the Will Bridge, then we can have 1/3 of the Will Bridge trains head down Nassau to Broad St and 2/3 of Will Bridge trains head to the 8th Ave local.  Likewise, if only 2/3 of the capacity of the 8th Ave local is going to the Will Bridge, it will leave the possibility of 1/3 of the 8th locals that can reach Lower Manhattan and terminate at WTC.  [If designations are easier, then E will run from 8th Ave local to WTC, K will run 8th Ave local to Broadway Junction, M will run 8th Ave local to Metropolitan, and J will run Broad St to Jamaica (with express sections in peak direction west of Broadway Junction) so EKM on 8th local and JKM on the Will Bridge].

There also the issue that they is no more service to Nassau Street so this plan must be modified 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mrsman said:

It seems that the key aspect of JeremiahC99's plan is a subway line along Broome Street that will connect the 8th Ave local to the Delancey Street subway on its way to the Williamsburg Bridge.  A key connection like this could really simplify alot and make deinterlining easier:

AC:  CPW express - 8th express - Cranberry tunnel

EK:  QBL line to 53rd street tunnel - 8th local - Williamsburg Bridge

BD  CPW local - 6th express - Man Bridge N - 4th Ave express

FV QBL line to 63rd street tunnel - 6th local - Rutgers tunnel to Culver line

N  2/96th - Broadway express - Man Bridge S - Brighton line

RW Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local - Tunnel

I do have issues with parts of this plan, like the lack of deinterlining along QBL, but I think a small connecting line from 8th local to Williamsburg Bridge is a key element that would allow more trains to flow in our system.  We (mostly) get rid of the WTC dead end which will allow full flow on the trunk lines along 8th, 6th, and Broadway.  What it basically does is connect 6 portals to the north (CPW express, CPW local, 2nd Ave, 53rd, 60th, and 63rd) uniquely to the 6 trunk lines (8th exp, 6th exp, Bwy exp, 8th local, Bwy local, 6th local) to 6 portals to the south (Cranberry, M Br N, M Br S, W Bridge, Tunnel, and Rutgers).  This is the goal of deinterlining: a one to one allocation form the portals to the trunk lines without any intermingling in the central parts of town.

My issues:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

Do we need Nassau trains on the Montague tunnel? No.  To me it seems that if we still want to maintain Downtown connection from the Will Bridge, then we can have 1/3 of the Will Bridge trains head down Nassau to Broad St and 2/3 of Will Bridge trains head to the 8th Ave local.  Likewise, if only 2/3 of the capacity of the 8th Ave local is going to the Will Bridge, it will leave the possibility of 1/3 of the 8th locals that can reach Lower Manhattan and terminate at WTC.  [If designations are easier, then E will run from 8th Ave local to WTC, K will run 8th Ave local to Broadway Junction, M will run 8th Ave local to Metropolitan, and J will run Broad St to Jamaica (with express sections in peak direction west of Broadway Junction) so EKM on 8th local and JKM on the Will Bridge].

The only solution to this is to build a new South 4th street subway line with connections to Nassau Street 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

QBL should be deinterlined - let the expresses flow to 6th Ave and the locals flow to 8th Ave.  This is my preference so that QBL local passengers in Western Queens will still have access to the LIC area with stops at Queens Plaza and 23rd.

Admittedly, I felt that the plan to interline at 36th Street would've provided good service since it has allowed for both local and express train access to Queens Plaza. However, given the flaws you pointed out, I am open to modifying it with 8th Avenue to local and 6th Avenue to express or the other way.

Long term, should the Second Avenue Subway plans change to something for both local and express service, an Idea that I came up with involved connecting the QBL local tracks with the Second Avenue Subway, allowing the SAS to take over all service on the local tracks (via a new tunnel). This project would combine with a new Queens bypass along the LIRR Main Line, which would allow for all 63rd Street-6th Avenue trains to use this line to make room for the new SAS-Queens Blvd trains. This move would truly allow for deinterlining without severing local/express access to/from Queens Plaza and increase new service options between Queens and the East Side.

6 hours ago, mrsman said:

I don't see the need for two lower Manhattan tunnels.  I prefer the Vanshnookenraggen plan for southern Brooklyn.  This means that 6th Ave trains to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach with the Broadway locals to West End line (all acccomplished with one additional switch on 4th Ave).  The Broadway locals can still run through Montague.  Let half of those locals go to 4th Ave local to West End and the other half can be connected to the Fulton local to Euclid.

