Jump to content

MTA Mulls restoring Service Cuts??? *Subway Comments Only Please*


RTOMan

Recommended Posts

To Be Honest I would Like to see the (W) comeback, the (W) Did help out the (R) in manhattan, and if they did brought it back it should and will go to whitehall st, there wouldn't be enough cars to benefit the (W) to go to south brooklyn, we all have our agreements and dis agreements,

 

as for the (J) to 9th ave ITS a rumor, I just support it, but It would be smarter to have a banker special the Brown <R> they have the roll signs for it on the R32's and R42's and They might have a program for it on the R160's it would show up as (R) Nassau st local, and have it go to 95th st during the Rush Hours, so it Wouldn't interfere with the (J)/(Z), but if the (MTA) decides to go forward with the (J) extension live with it, but until then its stands out as a rumor

 

 

 

West End has been loosing ridership, 4th ave however is gaining ridership since you have the new development housing and the New Barcays Center, so those local stations along the (R) is growing rapidly

 

I just don't think the ridership is there for a Banker's Special service like it was decades ago when there were far more offices in Lower Manhattan. There are still significant finacial operations and government offices in that area, but it's not like it was say, 40 years ago. Even in th last years of the old Nassau M service, there were plenty of seats available on the trains leaving Chambers with not many people getting on at Fulton or Broad. So the (W) might be a better choice as a supplemental service for the (D) and (R) in Brooklyn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

To Be Honest I would Like to see the (W) comeback, the (W) Did help out the ® in manhattan, and if they did brought it back it should and will go to whitehall st, there wouldn't be enough cars to benefit the (W) to go to south brooklyn, we all have our agreements and dis agreements,

 

as for the (J) to 9th ave ITS a rumor, I just support it, but It would be smarter to have a banker special the Brown <R> they have the roll signs for it on the R32's and R42's and They might have a program for it on the R160's it would show up as ® Nassau st local, and have it go to 95th st during the Rush Hours, so it Wouldn't interfere with the (J)/(Z), but if the (MTA) decides to go forward with the (J) extension live with it, but until then its stands out as a rumor

 

 

 

West End has been loosing ridership, 4th ave however is gaining ridership since you have the new development housing and the New Barcays Center, so those local stations along the ® is growing rapidly

 

 

Yes, 4th Ave needs more local service.

What I said was that there is no need to run (W) to Bay Parkway (D).

Just terminate trains at 9th Ave (D) to serve 4th Ave riders...

 

Even if it doesn't run on the West End Line I think it would be helpful to have it run on the Sea Beach Line with the (N). South Brooklyn could use a second service to back it up in case of construction and etc.

 

 

This will be more resonable than running the (W) to Bay Parkway (D),

because 45th St (R), 53th St (R), 59th St (N)(R), 8th Ave (N), Fort Hamilton Parkway (N), and Bay Parkway (N) had higher ridership than any stations along the West End Line in 2011.

Trains can terminate at Kings Highway...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no reason for the (J) / (Z) or any <R> to go to South Brooklyn. There is no need for it. Again as a rider of the West End Line for as long as I can remember the old (M) was always deserted on it's run. No one used it. The only reason why people are even arguing about this is because there are two unused tracks connected to the Montague Street Tunnel from the Nassau Street Line. That point is useless. Right now it's supposed to what is good for people and not what is good for railfans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 things need to happen. The (W) dosen't need to run to Sea Beach, it should go to West End, and here's why:

 

1. Service on the (R) needs to be 12 TPH at rush hours.

2. Service on the (N) also needs to be 12 TPH.

3. The (W) should only go past 9th Avenue to West End or possibly Sea Beach rush hours. Other times, it should terminate at 9th Avenue. Late nights, no service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and to top that off, the (G) needs to be 6 R46 Cars again like in the Pre-Dec 2001 before the (V) with 2 train sets of 8 car R32's, back then the (G) had 6 R46 cars A-A,ABBA sets, and its needed badly Ive seen the (G), Its ridership has Grown its like the (L) but not as big as the (L)

 

 

Not enough cars for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West End has been loosing ridership, 4th ave however is gaining ridership since you have the new development housing and the New Barclays Center, so those local stations along the (R) is growing rapidly

 

 

Most of these riders are headed for Midtown Manhattan and not for Downtown Manhattan. The (J) or the (Z) won't help them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it screws the Sea Beach, but the (N) can go back to running local in Brooklyn and going through Whitehall again (since it is already local in Manhattan already), which can pave the way for more (D) trains (which is also a need) for the West End and for a heavier load of transfers at 36st for a train over the bridge to midtown. The 4Av express is only saving 5 minutes anyway from 59-Atlantic at most and the train is crush-loaded by time it gets to 59th, and that's even before the (R) passengers try to squeeze in.

 

The reason it can't go over the bridge after being local is too much merging will occur south of Dekalb and a conga line will result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it screws the Sea Beach, but the (N) can go back to running local in Brooklyn and going through Whitehall again (since it is already local in Manhattan already), which can pave the way for more (D) trains (which is also a need) for the West End and for a heavier load of transfers at 36st for a train over the bridge to midtown. The 4Av express is only saving 5 minutes anyway from 59-Atlantic at most and the train is crush-loaded by time it gets to 59th, and that's even before the (R) passengers try to squeeze in.

 

The reason it can't go over the bridge after being local is too much merging will occur south of Dekalb and a conga line will result.

 

 

*facepalm* The whole idea that you put up is just ridiculous. The (D) already does a good job in handling the crowds on the West End Line. Why does the (N) have to run local?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned not enough (R)'s. I always said run more (R)'s and that solves Queens (no need for (M) anymore up there on weekends) and 4Av rush hour. But obviously everyone want a 2nd service down there (for no other reason than because one used to go down there) which I always thought was unecessary. I also dislike taking away the yard flexibility of 9Av when it came to the work train yard upstairs. And yes the (D) became a better line to work when there were no longer (M)'s getting in the way at Bay Pkwy. I like fewer terminals because that added to railroad flexibility when delays and incidents occur. Railfans often don't account for that. Think of how the Lex and 7Av grinds to a halt when things occur.

 

On a side note, for almost the entire month of July, there will be no (D) to Stillwell, we're only going to Bay Pkwy while they replace the structure underpinnings by the entrance to Stillwell yard, but I assume you know this already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone mentioned not enough (R)'s. I always said run more (R)'s and that solves Queens (no need for (M) anymore up there on weekends) and 4Av rush hour. But obviously everyone want a 2nd service down there (for no other reason than because one used to go down there) which I always thought was unecessary. I also dislike taking away the yard flexibility of 9Av when it came to the work train yard upstairs. And yes the (D) became a better line to work when there were no longer (M)'s getting in the way at Bay Pkwy. I like fewer terminals because that added to railroad flexibility when delays and incidents occur. Railfans often don't account for that. Think of how the Lex and 7Av grinds to a halt when things occur.

 

On a side note, for almost the entire month of July, there will be no (D) to Stillwell, we're only going to Bay Pkwy while they replace the structure underpinnings by the entrance to Stillwell yard, but I assume you know this already.

 

 

You could always just send the (W) to the Sea Beach Line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No place for it to go below 59th. Again trying to turn regular trains in front of other trains that got to go through in service is not a good idea. It works at Parkchester since its in the off-peak direction and relatively few people are delayed. It works at Church because there isn't that many (G)'s around and its a short train.

 

Please do not come with both of them to Stillwell, because even tho it works at Astoria (the local service/express service setup), the express service doesn't even go express until after it is leaving midtown, and neither train goes to lower Manhattan. Any (W) resurrection will be in the same format that it was before (with any other related service changes), with the handful of trains going to Kings Hwy in service to terminate and head to the yard from there late PM rush (and the opposite early AM rush).

 

One more need, the area of need mentioned was 4Av and Broadway in Manhattan if the (N) returns to express there. We are in agreement everything is just fine up that hill at 36st. My (D) suggestion was for uptown, but there are other ideas that can be done about that (like more (B) to Bedford and longer express hours). If those are the only two areas that have stated need on weekdays, more (R) is fine enough. Not anything extra on Sea Beach, or on West End, and that 1-seat ride from Astoria to lower Manhattan wasn't even mentioned as a need, that's just convenience.

 

You guys (not just to RC but to everyone now) do know that bringing back an extra service costs way more than just adding trains, with signage costs, paying an extra superintendent and three assistants, and then supervision at 9Av or Bay Parkway if either stop was turned back into a terminal again (along with the extra crews and car cleaners). Just adding trains to an existing line, all money is just spent on a few extra crews, thats all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it screws the Sea Beach, but the (N) can go back to running local in Brooklyn and going through Whitehall again (since it is already local in Manhattan already), which can pave the way for more (D) trains (which is also a need) for the West End and for a heavier load of transfers at 36st for a train over the bridge to midtown. The 4Av express is only saving 5 minutes anyway from 59-Atlantic at most and the train is crush-loaded by time it gets to 59th, and that's even before the (R) passengers try to squeeze in.

 

The reason it can't go over the bridge after being local is too much merging will occur south of Dekalb and a conga line will result.

 

You'll overcrowd the Q at DeKalb if the N goes back to being completely local in both Brooklyn and Manhattan. Either run more R trains or bring back the W. Please, no N local (outside of late nights).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to offer a different perspective to restoring service; if any are under serious consideration, they should be based on the demographics of the near future rather than what did or did not work in the past. According to Comptroller John Liu, New York will add approximately 1 million more residents. That said, city and state agencies need to plan for the New York of tomorrow rather than the New York of today.

 

NYC Schools and the School Construction Authority look at the changing demographics of neighborhoods to determine which neighborhoods will need more classroom seats to accommodate the needs projected five years into the future. The MTA would be wise to look at which areas are being developed and/or gentrified if they are not already.

 

If we look at certain neighborhoods, we can see massive development and gentrification. Some examples are the 4th Avenue corridor, East Williamsburg, Williamsburg, Bushwick, Bedford Stuyvesant, Fort Greene, LIC, Elmhurst, Hunts Point, South Bronx, Harlem, Fulton St., World Trade Center, Midtown West, etc.

 

We can see how lower Manhattan is being planned and we can see how the Upper East Side will soon have new service. Assuming that new subway lines will not be built because of fiscal limitations, existing lines that serve the above areas (and more) will be inadequate at present service levels. Moreover, certain lines need to run more efficiently.

 

The Broadway line is a prime example. The constant switching at Canal and 34th Street and running 3 lines on the same track makes for one very slow ride and adding additional trains becomes impractical. None of this was an issue prior to 1976 when trains were dedicated to either the express or local tracks.

 

So in conclusion, whatever considerations are made to improve service (especially with a fare increase), they must include demographics, efficiency, and an understanding that New York is no longer based on a Monday-Friday, 9-5pm model. Cost is relative in that more riders means more revenue.

 

Just my $2.25!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ TwoTimer, I always thought if they added more service to the R I would send selective R's down 63rd st so it won't clog up the 60th st tube and have those slected trains end at 59th st during the AM rush

 

@ Roadcrusier1 please stop it with the W ideas now its getting annoying! We all know if it was ever to comeback it would turn at whitehall st

 

 

And I was at broad channel yesterday, they need to exstend that shuttle to euclid ave, the platform was so packed, it seems now that most people go to rockaway beach now And the ridership grew, this is exactly why the R32s should be on the shuttle, More doors

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ Roadcrusier1 please stop it with the W ideas now its getting annoying! We all know if it was ever to comeback it would turn at whitehall st

 

 

Most certainly not. Your idea doesn't help riders at all and only makes a pointless argument about using tracks that are currently unused and won't help anyone at all except railfans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit random, but I just realized that the (W) ran in Brooklyn for only 3 years (2001-2004) out of its 9 year existence (2001-2010).

 

Not at all, the (W) was just there till the 6th av line returned. It served its purpose. Also I do believe at least 3 (W)s did run regularly to/from Brooklyn during rush hours after the (W) became all local. So it did run to Brooklyn for more than 3 yrs, just not as regularly.

@ TwoTimer, I always thought if they added more service to the R I would send selective R's down 63rd st so it won't clog up the 60th st tube and have those slected trains end at 59th st during the AM rush

 

@ Roadcrusier1 please stop it with the W ideas now its getting annoying! We all know if it was ever to comeback it would turn at whitehall st

 

 

And I was at broad channel yesterday, they need to exstend that shuttle to euclid ave, the platform was so packed, it seems now that most people go to rockaway beach now And the ridership grew, this is exactly why the R32s should be on the shuttle, More doors

 

I don't know if it needs to go all the way to Euclid, Howard Beach seems more ideal. Of course they would need to install extra switches around there, but at least the overpass would be far more convenient than the antiquated one at BC.

R32s only for when it is the full train as it doesn't need opto, but otherwise maybe they should have all the Far Rock A trains be R32s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The G train is going to stay 4 cars for now because the A train is taking the R46's from Jamaica. That's the reason why the G is a C.I because of those extra R68/A there. If the A wasn't taking cars the G mighty be still at Jamaica.

Hopefully when the R179's come in they replace all the R32's, R42's and maybe those poor R46's

And maybe a few sets could be at Jamaica so they can run on the R and some of R's 46's can go to the G to possibly lengthen up the train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ grand concoruse yeah, when its OPTO its not as crowded, but they do need to extend it on weekends, it was a hell hole yesterday

 

And @ roadcrusier how in the hell doe the J wouldn't help riders, I've been on 4th ave during rush hours its bad, the R doesn't help at all, even if the W goes down there it would have to share tracks with the R the whole entire way from 59th and lex to 36th st, it would still be the same delays, in 2001-04 the W was an express 2004-10 it was a local to whitehall, and that local helped out broadway, the system doesn't have enough cars for a W exstention to 9th ave, as for the J there's barely enough cars meaning there's enough but would there be enough spares, rerember the J uses 8 cars the W uses 10, at the end of the day if everything was retored the W would go to whitehall only and the J would remain at broad st, there are other lines that needs more help than 4th ave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@ R32 3838, for the thousandth time, how many people on 4 Av actually want Nassau St service? You can't just say, "Cool! We could extend this line to this place, and then there would be more service." Not everybody wants to ride the (J) on Nassau St, even if it means that there will be more trains on 4 Av.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not at all, the (W) was just there till the 6th av line returned. It served its purpose. Also I do believe at least 3 (W)s did run regularly to/from Brooklyn during rush hours after the (W) became all local. So it did run to Brooklyn for more than 3 yrs, just not as regularly.

 

I completely forgot about those trips. They started at Kings Highway, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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