Leaving things the way they are

[Caelestor]

I agree that the subway in its current form is fairly comprehensive; the system hasn't completely collapsed under 5 million daily riders. It's just that there's definitely some major overcrowding on some sections, namely the 4/5/6, 7, and L. As a rule of thumb, if a passenger has to let more than 1 train pass before getting on, you need to run more trains or build a new line. The L can improve from its 4-minute headways without building more tracks through improved terminals; the 7, however, is at max capacity, hence my strong advocacy of a Northern Blvd line.

 

Also, when the SAS opens, the Q cannot handle the UES alone with its current headways, so the N needs to be made express and directed there. A frequent W Broadway local servicing Astoria would also have to be reinstated.

 

Finally, I agree with MG's Nassau St proposal.

[Roadcruiser1]

Hey Mike Gerald. I had proposed what you had proposed, but people got pissed when I mentioned the fact about that.

[IntExp]

How about extending the IRT Nostrand Ave Line to Sheepshead Bay? They could really use some subway service. Other than that, I would leave things the way they are, along with reinstating the once the serves the SAS from Astoria-Ditmas to Whitehall (or even longer) and extend the further downtown through 11th Avenue.

[Shortline Bus]

Kid (King of Rebirds and INTEXP). As a young teen who has only been on a few subway lines, before you make any more 'realstic' suggestions, please do a study on the track lay out on the entire NYC subway system. Along with knowing what lines are crowded or not. Not meant to be rude but maybe it would be best to listen to others like Mike Gerald, Sam and others before you make you next set of 'serious' suggestions.

 

There a thing called "money', 'politics' and "Nimbys' you have to factor in as well.

 

Hey when I was 14 years old, I was too busy thinking about girls and school. I did not learn about the ins and outs of the subway until I was at least 20.:eek:

 

There always a 'fanasty threads' for teens and young people like King of Redbirds and IntEXP.

 

 

Heres the change backs I would make even though they are Impossible.

 

The Exp Late nights.

The ( Runs All Night.

runs all night.

back to forest hills.

Exp in Manhattan and run Exp 24/7.

Return.

run all times.

Go thru the tunnel that the Malbone St wreck happened in and run at a Extremly short speed sheesh.

Exist already LOL.

Return.

Return.

Exp late nights.

run to new lots LCL or Exp whatever Idc.

Run Exp late nights.

Run to Bowling green late nights.

Return.

[Roadcruiser1]

Don't label me a foamer though. I take architecture classes in my High School, and I study the track maps before making any considerations. If I make any flaws I will take any criticism from you guys, and ideas too.

[Shortline Bus]

Don't label me a foamer though. I take architecture classes in my High School, and I study the track maps before making any considerations. If I make any flaws I will take any criticism from you guys, and ideas too.

 

I never called you a foamer roadcruiser. My 'foamer' comments were directly at King of Redbirds and IntExp. Sorry if they were offened but think of this as school. As a Teacher just reacting to their ideas no matter how unrealstic it is. Nothing wrong to 'dream' and I know they 'kids' but if they not sure, at least say along lines I am not sure if this will work, etc..

[Roadcruiser1]

Yeah I agree with you Shortline Bus. People should learn a bit before considering ideas.

[Sam]

I would also say that there is little that is new under the sun and that includes permutations of the current system as our imaginations run rampant. For the most part, the runs the subways as it was designed to; each line performs service in a manner which exceeds, meets, or underperforms its original purpose.

 

There are, however, aspects that could use improvement and there is an historical perspective that seems to be overlooked or ignored. The Broadway line is a case in point. It was once a very efficient and speedy line with the 70(EE), 70(N), 70(QB), and 70(RR) lines running. Today, with only three lines running, it is a line to be avoided unless one has time to kill. The running local north of 34th Street makes no sense whatsoever and the delays are horrible. Some would argue that the has to eventually switch tracks, but 57th Street is a better place to line up train traffic than Herald Square. The old 70(QB) had limited service between Coney Island and Ditmars Blvd (hence the name stood for Queens Brighton) and was able to work seamlessly despite 70(N) trains terminating at 57th Street.

 

Another mystery is why the must remain a shadow of the . When I was in high school in the 1970s, the 70(J) ran skip-stop with itself (as A/:angry: and I would switch to the 70(K) at local stations along the Broadway Brooklyn express stations. It would seem that the would be ideal to replace the (Mx) in South Brooklyn and terminate at Eastern Pkwy. The would run skip-stop with itself once again. If it worked before, why can it not work again?

 

I also miss late night express service on a 24 hour basis. In my youth, I knew that I could take any line in Manhattan and expect express service. Certain trains are interminable in their lengths as expresses nevermind as locals. The service cuts of 1976 and 1977 still live with us in 2011.

 

So, I'm not sure that leaving things as they are is so innovative, however, the subways still get us from points a to b.

[Y2Julio]

They could do a from Astoria to Bay Parkway via Broadway and 4th Avenue Locals.

 

Please no. The runs a lot smoother on 4th Avenue with the (Mx) gone.

