Jump to content

2038 Subway Map

EphraimB

By EphraimB,
in New York City Subway

Recommended Posts


LGA Link N Train

LGA Link N Train

Posted
Posted

Alright, I get that this is a fantasy map and 

 FOR THE LAST FRICKING TIME, THAT ( A ) EXTENSION IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, LET ALONE IT BEING FEASIBLE!! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?! and what's with Nostrand?

(Also on the side note) What did you use to create that map, I'm curious

Link to comment
Share on other sites
P3F

P3F

Posted
Posted

The Q114 already serves the areas that your Far Rockaway Line extension would have stations in. If you're serious about improving your own commute, use BusTime to judge when you should leave home so that the bus comes soon after you get to the nearest bus stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
OIG119

OIG119

Posted
Posted

The (2)(5) extension to Coney Island is rather interesting. An extension down Nostrand isn't the most important thing at the moment, and Utica Avenue line would be a better use of resources as it would serve a currently underserved area farther from the subway. Anybody near Nostrand Avenue who has to go to CI can take a bus to one of the lines going to CI. Also, it misses the opportunity have a station or two in Manhattan Beach to be an alternative to the B1 or B49 to the subway. Also building it out in the water may just cost enough money to instead build SAS to Yonkers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R68OnBroadway

R68OnBroadway

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

Alright, I get that this is a fantasy map and 

 FOR THE LAST FRICKING TIME, THAT ( A ) EXTENSION IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, LET ALONE IT BEING FEASIBLE!! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?! and what's with Nostrand?

(Also on the side note) What did you use to create that map, I'm curious

There's really no need to say this anymore as he won't change his mind... stop beating a dead horse. We don't need to go through all this crap again.

 

1 minute ago, OIG119 said:

The (2)(5) extension to Coney Island is rather interesting. An extension down Nostrand isn't the most important thing at the moment, and Utica Avenue line would be a better use of resources as it would serve a currently underserved area farther from the subway. Anybody near Nostrand Avenue who has to go to CI can take a bus to one of the lines going to CI. Also, it misses the opportunity have a station or two in Manhattan Beach to be an alternative to the B1 or B49 to the subway. Also building it out in the water may just cost enough money to instead build SAS to Yonkers.

The (2) (5)  should be extended down Nostrand to Avenue U (To X if water table permits) to better serve that area as Utica could take a while. You could have it stop at Avenue J, Kings Highway, Avenue R, and Avenue U, with tail tracks to Avenue W (tail tracks to Avenue Z if the line ends at Avenue X). After this, it should be made so that the (3) runs with the (2) down Nostrand, the (4) runs to New Lots via local past Franklin, and the (5) runs express to Utica. If yard access for the (3) becomes a problem, you could extend the tracks past Lenox to Concourse at 152nd, which allows for the (3) to go to Concourse Yard. To allow for the (3) to move to Concourse and to ensure New Lots does not close, the (4) will move to New Lots while the (3) will move to Concourse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
engineerboy6561

engineerboy6561

Posted
Posted

The Nostrand idea is interesting, but it would require rebuilding Nostrand as a four-track trunk line. It might make more sense to split Nostrand at Flatbush, then send the (5) down to Emmons Av (at least to Av U, maybe add a portal just past Av U to allow full service to Emmons Av) while the (2) serves Flatbush Av down to Kings Plaza. That would also entail closing President St and rebuilding Rogers Junction so that it has the same topology as the switches just south of 59 St on the 8 Av line, because then you'd fix the Manhattan-bound bottleneck once and for all. As part of this the (5) would also run Dyre Av-Emmons Av all times.

I approve of the <F> service (especially reactivating the Bergen Av lower level), although the way you have it done the area between Avenue U and Avenue X would need a rebuild; the express track would need to rise up between Av U and Av X, and have an overhead platform at Av X to allow thru service on the express track; I'm assuming you're setting it up so that morning local trains would just come out of Culver Yard to Av X and evening local trains would serve Av X, then head onto the yard leads to reverse and head up north. If you don't do it that way then the at-grade crossing at Av X is going to bottleneck everything the same way the Myrtle Av junction bottlenecks the (J)(M)(Z) trains. 

