Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[realizm]

None of his ideas are possible because there isn't enough room in the tunnels underneath the East River to handle more train service. That is unless if the drilled more tunnels underneath the East River which isn't going to happen because the is broke and can't pull money out of thin air.

 

Correct. Which was exactly what I essentially explained away on page 8. 

[Vistausss]

Those pillars are probably not structurally sound, so fixing them up would be expensive (not to mention disruptive.)

 

The can be extended over the highway.

 

AFAIK they are maintained by Eastchester because they also support the dykes along the road. But that's all I've read, haven't been up there so I dunno if that's true. At least concrete/cement is quite tough and can last for a loooooong ass time.

But even then: the is closer to Co-Op than the .

[Kamen Rider]

OK but now we are talking two problems.

 

First we are talking about a shortage of cars. There are barely enough cars as it is to supplement the as it is let alone a service to lefferts, with the SMEE scrap mishap when the R160's started to be introduced into revenue service in 2006.

 

Second, the Cranberry Street tunnel cannot handle more but two lines at a time.The river tubes will be brought to it's limit with crushing capacity problems. It would make better sense, (if at all possible) to add a few put ins as a temporary remedy. CBTC I'm sure isn't coming to the 8th Ave line and the Cranberry St tube any time soon. The MTA is focused on the and the QBL, as it is on CBTC installation. We'll have to wait decades before that to Lefferts via Fulton Street be implemented.

 

In fact many engineers looked into this over the years, the only way that capacity on Fulton St can be fully utilized is with a new river tunnel to bring trains into Court street into the IND Fulton St line. If we actually had a new river tube to feed trains into this Brooklyn subway line, then perhaps that could actually work. 

 

But as of now it cannot work. I'm sure there are other reasons too that cannot come to mind right now.

what they're suggesting is a simple renaming. Leffert's A trains would simply wear the K bullet instead. I still kinda think it's pointless given the number of people who actually have the problem of confusing the two branchs isn't very high.

[Wallyhorse]

I don't think you'll see any changes for now.  I suspect you will see some changes as the new buildings on the Hudson Yards go up and are actually operational in a few years.

That would be when I would be looking to do a move of the to the Culver line after West 4th, running with the with the (as a Culver Local) shortened to Church Avenue and the (as a Culver express) replacing it to Coney Island (except overnights, when the would run as it does now) while the replaces the as a local in Brooklyn to Euclid (though some 's would run to Chambers as they do now to avoid capacity issues in rush hours and overnights would be extended to Lefferts to replace the overnight shuttle) with a 2-5 TPH supplemental line replicating the old (AA) between Chambers and 168th for those in lower Manhattan looking for the upper west side local stations (weekends, the would be a 2-6 TPH line since the does not run then).

By the times those buildings in the Hudson Yards go up, I suspect you will see a demand for 8th Avenue service from the Culver line as some companies are already as I understand it committed to moving there when those buildings open, with an increased demand overall for 8th Avenue service.  By then, hopefully there will be enough subway cars available to handle such.

[Fresh Pond]

Oh jeez...

[Dan05979]

I don't think you'll see any changes for now.  I suspect you will see some changes as the new buildings on the Hudson Yards go up and are actually operational in a few years.

 

That would be when I would be looking to do a move of the to the Culver line after West 4th, running with the with the (as a Culver Local) shortened to Church Avenue and the (as a Culver express) replacing it to Coney Island (except overnights, when the would run as it does now) while the replaces the as a local in Brooklyn to Euclid (though some 's would run to Chambers as they do now to avoid capacity issues in rush hours and overnights would be extended to Lefferts to replace the overnight shuttle) with a 2-5 TPH supplemental line replicating the old (AA) between Chambers and 168th for those in lower Manhattan looking for the upper west side local stations (weekends, the would be a 2-6 TPH line since the does not run then).

 

By the times those buildings in the Hudson Yards go up, I suspect you will see a demand for 8th Avenue service from the Culver line as some companies are already as I understand it committed to moving there when those buildings open, with an increased demand overall for 8th Avenue service.  By then, hopefully there will be enough subway cars available to handle such.

Go get laid dude

[bobtehpanda]

I don't think you'll see any changes for now.  I suspect you will see some changes as the new buildings on the Hudson Yards go up and are actually operational in a few years.

 

That would be when I would be looking to do a move of the to the Culver line after West 4th, running with the with the (as a Culver Local) shortened to Church Avenue and the (as a Culver express) replacing it to Coney Island (except overnights, when the would run as it does now) while the replaces the as a local in Brooklyn to Euclid (though some 's would run to Chambers as they do now to avoid capacity issues in rush hours and overnights would be extended to Lefferts to replace the overnight shuttle) with a 2-5 TPH supplemental line replicating the old (AA) between Chambers and 168th for those in lower Manhattan looking for the upper west side local stations (weekends, the would be a 2-6 TPH line since the does not run then).

 

By the times those buildings in the Hudson Yards go up, I suspect you will see a demand for 8th Avenue service from the Culver line as some companies are already as I understand it committed to moving there when those buildings open, with an increased demand overall for 8th Avenue service.  By then, hopefully there will be enough subway cars available to handle such.

 

There's this great new thing, and I don't know if you've heard of it, but it's called West 4th St.

[Roadcruiser1]

I don't think you'll see any changes for now.  I suspect you will see some changes as the new buildings on the Hudson Yards go up and are actually operational in a few years.