[Roadcruiser1]

Not really. There are people that lost subway service after 6/2010, and it's best if it's brought back. It doesn't matter if it's something like the <R> from Chambers Street to Bay Parkway as long as it isn't called a <R>, or a reincarnated from Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard to Bay Parkway.

[Y2Julio]

Not really. There are people that lost subway service after 6/2010, and it's best if it's brought back. It doesn't matter if it's something like the <R> from Chambers Street to Bay Parkway as long as it isn't called a <R>, or a reincarnated from Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard to Bay Parkway.

 

What loss? They still have the .

[Roadcruiser1]

The is much more crowded ever since the (Mx) left, and not to mention the fact the Fourth Avenue Line has been affected by the (Mx)'s loss.

[Y2Julio]

The is much more crowded ever since the (Mx) left, and not to mention the fact the Fourth Avenue Line has been affected by the (Mx)'s loss.

I don't see any significant ridership on the . The local trains run much faster, the doesn't get held up to allow the (Mx) to crossover.

[MikeGerald]

The Z-train is not a "full-fledged" route, but simply a variation of the J-train, the trains are labeled "Z" in order to ease the almost 1 or 2 hours of skip-stop service. Sending that few amount of trains to/from Bay Parkway could interfere with the smooth operation of the skip-stop operation. On the J/Z lines the skip-stop operation works because each of the local stations along the route have about similar ridership, which affects how crowded are each of the trains.

 

If the Z-train were extended to Bay Parkway, it is indeed possible for a Z-train to be late, and miss its "slot" in the line up of alternate J and Z service. Thus there could be instances of J - Z - J - Z - J - J - Z - J - Z - Z - J type service patterns.

 

The old pattern of when J-trains operated as "A" and "B" trains only existed during the morning rush hours in the 1970's, and during the evening rush hours all J-trains made all stops. Since the trains themselves did not have "A" and "B" signage - how would one know which train to take in the evening? In the mornings, the trains did not NEED to be marked as "A" or "B" - they simply did not stop at certain designated stations.

 

----------

 

In the days of the EE, N, QB, and RR - only the EE and RR local trains went to Queens as designated on the 1970's maps. Thus there was no need for any switching between local and express trains. The N-train and the QB could easily use 57th Street as their terminal, especially since the QB was a rush hours only express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn.

 

When the N-train was drafted to replace the EE,, and when the N and R routes switched terminals there were various schemes to try to keep the N-train express, terminate the N-train at 57th Street, etc. In order to do so, and not foul up the 57th Street station, the switches between 42nd and 34th Streets are used. Plus over time the 49th Street station gained a great deal of ridership from the Times Square Theatre district.

 

Mike

[Shortline Bus]

Great comments as usual Mike.:tup:

 

The Z-train is not a "full-fledged" route, but simply a variation of the J-train, the trains are labeled "Z" in order to ease the almost 1 or 2 hours of skip-stop service. Sending that few amount of trains to/from Bay Parkway could interfere with the smooth operation of the skip-stop operation. On the J/Z lines the skip-stop operation works because each of the local stations along the route have about similar ridership, which affects how crowded are each of the trains.

 

If the Z-train were extended to Bay Parkway, it is indeed possible for a Z-train to be late, and miss its "slot" in the line up of alternate J and Z service. Thus there could be instances of J - Z - J - Z - J - J - Z - J - Z - Z - J type service patterns.

 

The old pattern of when J-trains operated as "A" and "B" trains only existed during the morning rush hours in the 1970's, and during the evening rush hours all J-trains made all stops. Since the trains themselves did not have "A" and "B" signage - how would one know which train to take in the evening? In the mornings, the trains did not NEED to be marked as "A" or "B" - they simply did not stop at certain designated stations.

 

----------

 

In the days of the EE, N, QB, and RR - only the EE and RR local trains went to Queens as designated on the 1970's maps. Thus there was no need for any switching between local and express trains. The N-train and the QB could easily use 57th Street as their terminal, especially since the QB was a rush hours only express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn.

 

When the N-train was drafted to replace the EE,, and when the N and R routes switched terminals there were various schemes to try to keep the N-train express, terminate the N-train at 57th Street, etc. In order to do so, and not foul up the 57th Street station, the switches between 42nd and 34th Streets are used. Plus over time the 49th Street station gained a great deal of ridership from the Times Square Theatre district.

 

Mike

[Sam]

The Z-train is not a "full-fledged" route, but simply a variation of the J-train, the trains are labeled "Z" in order to ease the almost 1 or 2 hours of skip-stop service. Sending that few amount of trains to/from Bay Parkway could interfere with the smooth operation of the skip-stop operation. On the J/Z lines the skip-stop operation works because each of the local stations along the route have about similar ridership, which affects how crowded are each of the trains.

 

If the Z-train were extended to Bay Parkway, it is indeed possible for a Z-train to be late, and miss its "slot" in the line up of alternate J and Z service. Thus there could be instances of J - Z - J - Z - J - J - Z - J - Z - Z - J type service patterns.

