Nassau Street Exp in Manhattan Question

[mark1447]

Why isnt it possible to have a proper express service for the in manhattan. I would have it skip Bowery and Canal using the Local northbound[Revenue] track for broad st bound and the abandoned northbound[non-revenue] express track for Brooklyn/Qns bound train, Put a wall up or sumin to cover up the express tracks and allow the to run Local. Have the run to Broad St during Middays instead of Chambers. And maybe cut the to chambers so it wouldnt interfere with the .. Then the rest if for the when not running..

 

 

Unless thats too short for an express run? Otherwise i wouldnt assign it Nassau St Exp but rather Jamaica Exp | Via Skip Stop Service since it doesnt run Exp on Nassau St, even tho its trunk line is Nassau St..

 

Just asking btw nothing else... What do you guys thing?

[R44 5278]

Mark, this was exactly what I was thinking about for 3 long years. I don't think that it's possible for southbound trains since there is no crossover east of Essex St: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigdowntown.png. If there was a crossover, I think the T/A wouldn't want to hassle with the southbound express crossing over the northbound track east of Essex St and south of Canal St. The track itself however is still used by work trains.

[mark1447]

Any train that bypasses Canal Street is a huge no-no. A true Nassau Street Express in Manhattan would be utterly pointless. Expectially since the the ride is short from Essex to Broad. Although, and trains bypassed Bowery before April 1999.

 

Confused on canal. Do you mean no becuz of business down there? Ill admit its short but I wish some sort of express service would do, Rather then Exp from Myrtle to Marcy and then Skip Stop Exp ..

 

Mark, this was exactly what I was thinking about for 3 long years. I don't think that it's possible for southbound trains since there is no crossover east of Essex St: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigdowntown.png. If there was a crossover, I think the T/A wouldn't want to hassle with the southbound express crossing over the northbound track east of Essex St and south of Canal St. The track itself however is still used by work trains.

 

Most likely with 6 stations in manhattan wouldnt do for exp, but still 2 stations being skipped would be nice..

[Grand Concourse]

Totally agreed about Canal. That station probably has more people using it than Chambers St [from the few times I've rode the J/M]. The rest of your reasons, I totally agree with as well.

Nassau-Centre St express was just not meant to be.

 

Well now that this is about Nassau, I've finally found a place to post my rant about how Chambers should be reconfigured where the n/b local should be connected to the n/b 'express track'. And the middle platform reopened and new stairwells built, while the current n/b platform is closded down and to basically 'simplify' Chambers.

I mean why is there a need for two tracks to relay a train? Surely it can be just as fast to turn the train back from the 'middle' track than to send it all the way back to the tail track and then back on the other platform, right?

[Eric B]

I just yesterday came to the realization of how to make Fulton the terminal instead of the relays at Chambers. I had long been saying to look for a way to connect the relay track to the northbound at Fulton. even though they might be close, you're still going through solid wall.

 

However, the northbound and southbound tracks run side by side for about 300 feet between the stations (222+50 to about 225+50). They are far apart in Chambers, but then come together, before the grade begins separating with the northound going downstairs. There's nothing but colums with the short little sections of wall separating them. I knew about this all along, but wonder why I never thought of that all this time.

 

So it would be easy to put a switch there, so you can get from the southbound to the northbound, and then terminate at Fulton (instead of the relay, and the move would probably take the same amount of time as cleaning out the train and then pulling it in; so the schedules would not even have to change!) and have access to the transfers there without having to open up Broad (on the weekends).

 

Otherwise, for now, you can just use the current southbound track, with both tracks, but they said they wanted to keep the track against the wall open for work trains (which really could wait until it's clear). Yet now, a conductor was telling me they used to do it like that (with no relay).

 

6. Broad Street - Somewhat doable only if the and lines swapped rush hour south terminals.

That's no good, because they all have to punch for the lineup there anyway.

[N-Trizzy2609]

I just don't think it's a good idea. Bowery would probably be the only station skipped away and that isn't a good idea because of talks of a transfer to Grand Street and the fact that it getting more riders by the load. It's not good idea at all. You'd have a better chance of getting express service from Broadway Jct. to Myrtle.

[MAA89]

Any train that bypasses Canal Street is a huge no-no. A true Nassau Street Express in Manhattan would be utterly pointless. Expectially since the the ride is short from Essex to Broad. Although, and trains bypassed Bowery before April 1999.

Why does the and bypass Canal then?

[R62A 1991]

Why does the and bypass Canal then?

 

The same reason why the and bypass it: it's a local station on the IRTs, and the (4)/(5)'s local counterpart: the (6)/<6> runs frequent enough to sufficiently serve the station, as does the . I don't think the (J)/(M)/(Z) could bypass it, it just wouldn't work.

[Myrtle Local]

I agree, skipping Canal St. is a bad idea! It's a huge transfer point for riders going uptown on the East Side and up Broadway. Bottom line in my opinion a true Nassau St Exp is pointless

[MAA89]

The same reason why the and bypass it: it's a local station on the IRTs, and the (4)/(5)'s local counterpart: the (6)/<6> runs frequent enough to sufficiently serve the station, as does the . I don't think the (J)/(M)/(Z) could bypass it, it just wouldn't work.

 

I see. I still think, though, that the and skip too many stations in Lower Manhattan. While Astor Place and Bleecker Street have low riderships, at least one of the expresses should stop there, especially in the downtown direction, thus providing a one seat ride from Chinatown to Brooklyn neighborhoods served by the and , i.e. without having to transfer at City Hall.

[Rutgers Tube]

I see. I still think, though, that the and skip too many stations in Lower Manhattan. While Astor Place and Bleecker Street have low riderships, at least one of the expresses should stop there, especially in the downtown direction, thus providing a one seat ride from Chinatown to Brooklyn neighborhoods served by the and , i.e. without having to transfer at City Hall.

 

So, Bleecker Street being the 25th busiest station in 2008 and Astor Place clocking in at #67 comprise low ridership? :confused:

[R62A 1991]

I see. I still think, though, that the and skip too many stations in Lower Manhattan. While Astor Place and Bleecker Street have low riderships, at least one of the expresses should stop there, especially in the downtown direction, thus providing a one seat ride from Chinatown to Brooklyn neighborhoods served by the and , i.e. without having to transfer at City Hall.

 

I understand, but unless they get converted to express stations (which is probably not going to happen anytime soon), the and will continue to skip those stations. Bleecker has the Manhattan Bridge trains that provide a quicker ride to Atlantic-Pacific for a transfer to the (4)/(5). I prefer using those trains than going through Lower Manhattan when I'm near them.

[MAA89]

I understand, but unless they get converted to express stations (which is probably not going to happen anytime soon), the and will continue to skip those stations. Bleecker has the Manhattan Bridge trains that provide a quicker ride to Atlantic-Pacific for a transfer to the (4)/(5). I prefer using those trains than going through Lower Manhattan when I'm near them.

 

Oh, I am sorry, I did not mean should stop at Astor or Bleecker. I was saying at least one should stop at Canal Street, but I worded my comment badly.

[MAA89]

So, Bleecker Street being the 25th busiest station in 2008 and Astor Place clocking in at #67 comprise low ridership? :confused:

 

The data for Bleecker Street includes ridership for the ( at Broadway-Lafayette, as the whole complex is reported as one station in the rankings.

 

Astor Place has low ridership by Lexington Avenue line standards.

[Grand Concourse]

The data for Bleecker Street includes ridership for the ( at Broadway-Lafayette, as the whole complex is reported as one station in the rankings.

 

Astor Place has low ridership by Lexington Avenue line standards.

 

By Union Sq and below, the Broadway lines runs almost parallel to the Lexington lines. So a drop off in ridership isn't too surprising.

[FlushingExpress]

Oh, I am sorry, I did not mean should stop at Astor or Bleecker. I was saying at least one should stop at Canal Street, but I worded my comment badly.

 

there is no need for that. you can transfer between the and at Brooklyn Bridge (one station south) and the at 14th Street-Union Square. heck, if you are desperate, you can walk from City Hall on the to Brooklyn Bridge on the . you cannot do that anyway. if a train stops at Canal Street, it has to go local all the way to 14th Street-Union Square, which is not a good thing considering how frequently the runs.

 

has ridership on the BMT Nassau Street Line increased over the past few years since the "Nassau Street Express" technically does not exist anymore? i never understood why (NYCT) just calls the the "Jamaica Avenue Local/Express" (they did this during the Williamsburg Bridge reconstruction project) and the the "Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Local".

[MAA89]

there is no need for that. you can transfer between the and at Brooklyn Bridge (one station south) and the at 14th Street-Union Square. heck, if you are desperate, you can walk from City Hall on the to Brooklyn Bridge on the . you cannot do that anyway. if a train stops at Canal Street, it has to go local all the way to 14th Street-Union Square, which is not a good thing considering how frequently the runs.

 

I know the runs very frequently, especially at rush hours. However, passengers entering Manhattan on the or and going to Canal St, Spring St, Bleecker St or Astor Place, need to transfer twice, once from the Fulton St lines to the or at Broadway Nassau-Fulton St and once again at City Hall to the . Since the cannot go to Fulton St as it needs to turn around in the City Hall loop, it would be helpful if either the or made local stops at Canal St, Spring St, Bleecker St and Astor Place.

 

I am not pushing this idea at all for the "it would be nice" or "I would benefit" reasons (though I do have to make this sort of trip sometimes), it was just a thought; I had always wondered why the Lexington Expresses made no stops between City Hall and Union Sq, even at important ones like Canal St, and how riders will have trouble getting to the IRT East Side stops in Lower Manhattan/LES.

[BroadwayBuffer]

i never understood why (NYCT) just calls the the "Jamaica Avenue Local/Express" (they did this during the Williamsburg Bridge reconstruction project) and the the "Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Local".

 

I've always thought that the & should be called Bway-Bkln Exp or Lcl since that is the section where they actually run express. Especially with a fleet of R-160s with electronic signs which are capable of more. For example, Parsons-bound they should read: Bway-Bkln Exp, Jamaica Skip Stop. Manhattan-bound: Bway-Bkln Exp, Nassau St Exp.