Jump to content

BronxBombers

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    633
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BronxBombers

  1. What did the train do after getting to 145th? Did people come off of the train at 135th?

    After 135th, everyone thought that the train was going to the Bronx. Once we got the 145th, we stopped there for about 3 minutes, waiting for the (3) to leave 148th. The conductor told us that we got the wrong line up. Than we went to 148th, they let us off and told us to take the (3) that was across the platform back downtown to 110th. I took it to 135th to catch the (2) to the Bronx, since I got an unlimited metrocard.

     

    I meant what TIME.

     

    Yesterday around 2:30ish pm.

  2. That dispatcher is in deep trouble I remember last year when they accidentally send the (3) over the (1) line

     

    But in their defense (I don't really know if it's a defense), when I was waiting for that (2) train. The countdown clock did say it was the (3) to Harlem. Maybe they thought it was a (3).

  3. Uptown or downtown? Uptown it works but it's rarely used from express to local. I commuted on the (6) for six years and only once did we ever go from local to express north of 14th, and I never saw an express do it. The interlocking southbound above 14th gets used more, but the wheel detectors mean it's a major delay just to clear a train through it in time. 45 minutes is insane though.

     

    Going downtown, right before you enter 14th Street (south of 18th St) there is an interlocking. I don't know why we just didn't go local instead of waiting for the train to clear out at 14th Street. It took about 40 to 45 minutes to get from Grand Central to 14th Street on the (5) yesterday. It was stop and go until we reach 23rd St where it just sat there for about 25 minutes.

  4. 14 Street–Union Square (4)(5)(6): The southbound platform should have been equal to the northbound platform, meaning the gap fillers should have never existed. I don't think the two X diamond switches should have been designed at either end of the station either.

     

    I agree with this so much. I am pretty sure that the gap fillers at Union Sq is the reason why the Lex line gets delayed during Rush hours.

  5. And how would the (T) use the Montague tunnel? Would you demolish half of the Bowery Station and take away J train riders' transfer spot at Fulton St? Or would you have the (T) continue to Hanover and then plug into Montague?

     

    Have the (T) go to Hanover Sq than plug it into the Montague.

  6. Wallyhorse I'm going to make it simple for all involved .IF the (T) were to use the existing trackage in Brooklyn the (T) would be the Fulton local to Lefferts at all times.Any train passing through the Court St (museum) station is automatically a local in Brooklyn. I'm sure the Richmond Hill riders would hate that idea but my plan would eliminate excess switch use and save the (C) for Brooklyn and Manhattan use instead. Matter of fact your idea has 3 expresses converging at Euclid Avenue , dual (A) trains and the (C).. Suppose I cut back the (C) to its old terminal at WTC and keep it out of Brooklyn entirely? The (T) would take it's place instead. Of course the Richmond Hill folks would lose their one seat express run but I'm only trying to eliminate excessive switch use and excessive mileage on the (C). My proposal is (partially) in jest but knowing how the (MTA) thinks and how unfunded this (T) train phase is I'll throw it out here for comment. Pro or con, have at it. Carry on.

     

     

    I think that's what he meant. The (A)(C) would run express along Fulton Street. While the (T) runs local to Euclid Avenue. The (A) would use the Rockaway Branch at all times, while the (C) would terminate at Lefferts Blvd. I like that idea better, it would eliminate confusion on the (A) train. 

     

    But instead of using the museum, my proposal would be to use the Montague Tunnel, stop at Court St (R) and build a smaller tunnel to connect Court St to the outer tracks at Hoyt St.

  7. Two problems with this:

     

    1) lack of money

    2) limited use - If people don't use the current out-of-system transfer on the grounds of a long walk, what makes you think they'll use it simply because it's underground?

     

    I understand the MTA doesn't have any money for that.

    If the passageway is advertised than it will attract people to connect the (F) with Lex/59. The out-of-system transfer isn't heavily used because maybe people don't want to exit the subway system just to re-enter for a transfer or maybe people still need to transfer to a bus & the out-of-system transfer would eliminate that.

  8. This is why there's literary nothing that can be done to reduce overcrowding and delays on the (E), especially since it already has its own riders from Archer Avenue to deal with, because riders just don't stop relying on "express" trains. This is also why local Queens Boulevard customers can't even just simply stay on the (R) and (M) either.

     

    The only one I can think of is the passageway idea, but like Q43 said the MTA is broke as hell. It's NYC, everyone is on the go and wants a faster trip. Nobody is going to stay on the (M) or (R) for 5 extra stops.

  9. Honestly, I think that if they're going to add intermediate stations, they should put one between 55th and 72nd. I believe that it's the biggest gap in between stations. The problem, of course, is that there's no place to put it between 62nd and 72nd, and if it were put at 60 St, it would be too close to 55th (which honestly should be 53rd, in my opinion)

     

    Does anyone know if the station platform at 72nd st extends south, north, or is about center on 72nd st?