 

The old pattern of when J-trains operated as "A" and "B" trains only existed during the morning rush hours in the 1970's, and during the evening rush hours all J-trains made all stops. Since the trains themselves did not have "A" and "B" signage - how would one know which train to take in the evening? In the mornings, the trains did not NEED to be marked as "A" or "B" - they simply did not stop at certain designated stations.

 

----------

 

In the days of the EE, N, QB, and RR - only the EE and RR local trains went to Queens as designated on the 1970's maps. Thus there was no need for any switching between local and express trains. The N-train and the QB could easily use 57th Street as their terminal, especially since the QB was a rush hours only express in Manhattan and local in Brooklyn.

 

When the N-train was drafted to replace the EE,, and when the N and R routes switched terminals there were various schemes to try to keep the N-train express, terminate the N-train at 57th Street, etc. In order to do so, and not foul up the 57th Street station, the switches between 42nd and 34th Streets are used. Plus over time the 49th Street station gained a great deal of ridership from the Times Square Theatre district.

 

Mike

 

Mike, Your points are well-taken, however, I would add a few elements into the mix.

 

1. Clearly, the is not a distinct line as you've stated. In essence the service cut of 1976 in which the 70(K) was eliminated reduced service on the Broadway Brooklyn line to two lines and that's essentially where we are now. At some point in the very near future, with the redevelopment of lower Manhattan, there will once again be a need for service from South Brooklyn via Nassau Street. A real line will have to established to compensate for the loss of the (Mx). The has the potential to be a real line of its own. The can function as a skip-stop service on its own. I grant that the A/B configuration would have been a problem with older rolling stock on the return to Queens, but with NTT, it would be very easy to designate which service passengers were on. An adjustment would take care of balancing service if the remained as it is. Even the has signage that shows that it's express.

 

2. 57th Street on the Broadway line has the capacity to switch tracks before and after the station. Moreover, the tracks leading to the 63rd Street connector can hold and switch trains from northbound to southbound tracks. Those short turned and trains can discharge northbound and come back on the southbound express track. While 49th Street is indeed a heavily used station, the ridership is at about 8,000,000 annually, very similar to the 50th Street station on the . We don't see the and running local there because of high levels of ridership.

 

I do see your points, however. It just seems that a smoother more efficient ride can be had based on past service and potential use of infrastructure already in place.

 

This and $2.25 gets me on the subway!

[T to Dyre Avenue]

If you built a Nassau Street connection to the SAS, the could then run to Bay Parkway and take over that role in a much-improved way, also helping ease crowding on the (4)/(5) between Atlantic-Pacific and 125th.

The will most likely be a 24-hour line. Is there really a need for the to duplicate the on the West End Line?

[Roadcruiser1]

Talking about the is useless, because it doesn't exist yet, but if it ever comes along then people can talk, but not right now.

[Forest Glen]

Besides a certain route operating through a useless corridor (which I will not discuss), I'm basically satisfied with all of the routes.

[dman1455]

Did it ever occur to anyone that South Brooklyn does NOT need a connection to Nassau? I remember when the R42's were still on the and I rode the RFW, I was the only one in the car between Bay Parkway to at least Atlantic Avenue! Honestly the MTA cut the Brown BECAUSE No one rode it NOT even on 4th Avenue! I rode it almost every day 3-4 people per car. That's nothing compared to the so Nassau service to south brooklyn is not needed maybe the . But from what I see the is fine as is. Hell even south brooklyn is "fine" as is. So if I don't see a new line or old line touching south brooklyn unless the population goes up.

[Eric B]

Did it ever occur to anyone that South Brooklyn does NOT need a connection to Nassau? I remember when the R42's were still on the and I rode the RFW, I was the only one in the car between Bay Parkway to at least Atlantic Avenue! Honestly the MTA cut the Brown BECAUSE No one rode it NOT even on 4th Avenue! I rode it almost every day 3-4 people per car. That's nothing compared to the so Nassau service to south brooklyn is not needed maybe the . But from what I see the is fine as is. Hell even south brooklyn is "fine" as is. So if I don't see a new line or old line touching south brooklyn unless the population goes up.

That's the way it seems. Though you would think it would be needed to relieve the IRT. I would much rather go that way in the AM rush than to have to squeeze onto the overcrowded or .

 

So it should not be the full two-way service; it should just be a peak direction special like the one that used to run to 95th.

[Vistausss]

I agree, but under one condition: restore the subway back to what it was pre-June 2010. :cool:

Aside from that, your post holds water.

 

Agreed. Although 2 exceptions on the pre-June 2010 restoration:

 

-The new

-No

[Roadcruiser1]

How about this?

 

Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard to Whitehall Street at all times except late nights, rush hours, & weekends. To Bay Parkway rush hours only.

[Vistausss]

Excellent Roadcruiser!

[Shortline Bus]

How about this?

 

Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard to Whitehall Street at all times except late nights, rush hours, & weekends. To Bay Parkway rush hours only.

 

Not a terrible idea. I personally would like to see the return as a weekday-only(appx. 6am-8pm and no late evening weekday service)extended to Bay Pwy rush hours.

However until the SAS extension to 96th Street opens 5-6 years from Now(barring no more major delays)I think the current Broadway set-up is here to stay.:eek: