Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Micstromme

(3) and (4) Should Switch Their South Eastern Terminus

Recommended Posts

I like the service provided by the (3) and (4) services when they go to the New Lots Avenue Terminal. The only way that I would feel for the service to make more sense is if the (3) were to terminate at Utica Avenue in Brooklyn and let the (4) term at New Lots Avenue full time. With the idea, the (4) would run local from New Lots Avenue to Utica Avenue and then the following stop on the (4) would be Franklin Avenue, where a transfer is available to the (2) and (5) lines.

Service on the (2) and(5) would be untouched.

 

 

Please comment on this idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO I think the (3) and (4) shouldn't switches terminals it should rermain the same. You already have the (4) train leave New Lots Avenue weekday AM IIRC b/w 6:15am-6:30am, it makes all local stops then goes express after Utica Avenue. Also if they have switched termainals when the train arrives the tower have to decide which train leaves 1st and this causes a train traffic. I know this b/c when the (5) leaves from New Lots Avenue during PM rush hours and it arrives @ Utica Avenue there is always a (4) train sitting across the platform someone have to decide which train have to leaves 1st. So you have a (3) sitting behind the (5) and another (4) train behind that (4) on Utica Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that the (2) and (5) do special trips to/from New Lots is really redundant. They are only significant at the times in which they interchange with each other. Fundamentally speaking, I personally feel that the (3) should only function as a Livonia Line when service on the (4) is shitty or totally shammy.

 

I have digressed. What I'm trying to say is that the (4) terminating at New Lots Avenue full time allows for less trouble outside of rush hours. The perfect example is the (A)(C) service. I'm willing to bet that the (C) has never A) traveled to 207 Street via 8th Avenue and B) Traveled to either Ozone Park-Lefferts Boulevard, Far Rockaway, or Rockaway Park.

If so, then it is extremely rare.

 

My point is that I support the concept of extending the (4) to East New York. Another nice highlight would be for the IRT to resound the destination as "This is an East New York bound" (2)(4)(5) ((6) occasionally).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with switching the (3) and (4) terminals. Honestly, I feel the (3) should only go to New Lots during rush hours and middays. The (4) full time. The (3) should also either expend the platforms in 145th Street or abandon it so that it wouldn't be another oddball like South Ferry. The (4) run to New Lots already during early rush hour (both AM and PM) and late nights. It's pointless not to let it go to New Lots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Switching the terminals wouldn't be that easy though because the express tracks into Utica are specifically designed to become relays after the station, although a connection exists to allow it to go on the local track and on to New Lots. This means (3) and (4) trains would have to be held at Utica to allow trains to cross over in front of each other, which given the number of trains in the Utica relays at any given time, could back things up. Crossing the (4) on the local to send it to New Lots after Franklin to avoid the problems at Utica would instead cause problems with the (2) and (5). The current configuration "keeps things moving" and the only reason select (5) trains go to Utica is because Flatbush can't turn ALL the (2)'s and (5)'s during the rush without things getting jacked up at Newkirk and points North.

 

Also to whoever posted about 145th, the switches to and from Mott south of 145th would prevent extending the platforms S/B and the curve into 148th would prevent doing so N/B (not to mention if they did that the crossover into the terminal would be in the middle of the station which would make BOTH 145th and 148th pretty useless). Also the neighborhood wouldn't want the station "closed for repairs" and if they wouldn't want it "closed for repairs" they wouldn't want it closed and abandoned either, even if it means just a 3 block walk, so it looks that station is going to stay "as is"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Switching the terminals wouldn't be that easy though because the express tracks into Utica are specifically designed to become relays after the station, although a connection exists to allow it to go on the local track and on to New Lots. This means (3) and (4) trains would have to be held at Utica to allow trains to cross over in front of each other, which given the number of trains in the Utica relays at any given time, could back things up. Crossing the (4) on the local to send it to New Lots after Franklin to avoid the problems at Utica would instead cause problems with the (2) and (5). The current configuration "keeps things moving" and the only reason select (5) trains go to Utica is because Flatbush can't turn ALL the (2)'s and (5)'s during the rush without things getting jacked up at Newkirk and points North.

 

Also to whoever posted about 145th, the switches to and from Mott south of 145th would prevent extending the platforms S/B and the curve into 148th would prevent doing so N/B (not to mention if they did that the crossover into the terminal would be in the middle of the station which would make BOTH 145th and 148th pretty useless). Also the neighborhood wouldn't want the station "closed for repairs" and if they wouldn't want it "closed for repairs" they wouldn't want it closed and abandoned either, even if it means just a 3 block walk, so it looks that station is going to stay "as is"

 

In my opinion, it just makes more sense to close that station altogether. No good can come from it remaining open. That just seems so damn dangerous. From 135th should just come the Terminus at Lenox Avenue and 148th street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a rider on Livonia, (4) service will be most welcome over here, and there is a way to do it, but it will require some money. The stub middle track that ends at ENY Av can be extended to connect to the two existing tracks. Downtown service can connect easily, but Uptown service will have to use the same track, which will pose some problems. Anyway, we have (4)/(5) service until 6:21 AM, and two Lexington peak specials, one at 7:13, one at 7:50, which are heavily used as well as PM specials at 6:10 & 6:20 PM. Of course, there's the frequent service to/from Livonia Yard that's reverse peak. It's a situation that wasn't built for Lexington service unless it runs local, which they shouldn't do. For now, I'd say leave it alone, but I do know that the weekend (4) service has been welcome among riders for a while, mostly because of service increases, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, it just makes more sense to close that station altogether. No good can come from it remaining open. That just seems so damn dangerous. From 135th should just come the Terminus at Lenox Avenue and 148th street.

 

Unfortunately, you have a lot of elderly people around that area and they will protest very hard to keep those two stations open. The MTA was considering merging them into 1 station, I don't know what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not believe that they will argue with the fact that the 145th Street station violates the safety of their passengers. In the world of transit, safety should surpass convenience.

 

Besides, (3) customers will do just fine walking from the Lenox Terminal to the 135 Street (2)(3) station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I'm just comparing with that of the Fulton Lines. Why let the (3) stay going to New Lots when the (C) goes only to Euclid Avenue and 168 Street in Manhattan.

 

Also why not let the (4) acclaim its express title by giving it some local stats also just like the (A).

 

Excuse me as I am battling a virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'm just comparing with that of the Fulton Lines. Why let the (3) stay going to New Lots when the (C) goes only to Euclid Avenue and 168 Street in Manhattan.

 

Also why not let the (4) acclaim its express title by giving it some local stats also just like the (A).

 

Excuse me as I am battling a virus.

I'm not sure how accurate my statement is, but I think the (C) is more of a local variant of the (A) than the (3) is of the (4), which is why the (A), as an express, goes farther than the (C). The (3) really is it's own line out here, and from what I've seen with the G.O. service this weekend, if the (4) had to handle Livonia, it'd need more trains, even on the weekends, because there were cases of some bad bunching. But, as far as the track layouts go, it wouldn't be a good idea to do more service than they already do with the (4) during the rushes. If they were to fix that, I wouldn't see a reason not to test it. But, to understand where you're coming from, exactly what are you comparing with the E. Pkwy IRT & the Fulton IND?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.