 

That would be when I would be looking to do a move of the to the Culver line after West 4th, running with the with the (as a Culver Local) shortened to Church Avenue and the (as a Culver express) replacing it to Coney Island (except overnights, when the would run as it does now) while the replaces the as a local in Brooklyn to Euclid (though some 's would run to Chambers as they do now to avoid capacity issues in rush hours and overnights would be extended to Lefferts to replace the overnight shuttle) with a 2-5 TPH supplemental line replicating the old (AA) between Chambers and 168th for those in lower Manhattan looking for the upper west side local stations (weekends, the would be a 2-6 TPH line since the does not run then).

 

By the times those buildings in the Hudson Yards go up, I suspect you will see a demand for 8th Avenue service from the Culver line as some companies are already as I understand it committed to moving there when those buildings open, with an increased demand overall for 8th Avenue service.  By then, hopefully there will be enough subway cars available to handle such.

 

[biGC323232]

Q90 Sometimes your better off not posting subway threads...To many subway experts waiting to shut your idea down..lol

[Kamen Rider]

wally, we've had this conversation. We're not going to go down this road playing your stupid game. Stop it. They are not going to reroute a subway line JUST for a few buildings that are nowhere near the line in question. you want hudson yards, how about using Hudson Yards station.

[Roadcruiser1]

Q90 Sometimes your better off not posting subway threads...To many subway experts waiting to shut your idea down..lol

 

When ideas are stupid they will be shot down. If you can't take the heat then stay out of the f**king kitchen. Idiot....

[Dan05979]

Is this horse dude a major fantasy foamer? I read that b.s and he must dream this shit up while he's making stool or taking a bath.

[itmaybeokay]

My apologies. The comment about New Yorkers not liking change was meant to be light-hearted, and I'm concluding it was a bad way to introduce this proposal. Generally, people everywhere are resistant to change. I certainly have no intentions of "mocking" the New York subway -- I'm just a transit geek having some fun with a subway system that is indeed fascinating and amazing.

 

I would also be quite sceptical about an outsider making a proposal for my city. So to be clear, I'm merely sharing the results of my "exercise" to make a proposal for the New York subway. It is just for fun.

 

I really appreciate the time everyone has taken to post their comments. Thank you!

 

In terms of an exercise - I have to admire the effort and scope put in here. 

 

- even if I hope nobody at the MTA thinks any of this is a good idea. 

[Kamen Rider]

well, the problem with wally is he thinks each of the fantasies will we welcome with open arms as making the subway better. He doesn't realize his plans will make life worse, or even have no basis in real life. Kept trying to convince everyone that using the upper level at Roosvelt Ave as a through station for a super express to Manhattan was a great idea. Never mind I told him about six times, on seperate occasions I might add, that using that station as a through station would require demolishing the mezzinine of the main station, and that there would be no way to acess the street from there.

 

that little gem a page back is actually about four months old. He loves to make big, compliacated crap when a simple change would do. MTA considers running culver express service. Everyone else was ether in "G local F express" or "Add the <F>" camps. then Wally opened his mouth...

[Dan05979]

good thing his nutty thoughts only amount to words on a screen.

[Kamen Rider]

When ideas are stupid they will be shot down. If you can't take the heat then stay out of the f**king kitchen. Idiot....

 

Pot, kettle, black

 

I remmember when you first came along...

[peacemak3r]

This thread stretching to 10 pages is beyond me.

[Kamen Rider]

Since it went off the rails a long time ago...

 

:Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock:

:Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock:

:Lock: :Lock: :Lock: :Lock:

[Vistausss]

Well, the shouldn't replace anything, there's only 1 thing the terribly needs: a terminal that's build as a terminal instead of a terminal that was supposed to be a normal station but ended up as a terminal due to the GD...

[itmaybeokay]

Well, the shouldn't replace anything, there's only 1 thing the terribly needs: a terminal that's build as a terminal instead of a terminal that was supposed to be a normal station but ended up as a terminal due to the GD...

 

The totally does need a real terminal - but Jamaica Center's aspirations to be a regular through station were not halted due to the Great Depression - what with that station opening in 1988 and all. :-) Just saying. 

[Vistausss]

Oops, you're right. Sorry for making that mistake

[Roadcruiser1]

Out of curiosity was the World Trade Center station for the ever supposed to be a terminal station?

Edited July 8, 2013 by Roadcruiser1

[Grand Concourse]

I think (don't hold me to it) they might've intended to build a river tunnel and connect that stop to the court st (current tm) stop. That way the 8th av local would've been separate from the express (no merging).

[bobtehpanda]

Out of curiosity was the World Trade Center station for the ever supposed to be a terminal station?

 

I mean, the current station doesn't have tail tracks of any kind, so it'd be extremely disruptive to extend it. Not to mention the Cortlandt station isn't that far down the street, so any train tunnel would have to negotiate around that. It's doubtful.

 

If they had planned for such a thing, then they would've built either the approach to WTC or the station itself on a slight downward slope, as the and do right next to it. The descent to the river bottom has to start somewhere, especially given the extremely complex web of lines that exist Downtown.

[Roadcruiser1]

I mean, the current station doesn't have tail tracks of any kind, so it'd be extremely disruptive to extend it. Not to mention the Cortlandt station isn't that far down the street, so any train tunnel would have to negotiate around that. It's doubtful.

 

If they had planned for such a thing, then they would've built either the approach to WTC or the station itself on a slight downward slope, as the and do right next to it. The descent to the river bottom has to start somewhere, especially given the extremely complex web of lines that exist Downtown.

 

I wasn't really thinking about extending the . I just wanted to know if the WTC Station was meant to be a terminal. Thanks for answering my question though.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Roadcruiser1