I don't think making the outer portions of the Jamaica line part of the Broadway local is justified.  These stations can still be connected to the Will Bridge.

I did draft up the Fulton Street Line connection as a new tunnel to clear congestion in the current tunnels and allow for a service increase on the whole Fulton Street Line overall, which could also benefit Queens residents. My experience with the (A) and (C) have involved trains on both lines crowded between Broadway Junction and Hoyt-Schermerhorn (where the population has grown), with train frequencies limited to the fact that the routes merge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (the (C) running shorter trains can also plat a part too). While a two-track connection in Brooklyn would be cheaper to construct due to tunneling required, and could accomplish the same purpose, the location at the Brooklyn end of the Montague Street Tunnel, along with splitting the combined (R) and (W) frequencies would inhibit the ability to have both the Fulton Street Line Local tracks and the Fourth Avenue Local tracks operate at full capacity. My intention with the new tunnel is to deinterline operate a full 20-30 train per hour frequency on both lines, reducing wait times and easing train congestion overall, with the (J), now operating at 24 trains per hour (12 trains north of Chambers Street), using the 4th Avenue Line in place of the (R) and (W). With the (C) now running express with the (A) and going to Lefferts Blvd, Southwest Queens riders would see more frequent service overall, and would also see a quicker ride to Lower Manhattan.

I also have a Jamaica Avenue connection to further allow for a quicker ride between Southwest Queens and Lower Manhattan, as the Fulton Street (A)(C) Lines are more direct and features a cross-platform to all-day bi-direction express service, something that the current Jamaica Line services do not have (the (J) route has only unidirectional express service, and it's only during weekdays). This could persuade Lower Manhattan-bound riders to use the Jamaica Line rather than crowd the (E) route.

I should've also noted that (R) and (W) service on the Fulton Street Line is temporary, and it is not the final service plan. Long term, with the expanded SAS, the new SAS lines would be routed to the Fulton Street Line, and (R) and (W) trains would be rerouted back to 4th Avenue, with the (J) trains again terminating at Broad Street, unless there could be something worked out. Regardless, both the temporary Broadway Line routes and the new SAS services would result in permanent impacts in subway service for the better. I'm still drafting up the new long term plan

5 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

There also the issue that they is no more service to Nassau Street so this plan must be modified 

In my plan, service to Nassau Street would still be available at Essex Street, which would be rebuilt to provide a cross-platform transfer between (J) trains now terminating there on the middle track and the (E) and (K) which will use the Williamsburg Bridge via the outer two tracks. As of now, only 12 trains per hour would terminate there, but I'm also looking into etching in a 4th track to convert the station into a 4-track 2-island platform station to allow for more (J) trains to terminate there (there would also be the need to have additional relay tracks built to allow for reverse moves beyond the station). In addition, during late nights, the (J) would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue replace the current Myrtle Avenue shuttle service.

5 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

The only solution to this is to build a new South 4th street subway line with connections to Nassau Street 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue 

This is a long term service plan, and even then only two trunk lines would be needed, which would be Nassau Street and 6th Avenue Line. I will look into incorporating the 8th Avenue Line's new connection into a portion of these plans.

Edited by JeremiahC99
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Admittedly, I felt that the plan to interline at 36th Street would've provided good service since it has allowed for both local and express train access to Queens Plaza. However, given the flaws you pointed out, I am open to modifying it with 8th Avenue to local and 6th Avenue to express or the other way.

Long term, should the Second Avenue Subway plans change to something for both local and express service, an Idea that I came up with involved connecting the QBL local tracks with the Second Avenue Subway, allowing the SAS to take over all service on the local tracks (via a new tunnel). This project would combine with a new Queens bypass along the LIRR Main Line, which would allow for all 63rd Street-6th Avenue trains to use this line to make room for the new SAS-Queens Blvd trains. This move would truly allow for deinterlining without severing local/express access to/from Queens Plaza and increase new service options between Queens and the East Side.

