|
|
| A Proposal (1480138) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1480141) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 4 11:09:35 2018, in response to A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 10:18:16 2018. so we’re sacrificing the connection between the Brighton line and the Montague tubes, committing all Brighton trains to the Bridge, along with eliminating an entire station, for the sake of a connection that does nothing to make the system better.I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: The Gold Street/Dekalb interlocking complex is the lynchpin of the entire B division mainline network. One thing goes wrong, it can cascade on to all the other interconnected lines. Don’t mess with it by taking out an option. |
|
|
| (1480149) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Jul 4 12:31:24 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 4 11:09:35 2018. Agreed. Brighton access to the Montague, even if only for non-standard service, is more important than G train access. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1480162) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jul 4 13:10:10 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by AlM on Wed Jul 4 12:31:24 2018. Agree. |
|
|
| (1480164) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Sitechboy on Wed Jul 4 13:11:09 2018, in response to A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 10:18:16 2018. Well an interesting thought exercise.What is the GD's other terminal? Merge it with the W and go to Astoria? |
|
|
| (1480165) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Jul 4 13:14:16 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by AlM on Wed Jul 4 12:31:24 2018. Yup. If something happens on the bridge route, the Brighton Line is out of business. |
|
|
| (1480190) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 16:18:12 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Sitechboy on Wed Jul 4 13:11:09 2018. I don't know.I came across this map and its proposal, and thought of all of the opinions that wold blossom. |
|
|
| (1480192) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 4 16:37:58 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 16:18:12 2018. We already have one line that loops back on itself, we don’t need another. |
|
|
| (1480210) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Wed Jul 4 18:10:36 2018, in response to A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 10:18:16 2018. You close the Fulton St. station on the G line and you'll have thousands (or even tens of thousands) of protesters. That stop is the closest one that serves Brooklyn technical High School (me - class of 1973) and is close to the Brooklyn Academy of Music.You don't want to have all those people bring their wrath down on you. |
|
|
| (1480228) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jul 4 20:39:02 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Wed Jul 4 18:10:36 2018. But the G would stop at DeKalb instead. |
|
|
| (1480232) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Jul 4 20:59:44 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Spider-Pig on Wed Jul 4 20:39:02 2018. Even if Byford could get the slow down timers removed and return to the headways of the 50s (the map often shown in this forum showing as many as 36 TPH with mechanical relay driven signals) the merge/diverge issues if ANY trains are late make adding another route through this choke point nuts IMHO. The long range answer is a Montague to Court St (museum) river crossing with the SAS tied in via Nassau short term and the full SAS to follow. |
|
|
| (1480233) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 21:03:57 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Wed Jul 4 18:10:36 2018. Just passing on a map and THE IDEA OF SOME ONE ELSE |
|
|
| (1480239) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by FtGreeneG on Wed Jul 4 21:27:29 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Wed Jul 4 18:10:36 2018. True but it would also eliminate the G's stop that access the LIRR and the Barclays Center. Fulton is one of the G's more important stops. |
|
|
| (1480251) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:38:28 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Sitechboy on Wed Jul 4 13:11:09 2018. That would make sense. Either that, or go to 96 St/2nd Ave. |
|
|
| (1480252) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:44:04 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Wed Jul 4 18:10:36 2018. You still have Lafayette St. and the Atlantic/Pacific complex nearby. It doesn't seem that big of a loss. |
|
|
| (1480253) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:54:23 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by The Silence on Wed Jul 4 11:09:35 2018. If the Brighton connection is only for non-standard service, though, why not just add to the switches just south of DeKalb in order to restore the Brighton connection to the Montague tunnel? Sure, it would mean the 4th Ave local service will have to cross the Brighton service to get to the bridge, but if bridge service is out, it shouldn't be an issue. |
|
|
