Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Service Cuts contradict ridership patterns and future plans


Recommended Posts

With the future service changes comming up, It makes me wonder if these patterns are going to last long. For one I'm happy to see that finally the MTA is deciding to utilize the williamsburg bridge portion of the Chrystie street connection (a ridership study recomended a direct sixth ave-broadway bklyn service years ago), but I have questions about some other changes that will effect plans in the long run. If the (Q) to Astoria remains permenant..whats going to serve Phase I of the 2nd Ave subway?..a (T) shuttle? Also when the Culver Viaduct project is done does that mean the thousands of request for express service between Jay St and Church Ave are going to be ignored? (the tentative plan was to extend the (V) via express and keep the (F) and (G) local)..making the (G) express and the (F) local or vice versa isn't gonna work.. do you think the (W)(V) will return someday when these projects are complete??

 

Also the 17,000 passengers that ride the (M2) to Lower Manhattan are almost all during rush hours...so wouldn't it be cost effective to keep the (M2) the way it is now and have operate during peak hrs only..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the future service changes comming up, It makes me wonder if these patterns are going to last long. For one I'm happy to see that finally the MTA is deciding to utilize the williamsburg bridge portion of the Chrystie street connection (a ridership study recomended a direct sixth ave-broadway bklyn service years ago), but I have questions about some other changes that will effect plans in the long run. If the (Q) to Astoria remains permenant..whats going to serve Phase I of the 2nd Ave subway?..a (T) shuttle? Also when the Culver Viaduct project is done does that mean the thousands of request for express service between Jay St and Church Ave are going to be ignored? (the tentative plan was to extend the (V) via express and keep the (F) and (G) local)..making the (G) express and the (F) local or vice versa isn't gonna work.. do you think the (W)(V) will return someday when these projects are complete??

 

Also the 17,000 passengers that ride the (M2) to Lower Manhattan are almost all during rush hours...so wouldn't it be cost effective to keep the (M2) the way it is now and have operate during peak hrs only..?

 

Regarding SAS, MTA can send the (N) via SAS if the (Q) is permanently affixed to Astoria.

 

As for the Smith St line, the (G)cannot run express because the Crosstown tracks connect only to the Culver local tracks; see this track map for details.

 

When financial times get better, it's very likely MTA will rescind most service cuts - though I'm not sure what will happen to the new (M) in that case, especially if it becomes very popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, we don't even know when the SAS will ever be ready and it's not like the N has a history on the Astoria line. The R served it before switching with the N due to the yard issues. A (N)/(Q) swap can also be done.

 

As for the (M), it can be 'trouble' if it becomes popular. That line will never return back to Nassau.

However, on a fantasy note I still think they should annex the Nassau line to the SAS at Chambers. That would justify the loss of the (M2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running the (M2) as a 6th Avenue (M) will preclude the (MTA) from implementing a (V) Culver Express because there will not be enough room for (F), (M) and (V) service on the 6th Avenue local tracks. I agree that if the (M) becomes a popular route, the likelihood of a Culver Express service being implemented in the future will be slim to nil.

 

I also agree that the (N) can be sent to 2nd Avenue when the line finally opens for service. I think the (N) should already be made the Broadway Express service in preparation for that day with the (Q) replacing the (N) in Queens. From what I understand, the (Q) runs more frequently than the (N) so it would be better at handling the Astoria crowds better than the (N), which handled those crowds alone for 14 years and not very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the future service changes comming up, It makes me wonder if these patterns are going to last long. For one I'm happy to see that finally the MTA is deciding to utilize the williamsburg bridge portion of the Chrystie street connection (a ridership study recomended a direct sixth ave-broadway bklyn service years ago), but I have questions about some other changes that will effect plans in the long run. If the (Q) to Astoria remains permenant..whats going to serve Phase I of the 2nd Ave subway?..a (T) shuttle? Also when the Culver Viaduct project is done does that mean the thousands of request for express service between Jay St and Church Ave are going to be ignored? (the tentative plan was to extend the (V) via express and keep the (F) and (G) local)..making the (G) express and the (F) local or vice versa isn't gonna work.. do you think the (W)(V) will return someday when these projects are complete??

