LGA Link N Train Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share #26 Posted June 26, 2018 4 minutes ago, peacemak3r said: They did mention it however it wasn't a direct proposal of eliminating the , they however still suggested it. Page 60, bottom section: "Many of these lines suffer from infrequent service today, with headways greater than two minutes in the peak. CBTC along with service simplification will help solve the demands placed on the Brighton and West End Lines. This could be done by eliminating the B to create more capacity on the 6th Ave line for the D in Manhattan and enable more reliable single service on the Brighton line as well as increase service on the West End line" Just by reading that section in bold and I already dropped my phone. That's how disappointing it sounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucey Posted June 26, 2018 Share #27 Posted June 26, 2018 So is the RPA an actual government agency, or just a think tank that gets legislative money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share #28 Posted June 26, 2018 6 hours ago, Deucey said: So is the RPA an actual government agency, or just a think tank that gets legislative money? Most likely the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Union Tpke Posted June 26, 2018 Share #29 Posted June 26, 2018 41 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said: Most likely the latter. Quote For 90 years, Regional Plan Association has been an indispensable source of ideas and plans for policy makers and opinion shapers across the tri-state region. RPA is America’s most distinguished urban research and advocacy organization. RPA works to improve the prosperity, infrastructure, sustainability and quality of life of the New York-New Jersey-Connecticut metropolitan region. Some of the region’s most significant public works, economic development and open space projects have their roots in RPA ideas and initiatives, from the location of the George Washington Bridge to the revitalization of downtown Brooklyn, Stamford and Newark to the preservation of open space and development of parks in the Palisades, Governors Island and Gateway National Recreation Area. RPA has pursued these goals by conducting independent research, planning, advocacy and vigorous public-engagement efforts. Every year, the most pressing challenges facing the region are debated at RPA’s spring conference, the Assembly, which draws leaders and professionals from government, business, civic groups and the media. A cornerstone of our work is the development of long-range plans and policies to guide the region’s growth. Since the 1920s, RPA has produced four landmark plans for the region, the most recent was released in November 2017. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N6 Limited Posted June 28, 2018 Share #30 Posted June 28, 2018 They have good ideas. Taking a T-REX train from Jamaica to Newark (Prudential Center or something) would be so convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted June 28, 2018 Share #31 Posted June 28, 2018 On 6/24/2018 at 5:06 PM, Coney Island Av said: Jesus H Christ. This plan has so many flaws that the supposed "increased service" is more of a disservice! Firstly, making the local will piss off Hillside residents, and it will only overload the . It will bring QBL to hell. Not only that, Hillside riders would be stuck with a local-only train to Manhattan. Back in 1988, the ran to 179 St to replace the , and many ditched the for an express at Parsons, Union Turnpike, and 71 Av. Heck, I would rather deinterline QBL even though I don't advocate for it! Having the terminate in Brooklyn will be a disaster. It will hold up n/b trains at Jay St, and will cause a massive conga line in both directions, especially since service will be doubled in this plan. And having only the express go to Manhattan is just asking for more trouble. Making the local on CPW will make Bronx riders' commutes even long-winded and slow. The is express 24/7 on CPW for a reason, RPA! Also, reviving the old is just asking for trouble. Ridgewood/Bushwick will throw a fit if you got rid of their one-seat ride to Midtown, and ridership will drop like a rock. Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs and Essex St will get overloaded with people trying to get to Midtown as a result. I'd also assume they'd revive the rush hour extension to Bay Pkwy too. But the latter will only have trains running empty on the West End, and a merge would be reintroduced at 36 St. Having both the go to Astoria is pointless, considering the is still merging at 34 St. Now for the . While I do support Culver Express service, it simply cannot work unless another Manhattan-bound service was added. However, there's no capacity to add such, and thus, people will throw a fit. Finally, the absolute most ridiculous part of their plan is having the go to 95 St and the go to Coney Island. Why the hell would these two lines need to swap? You've only made service even longer/more unreliable, and giving it another merge with the . The would get no yard access, and the will be way too slow for Brighton riders to use. Not to mention the fact that the will get overwhelmed. Overall, this plan is needlessly redundant and convoluted. If they really wanted to "simplify" services, why don't they take a look at how to fix severe bottlenecks/merges, or deinterlining? Just my opinion though. It’s like they’ve been reading Wallyhorse’s posts here, on SubChat and Second Avenue Sagas. I fully agree with your last paragraph. RPA’s plan seems to be tearing up the subway map into a thousand pieces and randomly taping those pieces back together. That’s the last thing we need! Not to mention the big expense that will be required to reconfigure the at Canal. I honestly don’t think they