| (1480254) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:55:49 2018, in response to A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 10:18:16 2018. I think it's a good idea. It gives people living along the G line 1-seat access to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1480265) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jul 5 06:56:51 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by AlM on Wed Jul 4 12:31:24 2018. Yes. Although why both couldn't exist, I'm not sure. He draws it without the Brighton-Tunnel connection, but there's no text referring to that or explaining it. Also what is that siding on the northbound G track around the connection for? |
|
|
| (1480271) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Thu Jul 5 08:38:10 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:55:49 2018. but that's not the purpose of the G. |
|
|
| (1480272) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Thu Jul 5 08:40:58 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:54:23 2018. Given the positions of the tracks and their changes in elevation, that probably would not be possible to change.Otherwise they probably would have already done so. |
|
|
| (1480275) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Jul 5 09:53:32 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:55:49 2018. Only a small portion of G line passengers. If you're in Greenpoint you won't take the G to midtown.. |
|
|
| (1480283) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Thu Jul 5 11:40:28 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by FormerVanWyckBlvdUser on Wed Jul 4 18:10:36 2018. I'm not the one closing anything.I'm just echoing another persons proposal, and seeking out opinions. Please, sheath your wrath. |
|
|
| (1480329) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Jul 5 16:16:19 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by The Silence on Thu Jul 5 08:38:10 2018. Queens Blvd locals did not originally go to Manhattan either, but that was soon seen as a problem. |
|
|
| (1480336) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 17:19:21 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by AlM on Thu Jul 5 09:53:32 2018. If you're on the northern part of the G or if you can transfer to the L. But this connection will also cut through downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan, with connections at DeKalb, Jay, and Court. so that's not a small deal. |
|
|
| (1480337) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 17:20:46 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Andrew Saucci on Thu Jul 5 16:16:19 2018. Exactly. Times change, and new purposes come up. |
|
|
| (1480343) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by sloth on Thu Jul 5 18:40:42 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by FtGreeneG on Wed Jul 4 21:27:29 2018. Yep. Closing Fulton is a complete non starter. And I don't just say this because I want to keep my 3 block walk to work. |
|
|
| (1480361) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Snarf368 on Thu Jul 5 23:03:12 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by sloth on Thu Jul 5 18:40:42 2018. Agreed. Residents plus the hundreds of kids that attend Brooklyn Tech High School use that station. |
|
|
| (1480362) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Thu Jul 5 23:39:36 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 17:19:21 2018. have you seen the amount of construction that's been going on in the area the past decade? That's hyper valuable real estate they'd be digging through.Hell, 9 Dekalb Ave, right above the station, will be almost 1,100 feet tall. |
|
|
| (1480643) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Jul 9 21:49:21 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by The Silence on Thu Jul 5 23:39:36 2018. The work that I suggested just outside of DeKalb would not be too severe. It's the work south and east of DeKalb which would be considerable. Even so, considering the benefits, I don't think the opposition will be too great. |
|
|
| (1480645) | |
Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Jul 9 21:55:13 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal that causes more problems than solved them, posted by The Silence on Thu Jul 5 08:40:58 2018. It should be possible, I'm only proposing adding to the switches already there. There hasn't been a need to add to them, because the Brighton line already has the existing (and more elegant)connection. |
|
|
| (1480649) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 23:26:21 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Mon Jul 9 21:49:21 2018. There are no justifiable benefits. The people who will be directly affected willSee a net LOSS of service for the sake of other people. Try to sell them this plan, you’ll be lucky to keep all your teeth. This takes away a station and will probably result in a lot of buildings being demolished. The project will probably also require a long term shutdown of the G south of Bedford. The “GD” will need to slot into the existing service patterns and this proposal says nothing about where it is going. I question how useful it Wall actually be, given the cost to create it, when you could easily take other services to do the same job quicker. The subway is not door to door transportation between all destinations. It’s all pointless “what if” anyway. There is no room for such a connection, it’s physically impossible to build it. Those track maps are not exactly drawn to real world portions or scale. The point where the Connection would be built is only one, very short, block long. The grade on the connection would be too steep for the train to cope with. |
