SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

[Lawrence St]

Does anyone know when they created the new tunnel to the New South Ferry from Rector St?

[4 via Mosholu]

5 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Does anyone know when they created the new tunnel to the New South Ferry from Rector St?

It was done during the construction of the South Ferry Whitehall Street stub end terminal, beginning around 2005 or 2006.

[LGA Link N Train]

With this whole pandemic going on, this is a great opportunity for the to rethink their strategies when it comes to Transit. Especially things surrounding General Orders, as its been noted here that flagging is a bad practice. 

[Deucey]

13 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

With this whole pandemic going on, this is a great opportunity for the to rethink their strategies when it comes to Transit. Especially things surrounding General Orders, as its been noted here that flagging is a bad practice. 

In all honesty, they should rethink bus routing first - transit hubs are “nice” but imagine if they decluttered Ridgewood, Borough Hall/Fulton Street, Marcy, or Flushing/Main St by rerouting buses to serve/terminate at intermediate stations instead of at express and terminal stations so it encouraged:

1) distancing

2) reduces crush-loading on express trains by encouraging local train ridership

3) smarter neighborhood development; and

4) better capacity splits that enable less onerous closures and reroutes for maintenance

(This would be like how other transit systems create integrated bus and train systems with and without the bus-bus/train-bus/bus-train-bus transfer schemes.)

Edited April 28, 2020 by Deucey

[LGA Link N Train]

1 minute ago, Deucey said:

In all honesty, they should rethink bus routing first - transit hubs are “nice” but imagine if they decluttered Ridgewood, Borough Hall/Fulton Street, Marcy, or Flushing/Main St by rerouting buses to serve/terminate at intermediate stations instead of at express and terminal stations so it encouraged:

1) distancing

2) reduces crush-loading on express trains by encouraging local train ridership

3) smarter neighborhood development; and

4) better capacity splits that enable less onerous closures and reroutes for maintenance

I know that they tried to do this with the Queens Bus Redesign, but the issue people had with routes (that I think can work) came down to the intermediate stops not being ADA-accessible. Decluttering the areas you just mentioned in addition to Jamaica would be nice, but how easy (or complicated) would it be?

[Calvin]

The  will return to passenger service tomorrow morning. 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calvin
Confirmed for this week

[Jchambers2120]

10 minutes ago, Calvin said:

The  will return to passenger service tomorrow morning. 

It’s scheduled to return on Wednesday. 

[Lex]

3 hours ago, Deucey said:

In all honesty, they should rethink bus routing first - transit hubs are “nice” but imagine if they decluttered Ridgewood, Borough Hall/Fulton Street, Marcy, or Flushing/Main St by rerouting buses to serve/terminate at intermediate stations instead of at express and terminal stations so it encouraged:

1) distancing

2) reduces crush-loading on express trains by encouraging local train ridership

3) smarter neighborhood development; and

4) better capacity splits that enable less onerous closures and reroutes for maintenance

(This would be like how other transit systems create integrated bus and train systems with and without the bus-bus/train-bus/bus-train-bus transfer schemes.)

That's too focused on the subway for its own good.

[Collin]

Other cities don't have the local/express divide to worry about.  All trains stop at every station.  For the bus routes, they need to be evaluated case by case.  I'm sure some routes get a lot of riders who are just transferring to the subway and that's it.  Other routes might get more of a mix of riders in terms of their final destination.  Not everyone is going to Manhattan.

One thing I'd like to see is more locations where buses can stop within subway fare control.  I think the only place it currently happens in NYC is Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway.  At Harvard Square stop in Boston, the buses actually go underground to stop within the station.  I'm not sure the cost or feasibility of doing something like that in Jamaica, Flushing, or any other large bus-subway hubs.

[B35 via Church]

3 hours ago, Collin said:

One thing I'd like to see is more locations where buses can stop within subway fare control.  I think the only place it currently happens in NYC is Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway.  At Harvard Square stop in Boston, the buses actually go underground to stop within the station.  I'm not sure the cost or feasibility of doing something like that in Jamaica, Flushing, or any other large bus-subway hubs.

