MikeGerald

Sometimes people "stick" to certain lines and train routes because that is the simplest method to get between their destinations. When I lived in the Bronx on the #6 line, and rode the #6 train to and from 23rd Street or 14th Street on the eastside - (my destination was 19th Street and Irving Place at the time) - did it really matter to me that there were trains on 8th Avenue or 7th Avenue? Nope. Yes - getting to know Manhattan or New York City is a good thing in and of itself. It is always a good thing to remind yourself that plenty of people have different travel needs, and destinations. The nature of the NYC subway requires us to be mindful that good alternatives - that are timely and not complicated - do not always exist. A person may walk a block between 7th and 8th Avenue and their stations, but it is possible that the trains at either 7th AVenue or 8th Avenue (the one the person does not often use - does not help that person get to their destination in a timely manner or without several complicated transfers - then can we say that the existence of the "other subway line" is really an alternative? Mike

In each of the Fast-Track operations, the MTA did not provide alternative shuttle buses, or promote the usage of bus. In addition to organizing the workers for the Fast=Track operation, each shuttle bus requires a driver. The Fast-Track program simply re-arranges the work that would be done, as well as the workers for the task. The more shuttle buses that are used, the greater the cost of the operation, and those costs have to coordinated between the various departments. Remember that even during the hours of the Fast-Track operation, the subways still carry a great deal of people. Mike

By sending the Brooklyn D-trains to Whitehall Street, those D-trains pass through the Jay Street-MetroTech station where A and F train service is available (via the R-train station). That is how the MTA is "connecting" the parts of the D-train for this Fast-Track session. Mike

One problem with running a Fast-Track operation in the "outer boroughs" on the elevated lines and subways - besides the fact that there are often few nearby subway lines - is that shuttle buses cost money. A subway train needs a train operator and conductor, while each shuttle bus requires a driver. A bus can accommodate about 65 riders, while a single subway car can hold about 175 people crush loaded. Multiple numbers of buses will be needed to handle the amount of riders that a single train handles. Meaning that the cost goes way up in trying to provide alternative travel. It is a quiet secret of the current Fast Track programs - that basically no (to very little) additional spending is required. The riders diverted to the "other train lines" are simply using trains and personnel that would have been provided anyway. Even extending for example the #4 or #5 to service Brooklyn all night long for this effort - is simply using train crews that are working their regular hours. That is one reason - the secret reason - why this program is limited to midtown Manhattan - it keeps the costs down. Attempting to run such a program on the elevated lines or subways at night would drive the costs way upward. Mike

The trip from Brooklyn College to Penn Station under the current #1-2-3 Fast-Track program - has a very simple travel alternative. This travel alternative involves the #2 or #5 in Brooklyn, and the Q-train. Simply change at the Atlantic Avenue - Pacific Street station between the #2 or #5 trains, and the Q-train. This alternative works for either direction - going to Manhattan or traveling back to Queens. Take the Q-train to 34th Street-Herald Square, and walk along 33rd or 34th Streets one block (from Sixth Avenue to Seventh Avenue), and enter Penn Station. The current Westside Fast-Track on the #1, #2 and #3 lines actually has some of the easiest alternative routes, compared to the other Fast-Track programs. Mike

One of the things to keep in mind about the subways over the years, has been the change in the ways and times that majorities of people use the subways. In the 1960's-70's-80's and before that - more than half of the ridership rode the subways during the RUSH HOURS. After the rush hours were over there were sharp declines in ridership. What this meant was that fewer people were affected by G.O.'s and other diversions of subway traffic. These days the subways are not only heavily used during the rush hours, but also heavily used at other times of the day, nights and weekends. This means that G.O.'s that used to affect fewer riders, now affect MANY riders. Thus maintenance work that used to take place on weekends and during the evenings competes with the larger number of riders who simply want to get to their destinations. The FAST-TRACK program is really only useful in midtown Manhattan were many of the subway lines are sort of parallel to each other, making alternative travel easier for some riders. The FAST-Track style of maintenance and repair is really not useful in the other boroughs because many riders would have great difficulty with the few alternative travel methods available. The subway lines become widely disbursed, and none are really parallel to the others - except over great distances. Just think about the hassles of getting around when there is a subway outage in the Bronx, Brooklyn or Queens - major numbers of people are affected. In many cases the street-level bus network is simply not capable of handling the crowds, or in providing timely swift transit. Just some thoughts to keep in mind. Mike