I did draft up the Fulton Street Line connection as a new tunnel to clear congestion in the current tunnels and allow for a service increase on the whole Fulton Street Line overall, which could also benefit Queens residents. My experience with the (A) and (C) have involved trains on both lines crowded between Broadway Junction and Hoyt-Schermerhorn (where the population has grown), with train frequencies limited to the fact that the routes merge at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (the (C) running shorter trains can also plat a part too). While a two-track connection in Brooklyn would be cheaper to construct due to tunneling required, and could accomplish the same purpose, the location at the Brooklyn end of the Montague Street Tunnel, along with splitting the combined (R) and (W) frequencies would inhibit the ability to have both the Fulton Street Line Local tracks and the Fourth Avenue Local tracks operate at full capacity. My intention with the new tunnel is to deinterline operate a full 20-30 train per hour frequency on both lines, reducing wait times and easing train congestion overall, with the (J), now operating at 24 trains per hour (12 trains north of Chambers Street), using the 4th Avenue Line in place of the (R) and (W). With the (C) now running express with the (A) and going to Lefferts Blvd, Southwest Queens riders would see more frequent service overall, and would also see a quicker ride to Lower Manhattan.

I also have a Jamaica Avenue connection to further allow for a quicker ride between Southwest Queens and Lower Manhattan, as the Fulton Street (A)(C) Lines are more direct and features a cross-platform to all-day bi-direction express service, something that the current Jamaica Line services do not have (the (J) route has only unidirectional express service, and it's only during weekdays). This could persuade Lower Manhattan-bound riders to use the Jamaica Line rather than crowd the (E) route.

I should've also noted that (R) and (W) service on the Fulton Street Line is temporary, and it is not the final service plan. Long term, with the expanded SAS, the new SAS lines would be routed to the Fulton Street Line, and (R) and (W) trains would be rerouted back to 4th Avenue, with the (J) trains again terminating at Broad Street, unless there could be something worked out. Regardless, both the temporary Broadway Line routes and the new SAS services would result in permanent impacts in subway service for the better. I'm still drafting up the new long term plan

In my plan, service to Nassau Street would still be available at Essex Street, which would be rebuilt to provide a cross-platform transfer between (J) trains now terminating there on the middle track and the (E) and (K) which will use the Williamsburg Bridge via the outer two tracks. As of now, only 12 trains per hour would terminate there, but I'm also looking into etching in a 4th track to convert the station into a 4-track 2-island platform station to allow for more (J) trains to terminate there (there would also be the need to have additional relay tracks built to allow for reverse moves beyond the station). In addition, during late nights, the (J) would be extended to Metropolitan Avenue replace the current Myrtle Avenue shuttle service.

This is a long term service plan, and even then only two trunk lines would be needed, which would be Nassau Street and 6th Avenue Line. I will look into incorporating the 8th Avenue Line's new connection into a portion of these plans.

Old post but I recommend using this Vanshnookenraggen post as a guide https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/05/the-futurenycsubway-bushwick-trunk-line/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Old post but I recommend using this Vanshnookenraggen post as a guide https://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/2010/05/the-futurenycsubway-bushwick-trunk-line/

I've read that plan, and form my POV, it is too extravagant. My plan is more simpler in nature, which is just four tracks on both Broadway and Myrtle Avenue, providiong for full local and express service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may sound controversial, but here's my thoughts on a new subway line. There should be an 86th St crosstown line with a connection to the IND Queens Blvd line at 46 St. This new (U) train service would run from it's northern terminus at Central Park West to it's southern terminus at Beach-149 St in the Rockaways. It would also merge with the (A) and (G) trains along it's route. In addition, the (U) train would replace the (R) train on Queens Blvd due to excess capacity. Once the (R) train is taken off Queens Blvd, this is where the real fun begins. A new northeast Queens line would be built at the site of the 11th St cut which would need to be modified to curve north. Such a line would run under the streets of 21st St, Astoria Blvd, 112 St, and the Horace Harding Expressway. If all of this is actually built, we would see major development.