     

    There are are exits at 69th Street and 72nd Street

  10. I don't see how reducing one train on one of the two lines and adding one more train to the other is gonna make a difference...Obviously the (E) is relatively more crowded than the (F) because more people connect for the buses at Jamaica Center than the buses at 179 Street and more people are headed towards 53 Street than 63 Street, in part, due to the transfer to the Lexington Avenue Line. Only 3 (E) trains operate to and from 179 Street during rush hours, meaning Hillside Avenue has slightly more service (18 tph) than Archer Avenue (12 tph).

     

    I remember there was a thread where people were proposing that 51 Street on the Lexington Avenue Line should have the (4) and (5) expresses also stopping there. It was then confirmed that it wasn't the case because that would just lead to more overcrowding and delays on the (E) because, then, you would have people transferring from express to express instead of the current setup of transferring from express to local or local to express. The (E) will still be more crowded regardless of the 16/14 tph setup. It's not just the ridership on the Archer Avenue and 53 Street lines, but also people are going to/from Port Authority and Penn Station. Those on the (F) are only going to destinations on the line itself and not the (E).

     

    The only way I can think of reducing overcrowding and delays on the (E) is by having Queens Boulevard local customers north of and also at Roosevelt Avenue being forced to stick to the (R) via the transfer at Lexington Avenue-59 Street to all 3 Lexington Avenue lines (both express and local, not just one of them). Any Queens Boulevard local customers heading towards 53 Street or 6 Avenue should just stay on the (M). The (MTA) needs to do a full-line review about this so that riders can hopefully get it and stop relying on the express trains all the time. That's why I prefer to keep the current rush hour 15/15 tph setup on the Queens Boulevard Express.

     

    If there is a chance to take an express train, riders will opt for the express train to get to their destination quicker. That why I think the MTA should build a passageway connecting Lex/63rd with Lex/59th. That way people can take the (F) to connect with the Lexington line and it could potentially reduce crowding on the (6) and (E) trains. Let's face it, the free walking on street level transfer isn't attractive. With the passageway, it gives Queens riders another "quicker" option to the Lexington Avenue line and the (4)(5) express that the (E) doesn't offer.

  11. For some strange reason, every time I take the (A) from Far Rockaway and when it gets to Rockaway Blvd, some people on the platform don't even get on the train and they will wait for the next one. The train wasn't that crowded.

     

    Same with the (5) that goes to Nereid (or Wakefield in the morning). People will just wait at E180 for the (2), even though the (5) makes the same stops.

  12. If only the subway extended outward to different sections of Queens. By looking at the (F) line along Hillside Ave it looks as if the line was originally suppose to have an express and local service along the line. If the funding was there at the time could of had an extension outward towards Nassau.

    A lot of people say the Bronx and Brooklyn have it bad but it doesn't look that bad at all. At least the lines are spread out across the Bronx and Brooklyn is covered pretty nicely. Queens had so much potential for a better subway back when they could have still done something back in the 1950's and 1960's but now with all the buildings and stuff that opportunity is long gone. With SBS coming to Woodhaven that old LIRR line is going to lay and rot away.

     

    For the exception of 3 Avenue and Utica Avenue, I think that the Bronx and Brooklyn are pretty well covered. Queens definitely need better subway coverage, it's lacking. I prefer the old LIRR to be restored over the SBS route.

  13. IMHO Having the (2) scheduled to come one minute or two minutes behind after the (3) in both directions is indeed perfect:

     

    Southbound, the (2) is already crowded entering Manhattan from all of the stops it makes in the Bronx, while the (3) only picks up people at just two stops above 135th Street. Anybody traveling within Manhattan can get on the (3), therefore, allowing the (2) to loose its passengers.

     

    Northbound, anybody traveling within Manhattan can get on the (3), allowing the (2) to have room for anyone heading to the Bronx.

     

    Of course, during rush hours (depending on the time of the day and depending on which direction), the Flatbush and New Lots branches have the same amount of crowds, so it really doesn't matter which one comes first for that purpose.

     

    I agree with that. Whenever I ride the (2) during rush hours, I look at the countdown clock and I see a (3) two minutes behind it. Maybe it's scheduled that way so that the (3) can pick up anybody who can't fit on the (2). The (2) isn't extremely crowded coming into Manhattan, since it eases up a little at Grand Concourse. But once it hits 96th it gets crushed. If the (3) comes first before the (2) it gives people some room (or a seat, which is almost rare) on the (2).

  14. Just imagine that the entire (T) line was to exist today, then the Queens Blvd Line would have been the busiest corridor in the entire subway system.

     

    I disagree, any of the Manhattan trunk lines (except the 14th, 42nd, and Nassau) are busier than Queens Blvd. You could say that the QBL would be the busiest outside of Manhattan.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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