I like most (the majority) of the alternatives that were listed, and the alternatives that were posted seem easy enough to follow without a huge amount of "hassle" to connect the various segments that would be closed. I do however have some nits to pick: a) There were a few suggestions that the Broadway-Lafayette Street station be used for transfers between the Lexington Avenue line and the IND lines. The basic problem with this particular suggestion is that any travel directions given that uses this transfer can not be made for BOTH directions. For example in one of the suggestions - that Seventh Avenue line users use the D train as the alternative with a transfer at Broadway-Lafayette Street. Yes a rider from 23rd Street (where in the example given the D-train is local) can take the D-train to Broadway-Lafayette for a transfer to the #6, and then a transfer to #4 or #5 trains to/from Brooklyn. This works - no problem. However a rider from Grand Army Plaza traveling to West 23rd Street can not take the same route - the uptown #6 does not have a transfer to the Broadway-Lafayette station just yet - they are still building the transfer. This is not to say that such a travel plan is impossible - it just might mean that such a rider will have more walking to do. Most likely a transfer at Fulton Street in Manhattan between the #4 and #5 lines to/from the A and C lines would be a better travel advisory. B) This one is not actually a nit-pick, but an assumption. I believe that if the MTA is saying that the IRT Seventh Avenue line is going to be closed from 34th Street to Atlantic Avenue, that they also mean the South Ferry section - since the idea is to close ALL of the subway trancks and to work on them. This could be an assumption on my part, and I am aware of what they say about assumptions. When the westside IRT lines are shut down, getting to South Ferry is simply not that easy from the Christopher Street area. Suggestions that riders use the R train (or N-train after midnight) simply do not work until the rider is north of 42nd Street. The only suggestion is to use the A, or C trains with a transfer at Fulton Street for the #4 or #5 trains to Bowling Green. c) Since the closures only affect the mid-town area, after the midnght hours, the A-train is going to be all local anyway. Mike

Yes, as was noted the 145th Street station on Lenox Avenue opened in November 1904, however what was left out was that the station was designed for LOCAL trains which were 6 cars in length in 1904. What was also left out - was the fact the basically immediately to the south of the station are the #2 tracks/tunnel coming in to/from the Bronx - and immediately north of the station are the switch tracks and entrance to what used to be the main IRT train yard at 148th Street. This train yard - much bigger in 1904, also held the power plant for the then entire IRT subway line. Over time the train yard was modified, the power plant was removed and in 1968 a public housing structure was built over the train yard - and the 148th Street train station was created. The 148th Street train station is a full length train station, as well as a small train yard for the #3 line. In 1904 - trains that terminated at 145th Street were local trains along Broadway using the switch plant just north of the 96th Street station, these trains operated local to the southern terminal. Trains that traveled over the Lenox Avenue line to/from the Bronx were express trains south of the 96th Street. Of course, there were trains that terminated at 137th Street-City College that operated as locals to the southern terminal, and trains that operated north of the 137th Street station to the Bronx - that were express along Broadway south of 96th Street. When the "H" formation of the IRT was created in the 1920's - local trains along the Broadway/Seventh Avenue line ran from South Ferry to/from 137th Street-City College, AND to/from 145th Street-Lenox Avenue. While Broadway / Seventh Avenue express trains operated from 242nd Street-Van Cortlandt Park, and from West 180th Street-Bronx Park to either Brooklyn terminal - New Lots Avenue or Flatbush Avenue. All in all - a lot of switching occurred at the 96th Street station leading to train tie-ups, and conga lines of trains. This all changed in 1959 - when the TA decided that all trains that travel along the Broadway line from 103rd Street and above - will be local at all times to South Ferry. The TA also decided that all trains that travel along the Lenox Avenue line will be express along Broadway/Seventh Avenue and to/from the Brooklyn terminals of New Lots Avenue and Flatbush Avenue. Thus the number #1, #2 and #3 as we basically know them today was born. Since trains did not have to switch tracks north of 96th Street, the traffic flowed much more easily. Since the 145th Street-Lenox Avenue station was designed from the beginning (1904) to handle local trains, and then local trains were six cars in length - a then full size train could fit in the station (same as South Ferry's original outer loop platform). Express trains during the rush hours were 8 cars in length in 1904. In the 1950's - the TA adopted the idea to extend all subway trains to 10 cars in length - which meant that many stations had to be extended. Since the conductors on 10-car trains operates from the middle of the train that places him/her at the 5 and 6 car position. The 145th Street-Lenox Avenue station, and the original South Ferry station (original outer loop platform) could not be extended - due to the conditions near those stations. Thus only first FIVE cars of a 10-car train could open their doors at those stations - even though the station was originally designed and built for six cars. Changes in subway car design over the decades and door placement changes meant that the South Ferry station (which was built on a curve) had to have platform extenders to meet the middle doors and end doors of the trains, whereas the original trains in 1904 only had doors at the ends of the cars. Lenox Avenue is already a very wide street, designed that way when the Harlem area was constructed in the early 1900's, and under the 1811 Street grid plan. I do not understand the suggestion that the street needs to be widened. Such a task would involve the property rights of owners on both sides of the avenue. Understanding transit history, and something about NYC history - would lead one to answers about the how and why of certain stations, transit lines, and other aspects of the subways. I hope this information is helpful. Mike