Edited by ActiveCity
Grammar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, ActiveCity said:

This may sound ambitious, but here's my thoughts on constructing two new subway lines. There should be a 79th St crosstown line with a connection to the IND Queens Blvd line at 46 St. This new (U) train service would run from it's northern terminus at Amsterdam Av - 72nd St to it's southern terminus at Rockaway Park - Beach 116th St. In addition, the (U) train would replace the (R) train on Queens Blvd due to excess capacity. Once the (R) train is taken off Queens Blvd, this is where the real development begins. A new northeast Queens line would be built at the site of the 11th St cut which would need to be modified to curve in a northward direction. Such a line would run under 21st St, Ditmars Blvd, Astoria Blvd, 112th St, and the Horace Harding Expressway. This new 2 track subway line would be served by the (W) train at all times with the (R) train taking over the existing BMT Astoria line to LaGuardia Airport.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/26/2021 at 2:35 PM, ActiveCity said:

This may sound controversial, but here's my thoughts on a new subway line. There should be an 86th St crosstown line with a connection to the IND Queens Blvd line at 46 St. This new (U) train service would run from it's northern terminus at Central Park West to it's southern terminus at Beach-149 St in the Rockaways. It would also merge with the (A) and (G) trains along it's route. In addition, the (U) train would replace the (R) train on Queens Blvd due to excess capacity. Once the (R) train is taken off Queens Blvd, this is where the real fun begins. A new northeast Queens line would be built at the site of the 11th St cut which would need to be modified to curve north. Such a line would run under the streets of 21st St, Astoria Blvd, 112 St, and the Horace Harding Expressway. If all of this is actually built, we would see major development.

Why would you name that service (U)? Its sounds like the word you so try another letter please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Why would you name that service (U)? Its sounds like the word you so try another letter please.

At some point, you'll run out of letters...

...or are you advocating for a purely numeric system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/20/2021 at 6:25 AM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: (M) Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing (J) line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the (G) line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the (M) providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- (J) Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the (V) would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the (F) could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

The (M) is not very busy, why would you need to get rid of the Manhattan service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 11:48 PM, Lex said:

At some point, you'll run out of letters...

...or are you advocating for a purely numeric system?

 

On 11/29/2021 at 10:29 PM, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Why would you name that service (U)? Its sounds like the word you so try another letter please.

I'd probably try the (X) route at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2021 at 10:29 PM, MottAvFarRockaway said:

Why would you name that service (U)? Its sounds like the word you so try another letter please.

Fun fact (B) sounds like the word Bee. (C) / (Z) sounds like the word Sea.  (N) sounds like the word end. (R) sounds like the word are (T) sounds like the word tea. Yet those letters are still used and they isn’t a problem so I don’t see how (U) would make any difference. Many words in the English language are homophones so it shouldn't be a problem. "This is the Manhattan bound you train" doesn't even make grammatical sense so it definitely won’t  be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New proposal for IRT Jerome Avenue line. 
 

I saw on IND Second System Track Map proposal that Vanshnookenraggen made and that the (3) was gonna be extended to Bronx using 9th Avenue el and connect to Jerome Avenue. But we can’t do that now since 9th Avenue el is gone. Harlem 148th Street is build and the Yankee stadium is build over the former location of the subway el. My Proposal is called the 7th Avenue-Jerome Avenue link. The (3) would be extended to the Bronx Running underneath the Macombs Bridge. Then stopping at Anderson Avenue after that it’s runs Elevated to 170th Street where’s it then connects to the Jerome Avenue line meeting up with the (4). Finally the (3) terminates at Bedford Park Blvd heading straight to Jerome Avenue yard with the (4) continuing to Woodlawn.      

Currently the (4) operates at 13 TPH in the Bronx this leaves plenty of space for the (3) to be extended to Jerome Avenue. The (3) would run at 11 TPH Bringing Jerome Avenue up to 24 TPH. Anderson Avenue would be three tracks to store extra trains during peak hours. This would make Jerome Avenue more attractive as now people have one seat rides to the West Side of Manhattan via 7th Avenue. And less people would be transferring at 149 street to the (2). This would start off as a rush hour only extension to Bedford Park Blvd. And if proven to be popular it will be all Weekday route. Evenings Weekends and Late Nights the (3) will only run up to Anderson Avenue. CBTC would be installed to further encourage ridership and boast up capacity.      

Bonus the (4) could be rerouted to 7th Avenue in case of emergencies on Lexington Avenue. And vice versa with the (3) via Lexington Avenue   Similar to the current (2)(5) pattern in the Bronx. Feedback anyone?

Link to comment
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.