Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Porter]

Personally, I don't see the sustained ridership to justify this route's existence. That's the key point that's missing from this argument. It's not about simply filling a train or two per hour. There needs to be a dedicated ridership that's clamoring for a Nassau St - Bay Ridge line.

 

I agree, and that's exactly where the Staten Island connection comes into play, especially with stops along New York Avenue / Bay Street at Drum Road (Coast Guard / recreation area / the forts), Hylan Boulevard (retail center), and Clifton Station (Staten Island Railway).

[Around the Horn]

I agree, and that's exactly where the Staten Island connection comes into play, especially with stops along New York Avenue / Bay Street at Drum Road (Coast Guard / recreation area / the forts), Hylan Boulevard (retail center), and Clifton Station (Staten Island Railway).

 

Im sorry but the S51/81 to the Ferry is still faster...

[Lance]

@Skipper: You'd have a better chance of convincing Staten Islanders to give up their bus - ferry route if your pitch wasn't a direct match for the current S79 - train route. Your only improvement is removing the need to transfer between the train and bus at 86 Street. Your proposal is still a meandering route that will take forever to get somewhere. And it would only serve Lower Manhattan, which really would not be a big draw for most riders.

[Porter]

I give up, then.

 

I'll stick to promoting the , the proposal that most people agree is feasible and even needed.

[Wallyhorse]

The late-night leaves mountains to be desired. Considering all of the new office and retail space being built in FiDi, along with an increasing population in Bay Ridge (due to being priced out of other neighborhoods), I honestly believe that the (as a rebranded ) will someday prove to be beneficial. Not only that, but the would be a better candidate for a future Staten Island extension than the or , given the more manageable length (at least until a massive tunneling project leading directly to Manhattan is conceived). A yard at Bay Ridge–95th Street wouldn't hurt either.

This is why I bring back the old "Bankers Special"  as a new  that would operate at all times.  This would most notable eliminate the need for the to operate late nights at all since this  would more than suffice since except for Whitehall, it would cover ALL of the stops the current does PLUS a major transfer point at Fulton Street.  

 

The main purpose of the line is to get those in Bay Ridge and at local stations along 4th Avenue to the and at Atlantic-Barclays and DeKalb respectively (plus the transfers to the and at 9th Street, at Jay-Metrotech and at Atlantic-Barclays, Court Street and Fulton Street and at Chambers).  The transfer would be made at Chambers and the would not leave (and likewise, the  going southbound) until the  (going north or going south) reaches Chambers and people who transfer to the other make the cross-platform transfer.  

[NY1635]

runs local in Queens during the Weekend

remains express between 71st Ave to 21st Queens Bridge

weekend terminal shifted from Forest Hills to Astoria via

 

I'm hoping this will make service on the QBL line a bit more manageable during the weekends. Also banking on the assumption that people will start taking the to the at Lexington Ave-63rd Street for a connection to the Broadway Line when the gets moved to 96th Street.

[MysteriousBtrain]

You know, there are bellmouths at 59 St that can easily connect to the Bay Ridge branch of the LIRR. Maybe that can hold the cars for the .

[Around the Horn]

You know, there are bellmouths at 59 St that can easily connect to the Bay Ridge branch of the LIRR. Maybe that can hold the cars for the .

That's much, much more easier said than done.

[pringle5095]

This is why I bring back the old "Bankers Special" as a new that would operate at all times. This would most notable eliminate the need for the to operate late nights at all since this would more than suffice since except for Whitehall, it would cover ALL of the stops the current does PLUS a major transfer point at Fulton Street.

 

The main purpose of the line is to get those in Bay Ridge and at local stations along 4th Avenue to the and at Atlantic-Barclays and DeKalb respectively (plus the transfers to the and at 9th Street, at Jay-Metrotech and at Atlantic-Barclays, Court Street and Fulton Street and at Chambers). The transfer would be made at Chambers and the would not leave (and likewise, the going southbound) until the (going north or going south) reaches Chambers and people who transfer to the other make the cross-platform transfer.

is there an issue with the(brownK) going to Jamaica Center or at least 121 St? What about rebuilding the rest of the BMT Jamaica Line to 168 St and using that as a (brownK) terminus like the (KK) once did?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lance]