I am just saying that a simple statement - "well the #1 train is nearby" (in this example) does not always reflect how real travelers have to make connections to/from the lines that they really want or need. Just for example - take a rider at 23rd Street/9th Avenue who has to travel to Nostrand Avenue, in Brooklyn. Saying - "well take the #1". Yes, that works for someone who confines their trips only to Manhattan. However many riders don't and can not confine themselves to Manhattan - they need to get to/from their usual stations in the "other Boroughs". So connecting the "segments" is important. Now how many transfers will that rider need? How much walking to nearby or not very nearby stations will be needed? How much "hassle" is "too much"? Yes, the MTA or even us regular folk can draw up "plans" of what stations would be closed, what trains would be diverted where. That is all fine and good. Yes, it's an exercise over how to route the trains. Now just try to imagine having to take a trip from point A to point B - using what is supposed to be nearby one's usual station to get to one's usual destination. Please note that I am not jumping upon anyone. For example on the Lexington Avenue line - except for the section from 14th Street to 59th Street. Suggesting that riders take the N, Q, and R trains is good advice (downtown Manhattan and Brooklyn to/from Atlantic/Pacific) - however if I were the MTA - I'd provide shuttle bus service for the section of 42nd Street to 14th Street-Union Square since the N, Q and R trains simply do not parallel the #4, #5 or #6 lines between those streets. Now that is a workable transit plan for the riders that is easy to explain, it is "do-able". For some of the closures - a workable alternative exists, however some of the closures require a bit more effort to provide alternatives, or maybe shuttle buses to make connections. Easy answers don't always exist. Mike

While the #1 line runs along the Westside, and would seem to be the obvious choice to be used by riders who would normally use the A, C and E lines - during the closure. There is a problem - if the A train is diverted from 59th Street-CC all of the way (following the D and F-train pathways) to/from Jay Street-Borough Hall - the #1 line never again connects with the A or C trains. As is well known, the subways especially the IND lines were not always created to work well with the other transit lines. With these kinds of closures - travel directions have to be provided on the "other segments" that allow the usual riders to get to/from their usual destinations. Hopefully the travel directions does not have riders jumping through several hoops (transfers) as alternatives to complete their usual routes. Suggesting that riders take the #1 (in this example) when that line does not connect back to the original that's being diverted is just bad transit advice. As I said in another message, just because some transit lines appear close to other lines does not mean that everything is peachy. Mike

