Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

[Grand Concourse]

And that's part of what did in the diamond 4. Space out the service too much and people will remain on the local. Nobody's going to wait for trains simply because they're express.

The only good thing about it was that it made getting on trains on the UES a little more tolerable and sped up the commute for those north of Burnside av. But that said, probably not a good idea to bring it back.

[Vistausss]

Nobody's going to wait for trains simply because they're express.

 

That's what people said when SBS was introduced on the buses but people still use it even though most SBS buses run not as frequent as the locals...

[bobtehpanda]

That's what people said when SBS was introduced on the buses but people still use it even though most SBS buses run not as frequent as the locals...

 

SBS comes ridiculously frequently - most routes maintain Saturday midday frequencies of 10-12 minutes.

 

Having an express train come every 15-20 minutes during the peak is not particularly useful for anyone.

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

Safety is being compromised on the . Overcrowded trains on any subway line like the is a bad thing and if nothing is done about it. It can lead to a derailment because the tracks are stressed due to the extra weight being put on them. And the sad part is our elected officials don't cear about the safety on the ny subway they have not increased funding to the in a very long time. If our elected officials rely did cear about safety on the ny subway they would have increased funding to the by now.

 

Just tring to get everyone aware of this.

[Vistausss]

SBS comes ridiculously frequently - most routes maintain Saturday midday frequencies of 10-12 minutes.

 

Having an express train come every 15-20 minutes during the peak is not particularly useful for anyone.

 

First off, I was talking about weekdays. And even then, it depends on what SBS you compare to what local. SBS = awesome and I'm encouraging it, but fact is it doesn't always come as frequent as a local. Hence why I compared it to the (1)/(9) idea in terms of frequency.

Edited September 22, 2013 by Vistausss

[Grand Concourse]

On the sbs thing, it also 'helps' that the sbs replaced the limited (at least on the m15), so it's not like some have a choice anyway especially if they are going a further distance.

Safety is being compromised on the . Overcrowded trains on any subway line like the is a bad thing and if nothing is done about it. It can lead to a derailment because the tracks are stressed due to the extra weight being put on them. And the sad part is our elected officials don't cear about the safety on the ny subway they have not increased funding to the in a very long time. If our elected officials rely did cear about safety on the ny subway they would have increased funding to the by now.

Just tring to get everyone aware of this.

uh, what? And is this why you are so obsessed over the <1> thing? The 4 and 5 are also packed on lexington av, what about the 'safety' there?

[Turbo19]

Safety is being compromised on the . Overcrowded trains on any subway line like the is a bad thing and if nothing is done about it. It can lead to a derailment because the tracks are stressed due to the extra weight being put on them. And the sad part is our elected officials don't cear about the safety on the ny subway they have not increased funding to the in a very long time. If our elected officials rely did cear about safety on the ny subway they would have increased funding to the by now.

 

Just tring to get everyone aware of this.

Considering how dilapidated the infrastructure as a whole if this "safety" argument wouldn't fly with the MTA.

[B35 via Church]

smh, why is this 9 or <1> talk still going on?

Same shit I said to myself when I saw this as one of the most recent topics; this bit about bringing back the 9 is still being talked about... Thought there might've been some long winded back & forth that took place since I last peeped this thread....

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

Considering how dilapidated the infrastructure as a whole if this "safety" argument wouldn't fly with the MTA.

Looks like safety is worth compromising. Something is being done to help the overcrowding the and trains it's called the Second Avenue subway, but there is no measures to help the overcrowding for the and yet. The MTA keeps say they cear about passenger safety. I am sure the MTA willing to improve the safe oparation of the subway. Edited September 23, 2013 by Airplanepilotgod8888

[Turbo19]

Looks like safety is worth compromising. Something is being done to help the overcrowding the and trains it's called the Second Avenue subway, but there is no measures to help the overcrowding for the and yet. The MTA keeps say they cear about passenger safety. I am sure the MTA willing to improve the safe oparation of the subway.

ROFLMFAO at the bold statement!

 

Yeah, but not when it requires a large investment of resources that aren't readily available.

[realizm]

Same shit I said to myself when I saw this as one of the most recent topics; this bit about bringing back the 9 is still being talked about... Thought there might've been some long winded back & forth that took place since I last peeped this thread....

lol. I'm not sure if there is anything left to discuss. Major brain drain going on here. The can't come back in service. Increase in frequence on the needs to be upped. That's all there is it to it pretty much.