|
|
| (1480666) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 10 07:47:58 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 23:26:21 2018. Like which other services would be quicker? Transferring to the 6th Ave, Lex Ave, or 7th Ave is not easy, even if you consider the L train, which is already packed to the gills.As for the station, Fulton St is about a block away from Lafayette, and a few blocks aways from even bigger stations. Not a huge loss there. If the new connection can make it past the crossover with the 4th Ave line (and it has least 3 blocks to do that), it has almost 3 more blocks to make the switches just outside DeKalb. |
|
|
| (1480668) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Tue Jul 10 08:50:45 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Thu Jul 5 01:55:49 2018. Having used subway/metro systems around the world, I just don't get the focus on one seat rides in NYC.The rest of the world tends to have 1 line=1 service, with the assumption that you will have to transfer for many trips. The rest of the world also has much more reliable systems, and the top systems move more people per track mile. This is due to many reasons, but one is the fact that merges are a key reason for delays. The rest of the world also does fine with 2 tracks and no express service, but that is another topic. |
|
|
| (1480670) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Jul 10 10:22:18 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by LA Scott on Tue Jul 10 08:50:45 2018. I just don't get the focus on one seat rides in NYCIf the G gets into Manhattan, it's still likely to be a 2-seat ride. Many current G riders have a 3-seat ride. This does not mean that this proposal is a good idea. But having as many trips as possible be no more than 2 separate rides is a good idea. |
|
|
| (1480672) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 10 11:39:57 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by LA Scott on Tue Jul 10 08:50:45 2018. But which cities have lines that don't serve the city center? The G not only doesn't go into Manhattan, but has piss-poor transfers to other lines, requiring either a three seat ride or a ridiculous transfer.I don't see much complaining about the L, which also doesn't go to Midtown, because it has excellent connections to every line that does (except for the B/D, but that's no big deal given the F/M or A/C). As for other cities, I don't know of many that have lines that completely avoid even the outskirts of the city center, except for the Blue Line 5 in Montreal and Sheppard in Toronto. 3 bis and 7 bis in Paris used to be part of 3 and 7 respectively, so they're more like the Parisian Franklin Avenue Shuttle or 1955-73 Third Avenue El. |
|
|
| (1480676) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by LA Scott on Tue Jul 10 12:02:37 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 10 11:39:57 2018. A number of cities (Moscow, Beijing, Shanghai off the top of my head) have loop lines that avoid the historic city centers.Hong Kong has multiple lines that miss both Kowloon and Central. Some of those lines do hit newer and tertiary business centers, similar to how the G hits downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City. I do think the biggest issue the G has a lack of connections in Downtown Brooklyn. I know the history of what the IND was trying to do, but it was still amazingly shortsighted to avoid the subway stations that were already owned by the city and could be recaptured at some point. Unfortunately, the past is the past, and I can't think of any real solutions to the G that will not make the overall system worse off. |
|
|
| (1480679) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 10 12:50:54 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by LA Scott on Tue Jul 10 12:02:37 2018. A permanent MetroCard transfer between Fulton, Lafayette and Atlantic.Same between Lorimer or Hewes and Broadway. Ultimately, a new station at Union Avenue replacing those two and a transfer. |
|
|
| (1480680) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jul 10 13:23:11 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by LA Scott on Tue Jul 10 12:02:37 2018. From a previous message:"I know the history of what the IND was trying to do, but it was still amazingly shortsighted to avoid the subway stations that were already owned by the city and could be recaptured at some point." I very much agree with this point. It always strikes me as odd the way that some transit fans LIONIZE the the IND Subway system as it was originally built and its planned designs, but then complain about how there are/were few connections to the other older subway lines/stations or how the G-train does not enter Manhattan. Somehow they forget that the IND Subway as originally built was DESIGNED this way on purpose. Mike |