gave this much thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biGC323232 Posted June 28, 2018 Share #32 Posted June 28, 2018 9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: It’s like they’ve been reading Wallyhorse’s posts here, on SubChat and Second Avenue Sagas. I fully agree with your last paragraph. RPA’s plan seems to be tearing up the subway map into a thousand pieces and randomly taping those pieces back together. That’s the last thing we need! Not to mention the big expense that will be required to reconfigure the at Canal. I honestly don’t think they gave this much thought. ....It probably was wallyhorse working for the now... Im only joking.......Anyway nevermind the subway changing fiasco..but no late night subway service is a complete joke...is they serious or what how in the world overnight bus service will cover certain areas of the subways.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CenSin Posted June 28, 2018 Share #33 Posted June 28, 2018 The most horrendous part is the express-local swap at Prince Street. The massive engineering effort is not the problem. The problem is that it assumes everyone from the Upper East Side is headed to the Financial District, and everyone from Brooklyn prefers to not skip SoHo and Flatiron. Otherwise, why have all the effort for a one-seat trip to the Financial District? On principle, I’m against the mixing of express and local services by design. Expresses should remain expresses throughout where possible. Locals should remain locals throughout where possible. ✓ 4 Avenue local, Broadway local ✓ 4 Avenue express, Broadway express ✗ 4 Avenue local, Broadway express ✗ 4 Avenue express, Broadway local Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W4ST Posted June 28, 2018 Share #34 Posted June 28, 2018 I don't really like their plan because I feel like it focuses too much on increasing the amount of service on specific lines, and not enough on helping riders actually get where they want to go. For example, taking away express service from the Hillside and Concourse lines, ending service on 6th Avenue, cutting the to Brooklyn, cutting off QBL local access from Long Idland City and making the express in Brooklyn. The list could go on. Instead of doubling the service of lines, they should keep some of the branching, while removing some interlining. For example on CPW the could run express and go to 207 and Norwood respectively while the could go local to Bedford Park Blvd and 168 Street respectively. That has a little interlining but it still keeps express access and keeps options. Instead of having a 30 tph they could have 15 tph each and . Also, I just realized the express on QBL has 15 tph in the plan and the local has 30 tph. That's a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted June 28, 2018 Author Share #35 Posted June 28, 2018 15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: Not to mention the big expense that will be required to reconfigure the at Canal. I honestly don’t think they gave this much thought. The reconfiguring would take a lot of engineering skills. Though I don't have the time to provide a detailed explnation. However, if the swap includes a few "QUIRKS" to it, then I'd support it. I've actually been giving this idea a lot of thought. Though, I'm not sure how to explain it. 4 hours ago, CenSin said: ✓ 4 Avenue local, Broadway local ✓ 4 Avenue express, Broadway express ✗ 4 Avenue local, Broadway express ✗ 4 Avenue express, Broadway local I agree with the fact that the and swap in brooklyn is very redundant and a bit..................... Retarded. along with their other plans (no offense) However, the part you mentioned which is what I highlighted in bold, this isn't a problem for the so I don't see the issue with that. Same goes for the (non-RPA) and , the on Central Park West, the on Brighton, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deucey Posted June 29, 2018 Share #36 Posted June 29, 2018 11 hours ago, W4ST said: Instead of doubling the service of lines, they should keep some of the branching, while removing some interlining. For example on CPW the could run express and go to 207 and Norwood respectively while the could go local to Bedford Park Blvd and 168 Street respectively. That has a little interlining but it still keeps express access and keeps options. So no at 50th St then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W4ST Posted June 30, 2018 Share #37 Posted June 30, 2018 23 hours ago, Deucey said: So no at 50th St then? If possible, platform extensions could be built out to the express tracks. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a there, although there would be alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted July 1, 2018 Share #38 Posted July 1, 2018 On 6/28/2018 at 2:13 PM, LGA Link N train said: However, the part you mentioned which is what I highlighted in bold, this isn't a problem for the so I don't see the issue with that. Same goes for the (non-RPA) and , the on Central Park West, the on Brighton, etc. It certainly was when they ran the local in Manhattan via the bridge full time from 2010-16. There were always delays at Prince St due to the merging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I love NY Posted July 8, 2018 Share #39 Posted July 8, 2018 On 6/28/2018 at 2:19 PM, biGC323232 said: ....It probably was wallyhorse working for the now... Im only joking.......Anyway nevermind the subway changing fiasco..but no late night subway service is a complete joke...is they serious or what how in the world overnight bus service will cover certain areas of the subways.. Is this stupid proposal of the RPA ONLY for the period of the work or is it a definitive STUPID proposal? NY subway is 24/7/365 SINCE 1904!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.