In a barbie world, sure.... I mean while I'm generally for off-street bus terminals, I don't think it's worth subterraneously digging up earth for intermodal terminals here... Leave the excavating for the benefit of expanding the subway network.

 

Edited April 28, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Jova42R]

@LaGuardia Link N Tra didn't you say you might create a thread about "what if something was built terribly and what reroutes would you do to change subway service for the better"?

I think you should create it!

[Jova42R]

12 hours ago, Collin said:

Other cities don't have the local/express divide to worry about.  All trains stop at every station.  For the bus routes, they need to be evaluated case by case.  I'm sure some routes get a lot of riders who are just transferring to the subway and that's it.  Other routes might get more of a mix of riders in terms of their final destination.  Not everyone is going to Manhattan.

One thing I'd like to see is more locations where buses can stop within subway fare control.  I think the only place it currently happens in NYC is Canarsie-Rockaway Parkway.  At Harvard Square stop in Boston, the buses actually go underground to stop within the station.  I'm not sure the cost or feasibility of doing something like that in Jamaica, Flushing, or any other large bus-subway hubs.

 

8 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

In a barbie world, sure.... I mean while I'm generally for off-street bus terminals, I don't think it's worth subterraneously digging up earth for intermodal terminals here... Leave the excavating for the benefit of expanding the subway network.

 

Here's my plan for a few intermodal terminals, without any digging involved!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d95uR3x7zMetvArTYhqSC4Nsb14tEt_e&usp=sharing

Thoughts/critiques/questions?

 

[Lance]

17 hours ago, Jchambers2120 said:

It’s scheduled to return on Wednesday. 

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it.

Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

[Collin]

2 hours ago, Jova42R said:

 

Here's my plan for a few intermodal terminals, without any digging involved!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d95uR3x7zMetvArTYhqSC4Nsb14tEt_e&usp=sharing

Thoughts/critiques/questions?

 

Those would be good locations, though I'm not sure what the benefit is other than removing bus traffic from street level.  It adds stairs that passengers have to go up and down to get to the subway.

31 minutes ago, Lance said:

If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

I'm not sure if this is planned, but it could allow for more  service, or a restored  that would go to Church Avenue and allow for more Culver express service.

[Jova42R]

3 minutes ago, Collin said:

Those would be good locations, though I'm not sure what the benefit is other than removing bus traffic from street level.  It adds stairs that passengers have to go up and down to get to the subway.

Which locations?

Edited April 28, 2020 by Jova42R

[MHV9218]

42 minutes ago, Lance said:

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it.

Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

Yeah, this is a little strange to me. I have to think Roosevelt Island would stage a coup if faced with the  as its only service. I also wonder about the 8-car restriction. Suddenly we're talking 1/2 the frequency, and on shorter trains to boot? That could lead to some impressive crowding. 

Personally, I think the only change here should be making the to 96/2nd permanent, but nobody seems to agree with me on that one...

[Calvin]

Is there a difference in relay at Euclid Av and 168 St with the 179s and R46s? 

Edited April 28, 2020 by Calvin

[danielhg121]

20 minutes ago, Calvin said:

Is there a difference in relay at Euclid Av and 168 St with the 179s and R46s? 

Isn't it usually there's a switchmen so that relaying makes an T/O's life easier? By double-ending the train, once it pulls into relay, train can head back out. R179's have storm doors unlocked but R46 trains have locked storm doors so if there's only one T/O, they have to walk thru the train and make sure each storm door is locked, a process that could add ~5 mins to an already delayed departure.  There's no catwalk either.

[Jchambers2120]

1 hour ago, Lance said:

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it.

Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

I forgot to add, as of tomorrow 4/29 the # 2 & 4 lines will resume normal weekday service. 

Slowly but surely...

As far as the F/M swap I haven’t heard anything regarding such a change. Our pick started last Sunday and the only change that I know of is the  to 96 street being discontinued on the weekends.

 

 

[biGC323232]

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

Yeah, this is a little strange to me. I have to think Roosevelt Island would stage a coup if faced with the  as its only service. I also wonder about the 8-car restriction. Suddenly we're talking 1/2 the frequency, and on shorter trains to boot? That could lead to some impressive crowding. 