For example -- on the Lexington AVenue line where they want to close it down from Grand Central station to Atlantic Avenue - the easiest thing to do is direct riders to/from the N, Q and R lines from the 59th Street-Lexington AVenue station to the Atlantic Avenue/Pacific Street complex. The N, Q and R lines would be the connecting lines. In lower Manhattan from about 14th street through downtown Brooklyn the #4, #5 and #6 lines parallel the N, Q, and R lines - however the N and Q lines offer the benefit of a quicker trip to/from Brooklyn over the Manhattan Bridge, while the R line provides a parallel trip to the Bowling Green/Whitehall Street area for SI Ferry riders, and the Court Street section of Brooklyn. So in this instances - having Lexington Avenue riders change to/from the N, Q, and R lines is a good alternative. There is a however. The however is that the N, Q and R lines from 59th Street to 14th Street basically start to veer away from the eastside to head to/from Seventh Avenue / Times Square / Herald Square to travel under Broadway. Thus having shuttle buses traveling along Park Avenue South from 42nd Street to 14th Street would be a good idea. The bus riders could pick up the N, Q and R trains at 14th Street-Union Square to further their journey. There are very few subway lines that parallel each other so well that one could line really substitute for the other, without some compromises. Mike

In the old days - meaning well before the automated electronic announcements - there was the tendency on the part of riders to wonder just WHEN the next train will arrive. That is why plenty of people look down the tracks. In the days before they welded the rails - the tracks would click to announce an on-coming train - well before the beams of light were near the station. However due to plenty of service cutbacks, service changes and plenty of other stuff - when a train arrived - folks would rush the doors, folks would hold the doors to try as they might to get on-board THAT train - yes, the one that finally arrived. Why would they (the riders) go through the effort of holding the doors, fighting the doors, and being upset when the train left the station without them. They had no clue what-so-ever just WHEN or IF the next train will arrive. There were simply just too many times, when riders have missed trains (the train is pulling out of the station just as they arrive) where there was a God-awful long wait for the next train, and simply no assurance what-so-ever that there would EVER be another train. The automated computerized public announcements concerning the arriving train, and an announcement about the train that follows helps to relieve and calm down the riders. To say - that yes, there is another train. Now since the computers don't lie (just yet) most folks believe them. (smile) There used to be a time when the conductors would say, "There's a train immediately behind this one" while he/she is trying to get the doors closed so that train can move. In the old days (1970's before the budget cuts) that WAS A TRUE STATEMENT because the riders could actually see the approach lights of the following train. Because of the budget cuts, and the plenty changes in transit since then - NOBODY, BUT NOBODY REALLY BELIEVES THE CONDUCTORS when they say that there is a train behind the one in front of the riders. The conductors just say that - so they could move on - it is not a completely true statement - and the riders don't really believe it. Once the computers start lying to the public about the arrival time of the next train the computers won't be believed, and that would not be good. Right now, however - the arrival information about the nearest train, and the one after it is useful for many riders. Mike

Suppose the Lexington Avenue line was closed from 10am to 5am on the four weeknight's plan from 42nd Street to Brooklyn Bridge. This is the easiest one to imagine. Both #4, #5 and #6 trains from the Bronx could terminate and relay on the both tracks at the uptown plaform at the Grand Central Station. Yes that is easy to imagine. Riders could be sent by the 42nd Street Shuttle train to the westside #2 or #3 running full-time to/from Brooklyn. Plus there are other transfers at 51-53rd Streets, and at 59th Street. Previous #4 G.O.'s have used #4 trains running as a shuttle between the Brooklyn Bridge station and the Brooklyn IRT lines. So yes - it is do-able. Mike

According to Stan Fischler in the subway book, Uptown-Downtown - the connection on the downtown side of the Bleecker Street station was an accident during the station lengthening project. The connection was not "on purpose" but rather the result when a wall was broken through. The TA then decided to make a transfer station there, since there were (and remains) few direct IRT and IND transfer stations. Mike