The peak direction (N) express service isn't bad, but I'm not sure it has the ridership to support it. Also, if you want to do that convert Bay Parkway and New Utrecht Av to proper express stations (two island platforms, four tracks) and reactivate the southern express track between 18 Av and 86 St, so that you retain the (D) connection.

As far as SAS, I strongly disagree; SAS ought to be a four-track trunk from 125 St to Houston at least, with northern services continuing up a 3 Av trunk and then cutting across Gun Hill Rd for crosstown Bronx service. On the south end there are a few different things we could do, ranging from a four-track Jamaica trunk replacing the Jamaica El with a two-track Utica offshoot to a four-track trunk running along Metropolitan Av/Eliot Av/LIE to serve the giant transit gap between Flushing and Jamaica; it doesn't really make sense to leave that nonexistent.

R68's deinterlining of Brooklyn is interesting and could be fun to pull off; the issue there is that the 148 St tracks point the wrong way to loop back up to the Bronx. You could instead ditch the crossover north of 145 St, extend 145 St to serve ten-car trains, then turn the tracks northeast to connect with the (4) just north of 149 St/Concourse; make 161 St, Fordham Rd, and Bedford Park Blvd express stations, and you can have the (4) become the train that turns at Bowling Green weekends, with <4> rush hour service stopping at Woodlawn, Mosholu Pkwy, Bedford Pk, Fordham Rd, Burnside Av, and 161 St while (3) trains turn at Bedford (although ideally this would make Bedford Park Blvd a two-level elevated stop ( (4)<4> trains running through on the bottom level, (3) trains turning on a two-track upper level, to avoid congestion).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoHacksJustKhaks

NoHacksJustKhaks

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, P3F said:

The Q114 already serves the areas that your Far Rockaway Line extension would have stations in. If you're serious about improving your own commute, use BusTime to judge when you should leave home so that the bus comes soon after you get to the nearest bus stop.

He already made a thread on the forum stating the bus service (headways and reliability) is abysmal, and I totally agree with his concern. It's one of the reasons he wants to push the (A) terminal back, besides the below.

1 hour ago, LGA Link N train said:

WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?!

He's autistic, I assume pretty he's pretty severe on the spectrum. One of it's effects are obsessive interests, which is pretty evident considering the amount of times he's supported the proposal (not that im using autism to justify his bringing up of the topic over 15 times with little justification in between). There's just no point in continuing to insult or even acknowledge him for what he is when he'll just come back and do what he did before. It's why i've been ignoring these forums lately and it hurts to watch.

Also (not trying to background mod), please, stop typing in such big bold text. It does nothing to your point more apparent, and only make's you look like more of an autist than EphraimB.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Coney Island Av

Coney Island Av

Posted
Posted

Excuse my somewhat foul language, but for the purposes of providing constructive criticism, this just needs to be said, because stupid threads/ideas like these are getting very annoying and hateful. 

In life, you cannot always be attracted to one thing forever. The dude can't just seem to let go.  That's why he's so attracted to these pointless extensions like a magnet. Autism isn't the free card in this scenario because life can't care for him every step of the way.

It's okay to have an opinion, but rebranding the same damn topic, just under a different name, will not make dumbass proposals like this one look any different, and especially wouldn't even entice people to agree with him...in fact, it does the opposite. It discourages actual contributive members from participating in discussion. And if all that's gonna be said from topics like these are just negative reactions from a majority of the audience, it's best to just not post them at all. A forum is supposed to encourage a friendly discussion, not some brawl-out between someone who's autistic and offended members... 

