the7train

On 5/16/2018 at 1:27 AM, brakethrow said:

The whole system needs to be blown up and start from scratch. 

What's your plan to restart the whole system?

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

London has shorter stop spacing than the subway here.

It just goes to show that, yes, we could have clean stations if the MTA was better with funds, but closing stations is not the answer.

do you think it's politics that's causing these problems?

I really wanna see how the PSD experiment goes on 3rd Av

43 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Dude. You've been asked multiple times that these stations are still open because of ridership. 

Come back to me when you have the ridership levels of each station and explain to me how it WON'T overcrowd existing stations. Then we can talk. 

Don't say "let's upgrade this!" when the best cost-effective solution is....

LEAVE THOSE STATIONS ALONE. 

47 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Yes - they're on three different lines with three different rider bases.

The MTA just added, a couple of years ago, weekend service to Wall Street on the . What makes you think, then, that that stop might be a candidate for closure?

Or would you propose closing either of the busy IRT stops at Wall Street?

I'm extremely sorry all if you feel I'm talking nonsense

I just wish for the stations here to be clean and efficient like those in London and Hong Kong, and I just wanted to propose an idea for what would the best. I'll stop annoying you guys about this if you would like!!

Sorry for the double post, but the MTA is already strapped for money, wouldn't it be better if instead of those 3 stations, you have one designated station bigger in capacity, and use the money for other areas that are underserved like Bronx? 

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

There is a case to be made for consolidating stations in instances where it would result in improved connections to other subway lines or buses. Examples of this include:

• Lorimer Street and Hewes Street on the replaced by a new station at Union Avenue, with an in-system transfer to the that was missed because of IND shortsightedness.
• 103rd Street and 111th Street on the replaced by a new station at 108th, allowing the busy Q23 to run straight up and down 108th Street instead of following the curvy route it does today.

However, in today's high-ridership and perpetually overcrowded subway system, I can think of no case where a station should be closed outright. The presence of a couple of lower-ridership stops on a line is not a massive inhibitor of capacity. However, risking the overcrowding of several other stations on a line would be a great inhibitor of potential capacity.

If the platforms at the three Wall Street stops - by which I assume you mean Wall , Broad , and Wall - were to be connected through passageways, they'd still be for all intents and purposes three different stations. Connecting the IND and IRT at Court Square didn't make the maintenance of the or platforms any easier.

And what would be the point of this station, considering Fulton already does this just a few blocks north?

Closing stations mean you can use the money originally intended to maintain the closed station to improve the capacity and accessibility of neighboring stations in anticipations of this "overcrowding".

I just don't get the concept of over serving areas with stations one block apart from each other. It's like the Wall Street Area, is there really a need for 3 stations, one block apart from each other?

23 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

Saying that Stations be closed is one thing. But saying that they should be combined is another thing.

18 Street should stay since I've seen a fair amount of ridership there. (Despite not passing by there a lot). 

 

I'm not advocating for 18th st to be closed, I'm just saying is there a justification for having subway stations 3 blocks apart, when it's really a walkable distance.

1 hour ago, W4ST said:

18th Street's ridership is 190th, in the top half of stations citywide. That's a fair amount of people. They could overcrowd 14th and 23rd streets even if these stations were upgraded.

It also wouldn't really be worth it for local trains to bypass this station, since express trains already skip it. It would only save maybe 30 seconds for local trains, and you can already get around it easily.

It would be best to keep this station and stations like it open. Unless the station is seriously obstructing train flow in some way and has low ridership, I would keep it open.

Another station means more money to maintain it, money the MTA already lacks. Again, it's not 18th st that I'm stressed about, why that one station out of the 469 in the system??? It's an example of a station where I feel is way too close to another, and we could use the money needed to maintain it in other areas.

1 hour ago, Snowblock said:

I'll say it again, I don't see anyone campaigning to close Wall St on the  and that's the same distance from Fulton and Bowling Green that 18 is from 23 and 14 on the

I would advocate for combining the 3 "Wall Street Stations" into an interchange, I personally think it'd be better for the system to maintain 1 big station as opposed to 3 seperate stations that really just serve the same area.

2 hours ago, Jemorie said:

the7train, I don’t see what difference does it make. It really doesn’t. At most you’re only saving a few seconds. It’s not that serious.

You just want those stations closed for almost no reason.

 

 

No no, I may be saying something really wrong here, but the point i'm trying to make is that passengers currently are complaining about both the look of stations and the amount of trains running. This is due to the limited budget the MTA has. Maybe the problem with the MTA and their money is that they have too many things to maintain, and what would make it easier is to simplify the situation. Take for example 18th St. Now I get it's a high ridership station. But it's really 4 blocks away from 14th st, and another 5 blocks away from 23rd st. The money used to maintain 18th st, could instead be used to improve and maintain both 14th st and 23rd st to have bigger platforms, ada requirements, screen doors, etc. For an extra 2-3 mins of walking, you save an extraordinary amount of money that could improve neighboring stations in anticipation of future crowds by closing one station. It doesn't have to be 18th st, I'm talking about stations anywhere in the system that are bunched up together (3-4 blocks apart). Is it really necessary for a station that's 3 streets up when I could walk the distance in 1 to 2 minutes?

I'm just saying, some stations are bunched up way too close to one another, meaning extra stops and longer journey times of trains. Combining them means you get to maintain the one station into a better state, and it saves an extra minute or two on journey time, which could fit another train to move passengers at a quicker rate. 

10 minutes ago, Snowblock said:

Plenty of people use all 3 of these stations. I swear the biggest goal on this forum (aside from getting something, ANYTHING to run through the Nassau cut again) is to close 18th St on the  .....

can people not walk down an extra 4 blocks for a bigger 14th st station, or 5 blocks up to a busier 23rd st station???

1 hour ago, Jchambers2120 said:

What is so inadvertently wrong with stations being so "close" together and did you not see the other posters points about the negative impacts that closing them would have?

At a time like this facing the crisis we have now do you really think the TA could get away with permanently closing stations to "save money"?

Take for example 18th St, 23rd, and 28th St on the Broadway Line. With so many passengers complaining about the state of stations, closing 18th and 28th, while expanding 23rd to improve its state allows for a better looking station. Trains also have to run less stations, meaning we can run more TPH. 

7 hours ago, CTK246 said:

There are a lot of people who live everywhere. With the exception of Beverley and Cortelyou Roads, I think the spacing is fine.

But don't you guys feel they're bunched up too close? Especially manhattan lines, with stations an avenue apart from one another, and some 4 streets apart from one another

Is it just me, or are MTA stations bunched up way too close to one another? I feel like it'd be more efficient to have spread out stations that are cleaner and bigger so we save on money and can improve accessibility?