 

Also the 17,000 passengers that ride the (M2) to Lower Manhattan are almost all during rush hours...so wouldn't it be cost effective to keep the (M2) the way it is now and have operate during peak hrs only..?

This thread is a complete waste of time, akin to going to a fortune teller and paying her to look into her crystal ball.

 

Let's not worry about what route is going to run along the Second Ave. subway when it opens because all we get are delays/extensions in its' opening date, we do not know what the financial situation will be then, and most importantly, we don't know who will be the people in charge then to make the operational decisions. Are we going to talk about this for possible decades?

 

Same goes for what happens after the Culver viaduct is finished, except on a shorter timeframe. Current MTA suits stay around for 3 or 4 years, then leave the final decisions for the next administration, likely to change the original plans anyway.

 

This is what I hate about the internet and sites like this: more speculation and rhoetorical questions rather than facts and discussions on "what is" rather than "what could happen". IN MTA's world, what could happen seldom does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mmm well... I thank everyone for the contributions, weather you found it a waste of time or not.. I guess we'll have just to wait and see. It just looks like more harm than good is being done. Having the (R) handle lower manhattan and 4th Ave alone is going to be quite a site to behold, since something like this has never been done (Nassau St line has always had a direct rush hr connection to Southern Brooklyn)...I can think of some other money losing reptitive lines that could have their operation hours cut to weekdays or rush hours only, but thats a longer story. The only good that is coming out of this is the (M). I guess next years budget deficit will require the closing of the crosstown (G) and the elimination of all weekend express trains:p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what I hate about the internet and sites like this: more speculation and rhoetorical questions rather than facts and discussions on "what is" rather than "what could happen". IN MTA's world, what could happen seldom does.

If there was no speculation, this board would surely be a lot less busy. What's the point of even having bulletin boards like this if you can't speculate on what kind of subway we'd like to see?

 

What kind of positive discussions on "what is" should we be having? Because with all the service cuts and eventual fare hikes, "what is" doesn't look very good right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When SAS opens, the current Broadway BMT service patterns will have to be restored. N/R/W as they run today, Q express to 96/2.

 

On the topic of the F express in brooklyn, combining the M/V gives the MTA an excuse not to run a route which makes no operational sense at all, which was promised solely for political reasons. The lack of a culver express is a GOOD thing. Culver has no use for an express.

 

We are roughly 7 years away from a functional SAS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (V) can always come back in some capacity.

 

The (N) and (Q) aren't really that big of a deal in terms of SAS, so as long as its a train.

 

And the (M) was being talked about for some time. Maybe not in the capacity that its going to be in, but people have been talking about restoring Chrystie street for years.

 

I can't speak for the (W), but I suspect some people felt it was on borrowed time anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Running the (M2) as a 6th Avenue (M) will preclude the (MTA) from implementing a (V) Culver Express because there will not be enough room for (F), (M) and (V) service on the 6th Avenue local tracks. I agree that if the (M) becomes a popular route, the likelihood of a Culver Express service being implemented in the future will be slim to nil.

 

I also agree that the (N) can be sent to 2nd Avenue when the line finally opens for service. I think the (N) should already be made the Broadway Express service in preparation for that day with the (Q) replacing the (N) in Queens. From what I understand, the (Q) runs more frequently than the (N) so it would be better at handling the Astoria crowds better than the (N), which handled those crowds alone for 14 years and not very well.

IAWTP. It'll be like this:

(N) CI to 96/2 (B'way Exp)

(Q) CI to Astoria (B'way Lcl)

(R) 95 to 71 (B'way Local)

 

Only problem I see is that Brighton riders will protest about the (Q) being local. They want it as an express.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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