Subway Update

[Brighton Local]

In New York City nagging get things done.

 

True, but you really have to be a PITA about it..

[nel070]

True, but you really have to be a PITA about it..

 

Well it got rid of the and got the Forest hills and Briarwood the thats an improvement

[2Line1291]

I don't live in Queens so I can't judge the situation but when it comes to train service, do Queens residents have it their way most or all the time?

 

The already looks like its going in circles, why not have it go to Jamaica Center

[Jamaica Express]

Thats not happening anyone remember 1992 when the Briarwood and Forest hills neigborhood associations got together and got the removed from running local to 179st. These communities wanted a one seat ride via 6th or 8th ave queens blvd express and this is why the became local from continental to 179st. The MTA is not going to change that, they are tryin to save money so why would they expand the to 179st when the route is long already and these neighborhood associations wont accept a slow train like the as the local to 179street.

 

I was waiting for someone to say something. This was a line that originally had TWO express trains the & ...The ORIGINAL Archer Ave subway plan had intended for the & to go to Jamaica Center. The train was to run to Jamaica Center,during weekdays while terminated at 71st- Forest Hills. During weekends the was to run to Jamaica Center, while the terminated at 57 St or 71st Ave.....this obviously doesn't make much sense. At the time 169 St & 179 St stations had SERIOUS overcrowding problems....so for a brand new subway a couple of blocks away to only be served by local trains wasn't a very attractive service plan and would have probably lead to it not being used to its fullest potential. So with many buses re-routed and extended to Jamaica Center, the an Express train was sent there with hopes of taking some pressure off the Hillside Ave stations. In the mits of all this I guess the MTA thought they could get away with replacing the an express train with the ...which was local..and at the time had one of the worst on time performance records in the system. To add insult to injury, I have a MTA Archer Ave subway brochure that states...some Rush Hr trains will end/originate at 71st Ave (which I suspect was done because there wasn't a sufficient amount of cars to support such an extension in the 1st place...which probaby resulted in inadequate service for all of the QBL). So with the replacement of an exp with a local..that at the time had horrible service AND had trains that wouldn't even go all the way to 179 st ...who coud blame these ppl for doing what they did. The Archer Ave subway can't even handle the entire load of trains..because it abruptly ends in Jamaica at a station that wasn't designed to be a terminal. The 63rd St connector & the Archer Ave subway have done little to nothing..for the crowding problems and capacity issues that plague Queens Subway riders...due to the fact that both of these lines were planned to connect to a Super Express line that woud have DOUBLED peak hour capacity along the entire line. What do we do instead?..we connect both new subways to the line they were originally designed to help take a load off of. Thats like deciding to connect phase I of the 2nd Ave subway to the Lexington Ave Line...that would render it somewhat pointless. The problem with 71st Ave is that it takes a significant amount of time to turn trains there...which is why the got the axe at the cost of the ...having all three services would cause delays along the QBL. If you ever notice..when the & are runnng local east of rosevelt, the gets extended to 179 st. The only feasible plan I see is extending the or to 179 St via local. You can't have both because..the additional traffic would interrupt the crossing over at 71st to the local tracks. The only purpose for extending a local train east of forest hills or directing trains to 179 st will be for operational efficiency, not for ridership purposes (Keep in mind 179 St is a terminal that has some of the highest capacity in the system) As far as ridership goes...If an express stops at the same platform wayy more ppl are going to be getting on that train, not the local.So if the benefit of efficiency is lower than cost (which would be trains empty along Hillside Ave)..then I say leave things the way they are.

 

I don't live in Queens so I can't judge the situation but when it comes to train service, do Queens residents have it their way most or all the time?