@Wallyhorse: This goes against my better judgment, but I'll respond. As I've said time and again, this revival of the "Bankers Special" does nothing the present currently does. It provides almost the same amount of transfers your proposal would do, outside of the and that I mentioned in my response to Around the Horn. In fact, the present does this without the need to screw around with other services. You constantly mention how there will always be a cross-platform transfer between the truncated and your proposed K line. Disregarding the impossibility of such a guarantee given the randomness of railroad conditions at any given time, why do Jamaica - Lower Manhattan riders have to suffer with shortened service to fit a route most 4th Avenue riders don't want? It's been just over a year since service to Broad St became a 24/7 thing after over 20 years of truncated service to Canal St and Chambers St. Why would they want to put up with a full-time transfer to reach Fulton St and Broad St they didn't have to do so on weekdays in the first place? What's gained by this? Extra 4th Avenue service? That could be done without this mess by simply extending some of the trains to Brooklyn. After all, either one of these ideas would require more trains, so why not use the one that will cause less problems and still maintain the best possible service for riders?

 

@pringle5095: Can't tell if trolling or not. I'd like to believe you weren't and were simply lacking the knowledge, especially given how you're on the other side of the country. The Jamaica line east of 121 Street was torn down and replaced with the Archer Ave line to Jamaica Center to provide better transit connections with the Long Island Railroad and the myriad of buses that serve the area. There will never be a serious push to rebuild the Jamaica elevated, or any other elevated line ever. Those days have long since passed.

[DaTransitMan4608]

Has the ever looked at extending the out to Bayside? I feel like it could work by taking people off the LIRR due to the lower fare.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Union Tpke]

Just convert the Port Washington Branch to the subway.

[Porter]

It's been just over a year since service to Broad St became a 24/7 thing after over 20 years of truncated service to Canal St and Chambers St.

 

Was this extension in response to the impending completion of the World Trade Center and its in-house connections to the Fulton Center and Brookfield Place? Were there other reasons?

[checkmatechamp13]

The ferry is still faster and can carry more people...

 

One of those big ferries holds around 3,500 people, compared to 2 subway trains, but if the train runs every 7-8 minutes during rush hour, compared to the ferry running every 15 minutes during rush hour, you match the capacity right there. 

 

Im sorry but the S51/81 to the Ferry is still faster...

 

.....if the bus actually connects with the ferry, which it often doesn't.

 

@Skipper: You'd have a better chance of convincing Staten Islanders to give up their bus - ferry route if your pitch wasn't a direct match for the current S79 - train route. Your only improvement is removing the need to transfer between the train and bus at 86 Street. Your proposal is still a meandering route that will take forever to get somewhere. And it would only serve Lower Manhattan, which really would not be a big draw for most riders.

 

I'm going to speak as a Staten Island resident: The ferry sucks. It's slow and infrequent. At this point, I usually take the express bus, or the bus over the VZN Bridge (depending on the time I'm traveling, and if I'm going home, or to work or to school).

 

Now the solution to the ferry issues themselves might simply be faster, more frequent ferry service. I'm not saying extending is a good use of capital funding, but at the same time I can see where those people are coming from when they're trying to justify an extension (I personally think an extension of the SIR to St. George would give you more bang for the buck overall)

[Porter]

Now the solution to the ferry issues themselves might simply be faster, more frequent ferry service. I'm not saying extending is a good use of capital funding, but at the same time I can see where those people are coming from when they're trying to justify an extension

 

Would you personally opt to take a Chambers-bound from the SIR's Clifton Station (via the corridor) if given the option with a free transfer? The Fulton Street Station alone would give you direct access to eight lines within the fare zone. It would skip as many stations along Fourth Avenue as the current track configuration allows (in peak direction if necessary).

 

As far as ferry service is concerned, if they had the ability to make faster, more frequent ferry service, then what's stopping them, exactly?

[checkmatechamp13]

Would you personally opt to take a Chambers-bound from the SIR's Clifton Station (via the corridor) if given the option with a free transfer? The Fulton Street Station alone would give you direct access to eight lines within the fare zone. It would skip as many stations along Fourth Avenue as the current track configuration allows (in peak direction if necessary).

 

As far as ferry service is concerned, if they had the ability to make faster, more frequent ferry service, then what's stopping them, exactly?