In conclusion, we shouldn't waste time trying to have a civilized discussion with this dude. We've been roasting the idea ever since he first joined the forums back in February, and not once has he taken off that (A) extension from the map. Just let him be the autistic hypocrite he wants to be and he'll eventually learn his lesson after crying wolf several dozen times. Not trying to be mean here, but all of this is true, and everyone just has to chill and relax...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
P3F

P3F

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Excuse my somewhat foul language, but for the purposes of providing constructive criticism, this just needs to be said, because stupid threads/ideas like these are getting very annoying and hateful. 

In life, you cannot always be attracted to one thing forever. The dude can't just seem to let go.  That's why he's so attracted to these pointless extensions like a magnet. Autism isn't the free card in this scenario because life can't care for him every step of the way.

It's okay to have an opinion, but rebranding the same damn topic, just under a different name, will not make dumbass proposals like this one look any different, and especially wouldn't even entice people to agree with him... If all that's gonna be said from topics like these are just negative reactions from a majority of the audience, it's best to just not post them at all. A forum is supposed to encourage a friendly discussion, not some brawl-out between someone who's autistic and offended members... 

In conclusion, we shouldn't waste time trying to have a civilized discussion with this dude. We've been roasting the idea ever since he first joined the forums back in February, and not once has he taken off that (A) extension from the map. Just let him be the autistic hypocrite he wants to be and he'll eventually learn his lesson after crying wolf several dozen times. Not trying to be mean here, but all of this is true, and everyone just has to chill and relax...

Just stop, lmao. This discussion has been beaten to death and you are adding nothing new.

Whatever happened to this?

1 hour ago, Coney Island Av said:

Yeah, I'm not gonna waste my time for you...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NoHacksJustKhaks

NoHacksJustKhaks

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Excuse my somewhat foul language, but for the purposes of providing constructive criticism, this just needs to be said, because stupid threads/ideas like these are getting very annoying and hateful. 

In life, you cannot always be attracted to one thing forever. The dude can't just seem to let go.  That's why he's so attracted to these pointless extensions like a magnet. Autism isn't the free card in this scenario because life can't care for him every step of the way.

It's okay to have an opinion, but rebranding the same damn topic, just under a different name, will not make dumbass proposals like this one look any different, and especially wouldn't even entice people to agree with him... If all that's gonna be said from topics like these are just negative reactions from a majority of the audience, it's best to just not post them at all. A forum is supposed to encourage a friendly discussion, not some brawl-out between someone who's autistic and offended members... 

In conclusion, we shouldn't waste time trying to have a civilized discussion with this dude. We've been roasting the idea ever since he first joined the forums back in February, and not once has he taken off that (A) extension from the map. Just let him be the autistic hypocrite he wants to be and he'll eventually learn his lesson after crying wolf several dozen times. Not trying to be mean here, but all of this is true, and everyone just has to chill and relax...

Ironically, your the one who's restated everything we know and has did everything in this situation, but chill and relax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
P3F

P3F

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

There's no need for the (2) to go Coney Island lol, the IRT ending on nostrand Ave near the Belt Parkway is a good enough terminal.

An alright pipe dream would be to run it under the canal and build a terminal under Oriental Boulevard, but that would probably cost much more money than it's worth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
EphraimB

EphraimB

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

That has been on every single one of his fantasy maps. And it is a big deal, dude needs the train outside his house...

The Reads Lane Terminal Station won't be outside my house but it will still be a 3-minute walk to Reads Lane/Caffrey Av (that's where the end of the grass median on Reads Lane is.

 

2 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Alright, I get that this is a fantasy map and 

 FOR THE LAST FRICKING TIME, THAT ( A ) EXTENSION IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, LET ALONE IT BEING FEASIBLE!! WHAT PART OF THAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND!?!?! and what's with Nostrand?

(Also on the side note) What did you use to create that map, I'm curious

GIMP

 

1 hour ago, P3F said:

The Q114 already serves the areas that your Far Rockaway Line extension would have stations in. If you're serious about improving your own commute, use BusTime to judge when you should leave home so that the bus comes soon after you get to the nearest bus stop.