|
|
| (1480681) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Jul 10 13:24:25 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by The Silence on Mon Jul 9 23:26:21 2018. I agree with all of the points that you have raised.Mike |
|
|
| (1480683) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Tue Jul 10 14:34:38 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 10 07:47:58 2018. Do you know how to read a map? Seriously, the connection WILL NOT FIT. The layout is all wrong, the grade is all wrong. One track would have to drop at least 60 to 70 feet in the space of two blocks only to have to climb back up almost immediatelyIrt IND BMT Brighton BMT 4th ave This connection Are we building a subway line or a rollercoaster? |
|
|
| (1480689) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 10 16:20:31 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by The Silence on Tue Jul 10 14:34:38 2018. I should ask you the same thing. First, it does not cross the IRT. Second, if it starts diving at what is currently Fulton St station, it can avoid the IND. That just leaves the Brighton and 4th Ave lines. |
|
|
| (1480705) | |
Re: A Much More Sane Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Shiznit1987 on Tue Jul 10 20:49:08 2018, in response to A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 10:18:16 2018. Even besides how unrealistic this idea is, the fact is most people want to go to Midtown, Not Lower Manhattan. People who need to go to Wall St already have a super easy connection to the A/C at Hoyt.My idea is to run a new subway under 57th st then alongside the Queensboro Bridge that will carry the G into Manhattan. It'll stop at Columbus Circle (A,B,C,D,1), 5th Ave (N,R,W), and Lex (4,5,6). |
|
|
| (1480712) | |
Re: A Much More Sane Proposal? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 10 22:56:32 2018, in response to Re: A Much More Sane Proposal, posted by Shiznit1987 on Tue Jul 10 20:49:08 2018. the fact is most people want to go to MidtownHow is that "the fact"? If that were true, then PATH's WTC terminus would not be viable. The fact is that if NYC had not banned steam locos south of 42nd Street, then Grand Central would have very likely been located in the Battery and not where it is today, and there would have been several rail bridges crossing the Hudson and continuing over the East River into Long Island. People who need to go to Wall St already have a super easy connection to the A/C at Hoyt How is it "super easy"? |
|
|
| (1480713) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Tue Jul 10 22:57:09 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 10 16:20:31 2018. that was a chart of depth in the area, The IND crosses directly under the IRT, in fact cutting through the lower level tunnel south of Nevins Street, making that extra platform even more unusable.The IND tracks stay together until after the pass Ashland Place, clearing both of the BMT lines passing underneath. Then the crosstown tracks can begin their drop to cross under the Manhattan bound Fulton line tracks. If the junction is built with one track rising, that track would need to be back down to the original grade before it got to Flatbush ave. If built with one track dropping, well, it can't. It would slam into the Brighton tunnel under St. Felix street before it could make the climb back up. |
|
|
| (1480714) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 10 22:57:33 2018, in response to A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 4 10:18:16 2018. Was the "GD" deliberately so named? |
|
|
| (1480719) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Jul 10 23:56:05 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by The Silence on Tue Jul 10 22:57:09 2018. Who said that the tracks for the G were the ones to change elevation? |
|
|
| (1480721) | |
Re: A Much More Sane Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Q Brightliner Harry on Wed Jul 11 01:13:16 2018, in response to Re: A Much More Sane Proposal, posted by Shiznit1987 on Tue Jul 10 20:49:08 2018. I would favor a proposal in which:(1) The Franklin Av Shuttle is extended north to connect to the G (2) The G and S are diverted in Greenpoint, west into a new East River tunnel under 23rd Street, ending on the west side of Manhattan, with stations connecting with most north-south subway lines. |
|
|
| (1480738) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 11 09:18:56 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 10 22:57:33 2018. That's what was on the original map. I Don't know why it was chosen. May be a type-o. |
|
|
| (1480742) | |
Re: A Proposal |
|
|
Posted by qveensboro_plaza on Wed Jul 11 10:48:39 2018, in response to Re: A Proposal, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Jul 11 09:18:56 2018. The designer of the proposal intended "GD" to signify a downtown Manhattan loop of the G train, but our fellow Subchatter is coyly suggesting the initials can also stand for G-d Damn, as in, "this is a GD stupid idea." |
|
|