 

For me personally, no because the way the buses are aligned, it's way too indirect (I'd basically have to take the S62 to Bay & Victory (Tompkinsville), and then take the SIR down to Clifton to catch the ). If I'm coming from my job near the bridge, I'd have to still backtrack up to Clifton to catch the train to Brooklyn, instead of just hopping on the S79/93 (or X1/10 if I'm really in a hurry)

 

If you could hypothetically run it down the median of the SIE and build a passageway to connect to the SIR at Grasmere (at Narrows Road & the Mosel Avenue underpass), I'd take the S93 over there and catch it, instead of staying on until Bay Ridge. (They'd have to add a stop over there, but that would be minor, obviously)

 

As for the faster ferries, maybe they're worried they'll start getting requests for other free ferry services from a bunch of other neighborhoods in the city. By keeping it as a slow, crappy, infrequent service (well, relatively infrequent. I know some LIRR/MNRR/NJT commuters would beg to differ), they make it unattractive enough so that ridership doesn't go too high, but yet they still satisfy their "One City, One Fare" commitment.

 

If they ran smaller, frequent, faster ferries and offered a transfer on both ends (plus the extra transfer for SIR riders), ridership would definitely spike, and they'd have to spend more money to operate the free service. 

[P3F]

For me personally, no because the way the buses are aligned, it's way too indirect (I'd basically have to take the S62 to Bay & Victory (Tompkinsville), and then take the SIR down to Clifton to catch the ). If I'm coming from my job near the bridge, I'd have to still backtrack up to Clifton to catch the train to Brooklyn, instead of just hopping on the S79/93 (or X1/10 if I'm really in a hurry)

 

If you could hypothetically run it down the median of the SIE and build a passageway to connect to the SIR at Grasmere (at Narrows Road & the Mosel Avenue underpass), I'd take the S93 over there and catch it, instead of staying on until Bay Ridge. (They'd have to add a stop over there, but that would be minor, obviously)

 

As for the faster ferries, maybe they're worried they'll start getting requests for other free ferry services from a bunch of other neighborhoods in the city. By keeping it as a slow, crappy, infrequent service (well, relatively infrequent. I know some LIRR/MNRR/NJT commuters would beg to differ), they make it unattractive enough so that ridership doesn't go too high, but yet they still satisfy their "One City, One Fare" commitment.

 

If they ran smaller, frequent, faster ferries and offered a transfer on both ends (plus the extra transfer for SIR riders), ridership would definitely spike, and they'd have to spend more money to operate the free service. 

What about charging a fare on the ferry for tourists?

Edited December 1, 2016 by P3F

[Around the Horn]

Would you personally opt to take a Chambers-bound from the SIR's Clifton Station (via the corridor) if given the option with a free transfer? The Fulton Street Station alone would give you direct access to eight lines within the fare zone. It would skip as many stations along Fourth Avenue as the current track configuration allows (in peak direction if necessary).

 

As far as ferry service is concerned, if they had the ability to make faster, more frequent ferry service, then what's stopping them, exactly?

The express tracks on 4th Avenue are maxed out in the rush periods. Any new capacity will have to run local.

[CenSin]

The express tracks on 4th Avenue are maxed out in the rush periods. Any new capacity will have to run local.

I have a feeling the 4 Avenue express tracks have a capacity much lower than the rule-of-thumb 30 TPH for a pair of tracks. The combined and couldn’t be more than 21 TPH, but trains frequently struggle around DeKalb Avenue, 36 Street, and Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center. CBTC along the interlined stretches (like Manhattan bridge to 59 Street) would remove some of the performance-killing restrictions put in place to guard against train operator error and it would close the generous braking distance closer to the physical limits.

[Wallyhorse]

@Wallyhorse: This goes against my better judgment, but I'll respond. As I've said time and again, this revival of the "Bankers Special" does nothing the present currently does. It provides almost the same amount of transfers your proposal would do, outside of the and that I mentioned in my response to Around the Horn. In fact, the present does this without the need to screw around with other services. You constantly mention how there will always be a cross-platform transfer between the truncated and your proposed K line. Disregarding the impossibility of such a guarantee given the randomness of railroad conditions at any given time, why do Jamaica - Lower Manhattan riders have to suffer with shortened service to fit a route most 4th Avenue riders don't want? It's been just over a year since service to Broad St became a 24/7 thing after over 20 years of truncated service to Canal St and Chambers St. Why would they want to put up with a full-time transfer to reach Fulton St and Broad St they didn't have to do so on weekdays in the first place? What's gained by this? Extra 4th Avenue service? That could be done without this mess by simply extending some of the trains to Brooklyn. After all, either one of these ideas would require more trains, so why not use the one that will cause less problems and still maintain the best possible service for riders?

