Is the MTA Unfair to the Outer Boroughs?

[B35 via Church]

I don't necessarily see it as being unfair to the outerboroughs.... There's a difference b/w centralizing a (subway) system in a particular area (manhattan in this case) & beliving the MTA's being unfair to the other boroughs.... Of course, the default argument goes in the favor of Staten Island b/c the subway system doesn't pan that far south &/or west.....

 

I think the better question is... What more can be done (and at what cost) to expand the subway system in the outer boroughs.... You said it yourself, "there are a lot of routing improvements you can make with the buses that would be relatively cheap to implement"....

 

That's the buses....

What subway improvement service-wise can you make, that would be relatively cheap?

 

I have to agree w/ Kamen, and I understood perfectly what he was tryna say.... I'm not sure what you want the MTA to do, regarding the subway system (since you decided to post this in the subway section).... Your arguments thus far, from what I gather, would lead one in the direction as to why things are screwed up on the bus end of things (with which I agree with).....

 

 

It's not that I have no opinion regarding the subway.

Not for nothin, but you do come across as such...

Whether you realize it (or care), or not....

[Roadcruiser1]

The only way to serve the outer boroughs in a short time is to build more elevated lines, but residents will start to complain and say "Oh it will block sunlight", or "Oh it will create a lot of noise", and as I have mentioned the people that are against this way of mass transit are also the people that beg for mass transit. They are nothing more then a group of cheap hypocrites for god sakes.

 

For example in early 2000 the proposed extending the to Bayside, and onwards into Eastern Queens parallel to the LIRR ROW. Guess what happened? Well I will tell you. The entire area screamed NIMBY, protested, and stopped the line from ever being constructed. Now 10 years later the area is complaining about the lack of subway service. Well it's not my problem, and another example is how Astoria and the rest of NYC complains about LaGuardia Airport on not having subway service. Well the was proposed to be extended there in 2000 also. Guess who stopped it? Well I will tell you again it's the NIMBY people. So when you people complain about the lack of subway service start looking at yourself and think "Do I want the subway or not", because when you people say we don't have subway service and when the proposes it you guys don't want it.

 

Now I can understand why Robert Moses did what he did. People can't decide what to do so Robert Moses will just decide for you, and not just that he ripped apart your house in what we call real progress. People shouldn't be allowed to decide the developer should, and it doesn't matter who stands in your way, but if they do just bulldoze them.

[Guest lance25]

Elevated lines or underground, it really doesn't matter as both options cost more money than the has, which is nothing.

 

And not for nothing, how do you think someone's going to feel about have an elevated subway line over your house, especially when there wasn't one there before? There's a big difference between moving to an area where the subway's overhead and building a subway practically over your house. You have to remember, for the most part, the elevated lines that exist today predate the buildings beneath them.

[Roadcruiser1]

It doesn't matter. Honolulu is proposing an elevated line in a dense community, Vancouver's elevated line was built in a dense community. It happens, and it works.

[Trainmaster5]

@T to Dyre

It's probably because even though you see the emblem on everything there is no real coordination between the many fiefdoms that fall under it's umbrella. The LIRR and Metro-North want nothing to do with intra-city problems. It's a "city" problem so that's left to NYCT to deal with. RTO and Surface have no regular coordination, except in major G.O.s, and they're part of the same umbrella group. MTA Bus and LIB, likewise. What's really needed is an entity, in or out of the proper, to sit down and actually do real nuts and bolts planning on transportation issues in the city.. This would ideally include NYCTA, NYCDOT, and NYPD and the community boards at major hubs in the city. Streets would have to be prepared for optimal bus routing to these hubs. The different bus components of the would have to get together and streamline various routes leading to these hubs even if means combining, re-routing or eliminating some routes that duplicate others. Something would have to be done to placate the various unions involved also. Finally the Division of Subways, the LIRR and MNRR have to brought in at some point to revise schedules and/or fares to make such a package work. I'm not advocating spending billions, just proposing that what's already being spent be utilized more responsibly. I'd like to point out that I'm talking specifically about "feeder" routes to the hubs. I'm not advocating eliminating bus routes throughout the city at all. IMO NYC needs more bus service in the outer boroughs, or at least a better structured system out there. Just my thoughts. Carry on folks.