[bobtehpanda]

lol. I'm not sure if there is anything left to discuss. Major brain drain going on here. The can't come back in service. Increase in frequence on the needs to be upped. That's all there is it to it pretty much.

 

Not only that, but any increase in service is off the table until New South Ferry is back in operations, and even then, there's only scope to add 3TPH (which will undoubtedly cause problems at South Ferry, since the theoretical capacity is 24TPH, and no one has actually attempted this yet.)

[realizm]

Sounds like the superintendents tower operators and the T/Ds are locked in then. I guess 19 TPH rush hrs max on the in it's entirety max with the old SF loop is as high as we can go.

Edited September 23, 2013 by realizm

[Vistausss]

@Airport dude: FYI, the may be overcrowded like hell but it's within safety loading guidelines. AndrewJC can tell you all about those guidelines So no, the (and other lines for that matter) isn't a safety issue for now.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Well due to me wanting to wake up later and not having enough time to get MetroNorth, I opted for the train today.  It was the most pleasant ride I've had in terms of crowding out of the few times that I've used it during the rush.  They must've had a started a start at 137th because there were very few passengers from 137th all the way to 96th and in fact I had no one stand next to me until they were ready to get off at 96th.  I was a bit worried because the train already had a seated load before 191st street, and if there wasn't a ahead of us, that train would've been unbearable, so I guess my e-mail paid off. 

[realizm]

Well due to me wanting to wake up later and not having enough time to get MetroNorth, I opted for the train today.  It was the most pleasant ride I've had in terms of crowding out of the few times that I've used it during the rush.  They must've had a started a start at 137th because there were very few passengers from 137th all the way to 96th and in fact I had no one stand next to me until they were ready to get off at 96th.  I was a bit worried because the train already had a seated load before 191st street, and if there wasn't a ahead of us, that train would've been unbearable, so I guess my e-mail paid off.

I'm going to look at the countdown clocks to figure out the current TPH. It could be possible the frequency was increased, starting to wonder now as summer is over.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Looks like safety is worth compromising. Something is being done to help the overcrowding the and trains it's called the Second Avenue subway, but there is no measures to help the overcrowding for the and yet. The MTA keeps say they cear about passenger safety. I am sure the MTA willing to improve the safe oparation of the subway.

Do the , , and trains ring a bell to you? Are you looking at a subway map that's missing those trains? Don't tell me they don't count. They run parallel to (and help) the , and on the Upper West Side, Morningside Heights and West Harlem. The , and trains have no such help on the Upper East Side or East Harlem (or points south of the UES for that matter). That's where the comes in. Maybe also have a limited Upper 2nd Ave-to-6th Ave ( P ) service if the alone is not enough.

 

Oh, one more thing - it's "there ARE no measures." Not "there IS no measures." "Is" is singular and "measures" is plural. Don't mix them up.

Edited September 24, 2013 by T to Dyre Avenue

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It can lead to a derailment because the tracks are stressed due to the extra weight being put on them. And the sad part is our elected officials don't cear about the safety on the ny subway they have not increased funding to the in a very long time. If our elected officials rely did cear about safety on the ny subway they would have increased funding to the by now.

 

Just tring to get everyone aware of this.

Isn't that why the MTA schedules track work? It's normal wear and tear and they are maintaining the tracks when they take them out of service from time to time. Derailments are not reasons to build more subway lines. Then you would have more tracks to maintain and periodically take out of service. Would you spend millions (or even billions) of dollars to build a brand new eight-lane expressway just because the current parallel one is full of potholes and cracked asphalt?

Edited September 24, 2013 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Airplanepilotgod8888]

This is a work in progress

 

and extension to LGA airport

(8) train Ralph ave-8 ave/Port Authority Bus Terminal   

extension to Howard Beach-JFK Airport

https://mapsengine.google.com/map/edit?mid=zpC_S4FgEEC0.kg-ZeAc6kINY 

Edited September 25, 2013 by Airplanepilotgod8888

[N6 Limited]

Would(n't) it make sense to build a park & ride garage at/on the Grand Central Parkway/Clearview Expressway interchange and extend the Hillside Ave Line to 212th St/Clearview Expressway?

 

It's a great location & easily accessible, Hillside Ave/Grand Central Parkway/Clearview Expressway. If traffic is bad it will prompt people to get right off and take the subway.

 

In addition to what I just said, how come NY doesn't do like other locations and build "Park and Ride" centers where highways cross mass transit lines, especially in outer areas?

 

Potential Examples:

Kew Gardens Enterchange - Union Turnpike Station

Grand Central Parkway/LIE/Van Wyck Expwy  - Willets Point City Field

LIE/Queens Blvd - Woodhaven Blvd

GCP/31st St-  Astoria Blvd

Bronx River Parkway and any station (Gunhill with Metro North and extended or E180th perhaps)

Aqueduct/Belt Parkway - Aqueduct

 

 

Pelham Bay Park

There's a spot where I-95, The Hutchinson River Parkway, and Pelham Parkway form a triangle, and right in the triangle there are Metro North Tracks. They could build a park and ride in that location and extend the 6 one more stop and have a nice Intermodal Situation there.

 

 

 

[bobtehpanda]

I mean, where would you put the driveway for such a park and ride? It would cause a huge amount of traffic disruption in an area that is fairly densely populated and already congested.

 

In my view, the QB line should be extended in two phases: to Francis Lewis (so the Q76 and Q77 no longer have to turn into Jamaica), and then to Springfield Blvd, where that intersection is wide enough to build a fairly sizable cut-and-cover terminal, relay tracks, and a bus terminal.

 

Speaking of which, does anyone know why Springfield/Hillside is so wide? Hillside is narrower everywhere else.

 

(This is a general problem with P&R  in this city - most terminal station locations are already so congested with traffic that adding a parking lot would make it 10x worse.)

Edited October 2, 2013 by bobtehpanda

[realizm]

Speaking of which, does anyone know why Springfield/Hillside is so wide? Hillside is narrower everywhere else.

 

I think I know why. My father actually asked this same question and got an answer which I remember vividly.

 

My parents bought a house off 186th street and Hillside Ave back in 1987 (I was still a child back then) The owner of the house was a man by the name of Mr. Peterson. We've moved to what was technically Hollis Queens from Borough Park, Brooklyn.

 

His answer was that in 1940-41 when the house was originally built the realtors who sold him the property told him, Mr. Peterson, that the plans were to extend the subway out at least as far as the City Line. (We know this by sources cited from past discussions on the IND Second System we've all had on this site.) When the neighborhood street grid was laid out, the outermost sections of Hillside Avenue eastward were intended to be a major bus and subway interchange. This is why Hillside Avenue in that area was paved in such a way, it was to accommodate for planned major surface transit feeder lines into an IND Hillside Ave subway extension past where the current subway ends at around 184th Street and Hillside Avenue.

Edited October 2, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

I think I know why. My father actually asked this same question and got an answer which I remember vividly.

 

My parents bought a house off 186th street and Hillside Ave back in 1987 (I was still a child back then) The owner of the house was a man by the name of Mr. Peterson. We've moved to what was technically Hollis Queens from Borough Park, Brooklyn.

 

His answer was that in 1940-41 when the house was originally built the realtors who sold him the property told him, Mr. Peterson, that the plans were to extend the subway out at least as far as the City Line. (We know this by sources cited from past discussions on the IND Second System we've all had on this site.) When the neighborhood street grid was laid out, the outermost sections of Hillside Avenue eastward were intended to be a major bus and subway interchange. This is why Hillside Avenue in that area was paved in such a way, it was to accommodate for planned major surface transit feeder lines into an IND Hillside Ave subway extension past where the current subway ends at around 184th Street and Hillside Avenue.

 

Hmm, so the QB to Springfield is actually provisioned for (if you could call it that).

 

I believe the same thing exists at Merrick/Springfield, but I'm not sure.

[realizm]

Hmm, so the QB to Springfield is actually provisioned for (if you could call it that).

 

I believe the same thing exists at Merrick/Springfield, but I'm not sure.

 

Yeah, apparently that was the case on that one.

 

 

Concerning Merrick Blvd and Springfield running parallel to the LIRR I'm not sure either, good question.

Edited October 2, 2013 by realizm

[bobtehpanda]

Yeah, apparently that was the case on that one.

 

 

Concerning Merrick Blvd and Springfield running parallel to the LIRR I'm not sure either, good question.

 

I'm of the opinion that the LIRR ROWs would be a half-assed subway solution, since they disrupt the street grid and don't have easy bus turnarounds near them due to the broken street grid. But that's just my take.