 

The already looks like its going in circles, why not have it go to Jamaica Center

 

Jamaica Center can't even handle the full load of trains, let alone another line. As far as Queens residents having their way all the time?? idk. Its the 2nd most populated boro in NYC and only has 3 direct subway lines to midtown. When you really think about it..only 2..the only serves the western edge of Queens. So that leaves ppl who live deep in Qns with the and the LIRR. Not many options when you compare that to Brooklyn..Bronx and Manhattan. For YEARS..up until the early 90's Queens residents were promised various new subway lines..quicker routes... and better service. We all know that during 70's and 80's the money had to go more serious issues..like keeping the system from collapse. But when things got better in the 90's, I guess it was felt subway service in Queens wasn't needed...despite the fact that the remain the most overcrowded lines in the system behind the Lexington Ave Subway even till this day. I can write a whole book on this but I won't..so I think Im just gonna stop here..lol

[LRG]

In New York City nagging get things done.

 

That's a load of BS! Don't try to sound like those imbeciles in Middle Village and Glendale as well as morons over SubChat who condone an line.

[Fresh Pond]

That's a load of BS! Don't try to sound like those imbeciles in Middle Village and Glendale as well as morons over SubChat who condone an line.

 

i take offense to the highlighted part. Not all residents (myself included) complain about everything. I'm grateful just to have a subway line there, be it or (M2), cuz there are places that barely have buses.

[INDman]

i take offense to the highlighted part. Not all residents (myself included) complain about everything. I'm grateful just to have a subway line there, be it or (M2), cuz there are places that barely have buses.

 

Some people just get jealous that other neighborhoods area able to use their connections to get what they need or want.

[LRG]

i take offense to the highlighted part. Not all residents (myself included) complain about everything. I'm grateful just to have a subway line there, be it or (M2), cuz there are places that barely have buses.

 

In that case my apologies to you.

 

It just gets real annoying hearing people whine over their lack of transportation. If you feel like it's an inconvenience then simply move (not directed at you).

[LRG]

Some people just get jealous that other neighborhoods area able to use their connections to get what they need or want.

 

So explain to me then how come the Rockaway Park residents have shoddy 3 TPH service every day yet they don't have an issue with the time. It could be because they don't use it or need it, but my point still stands. If you don't like your service, move to where better service is available (to whatever criteria you see fit) or drive.

[INDman]

So explain to me then how come the Rockaway Park residents have shoddy 3 TPH service every day yet they don't have an issue with the time. It could be because they don't use it or need it, but my point still stands. If you don't like your service, move to where better service is available (to whatever criteria you see fit) or drive.

 

The people in the Rockaways with political power live in Bell Harbor and the areas out to Breezy Point and they want NOTHING to do with the subway. If they wanted trains there, they have the power. If you lived in an area with bad subway service and you could change it, would you move?

[LRG]

The people in the Rockaways with political power live in Bell Harbor and the areas out to Breezy Point and they want NOTHING to do with the subway. If they wanted trains there, they have the power. If you lived in an area with bad subway service and you could change it, would you move?

 

It would depend on how long these changes would take to come, otherwise I'd have to say that I'd be indifferent, for the most part.

 

If you live in an area with bad subway service and you gripe about it, then it's your own fault for not looking at the downsides for living in the area of your pleasing (e.g lack of adequate transportation).

 

I understand that there is room for improvement all the time but in the case of the there's too much room for error.

[Joe]

The people in the Rockaways with political power live in Bell Harbor and the areas out to Breezy Point and they want NOTHING to do with the subway.

 

Very true. They don't want more mugger mover service.

[INDman]

Very true. They don't want more mugger mover service.

 

Can't blame them one bit. It's a beautiful area over there and they want to keep the riff raff out.

[NX Express]

LOL, But angry about some (M)'s going to 179th, But they have no choice if they want extra ®'s. I would rather send some ®'s to 179 instead of the since the shares with the .

That would lower reliability.

It makes sense to send the to 179 via Hillside Exp instead of the since the will be the one with the extra trains and not the .

 

The is not getting any more trains. That's why it's called a service CUT.

[Sea Beach]

That would lower reliability.

 

 

The is not getting any more trains. That's why it's called a service CUT.

 

No,the is getting more trains when the (M2) is gone

[LRG]

No,the is getting more trains when the (M2) is gone

 

Correct; the runs every 6-8 minutes. Come the service changes, the will basically have to be increased to 4-6 minute headways because there's no way in hell the will handle Fourth Avenue without the (M2) providing slack, as well as the providing slack.

[NX Express]

No,the is getting more trains when the (M2) is gone

 

Correct; the runs every 6-8 minutes. Come the service changes, the will basically have to be increased to 4-6 minute headways because there's no way in hell the will handle Fourth Avenue without the (M2) providing slack, as well as the providing slack.

 

Ok, cool. Finally the realizes that more trains are needed.

[SIR North Shore]

There's going to be excess R46 and R160 trains after the June service cuts, so I'm sure they'll be placing some on the to help out with the loss of the W and M.

 

There's a recent Staten Island Advance article where they mentioned that they could possibly send some R46s to the Staten Island Railway.

[nel070]

I was waiting for someone to say something. This was a line that originally had TWO express trains the & ...The ORIGINAL Archer Ave subway plan had intended for the & to go to Jamaica Center. The train was to run to Jamaica Center,during weekdays while terminated at 71st- Forest Hills. During weekends the was to run to Jamaica Center, while the terminated at 57 St or 71st Ave.....this obviously doesn't make much sense. At the time 169 St & 179 St stations had SERIOUS overcrowding problems....so for a brand new subway a couple of blocks away to only be served by local trains wasn't a very attractive service plan and would have probably lead to it not being used to its fullest potential. So with many buses re-routed and extended to Jamaica Center, the an Express train was sent there with hopes of taking some pressure off the Hillside Ave stations. In the mits of all this I guess the MTA thought they could get away with replacing the an express train with the ...which was local..and at the time had one of the worst on time performance records in the system. To add insult to injury, I have a MTA Archer Ave subway brochure that states...some Rush Hr trains will end/originate at 71st Ave (which I suspect was done because there wasn't a sufficient amount of cars to support such an extension in the 1st place...which probaby resulted in inadequate service for all of the QBL). So with the replacement of an exp with a local..that at the time had horrible service AND had trains that wouldn't even go all the way to 179 st ...who coud blame these ppl for doing what they did. The Archer Ave subway can't even handle the entire load of trains..because it abruptly ends in Jamaica at a station that wasn't designed to be a terminal. The 63rd St connector & the Archer Ave subway have done little to nothing..for the crowding problems and capacity issues that plague Queens Subway riders...due to the fact that both of these lines were planned to connect to a Super Express line that woud have DOUBLED peak hour capacity along the entire line. What do we do instead?..we connect both new subways to the line they were originally designed to help take a load off of. Thats like deciding to connect phase I of the 2nd Ave subway to the Lexington Ave Line...that would render it somewhat pointless. The problem with 71st Ave is that it takes a significant amount of time to turn trains there...which is why the got the axe at the cost of the ...having all three services would cause delays along the QBL. If you ever notice..when the & are runnng local east of rosevelt, the gets extended to 179 st. The only feasible plan I see is extending the or to 179 St via local. You can't have both because..the additional traffic would interrupt the crossing over at 71st to the local tracks. The only purpose for extending a local train east of forest hills or directing trains to 179 st will be for operational efficiency, not for ridership purposes (Keep in mind 179 St is a terminal that has some of the highest capacity in the system) As far as ridership goes...If an express stops at the same platform wayy more ppl are going to be getting on that train, not the local.So if the benefit of efficiency is lower than cost (which would be trains empty along Hillside Ave)..then I say leave things the way they are.

 

 

 

Jamaica Center can't even handle the full load of trains, let alone another line. As far as Queens residents having their way all the time?? idk. Its the 2nd most populated boro in NYC and only has 3 direct subway lines to midtown. When you really think about it..only 2..the only serves the western edge of Queens. So that leaves ppl who live deep in Qns with the and the LIRR. Not many options when you compare that to Brooklyn..Bronx and Manhattan. For YEARS..up until the early 90's Queens residents were promised various new subway lines..quicker routes... and better service. We all know that during 70's and 80's the money had to go more serious issues..like keeping the system from collapse. But when things got better in the 90's, I guess it was felt subway service in Queens wasn't needed...despite the fact that the remain the most overcrowded lines in the system behind the Lexington Ave Subway even till this day. I can write a whole book on this but I won't..so I think Im just gonna stop here..lol

 

As a resident of Briarwood I remember those time before 1992 where you have to get at Union turnpike and watch 5 or 6 and (F)s pass before an® would come just to go one stop. I think you a 100 percent right leave things the way they are as it stands now Hillside ave only needs one train since the Archer ave stations came to existence at the present time I dont here any complaints from the hillside Ave riders.

[LRG]

There's going to be excess R46 and R160 trains after the June service cuts, so I'm sure they'll be placing some on the to help out with the loss of the W and M.

 

There's a recent Staten Island Advance article where they mentioned that they could possibly send some R46s to the Staten Island Railway.

 

But an article that says that Staten Island won't be getting new cars contradict that...

 

Oy vey, more confusion.

[Jamaica Express]

It would depend on how long these changes would take to come, otherwise I'd have to say that I'd be indifferent, for the most part.

 

If you live in an area with bad subway service and you gripe about it, then it's your own fault for not looking at the downsides for living in the area of your pleasing (e.g lack of adequate transportation).

 

I understand that there is room for improvement all the time but in the case of the there's too much room for error.

 

There are many people that live in areas where service was once good...and due to "cuts".."construction" or whatever has gone to hell since. People can't help what the MTA decides to do with trains...or the routes when financial crisis come about or major projects..etc. Annnd Its not that easy to just up and move..many ppl don't have the financial means..or the money is currently going to other things (such as putting kids thru school..etc.) or they may be living in that area for more siginificant reasons..everyone has their own situations. If the majority of people are demanding a particular service...and their the ones riding the trains..then why not see if a route could be adjusted to accomodate them?...I understand its not always the case...and not everyone can be happy and have a one-seat ride to everywhere...but if a large amount of ppl are headed from one area to another...such as the 22,000 ppl headed to midtown vs. the 17,000 headed downtown then..shouldn't the majority be attended to 1st..if feasible?..just my opinion

[KeystoneRegional]

Please, watch the Nazi Banksters Crimes Ripple Effect at http://jforjustice.co.uk/banksters

[INDman]

 

The SIR will get the R46's most likely from JAM Yard if the FRA Standarized R44's get retired, no confusion, just Whys?

 

English please, or don't post.

[MTR Admiralty]

There's going to be excess R46 and R160 trains after the June service cuts, so I'm sure they'll be placing some on the to help out with the loss of the W and M.

 

There's a recent Staten Island Advance article where they mentioned that they could possibly send some R46s to the Staten Island Railway.

I would like to read the article myself.

But an article that says that Staten Island won't be getting new cars contradict that...

 

Oy vey, more confusion.

I'm rather certain that the new cars meant the R179s, not anything else. Any new car delivery would probably have to wait, most likely due to budgetary concerns or whatnot.

I saw that too, but they would need to overhaul the R46s again to make sure it meets FRA standards (Which is required by the SIR since it shares tracks with freight service (Saw a Diesel train and flatbed cars once).

 

The SIR will get the R46's most likely from JAM Yard if the FRA Standarized R44's get retired, no confusion, just Whys?

[BJC]

When I was leaving Rockway parkway STA on the L today,I saw an R-42 park in the yard....but the rollsign said not in service so everybody calm down.