Where do you think the mta should add a transfer passage on the Subway?

[Guest lance25]

But, what would be the point? Even when the did terminate at the inner loop back in the '70s, it never got that much ridership. And that was during the rush hours. And what's this about reviving the old Bowling Green/South Ferry shuttle? Nobody wants that shuttle, hence why that got cut many moons ago. Also, even if the shuttle was brought back, the old South Ferry station isn't a) connected to the Whitehall St station like the new one and is not handicap accessible.

 

There really isn't much of a benefit for a connection between Bowling Green and Whitehall St-South Ferry anyhow. Riders looking for Broadway service can transfer at 14 St-Union Sq or Canal St and those needing 7th Ave can change at Borough Hall or Fulton St to the or trains.

[E Local]

- Queens Plaza and QueensBoro Plaza

to me since they are like RIGHT there, they should be connected.

 

- Bowling Green and South Ferry-Whitehall street

they are right there by a few feet, hence forth, they should be connected.

 

- Broadway and either Hewes street or Lorimer street

 

- Junius street and Livonia avenue (the obvious one)

 

- 34 street Penn station and the .

like to me, they are already connected via the Penn station, why not make it a free transfer? but idk hows that gonna work out.

 

I feel like I pointed out the obvious lol.

[IntExp]

- Queens Plaza and QueensBoro Plaza

to me since they are like RIGHT there, they should be connected.

 

- Bowling Green and South Ferry-Whitehall street

they are right there by a few feet, hence forth, they should be connected.

 

- Broadway and either Hewes street or Lorimer street

 

- Junius street and Livonia avenue (the obvious one)

 

- 34 street Penn station and the .

like to me, they are already connected via the Penn station, why not make it a free transfer? but idk hows that gonna work out.

 

I feel like I pointed out the obvious lol.

 

If the transfer could be done at Queens Plaza, I would support it. It would alleviate pressure at 74 Street- yet you can transfer at Court Square for the E or the M, and you can take the N or Q at Queensboro Plaza one stop to Lex-59th for the R.

 

For more on the Bowling Green/South Ferry transfer, read Mike's post. It's seems like you didn't read it.

 

The transfer between the and the at Broadway should be done, as well as the transfer between and the at Junius/Livonia.

 

You really don't need a transfer at Penn Station- you can already transfer one stop uptown at Port Authority/Times Square-42 Street- or you can walk there (It's only 7-8 blocks to the nearest entrance ). It's not needed at Penn, it's fine at TSQ-42 Street.

[Eric B]

I would like to see the Sixth Avenue and 42nd street BDF (already having a passage to the 7 line 5th avenue station), extended the other way to the Times Square complex only about a half block away. I believe I read on an earlier thread that there was plans for this, but put on hold....?

 

This would come in handy for me personally on those rainy early mornings when my E train is routed down the F line. I would be able to walk underground and out of the weather all the way to the Port Authority terminal where I work.B)

I've been waiting for that one too. It's been built into the sidewalk vault of the 1 Bryand Ppark building, and provisions of the connection are visible on the 6th Ave. Mezzanine end of it and even the red globe hidden entrance stairway at the mid-block arcade, but it's on the TSQ end that nothing has been done. I believe station facilities built in front of an old exit are blocking it. The building owner says basically that is holding it up.

 

As for the Gimbels passageway, that's apart of the planned redevelopment of the Hotel Penn site.

 

Neither passage will be under fare control, I don't think.

 

Another place I believe a connection should be made is BwayLafayette-Prince St. Especially with the losing Canal St. And only having 34th to transfer to Bway now.

Theose two stations are very close together, and I see there's an private exit on the SW corner of Bway and Houston, which is likely where the pair of doored-off staircses to an electrical facility that could be used for the downtown side transfer lead to.

[MikeGerald]

But, what would be the point? Even when the did terminate at the inner loop back in the '70s, it never got that much ridership. And that was during the rush hours. And what's this about reviving the old Bowling Green/South Ferry shuttle? Nobody wants that shuttle, hence why that got cut many moons ago. Also, even if the shuttle was brought back, the old South Ferry station isn't a) connected to the Whitehall St station like the new one and B) is not handicap accessible.

 

There really isn't much of a benefit for a connection between Bowling Green and Whitehall St-South Ferry anyhow. Riders looking for Broadway service can transfer at 14 St-Union Sq or Canal St and those needing 7th Ave can change at Borough Hall or Fulton St to the or trains.

 

In the 1970's when #5 and #6 trains run to/from South Ferry they used the OUTER platform that the #1 train used, providing a rare same platform transfer between the eastside and westside trains. The reason for this was very simple, the subway cars of these lines were NOT able to open only the middle door of the cars - as compared to the original subway cars that the South Ferry INNER subway station was designed for. Only the OUTER South Ferry platform allows all of the doors of a subway car to open for the first 5 cars of a subway train.

 

The usefulness of the South Ferry Shuttle declined in the mid-1970's when under Mayor Koch during the 1970's fiscal crisis, the mid-day and evening ferry schedule was changed from a boat every 20 minutes to a boat every 30 minutes. Then the weekend and late night schedule was changed to a boat every 60 minutes (when prior to the 1970's late night boats operated every 30 minutes). What this meant was that there was a major penalty to missing the boat. Ferry riders from the eastside could walk from the Bowling Green station to the ferry in a few minutes compared to waiting for the shuttle, especially if waiting for the shuttle meant missing the boat.

 

The renovation of the Bowling Green station to its current red-orange brick tile color in the mid-late 1970's also contributed to the demise of the south ferry shuttle, as well as attempting to terminate day-time #5 trains there at the same time. While #5 trains were parked on the inner loop tracks, south ferry shuttle trains were delayed - which of course would piss off ferry riders hoping to catch the boat, and not wait a long time for the next boat. The MTA was intent upon removing the kinds of subway cars that operated on the shuttle - and newer purchased cars were not capable of only opening the middle car door.

 

Mike

[Quill Depot]

A transfer between Astor Place and E8th Street , could be used to relieve crowding at Union Square.

 

Also one at Hewes St or Lorimer St () to the @ Broadway (Brooklyn).

[Trainmaster5]

Regarding the Junius St-Livonia Ave connection between the and lines. It may have been practical back in the day when I actually lived in Brownsville (50's-early 60's) but that's not the case today. The south end of Junius St LOOKS invitingly close to the Livonia Ave station but in reality it's not. If one were to look from the south end of the present configuration of Junius St two things stand out. The bridge across the railroad cut and the flyover to Linden shop. There WAS an exit to Junius St at that very point but it was removed because of the flyover AND BECAUSE OF CRIME on the bridge and the street below the station. To use that exit, especially at night, you had to be crazy, high, packing, the Guardian Angels, or 5-0. Therefore the TA felt that particular entrance/exit wasn't worth the trouble of keeping open. I must point out that in the timeframe I referred to there were a few light manufacturing places located on Junius St across from the railroad cut but they closed down when the neighborhood changed and when rail traffic petered out on the Bay Ridge branch. IIRC there were 3 or 4 ACTIVE tracks on the railroad back then and light industry on both sides of the cut. There was considerably more passenger volume at both stations than there is today and I can't see the investing money into the area in the near future. It's probably best to say that be thankful the overpass hasn't been torn down at all and leave it at that. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

[Eric B]

It's very close if you connect the Junius mezzanine directly to the bridge, or to a new bridge (on the other side of the Livonia el, so that one bridge continues to be outside of fare control, and the other is within fare control). That would help any crime problem as well.

[Grand Concourse]

Well, the 'cheap' option should be the MC transfer. If they can have that for 63rd-Lex to 59th-Lex, then such stations in Brooklyn and Queens should not be an issue as far as distance goes.

Also, if the MTA has routes like the B6 which is a '3rd leg' transfer [i can take the B41, B6, B46 all on one fare], then why not have those turnstiles act as a 2nd transfer?

[Trainmaster5]

It's very close if you connect the Junius mezzanine directly to the bridge, or to a new bridge (on the other side of the Livonia el, so that one bridge continues to be outside of fare control, and the other is within fare control). That would help any crime problem as well.

I can't see the justifying the cash outlay even in the best of times. You gotta remember two police precincts, the 73 and the 75, both denied responsibility for the bridge back in the day. They tried to stick it on the Transit Police's shoulders. I doubt if there are more than 10 people who even make that transfer daily so I can't see a cost benefit. I'm not saying the logistics can't be worked out I just can't see anyone in authority proposing or giving it the green light. Like it or not Brownsville and East New York, especially at that location, rank lower than red-haired stepchildren to the .

[Grand Concourse]

Should that place ever be 'gentrified', do you thing the 'hipsters' will be demanding such a connection be built or reinstated?

[Wallyhorse]

But, what would be the point? Even when the did terminate at the inner loop back in the '70s, it never got that much ridership. And that was during the rush hours. And what's this about reviving the old Bowling Green/South Ferry shuttle? Nobody wants that shuttle, hence why that got cut many moons ago. Also, even if the shuttle was brought back, the old South Ferry station isn't a) connected to the Whitehall St station like the new one and is not handicap accessible.

 

There really isn't much of a benefit for a connection between Bowling Green and Whitehall St-South Ferry anyhow. Riders looking for Broadway service can transfer at 14 St-Union Sq or Canal St and those needing 7th Ave can change at Borough Hall or Fulton St to the or trains.

 

The whole area is much different now than in 1977, and I would think if they re-opened the Outer Loop station at SF for the (5)/(6)/(S) as noted, I think it would see considerably heavier ridership than was the case then, especially at night (and not just because of the ferry).

 

I believe there actually are provisions some have noted previously where a transfer to the on the new platform can be done (and from there, to the late nights/® other times), so unlike say 10 years ago, having the (5)/(6)/(S) (depending on time of day) go to the old SF station would be worth doing.

 

As for the idea of a transfer between the (N)/® and (:P/(D)/(F)/(M)/(6) at Prince-Broadway-Lafayette, I really think if that can be done, it should, especially since I would think that station would be very popular with NYU students, especially if they can walk over to the 6th Avenue trains from Broadway.

[Wallyhorse]

I can't see the justifying the cash outlay even in the best of times. You gotta remember two police precincts, the 73 and the 75, both denied responsibility for the bridge back in the day. They tried to stick it on the Transit Police's shoulders. I doubt if there are more than 10 people who even make that transfer daily so I can't see a cost benefit. I'm not saying the logistics can't be worked out I just can't see anyone in authority proposing or giving it the green light. Like it or not Brownsville and East New York, especially at that location, rank lower than red-haired stepchildren to the .

 

Agreed. As much as I do try to make transfers in many places, that is one transfer I can't see happening other than perhaps an OOS one (and I used to back in the '80s pass through there on my way to school).

[SubwayGuy]

The TA wanted to close the old south ferry station to avoid having a 5 car station with a loud, tight curve, difficult egress, and gap fillers to maintain.

 

There's no sense in bringing it back to save people what amounts to about 600 feet of walking.

 

And to those daydreaming that the INNER loop be brought back into service, that will never happen. All of the old door openings in the station wall except one have been bricked over, and even were it possible to modify "shuttle trains" out of S track at the Green to stop there by cutting out their end doors and un-bricking the openings, it would be a huge safety problem because you'd basically have a station where a conductor could not observe the flow of passengers before closing doors, and could not observe the platform once the train began to move.

[Wallyhorse]

The TA wanted to close the old south ferry station to avoid having a 5 car station with a loud, tight curve, difficult egress, and gap fillers to maintain.

 

There's no sense in bringing it back to save people what amounts to about 600 feet of walking.

 

Except some people really are that lazy and coming from Staten Island in particular may prefer to take the shuttle (rush hours) to Bowling Green or (5)/(6) (other times) if they are going north without having to walk to Bowling Green (and also in bad weather and at night). Also, as I would do it, I would have the (5)/(6) do a double stop at South Ferry so all 10 cars can disembark there before heading back uptown.

 

And to those daydreaming that the INNER loop be brought back into service, that will never happen. All of the old door openings in the station wall except one have been bricked over, and even were it possible to modify "shuttle trains" out of S track at the Green to stop there by cutting out their end doors and un-bricking the openings, it would be a huge safety problem because you'd basically have a station where a conductor could not observe the flow of passengers before closing doors, and could not observe the platform once the train began to move.

 

And there has been no need to re-open the inner loop anyway. That station simply is far more impractical than even the old outer loop station.

[Eric B]

I can't see the justifying the cash outlay even in the best of times. You gotta remember two police precincts, the 73 and the 75, both denied responsibility for the bridge back in the day. They tried to stick it on the Transit Police's shoulders. I doubt if there are more than 10 people who even make that transfer daily so I can't see a cost benefit. I'm not saying the logistics can't be worked out I just can't see anyone in authority proposing or giving it the green light. Like it or not Brownsville and East New York, especially at that location, rank lower than red-haired stepchildren to the .

They did say that there was no cost benefit to it. Though I think if they did the fare-controlled new bridge, it would probably draw more people that way. It was certainly a big shortcut for me to get certain places (like the Grand Army Plaza area), but it's a headache having to leave the system, and walk the street to the far end of Junius and the long staircase to access that station. A connection from a bridge to the near end would be so much easier.

 

(I didn't know anything about the police precincts, but now, it is all one department, an whichever precinct handles that area would be responsible for it).

[MikeGerald]

In the 1970's the #5 and #6 DID NOT OPERATE TO SOUTH FERRY DURING THE RUSH HOURS!

 

The South Ferry Shuttle operated between Bowling Green and South Ferry during the day on the weekdays. The #5 operated to South Ferry (OUTER PLATFROM) from about 8pm to 11pm or so, with the #6 train operating to South Ferry (OUTPLATFORM) during the over-nights. On weekends the #5 operated to/from South Ferry (OUTER PLATFROM) during the day, with the #6 operating there at night, and over night. Only the South Ferry Shuttle used the INNER platform with the carved door openings - because ALL of the modern subway trains could not selectively open the middle doors of the cars! Thus all #5 and #6 trains went sent to South Ferry had to use the OUTER PLATFORM, that is also used by the #1 train, and that could only be done during the less traffic times of the weekends or midnight hours.

 

I just had to say it. There was no way considering the passenger traffic to/from Brooklyn for #4 and #5 trains or even #6 trains to travel to/from South Ferry during the rush hours. That simply did not happen - and was the reason for the creation of the South Ferry Shuttle in the first place.

 

Wallyhorse - I'm a daily ferry rider from Staten Island for the past 20-something years - it is really no big deal to walk to/from Bowling Green even when rushing for the train. Even the idea of connecting the Whitehall Street N/R station to Bowling Green would simply create an underground passageway of ups and downs walking along an at times very crowded narrow platforms - that would actually take more time to navigate than just walking the streets. I doubt that a revived ferry shuttle is to be traveling at a frequency where its going to make connections with the boat - something that I care about deeply. In this case, leaving well enough alone is what is best.

 

Mike

[INDman]

I always though that there should be passage ways going cross town between all the major mid town stops. You should be able to walk from 8th Av and 42nd St all the way to 6th Av, I think going all the way to Grand central is just too far. The same with 34th St, but make that an out of fare control passage from 8th Av to 6th Av.

 

And for those who keep saying that there should be a connection between the and lines, that's just inpractical. Broadway is directly between the two El stations and any passage way would just be too long. Put a metro card transfer and be done with it.

[CenSin]

A transfer between Astor Place and E8th Street , could be used to relieve crowding at Union Square.

 

Also one at Hewes St or Lorimer St () to the @ Broadway (Brooklyn).

It's already in place at Canal Street.

[SubwayGuy]

Except some people really are that lazy and coming from Staten Island in particular may prefer to take the shuttle (rush hours) to Bowling Green or (5)/(6) (other times) if they are going north without having to walk to Bowling Green (and also in bad weather and at night). Also, as I would do it, I would have the (5)/(6) do a double stop at South Ferry so all 10 cars can disembark there before heading back uptown.

 

OK...let's suppose there was a shuttle during the rush. Well the time those Ferry riders would spend navigating the cross unders at Bowling Green would probably make up for about 1/2 of the time they spend walking from the Ferry terminal to the Bowling Green station in the first place (shuttle platform only has one point of exit at its northernmost tip). Add x2 for degree of difficulty due to stairs/escalators, and you're not saving them a whole lot of convenience.

 

A 10 car train could never stop safely at the old south ferry station. A double stop may sound nice on paper but in the real world it is totally impractical and highly dangerous. Not the least of which problem is how does a conductor safely observe the platform and rear of train (including, listening for signs of distress) when he must near-immediately put his head back inside the train to avoid coming into contact with the tunnel wall? Likewise you'd need two conductor's boards, and two gap filler indicators. Clearly great care would need to be taken to ensure the boards were marked correctly in such a way that it was impossible for doors to be opened on the wrong half of the train somehow. Now you'd have problems because there are certain signs that must go on conductor's boards, so you'd have sign overload. You'd have a sign on the board saying open front section only, and another sign saying check with train operator for lineup before closing down. You'd have several CCTV monitors, and gap filler indicator. Same thing at the front of the station for the rear. Great care would have to be taken to prevent overruns, and that means big money installing all this stuff. You'd have two stop markers for the train. Well how do you have two 10 car markers at the same station, safely, without potentially confusing train crews or sign maintainers? Simply too many issues and special circumstances to work around for minimal benefit.

 

The station was closed for a reason. It may have some nice nostalgic view...and it is certainly cool to look at like all the old IRT stations, but any modern service to that station would be quite pointless at this time.

[MikeGerald]

Just one nitpiicky poiint about the South Ferry station it was originally designed and built in 1905 for SIX car trains. This was at a time when the train cars only had openings at the ends of the cars (which met the platforms). Later when the IRT subway cars gained middle doors, the middle door could be selectively opened or not opened at South Ferry - the outer platform. Six subway cars were the standard designed (and built) for length of the original IRT subway stations for local trains BEFORE its expansion to the eastside and westside subway lines.

 

My nitpicky point was that the conductor of such a double-stop train would not hit their head against a tunnel wall - they would simply pull up to the current gap-filler signal located on the platform. When subway cars changed to the basic type that we have now (in the 1950's) where ALL of the subway car doors open upon command, and trains became generally ten cars in length was the South Ferry station outer platform outfitted with platform extenders (to meet all doors) to accommodate FIVE car subways. All over the IRT system many local and express stations had to be lengthened to accommodate ten car trains - which is why there's a transfer to the IND at Bleecker Street.

 

Needless to say, even with my nitpicky points, I am in total agreement with EVERYTHING that you had said.

 

Mike

[Grand Concourse]

The station was closed for a reason. It may have some nice nostalgic view...and it is certainly cool to look at like all the old IRT stations, but any modern service to that station would be quite pointless at this time.

 

Sadly, that will be all lost on him. He's been posting about that shuttle 'idea' for years on subchat. Nothing is going to change his opinion on it.

[Roadcruiser1]

Of course he's the biggest foamer ever. He wants old redundant things to be brought back just for the sake of foaming. He doesn't think about the realism, or the logic. He just wants to foam and take old pictures, and foam some more about how he got that picture.

[SubwayGuy]

My nitpicky point was that the conductor of such a double-stop train would not hit their head against a tunnel wall - they would simply pull up to the current gap-filler signal located on the platform. When subway cars changed to the basic type that we have now (in the 1950's) where ALL of the subway car doors open upon command, and trains became generally ten cars in length was the South Ferry station outer platform outfitted with platform extenders (to meet all doors) to accommodate FIVE car subways. All over the IRT system many local and express stations had to be lengthened to accommodate ten car trains - which is why there's a transfer to the IND at Bleecker Street.

 

Needless to say, even with my nitpicky points, I am in total agreement with EVERYTHING that you had said.

 

Mike

 

And my nitpicky response to that (believe it or not this was accounted for when I said what I said) would be to say that even accommodating a six car train there's still a serious issue...I'll include the math below since you brought it up:

 

The conductor is at the front of the sixth car on a 10 car IRT train. Meaning that there is ~250 feet of train behind him, and ~250 in front (I'm rounding here). A six car station would be designed for just over 300 feet of train.

 

So, after the first 5 have opened and closed, now it's time for the second half...when the "back 5" under Wallyhorse's idea make the second half of the stop. Now when the train stops the conductor is near the front of the station, observing the platform exclusively through the use off CCTV's (which is dangerous in and of itself because there are a lot of angles to view. It's like playing a 4 player game of MarioKart on a small TV and trying to figure out where that damn green shell someone fired is actually going...this is part of why the MTA wanted to do away with the old station in the first place). Anyhow, now the conductor closes down. Well once the train starts to move, the conductor has LESS THAN ONE CAR LENGTH to observe the platform (and listen) for signs of distress, someone getting dragged, or someone trying to climb between the cars...significantly less than the 75 feet required by rule, and no "cushion" with which to play as he/she MUST get their head back in before the wall. In addition, they also must pay attention and make sure the gap fillers retract properly (as must the T/O). Way too much to do safely in 50 feet.

[R68 Subway Car]

How about a connection between the & and the & at Penn Station? How on Earth are these two stations not connected?!