Personally, I think the only change here should be making the to 96/2nd permanent, but nobody seems to agree with me on that one...

Oh no i agree with u...I benefited great from the M running from midtown whether it was from 145 or 96 with good ridership as well...and before anyone says it's from the L or 1...Most ppl got off well before the M hit myrtle-wyoff and created a good balance across central park west along the C...l think the M by now earned the right to go past essex st on wkends...hopefully when thing get back to normal they should consider that...

[biGC323232]

2 hours ago, Lance said:

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it.

Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

Welcome back lance......l See life itself caught up a little...😁...and yes it would be a little odd to send the M thru 63st...63st need a fulltime line since the qbl opening that's why the F got sent there...if it ain't broke don't fix it...

[biGC323232]

On 4/27/2020 at 3:21 PM, 4 via Mosholu said:

9/11 became the factor as to why ten car consists began to be instituted on the train. This was made possible because at the time in the days after the attacks, Lenox Yard was being reconfigured to support ten car consists. The sets it used were stored north of 137 Street - City College that could support ten cars for the  train there. This happened while the train traveled to East New York at all times, later terminating at Chambers Street on October 1 overnight. Once that reconfiguration was done, coinciding with the rebuild of the Whitehall spur south of Chambers Street, everything went back to normal.

 

You got your information mixed up on the timing of the train becoming ten cars; read what I replied to @MeeP15-9112 for that information. For your second point about the train transferring its 62 sets to the train, it happened because it was determined the East Side branch was more packed than the West Side. Prior to that, it would have been a bit different with the train keeping its 62 and the train getting 142 sets to send its 62A to the train, which needed them to retire the World's Fair 33 and 36. The 142 and 142A were only built according to the mainline configuration, although it would have been possible to be operated via Flushing. But the Steinway tunnel was built with a different set of dimensions, which is why the Steinway and World's Fair Lo Voltage trains, as well as the R12, 14, and 15, were designed for the train in mind.

Also to add...At that time the Mta was retiring their redbirds which all the 7 ran so in order for the 7 to be 11 cars they needed the singles R62A cars from the 3 and 6...By then R62s was already converted in 5 car sets so that made the swap a little easier by having the new ones on the lex and moving them to the 3...of course until technology swiped the cars to the 7

Edited April 28, 2020 by biGC323232

[B35 via Church]

14 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Here's my plan for a few intermodal terminals, without any digging involved!

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1d95uR3x7zMetvArTYhqSC4Nsb14tEt_e&usp=sharing

Thoughts/critiques/questions?

There isn't much of anything to critique or muse about - that's the thing...

What am I supposed to be looking at here, outside of the basic portrayal (instead of simply stating) that you think Fordham, Outerbridge P&R, GCT, QBP, and Flushing would be good places for an intermodal terminal?

Edited April 29, 2020 by B35 via Church

[Jova42R]

3 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

There isn't much of anything to critique or muse about - that's the thing...

What am I supposed to be looking at here, outside of the basic portrayal (instead of simply stating) that you think Fordham, Outerbridge P&R, GCT, QBP, and Flushing would be good places for an intermodal terminal?

I'd implement busways at all locations - if you zoom in you can see more detail.

[Union Tpke]

17 hours ago, Lance said:

Slowly but surely getting back to normal. Or something resembling it.

Shifting back to the 53rd Street/63rd Street switcheroo for a minute, does anyone know if the riders in the area affected were informed of this planned service change? For 63rd Street riders, switching the F and M is a significant service cut, especially at the increasingly popular Lexington Av station. On the same vein, wouldn't switching the two routes create a bit of a line imbalance between the two tunnels? Right now, the combined output of the E and M through 53rd Street is roughly 23 trains per hour at the height of the rush with the F running 15 through 63rd Street. If this switch were to be put into effect, that'd be 30 trains through 53rd Street and at most, eight running across 63rd Street. Really makes an already under-utilized tunnel even more under-utilized. That's why I'm a little hesitant to take this as a finalized and permanent service change, but rather a possible pilot program to see if it's a viable solution.

It would be a six-month pilot.