It's an 8-minute walk to the Q114.

 

26 minutes ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

He already made a thread on the forum stating the bus service (headways and reliability) is abysmal, and I totally agree with his concern. It's one of the reasons he wants to push the (A) terminal back, besides the below.

He's autistic, I assume pretty he's pretty severe on the spectrum. One of it's effects are obsessive interests, which is pretty evident considering the amount of times he's supported the proposal (not that im using autism to justify his bringing up of the topic over 15 times with little justification in between). There's just no point in continuing to insult or even acknowledge him for what he is when he'll just come back and do what he did before. It's why i've been ignoring these forums lately and it hurts to watch.

Also (not trying to background mod), please, stop typing in such big bold text. It does nothing to your point more apparent, and only make's you look like more of an autist than EphraimB.

 

I actually was diagnosed with PDD-NOS at the age of 3.

 

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Apparently so.  He has the QM17 and the ferry...

The QM17 is only during rush hours (I always take the 9:23AM train to work). The ferry is all the way at Beach 108 St with the shuttle bus to the ferry at Beach 35 St (a 40 minute walk).

 

12 minutes ago, Blitzer120 said:

this looks crudely done in Microsoft paint, with half of these not being feasible.

Are you kidding me. This was done in GIMP using mostly the cloning tool. I manipulated an actual Subway Map from the time when it had all those construction popups and the (M) shuttle that I worked very hard to get rid of.

 

2 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

You know what, that extension/that same stop we keep talking about......

 

Yeah I'm not even going to bother anymore. 

I might take that extension away and replace it with a Light Rail. By the way, how did you make that R160 sign that is in your signature?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Via Garibaldi 8

Via Garibaldi 8

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, EphraimB said:

The Reads Lane Terminal Station won't be outside my house but it will still be a 3-minute walk to Reads Lane/Caffrey Av (that's where the end of the grass median on Reads Lane is.

 

GIMP

 

It's an 8-minute walk to the Q114.

 

I actually was diagnosed with PDD-NOS at the age of 3.

 

The QM17 is only during rush hours (I always take the 9:23AM train to work). The ferry is all the way at Beach 108 St with the shuttle bus to the ferry at Beach 35 St (a 40 minute walk).

 

Are you kidding me. This was done in GIMP using mostly the cloning tool. I manipulated an actual Subway Map from the time when it had all those construction popups and the (M) shuttle that I worked very hard to get rid of.

 

I might take that extension away and replace it with a Light Rail. By the way, how did you make that R160 sign that is in your signature?

The point is you have other options if you want to use them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
R68OnBroadway

R68OnBroadway

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, engineerboy6561 said:

R68's deinterlining of Brooklyn is interesting and could be fun to pull off; the issue there is that the 148 St tracks point the wrong way to loop back up to the Bronx. You could instead ditch the crossover north of 145 St, extend 145 St to serve ten-car trains, then turn the tracks northeast to connect with the (4) just north of 149 St/Concourse; make 161 St, Fordham Rd, and Bedford Park Blvd express stations, and you can have the (4) become the train that turns at Bowling Green weekends, with <4> rush hour service stopping at Woodlawn, Mosholu Pkwy, Bedford Pk, Fordham Rd, Burnside Av, and 161 St while (3) trains turn at Bedford (although ideally this would make Bedford Park Blvd a two-level elevated stop ( (4)<4> trains running through on the bottom level, (3) trains turning on a two-track upper level, to avoid congestion).

I don't know why people keep on bringing up the idea of tying the (3) into Jerome... the last thing we need is more reverse branching, and if we do this, we just limited gained capacity from fixing Rogers. For now I think we should leave the (3) alone and wait until demand is needed in an underserved area, but if feasible in the future, we could extend it north to be a crosstown line, or we could do something nuts like extend it across 161st/ 163rd and then Bruckner to Throgs Neck or something like that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.

  I accept