[MikeGerald]

In the last two weeks, I was riding a bus on Staten Island that had a poster for a MTA sponsored community meeting about the proposed SBS #79 bus. Making that bus on Staten Island into SBS would speed transit between the shopping malls on Staten Island (the main one, and Hylan Blvd), speed up travel on Hylan Blvd (the most congested lengthy street on the island), and speed travel to Brooklyn (over the VNB). I could not attend the meeting due to competing events, but I plan to follow want happens.

 

In the past few months I have attended planning meetings at Snug Harbor about a proposed re-opening or the North Shore Rail Line, or the use of it's right of way for a bus-way, among the plans that were proposed. The Capital Planning section of the MTA website has this project listed for months.

 

On Staten Island about 3/4 of the buses originate from the St. George Ferry Terminal and travel to distant parts of the idea. The St. George Ferry Terminal is also the main terminal of the Staten Island Rapid transit line. Usually the buses are timed to leave after the ferry arrives, and many buses are timed to meet the ferries before they leave. The SIR is also timed this way. However in the case of buses and sometimes the SIR - STUFF HAPPENS - so missing a ferry (where the next one can be 15 or 20 minutes away during rush hours - but usually 30 or 60 minutes away at all other times). So yes, there is a penalty for a late, missing or cancelled ferry.

 

Now about the #7 line just how many three-track - two platform terminals are there in the subway system, where all three tracks are terminal tracks? Yes, the Flushing-Main Street terminal is kind of unique, but also a very capable terminal. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that about a decade ago, the MTA added a completely new entrance at the north end of the station, with escalators, elevators, etc. A rather stylish entrance that also happens to block any expansion of the #7 line, not that there were any real plans to do so.

 

The Main Street-Flushing terminal is a transfer station, meaning that by definition there will be crowds of people to/from the buses. Street congestion is something the buses just simply do not have control over, and as long as buses use the streets this will be the case.

 

Like most (95%) of the subways - the #7 line was completed by the 1940's - meaning that any real change in it's configuration was just not going to happen, given any real understanding of NYC history and transit history / policy in NYC. So basically we have what we got, and have to make the best of it. As the long history of transit funding problems and issues makes clear - money equals transit policy - no new money - then everything else is just a pipe dream - a colorful pipe dream.

 

Among the various transportation companies the adversion to idea of "poaching" riders by short distance and long distance companies led to compromises. That is why there are very few RAILROAD stations (not terminals) within the city limits where there is a competing rapid transit line. This idea is also reflected in differences among transit fares within the city limits among the various transit systems.

 

The issue of "un-fairness" is not an easy one for glib answers. There are several issues involved.

 

Mike

[chrisliz09]

i dont have the pics but this past few weeks over the weekend the MTA have replaced alot of track on the line in the bronx, they have done the have done all the tracks now its so smooth now you cant feel it moving

[geoking66]

The only way to serve the outer boroughs in a short time is to build more elevated lines, but residents will start to complain and say "Oh it will block sunlight", or "Oh it will create a lot of noise", and as I have mentioned the people that are against this way of mass transit are also the people that beg for mass transit. They are nothing more then a group of cheap hypocrites for god sakes.

 

For example in early 2000 the proposed extending the to Bayside, and onwards into Eastern Queens parallel to the LIRR ROW. Guess what happened? Well I will tell you. The entire area screamed NIMBY, protested, and stopped the line from ever being constructed. Now 10 years later the area is complaining about the lack of subway service. Well it's not my problem, and another example is how Astoria and the rest of NYC complains about LaGuardia Airport on not having subway service. Well the was proposed to be extended there in 2000 also. Guess who stopped it? Well I will tell you again it's the NIMBY people. So when you people complain about the lack of subway service start looking at yourself and think "Do I want the subway or not", because when you people say we don't have subway service and when the proposes it you guys don't want it.

 

Now I can understand why Robert Moses did what he did. People can't decide what to do so Robert Moses will just decide for you, and not just that he ripped apart your house in what we call real progress. People shouldn't be allowed to decide the developer should, and it doesn't matter who stands in your way, but if they do just bulldoze them.

 

So your definition of "real progress" is destroying functioning and thriving neighborhoods so you can run a now-obsolete highway through them and turn them into some of the most deprived areas of the country? I get what you're saying, but we learned the hard way that the Robert Moses-era planning techniques, aka having one unelected person do what he pleased, were failures.

 

For the record, I can't stand expansion hypocrites too.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

So your definition of "real progress" is destroying functioning and thriving neighborhoods so you can run a now-obsolete highway through them and turn them into some of the most deprived areas of the country? I get what you're saying, but we learned the hard way that the Robert Moses-era planning techniques, aka having one unelected person do what he pleased, were failures.

 

For the record, I can't stand expansion hypocrites too.

 

I agree. Subways and lightrails don't belong everywhere as they will destroy the character of the neighbourhoods, not to mention as BrooklynBus said, you don't need them everywhere because there simply won't be enough demand for them all over the place.

[MikeGerald]

There is another aspect of the Robert Moses era of planning and development that however does not get as much attention as it really should - the idea of comprehensive planning.

 

One thing that allowed Robert Moses to work and build what he built, was that the "parts" fit into a unified whole, such that each part was not only important for itself but also important for the whole. That part of his work is often missed when one just looks at the parts. In addition, the unified whole at least in plans and designs was created long before (as in decades before) the various parts were built. He know what he was doing long before other's realized how much of its was inter-connected.

 

That is also one reason why NIMBYism works - its looks at the "what's in it for me" side of the argument, while often not giving much attention to the idea that "I might not benefit but others might".

 

Now remember transit policy is based upon money. No money - nothing gets built - period, and good luck keeping what's operating operating.

 

At the same time - getting enough money to build comprehensive solutions is not the easiest thing to "sell". Too many folks will look at the parts that benefit or don't benefit themselves, and act accordingly. Too many folks will try to see if "one can get away doing the least amount possible"as a guide to planning the project. And of course, different folk at different times decide different things, which can be a killer to comprehensive solutions. However a piece-meal approach (even if planned comprehensively) offers more targets for opponents to shot down and not fund.

 

Just some food for thought.

Mike

[Nexis4Jersey]

Its not just the MTA who has an obsession with Manhattan , so does NJT....and more so with Midtown then Lower Manhattan and Urban Jersey where the job growth has been over the past decade.... These 2 agencies need to start focusing on the other parts of our region otherwise congestion will become worse and redevelopments in Urban Jersey / the Outer Boroughs will become less and less.

[BrooklynBus]

 

I think the better question is... What more can be done (and at what cost) to expand the subway system in the outer boroughs.... You said it yourself, "there are a lot of routing improvements you can make with the buses that would be relatively cheap to implement"....

 

That's the buses....

What subway improvement service-wise can you make, that would be relatively cheap? ....

 

The only one I can think of is painting the stations where there the peeling isn't a result of a water problem. Pretty much anything else you want to do that is non-service related will cause big bucks. (You could also fix the water problems.)

 

I have to agree w/ Kamen, and I understood perfectly what he was tryna say.... I'm not sure what you want the MTA to do, regarding the subway system (since you decided to post this in the subway section).... Your arguments thus far, from what I gather, would lead one in the direction as to why things are screwed up on the bus end of things (with which I agree with).....

 

 

 

Well, then kindly explain to me what you believe he was saying. I posted it in the subway section because most of the examples from the articles being critiqued were related to the subways.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Its not just the MTA who has an obsession with Manhattan , so does NJT....and more so with Midtown then Lower Manhattan and Urban Jersey where the job growth has been over the past decade.... These 2 agencies need to start focusing on the other parts of our region otherwise congestion will become worse and redevelopments in Urban Jersey / the Outer Boroughs will become less and less.

 

Well for what it's worth I think Midtown is regarded highly. It's very snobby and snooty compared to working Downtown. People hussle more Downtown, not to mention that it's dirtier and more crowded in certain parts, esp. down by Broadway and Fulton. I hate it down there. It's like everywhere you look someone is smoking a damn cigarette and the streets are so narrow and firty that there is no where to go to escape the smoke. :mad: I prefer Midtown myself and certainly do enjoy the service we get both in Midtown within Manhattan (going to and from it) and also going to and from the outer boroughs. We also have better restaurants in Midtown and other attractions... Bryant Park, Rockefeller Center, Empire State Building, Grand Central and the list going on and on. The only thing I hate are the annoying tourists. :mad: :tdown:

[B35 via Church]

Well, then kindly explain to me what you believe he was saying.

Oh, I think you know what he was trying to say.... but since you wanna insist with this pettiness....

 

While I don't know if the questions he posted were rhetorical or not, the basic point behind it all is.... Is the MTA supposed to dump a ton of money to revamp the entire NYC transportation system by way of reconfiguring bus routes systemwide & (building & reconfiguring) the subway system, systemwide...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

@T to Dyre

It's probably because even though you see the emblem on everything there is no real coordination between the many fiefdoms that fall under it's umbrella. The LIRR and Metro-North want nothing to do with intra-city problems. It's a "city" problem so that's left to NYCT to deal with. RTO and Surface have no regular coordination, except in major G.O.s, and they're part of the same umbrella group. MTA Bus and LIB, likewise. What's really needed is an entity, in or out of the proper, to sit down and actually do real nuts and bolts planning on transportation issues in the city.

 

Exactly! That's the problem. The MTA public transit system is like a house where the children call the shots instead of the parents. You wouldn't accept that in your own house, so why should we accept it with the MTA? As the parent agency, the MTA needs to bring its "children" under control and make the decisions about what's best for the "family" unit as a whole. The MTA needs to overrule the LIRR and Metro-North on their attitude about "intra-city problems" because they are responsible for them in part. By charging premium prices and running infrequent service in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, it's like they're saying to riders in the boroughs, "Please don't take our trains. We don't care how you get to Manhattan. Just don't use our trains to get there!" That is not acceptable. If New York is ever going to be able to safely and comfortably accommodate a growing population, much of which will use mass transit, then attitudes like that have to fall by the wayside. Or the city will eventually

 

Extending the east of Flushing will be very expensive and time-consuming. Fortunately, there is an alternative. With an LIRR connection to Grand Central under construction, it would be wise of the MTA to look at running additional trains on the LIRR branches in Queens, as those branches will be able to accommodate them. Charge a significantly lower fare than the current one-way peak-direction Zone 3 fare (so much lower than $8.75). It would cost much less do this than to build a extension to Bayside/Douglaston.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Now about the #7 line just how many three-track - two platform terminals are there in the subway system, where all three tracks are terminal tracks? Yes, the Flushing-Main Street terminal is kind of unique, but also a very capable terminal. Unless I am mistaken, I believe that about a decade ago, the MTA added a completely new entrance at the north end of the station, with escalators, elevators, etc. A rather stylish entrance that also happens to block any expansion of the #7 line, not that there were any real plans to do so.

 

The Main Street-Flushing terminal is a transfer station, meaning that by definition there will be crowds of people to/from the buses. Street congestion is something the buses just simply do not have control over, and as long as buses use the streets this will be the case.

 

Like most (95%) of the subways - the #7 line was completed by the 1940's - meaning that any real change in it's configuration was just not going to happen, given any real understanding of NYC history and transit history / policy in NYC. So basically we have what we got, and have to make the best of it. As the long history of transit funding problems and issues makes clear - money equals transit policy - no new money - then everything else is just a pipe dream - a colorful pipe dream.

 

Among the various transportation companies the adversion to idea of "poaching" riders by short distance and long distance companies led to compromises. That is why there are very few RAILROAD stations (not terminals) within the city limits where there is a competing rapid transit line. This idea is also reflected in differences among transit fares within the city limits among the various transit systems.

 

The issue of "un-fairness" is not an easy one for glib answers. There are several issues involved.

 

Mike

Main Street really isn't that capable of a terminal. If all the congestion going into and out of 8th Avenue terminal on the is any indication, the congestion going into and out of Main is going to be worse than it already is. Trains currently have to enter and leave the trains at very slow speeds and are frequently delayed outside the terminal waiting for an open track. Part of the problem is that the tracks end in the station. There used to be tail tracks that extended shortly past the end of the station, allowing trains to enter the station faster, but those were demolished when the ADA-compliant exit went in (you know, the one that prevents the from being extended eastward).

 

I'm sorry, but if "we have what we got, and have to make the best of it" is all we're going to have, then we're going to be in a lot of trouble years down the road. The population in the outer boroughs is growing steadily. Yet, they have the same infrastructure they had in the 1970s when the city's population was declining. If we don't build additional infrastructure or find newer, creative ways to accommodate an ever-increasing number of commuters, the city will eventually collapse on itself. Doing nothing is not an option we can afford.

[Roadcruiser1]

You mean the subway. I am not a highway supporter. Besides I am being truthful. People only complain, but they don't think one second about progress, and that is mass transit for everyone.

[TriboroughBridge]

well lets take the bronx for example;

NO TWO WAY EXPRESS SERVICE IN THE BRONX AT ALL!

at least 2 way weekday express sevice for the WPR & pelham lines!

[MikeGerald]

Considering that all of the Bronx subway lines consist of 2 and 3 track lines (the #5 Dyre Avenue segment is functionally a 2-track line, all of the rest are 3 track lines) just how is there supposed to be express runs on BOTH DIRECTIONS?

 

Beyond that what is the need for express runs in both directions? Basically the express runs are not used for "speed" but used to separate riders from one set of trains from another set. For example, riders destined for Pelham Bay Park or Buhre Avenue don't have to sit through all of the local stations, while riders at St Lawrence and Soundview are presented with trains that they can actually walk into.

 

Often the middle track, such on the #1 and the #4 were built as service tracks to help with the operation of the line, rather than as "express tracks". Thus the lines were really designed to be 2-track lines, with a middle track "thrown in" for future use or to help with operations.

 

What is it with some transit fans and express trains? Is it some kind of fetish - they get pleasure for proposing express runs that are not very useful to actual real riders?

 

I've been on plenty of transit bulletin boards and web-sites since the days of dial-up modems at 300 baud. Often among the various proposals are "can we make this express or that express". Like a never ending song. Geesh!

 

Mike

[Roadcruiser1]

In some cities there is no such thing as express service. The new line they are building in Paris doesn't have express service at all.

[R68 Subway Car]

There is no service to the outer boroughs because of various untimely economy downturns in the last 80+ years.

[checkmatechamp13]

You can't just dismiss buses like they are no good for anything. You make it sound like every area is suitable for a subway or light rail. That's just not true unless you are only talking about the densely populated areas. In most areas it would be impractical to build a subway or light rail even if you could afford to build them. It would just be uneconomical to operate them because you could not get the ridership to justify them. In those areas, buses are the most economical solution so it is important the the routes operate as efficiently and effectively as possible which is just not the case today with outdated and indirect routing that does not facilitate easy transferring in some cases.

 

Most of the areas where they (meaning transit fans, transit studies, etc) are proposing some sort of subway/light rail are areas where there is the ridership to support those lines. I don't think anybody is advocating to replace, say the B4 with a subway/light rail line.

 

Yes, I believe the MTA is shafting the outer boroughs. There are no plans for expansion in any of them and in Brooklyn, Queens and Staten Island, there are no articulated buses or Limited/Select Bus services to deal with the heavy crowds on many of the buses that shuttle people to the subways. Not only that, many of the stations where multiple bus lines converge do so haphazardly. Main Street in Flushing is a prime example. There is no rhyme or reason to where the buses stop and start and they are in multiple locations, making transfers between buses and from bus to subway difficult. And since most people on the Flushing buses transfer to the at Main Street, you have to deal with swarms of people descending on subway platforms that clearly were not designed to handle the crowd they see every day (Main Street was not intended to be the last stop on the ).

 

Now, an extension of the eastward into Bayside would allow several of those bus routes to be cut back. A branch off of the line into College Point (an (8) train) would allow more bus routes to be cut back. But the MTA not only claims to have no money to do this, they don't even have plans for it. They won't even run longer buses on these busy bus routes.

 

But there is something the MTA can (and should) look into doing, especially once ESA construction enters its advanced stages. That is to consider running additional trains on the LIRR's Port Washington as well as on the lines that run through southeast Queens. On Friday, the hottest day of the year, I took the LIRR home to Bayside, instead of the and Q12. That LIRR train was not even close to being full. This was the 6:30 train out of Penn Station. I bet you if the MTA offered Queens residents a significantly discounted fare (with a transfer to/from the subway at Penn Station, Grand Central, Hunterspoint Avenue and Atlantic Avenue) on the LIRR to and from stations in Queens, many people would switch from the buses and to the railroad. But the MTA is not even considering that. Why not?

 

What they should do (maybe when they have SmartCards) is make it like NJT, where a commuter rail pass (LIRR and Metro-North in this case) is valid on the local system. This could actually save money, as trains are cheaper (per passenger) to operate than buses.

 

I do agree with charging extra for travel directly into Manhattan (the fare for a monthly pass is roughly the same as an express bus pass), but for trips within the outer boroughs, there should definitely be a substantial discount. If the fare was, say $3 all times (charge a little more than the local buses to reflect the better quality of service), and transfers were accepted from the , you'd see a large reduction in the overcrowding that occurs on the Q12 and Q13 routes, and service might even be able to be reduced, as a lot of riders would switch to the faster LIRR.

 

For passengers going into Manhattan, there should be free transfers to the subways/local buses in Manhattan. This would allow the express buses that parallel commuter rail lines to be rerouted to better serve the passengers who truly need it (for example, rerouting the Queens express routes to serve East Midtown, and possibly Lower Manhattan, leaving the West Side served by the LIRR).

 

The only way to serve the outer boroughs in a short time is to build more elevated lines, but residents will start to complain and say "Oh it will block sunlight", or "Oh it will create a lot of noise", and as I have mentioned the people that are against this way of mass transit are also the people that beg for mass transit. They are nothing more then a group of cheap hypocrites for god sakes.

 

For example in early 2000 the proposed extending the to Bayside, and onwards into Eastern Queens parallel to the LIRR ROW. Guess what happened? Well I will tell you. The entire area screamed NIMBY, protested, and stopped the line from ever being constructed. Now 10 years later the area is complaining about the lack of subway service. Well it's not my problem, and another example is how Astoria and the rest of NYC complains about LaGuardia Airport on not having subway service. Well the was proposed to be extended there in 2000 also. Guess who stopped it? Well I will tell you again it's the NIMBY people. So when you people complain about the lack of subway service start looking at yourself and think "Do I want the subway or not", because when you people say we don't have subway service and when the proposes it you guys don't want it.

 

Now I can understand why Robert Moses did what he did. People can't decide what to do so Robert Moses will just decide for you, and not just that he ripped apart your house in what we call real progress. People shouldn't be allowed to decide the developer should, and it doesn't matter who stands in your way, but if they do just bulldoze them.

 

I doubt the MTA was being serious with the proposal to extend the to Bayside.

 

Well for what it's worth I think Midtown is regarded highly. It's very snobby and snooty compared to working Downtown. People hussle more Downtown, not to mention that it's dirtier and more crowded in certain parts, esp. down by Broadway and Fulton. I hate it down there. It's like everywhere you look someone is smoking a damn cigarette and the streets are so narrow and firty that there is no where to go to escape the smoke. :mad: I prefer Midtown myself and certainly do enjoy the service we get both in Midtown within Manhattan (going to and from it) and also going to and from the outer boroughs. We also have better restaurants in Midtown and other attractions... Bryant Park, Rockefeller Center, Empire State Building, Grand Central and the list going on and on. The only thing I hate are the annoying tourists. :mad: :tdown:

 

You may have noticed this as well, but Lower Manhattan was hit pretty bad with the subway reductions. They lost both the and the (Mx).

 

Exactly! That's the problem. The MTA public transit system is like a house where the children call the shots instead of the parents. You wouldn't accept that in your own house, so why should we accept it with the MTA? As the parent agency, the MTA needs to bring its "children" under control and make the decisions about what's best for the "family" unit as a whole. The MTA needs to overrule the LIRR and Metro-North on their attitude about "intra-city problems" because they are responsible for them in part. By charging premium prices and running infrequent service in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, it's like they're saying to riders in the boroughs, "Please don't take our trains. We don't care how you get to Manhattan. Just don't use our trains to get there!" That is not acceptable. If New York is ever going to be able to safely and comfortably accommodate a growing population, much of which will use mass transit, then attitudes like that have to fall by the wayside. Or the city will eventually

 

Extending the east of Flushing will be very expensive and time-consuming. Fortunately, there is an alternative. With an LIRR connection to Grand Central under construction, it would be wise of the MTA to look at running additional trains on the LIRR branches in Queens, as those branches will be able to accommodate them. Charge a significantly lower fare than the current one-way peak-direction Zone 3 fare (so much lower than $8.75). It would cost much less do this than to build a extension to Bayside/Douglaston.

 

Exactly. Like I said, it would relieve overcrowding (and allow them to reduce service a bit) on the bus routes in the area if there was better service and free transfers were accepted.

 

Also, to reflect the additional demand for service in those areas, there would probably be some short-turns, say from Grand Central to Yonkers (Hudson Line), and Wakefield (Harlem Line) so the suburbanites wouldn't have to share a train with the "city folk".

 

well lets take the bronx for example;

NO TWO WAY EXPRESS SERVICE IN THE BRONX AT ALL!

at least 2 way weekday express sevice for the WPR & pelham lines!

 

That isn't the MTA's fault: When the lines were built in the early 1900s, there were only 3 tracks.

 

Considering that all of the Bronx subway lines consist of 2 and 3 track lines (the #5 Dyre Avenue segment is functionally a 2-track line, all of the rest are 3 track lines) just how is there supposed to be express runs on BOTH DIRECTIONS?

 

Beyond that what is the need for express runs in both directions? Basically the express runs are not used for "speed" but used to separate riders from one set of trains from another set. For example, riders destined for Pelham Bay Park or Buhre Avenue don't have to sit through all of the local stations, while riders at St Lawrence and Soundview are presented with trains that they can actually walk into.

 

Often the middle track, such on the #1 and the #4 were built as service tracks to help with the operation of the line, rather than as "express tracks". Thus the lines were really designed to be 2-track lines, with a middle track "thrown in" for future use or to help with operations.

 

What is it with some transit fans and express trains? Is it some kind of fetish - they get pleasure for proposing express runs that are not very useful to actual real riders?

 

I've been on plenty of transit bulletin boards and web-sites since the days of dial-up modems at 300 baud. Often among the various proposals are "can we make this express or that express". Like a never ending song. Geesh!

 

Mike

 

But even if it would be impossible to create express service, you have to admit that there is a need on a few of the lines (namely, the Concourse, Pelham, and White Plains Road lines).

 

A relative of mine turned down a job offer in Woodlawn partially because of how slow the train travels in The Bronx.

[Roadcruiser1]

It was a serious proposal you can find it if you spend your time searching it up.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

You may have noticed this as well, but Lower Manhattan was hit pretty bad with the subway reductions. They lost both the and the (Mx).

 

Interesting point... Outside of the and trains train service Downtown SUCKS big ones. I've said this a million times, but the train is the slowest train on earth. It makes way too many stops (even for a local subway line) and the trains that they use for the line are also slow, which makes it even more torturous to endure. I do everything to avoid using that train.

[checkmatechamp13]

Interesting point... Outside of the and trains train service Downtown SUCKS big ones. I've said this a million times, but the train is the slowest train on earth. It makes way too many stops (even for a local subway line) and the trains that they use for the line are also slow, which makes it even more torturous to endure. I do everything to avoid using that train.

 

The is almost never crowded, but it would still be nice if there was more frequent service on it. 10 minute service during rush hour is terrible for a subway line.

 

Going back to Staten Island, I've switched to taking the to the to reach the ferry, rather than waiting for the and risking a 20 minute wait for the ferry (to be fair, the hasn't caused me to miss a ferry yet)