Having the run the old route of 95th-Astoria (which that line was really set up for when it was originally built in the days no one thought it would be required to be near a yard) would work as well.

 

The big problem is the longstanding complaints of the being slow along 4th Avenue that this  would remedy by having two 4th Avenue locals.  In a perfect world, I would have this  go to Essex and terminate there, but due to issues there with the that is not really possible.  That's why the split line with both halves terminating at Chambers (outside of a handful of rush-hour and trains going to Broad because this  would be maxed at 8 TPH).  If you can do that by extending the to 95th, then that would work.  

[Caelestor]

I have a feeling the 4 Avenue express tracks have a capacity much lower than the rule-of-thumb 30 TPH for a pair of tracks. The combined and couldn’t be more than 21 TPH, but trains frequently struggle around DeKalb Avenue, 36 Street, and Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center. CBTC along the interlined stretches (like Manhattan bridge to 59 Street) would remove some of the performance-killing restrictions put in place to guard against train operator error and it would close the generous braking distance closer to the physical limits.

 

The run 20 tph (3 min combined headway) at peak. I think the primary constraint is Dekalb Junction, which is in a similar situation to Camden Town: two merge points where trains are switching from Fourth Avenue to the north side of the bridge and from Brighton to the south side of the bridge, simultaneously. Only through separating the lines can capacity be increased, and then the Manhattan Bridge poses a possible constraint.

[Around the Horn]

The run 20 tph (3 min combined headway) at peak. I think the primary constraint is Dekalb Junction, which is in a similar situation to Camden Town: two merge points where trains are switching from Fourth Avenue to the north side of the bridge and from Brighton to the south side of the bridge, simultaneously. Only through separating the lines can capacity be increased, and then the Manhattan Bridge poses a possible constraint.

Also consider that any express service via Nassau has to use the 5MPH, wheel detector enforced, switch north of Atlantic...

[CenSin]

The run 20 tph (3 min combined headway) at peak. I think the primary constraint is Dekalb Junction, which is in a similar situation to Camden Town: two merge points where trains are switching from Fourth Avenue to the north side of the bridge and from Brighton to the south side of the bridge, simultaneously. Only through separating the lines can capacity be increased, and then the Manhattan Bridge poses a possible constraint.

The trains encounter slow speeds even before the Manhattan Bridge going northbound. Going southbound, the trains still encounter slow speeds. Frequently, the gets stuck behind the or the gets stuck behind the . For northbound trains, this is at Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center where trains from behind can catch up and end up bunching together because the signals are so slow. This is also true of trains going southbound approaching 36 Street. It can take around 3 minutes to get 2 trains through the stations which works out to 20 TPH. The junction at the foot of the Manhattan Bridge, however, is a separate matter. That junction indiscriminately diminishes capacity on all 4 routes ().

[Around the Horn]

The trains encounter slow speeds even before the Manhattan Bridge going northbound. Going southbound, the trains still encounter slow speeds. Frequently, the gets stuck behind the or the gets stuck behind the . For northbound trains, this is at Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center where trains from behind can catch up and end up bunching together because the signals are so slow. This is also true of trains going southbound approaching 36 Street. It can take around 3 minutes to get 2 trains through the stations which works out to 20 TPH. The junction at the foot of the Manhattan Bridge, however, is a separate matter. That junction indiscriminately diminishes capacity on all 4 routes ( ).

Also, somehow the somehow manages to get to 36 Street at the same time as the , and both stop and hold before on of them proceeds...

 

I also notice that the has been beating the to 36th Street for a while now. We end up passing it between 45th and 36th or it gets held at 59th...

[pringle5095]

Okay, this is completely out of the blue here, but IRT could (maybe)do with more service into Queens. The could be extended along the Lexington Avenue Line to Bowling Green, then it would use the Brooklyn Bridge to cross the East River into Brooklyn, where it would have stops at the following new stations in Brooklyn and Queens

 

Sands St (Brooklyn Bridge)

Adams St (Myrtle Avenue)

Jay St-Metrotech (Change for

Navy St (Myrtle Av)

Vanderbilt Av (Myrtle Av)

Washington Av (Myrtle Av)

Grand Av (Myrtle Av)

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk