SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Around the Horn]

Man you and your peeps damsho know how to party. About 2 months back I picked up two fab femmes at Maiden and Water, took them to a club on Center btn Broome & Kenmare. By sheer luck I caught them again about an hour later on Delancey near Ludlow. Now there were 4 of them(!) headed to Berry & N. 11th in the Burg, another late night spot for the Gennys. You get down like that?

LMFAO Ain't nobody I know talk like that... [emoji38] (but we do frequent the Lower East Side and Williamsburg) Edited November 23, 2016 by Around the Horn

[TeeLow]

Hey fam, yo peeps an my peeps don't run in the same circles but we ain't got beef, no grief...feel me? Back in the day we roll 30 deep, now peep dis on the low, so you know...one monkey don't stop no show. Ayre.

 

[Lance]

Can I get some subtitles on that? 

 

Seriously though, even if the Financial District is growing, the ridership for a dedicated Jamaica - Nassau St - Bay Ridge route is not there. I included Jamaica in that route because as already determined, terminating a service at Chambers St is not feasible without rearranging the Jamaica routes. That means said service will have to run to either Metropolitan Av or Broadway Junction/Canarsie so as to not delay other services. No one denies that 4th Avenue needs more service, especially on the local tracks. The problem as always lies in the how. There's little justification in having another Jamaica/Myrtle Ave route running down Nassau St simply to provide additional 4th Avenue service. That's why I've been leaning towards having the extended down to Bay Ridge or at least 59 Street over a new Nassau St route.

[jon2305]

Hey fam, yo peeps an my peeps don't run in the same circles but we ain't got beef, no grief...feel me? Back in the day we roll 30 deep, now peep dis on the low, so you know...one monkey don't stop no show. Ayre.

 

Just made my day, sir ????.

[paulrivera]

Can I get some subtitles on that? 

 

Seriously though, even if the Financial District is growing, the ridership for a dedicated Jamaica - Nassau St - Bay Ridge route is not there. I included Jamaica in that route because as already determined, terminating a service at Chambers St is not feasible without rearranging the Jamaica routes. That means said service will have to run to either Metropolitan Av or Broadway Junction/Canarsie so as to not delay other services. No one denies that 4th Avenue needs more service, especially on the local tracks. The problem as always lies in the how. There's little justification in having another Jamaica/Myrtle Ave route running down Nassau St simply to provide additional 4th Avenue service. That's why I've been leaning towards having the extended down to Bay Ridge or at least 59 Street over a new Nassau St route.

The three trips in the morning already do a good job relieving the and on Sea Beach and 4th Avenue from what I hear...

[Around the Horn]

The three trips in the morning already do a good job relieving the and on Sea Beach and 4th Avenue from what I hear...

Definitely. From the YouTube videos I saw, that 6:37 trip is SRO

[Around the Horn]

I think some users on this forum are underestimating just how popular a destination Lower Manhattan is, and it will only increase in popularity. It's important to keep in mind just how much office space will be added with a completed World Trade Center. Also, three conjoined shopping malls (Westfield World Trade Center, Brookfield World Financial Center, and Westfield's Fulton Center) account for the largest shopping complex in NYC. If that wasn't enough, the Seaport is being rebuilt into a larger complex than had existed before, and even 28 Liberty Street (One Chase Manhattan Plaza) will become a mall. The residential population may have tripled since 9/11, but the majority of workers in these shopping complexes likely wouldn't be able to afford the new rents (I certainly couldn't). Despite the naysayers, FiDi is hot and only getting hotter. It's no longer a ghost town at night, thanks to Pace University, Fulton Street, Stone Street, and the Seaport.

 

None of us are denying this.

 

There just simply is not a market for a Bay Ridge-Lower Manhattan subway route.

[Caelestor]

None of us are denying this.

 

There just simply is not a market for a Bay Ridge-Lower Manhattan subway route.

 

Technically, it already exists. The real issue is that service is unreliable, which is probably because there's no yard at Bay Ridge for trains to be dispatched during service disruptions. I'd rather boost the existing service somehow rather than introduce a new line, especially since most 4 Ave customers transfer to the anyways.

[pringle5095]

There are also a lot of people in Bay Ridge who could take a to where they can get the or (depending on Manhattan destination) or switch to the IRT at either Atlantic-Barclays or Court Street OR the at Jay Street-Metrotech for instance (and an additional transfer to the IRT and at Fulton Street and at Chambers-Brooklyn Bridge).

 

The main purpose of such a would be to eliminate the problems riders along 4th Avenue have had with the .

What is the issue with running the as full through route to Jamaica Center or at least 121 St? As someone said, if the (K)does not go to Queens, the can't do squat.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[j express]

Saw a R68A  today heading to the Bronx at 7:00 p.m.

[Porter]

What is the issue with running the as full through route to Jamaica Center or at least 121 St?

 

I wouldn't mind that...

[Wallyhorse]

What is the issue with running the as full through route to Jamaica Center or at least 121 St? As someone said, if the (K)does not go to Queens, the can't do squat.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The idea is, it would be a split route running in two sections as I would do it:

 

from Jamaica Center to Chambers Street

 from Chambers Street to 95th Street-Bay Ridge

 

The idea is that it is one line, set to where each line can relay and move quickly to the other side at Chambers ( using how it normally is when it terminates at Chambers,  going from the uptown "local" to the downtown "local" track).

 

In this format, the  would NOT go to the downtown "local" track at Chambers until an all-clear is made (since in this format, the would use the "downtown express" track as it does now to head north).  ONLY when the northbound train has cleared the tracks would the  head for that track to reverse and then come in on the "downtown local" track at Chambers.

 

It would require quick fumigation at Chambers to do this.

 

The lone exceptions would be limited numbers of:

 

trains that would run to Broad as they do now and start there, These would be when the is at 12TPH only ( would be maxed at 8TPH).

 

 trains that would run to Broadway Junction (or start there) because they are going to/coming from East New York Yard.  

 

This can be done efficiently in this format since it would be designed at all times for and  trains to meet at Chambers in both directions (excluding the limited exceptions noted). 

Edited November 24, 2016 by Wallyhorse

[Porter]

 

I was inspired by this retro MTV poster to make a little piece of "propaganda" for the Second Avenue Subway:

 

 

"Call your cable transit company and say: 'I want my !'."

[Lance]

@Wallyhorse: No matter how many times you pitch this, it makes no more sense than it did before. Why do you have this hard-on for two separate Nassau St services? While you believe riders will be satisfied with a transfer at Chambers St for continuing service between Lower Manhattan and the Lower East Side/Jamaica, I feel you're sorely mistaken. You want to know why? If riders didn't mind the transfer, the would never have been extended to Broad St during the off-hours at it was in 2015. After all, the Lexington Ave line is practically on top of the Nassau St line between Chambers St and Broad St.

 

It's like you're so focused on this Bay Ridge - Chambers St line that you're missing the whole point of the problem you're trying to solve, which is the deficiency of local service along 4th Avenue. Nassau St is not designed to be a northern terminal - not since the Chrystie St shift in '67. And no, that is not a reason to reconnect the Nassau St tracks to the Manhattan Bridge. To try to force a terminal along Nassau St does not help anyone, nor does it solve the problem. In fact, it shifts the problem elsewhere. In this case, it creates a new choke-point at Chambers St and forces riders to change their riding habits with little benefit on their end.

 

Also, to the ones thinking a Jamaica - Bay Ridge route would work, we did that already. It was called the   and the  . While the former made a brief comeback in the aftermath of Sept. 11th, you'll note there was never any push to retain the route following the reopening of the Montague Tunnels in Oct. 2001. And with good reason, mind you. As you increase the length of the service, so does the likelihood of something affecting the line. Even something simple as regular delays in service could severely throw off such a long line. It's the exact reason why the was flipped with the   in '73. Excessively long lines generally do not have good service.

 

Continue as you were.

 

On a different topic, when the hell is Pennsylvania going to reopen? It was supposed to be a three week project to get the station back in business and it's now been well over a month. What gives?

[Porter]

And no, that is not a reason to reconnect the Nassau St tracks to the Manhattan Bridge. To try to force a terminal along Nassau St does not help anyone, nor does it solve the problem. In fact, it shifts the problem elsewhere. In this case, it creates a new choke-point at Chambers St and forces riders to change their riding habits with little benefit on their end.

 

That's a very good point! It would make my blood boil when the didn't serve Broad Street on weekends and late nights (it very directly and negatively affected my commute, since my FiDi apartment and weekend rehearsal space in Bushwick were both adjacent to a Nassau BMT station).

 

Instead of terminating at Chambers Street, which I agree would cause new problems (including an undesirable choke-point), the could simply loop around Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge (with reconnected tracks from the Chambers Street station). No more choke-points! It could serve either Bay Ridge, Bay Parkway, or both (when demand allows). That could also spur a renovation of Manhattan's ugliest subway station and put those dormant tracks and platforms back into use at the Chambers Street station.

[Around the Horn]

Instead of terminating at Chambers Street, which I agree would cause new problems (including an undesirable choke-point), the could simply loop around Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge (with reconnected tracks from the Chambers Street station). No more choke-points! It could serve either Bay Ridge, Bay Parkway, or both (when demand allows). That could also spur a renovation of Manhattan's ugliest subway station and put those dormant tracks and platforms back into use at the Chambers Street station.

Hell, no! A flat junction with the and then another flat junction with the ? Rush hour would be a madhouse!

[Porter]

Hell, no! A flat junction with the and then another flat junction with the ? Rush hour would be a madhouse!

 

Do you mean at Canal Street as shown below or...where exactly? The merger feeding into the Montague Tunnel?

 

[Around the Horn]

Do you mean at Canal Street as shown below or...where exactly? The merger feeding into the Montague Tunnel?

 

The southern tracks of the Manhattan Bridge have been severed from Chambers Street during the Chrystie Street connection. As part of that work, the southern tracks on the bridge were realigned with Canal Street. The north tracks go up Chrystie. In order to reconnect it, you would have to build a flat junction with the and

[TeeLow]

The southern tracks of the Manhattan Bridge have been severed from Chambers Street during the Chrystie Street connection. As part of that work, the southern tracks on the bridge were realigned with Canal Street. The north tracks go up Chrystie. In order to reconnect it, you would have to build a flat junction with the and

Exactly. I was just about to say the same. You beat me to it.

[Porter]

The southern tracks of the Manhattan Bridge have been severed from Chambers Street during the Chrystie Street connection. As part of that work, the southern tracks on the bridge were realigned with Canal Street. The north tracks go up Chrystie. In order to reconnect it, you would have to build a flat junction with the and

 

That creates an opportunity to connect those unused tracks at the Chambers Street station to the Second Avenue Subway's Grand Street station instead. The could enter Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel (from some origin in Brooklyn), travel alongside the from Broad Street to Chambers Street, then branch off via the old tracks (and new tunnel) to meet the at Grand Street, continuing north before turning off on 63rd Street to join the until they ultimately terminate at Jamaica–179th Street. While the has to rise in elevation to meet the bridge, the would dive under to meet the deeper station at Grand Street.

[bobtehpanda]

That creates an opportunity to connect those unused tracks at the Chambers Street station to the Second Avenue Subway's Grand Street station instead. The could enter Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel (from some origin in Brooklyn), travel alongside the from Broad Street to Chambers Street, then branch off via the old tracks (and new tunnel) to meet the at Grand Street, continuing north before turning off on 63rd Street to join the until they ultimately terminate at Jamaica–179th Street. While the has to rise in elevation to meet the bridge, the would dive under to meet the deeper station at Grand Street.

 

Such construction would be hugely disruptive. You'd need to have a turnout from the Second Avenue line somewhere, and the only two streets are not good candidates for subway construction. Canal already has a subway underneath it and tunneling under it would be extremely disruptive. Worth St is an even worse candidate; it is not particularly wide, it is adjacent to several landmarked buildings, federal buildings, and community green spaces, and digging through it would be slow since there are certainly finds of archaeological merit buried underneath all that dirt (the site is, after all, the former location of the Five Points slum.)

 

There is also the other part of it, which is that the 4th Avenue line, or indeed any of the lines going through DeKalb Junction, are very low on the priority list for relief. Of all the Manhattan subway crossings monitored by the New York MTC, those going to Downtown Brooklyn with the exception of the express Brooklyn IRT are some of the least congested subway river crossings. At this point in time, far greater priority should be given to exploring a connection to the Fulton Line and a connection to Williamsburg.

[Wallyhorse]

Instead of terminating at Chambers Street, which I agree would cause new problems (including an undesirable choke-point), the could simply loop around Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel and Manhattan Bridge (with reconnected tracks from the Chambers Street station). No more choke-points! It could serve either Bay Ridge, Bay Parkway, or both (when demand allows). That could also spur a renovation of Manhattan's ugliest subway station and put those dormant tracks and platforms back into use at the Chambers Street station.

I have suggested loop lines before like that, which probably would be best.

 

The  in this scenario could be just that, a loop line that runs via the tunnel to Manhattan and the Bridge back, stopping at Jay-Metrotech, Court, Broad, Fulton and Chambers going northbound only before returning to Brooklyn via the Manny B going southbound.  This eliminates any grade crossings (aside from a merger with the and over the Bridge and the at DeKalb going southbound in Brooklyn.

 

That said, I noted why you would not likely have a chokepoint with a  relaying at Chambers, given that relay would only take place after a left Chambers going north and timed to be completed before the next came in southward.

The southern tracks of the Manhattan Bridge have been severed from Chambers Street during the Chrystie Street connection. As part of that work, the southern tracks on the bridge were realigned with Canal Street. The north tracks go up Chrystie. In order to reconnect it, you would have to build a flat junction with the and

As I would do that, it would only connect the Brooklyn-bound track from the Nassau Line to the Manny B.  The Manhattan-bound track would NOT have such a connection. 

[S78 via Hylan]

Today's travel:

 

Going to work, Queens bound delayed by a sick passenger.

Going home, Service delayed in both directions due to a customer injury at Jamaica Center.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, something to be thankful for.

[CenSin]

Today's travel:

 

Going to work, Queens bound delayed by a sick passenger.

Going home, Service delayed in both directions due to a customer injury at Jamaica Center.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, something to be thankful for.

I’ve noticed the rash of incidents these past days with sick passengers. On Tuesday night, one was sick at Bay Parkway, delaying southbound trains; my train was right behind it. On Wednesday morning, one was sick at Prospect Park delaying the and trains; my / train was behind it at Church Avenue. Today at noon, one was sick at Bay Parkway, so the got rerouted via West End. Gotta wonder if the plague is going around…

Edited November 25, 2016 by CenSin

[Porter]

At this point in time, far greater priority should be given to exploring a connection to the Fulton Line and a connection to Williamsburg.

 

Can you hammer out such a plan? I'm curious.