New South Ferry station to reopen in June

[biGC323232]

Or they could just terminate to 14 St, and to South Ferry.

Aint thats what the  gonna do...In my personal opinion i think the   should terminate at 14st late nights instead of Times sq...

[bstar1]

Because they were saying to terminate at New South Ferry station and at Loop South Ferry station. Which would probably cause conga line traffic.

[Jemorie]

Aint thats what the  gonna do...In my personal opinion i think the   should terminate at 14st late nights instead of Times sq...

 

i hope they do that too.

[CenSin]

You may have additional terminal capacity with both stations in play, but it's lost by running all three 7th Avenue services on the same two tracks between Chambers St and South Ferry.

I meant additional throughput for local trains. I already stated my opposition to cramming tracks with more trains than it could possibly handle:

 

 

That’s not what 3 tracks are for. A pair of tracks is good for turning 1 route. 3 tracks is good for turning at most 2 routes.

[R42N]

That makes things much more confusing. Commuters used to seeing all "red trains" in one place, would have to pick and choose which platform they want. Besides, the whole point of building a new platform is to stop using the old, slow outer loop for service. Also, and all running in the same tunnel south of Chambers would make a whole lot of congestion.

 

 

I disagree. Trains of the same color terminate at different platforms at Coney Island and there isn’t any problem. All it takes is good directional signage. 

[CenSin]

I disagree. Trains of the same color terminate at different platforms at Coney Island and there isn’t any problem. All it takes is good directional signage. 

Coney Island is not in the middle of Manhattan, although I don’t know if anyone picked up on the pattern yet (or even care): trunk lines are one solid color and fanning out from the trunk lines in Manhattan are many combinations of colors running in parallel.

[Wallyhorse]

They won't and they shouldn't. Once the full-length platform reopens, the loop station will be taken out of service and the gap filler mechanisms will likely be removed as they were in 2009. If they keep the loop platform operational, it will be an added expense, one that has very few benefits outside of reroute purposes.

 

So, under your idea, the would serve the new platform except at certain times when it doesn't. Again, this is what I mean about keeping things simple. Unless it's necessary, there's no need to make all these arbitrary changes. Moving the to fit the in the new station doesn't count towards that. Stuff like that does nothing except needlessly confuse riders.

 

You may have additional terminal capacity with both stations in play, but it's lost by running all three 7th Avenue services on the same two tracks between Chambers St and South Ferry. 

 

Nah. That makes too much sense. We must make everything as complicated as possible.

Actually, what I would do is use the time of the Clark Street shutdown to do work on the loop station at SF and the short platform at Bowling Green so you can revive the BG-SF shuttle on weekdays (most likely 5:30 AM-8:00 PM or so) once everything on Clark Street returns to normal and also once there is capacity room to do so have the (when not running to Brooklyn) and terminate on the loop at SF.  That would increase service to an area that is now far more residential than it once was outside of weekdays (especially when the BG-SF shuttle last ran 40 years ago) and allow (when the is running to old SF) for the only direct transfer in the system between the Broadway and Lexington Avenue locals (not including late nights when the and run local on their respective lines).   This also would double late-night service to Bowling Green since the would also be running there before SF during those hours.  

[Lawrence St]

Actually, what I would do is use the time of the Clark Street shutdown to do work on the loop station at SF and the short platform at Bowling Green so you can revive the BG-SF shuttle on weekdays (most likely 5:30 AM-8:00 PM or so) once everything on Clark Street returns to normal and also once there is capacity room to do so have the (when not running to Brooklyn) and terminate on the loop at SF. That would increase service to an area that is now far more residential than it once was outside of weekdays (especially when the BG-SF shuttle last ran 40 years ago) and allow (when the is running to old SF) for the only direct transfer in the system between the Broadway and Lexington Avenue locals (not including late nights when the and run local on their respective lines). This also would double late-night service to Bowling Green since the would also be running there before SF during those hours.

So basically by that logic you want to overserve Lexington between Brooklyn Bridge & Bowling Green, revive the not needed BG-SF shuttle that not many people will use, while keeping the mayhem of the and at South Ferry...

 

Do you a have a notebook where you keep all these ideas?

[Subway Rat]

I wonder if the MTA should use the south ferry outer loop to terminate trains. What I am saying is, if trains terminate at the new South Ferry Terminal, trains could terminate at the south ferry loop in which allowing a free transfer between the , , , and trains.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I wonder if the MTA should use the south ferry outer loop to terminate trains. What I am saying is, if trains terminate at the new South Ferry Terminal, trains could terminate at the south ferry loop in which allowing a free transfer between the , , , and trains.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Someone else said this previously, but the whole point of creating a new South Ferry station was to close the old one and put passengers out of their misery.  Why do you and others insist upon these crazy ideas for a soon-to-be defunct station? Unless that loop is rehabbed in a way that allows all doors to be able to safely open, I'm opposed to it being used for any revenue service.  

[Subway Rat]

Someone else said this previously, but the whole point of creating a new South Ferry station was to close the old one and put passengers out of their misery. Why do you and others insist upon these crazy ideas for a soon-to-be defunct station? Unless that loop is rehabbed in a way that allows all doors to be able to safely open, I'm opposed to it being used for any revenue service.

The old station could also be for storing extra trains. It's sad to see the old station go because I like the loud screeching of the train in the tunnel. I could go to the old City Hall station to hear that screeching though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The old station could also be for storing extra trains. It's sad to see the old station go because I like the loud screeching of the train in the tunnel. I could go to the old City Hall station to hear that screeching though.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

That's precisely why it needs to go.  That screeching sound is deafening, not to mention the lack of capacity to handle passengers coming from the Ferry and elsewhere.

[FamousNYLover]

And what they should do is when the work on the Clark Street Tunnel starts, they should use BOTH SF terminals on weekends if it means they can more easily have the and all terminate there (while running the and to Brooklyn at all times during such).  The can use the old terminal while the and use the new one on weekends in that scenario.

That will confuse lots of people who uses South Ferry.

If two South Ferry Stations open, lots of people will be confused.

THere is no need for shuttle between Bowling Green-South Ferry because this is already covered by Downtown Connection, which is Free Battery Park City Shuttle Bus. Plus we already have M5, M20 parells along it, well as M15 Local/SBS.

We even have have too.

 

No one is lazy to take shuttle train.

[asi14]

WHY DO YOU NEED TO TURN ALMOST EVERY SINGLE SUBWAY THREAD INTO A PROPSALS THREAD?

its not that big of a deal lmao chill

[Wallyhorse]

Someone else said this previously, but the whole point of creating a new South Ferry station was to close the old one and put passengers out of their misery.  Why do you and others insist upon these crazy ideas for a soon-to-be defunct station? Unless that loop is rehabbed in a way that allows all doors to be able to safely open, I'm opposed to it being used for any revenue service.  

The idea is to give east side riders on the Lex easier access to the ferry terminal.  Not everyone wants to walk outside, and especially at night (and it's not always people being lazy or disabled either). 

 

The real purpose of reviving the BG-SF shuttle is to have access to the loop station during the week when you can't divert trains there as easily so you can other hours have the and terminate at old SF.  That has the main benefit of (with the running to SF instead of BB evenings, nights and weekends) giving lower Manhattan additional service outside of weekdays in an area that has seen residential population go way up in the last three decades.  This is also about off-hours when the (when not running to Brooklyn) and would be going to old SF.

[checkmatechamp13]

That would increase service to an area that is now far more residential than it once was outside of weekdays (especially when the BG-SF shuttle last ran 40 years ago) and allow (when the is running to old SF) for the only direct transfer in the system between the Broadway and Lexington Avenue locals (not including late nights when the and run local on their respective lines).   This also would double late-night service to Bowling Green since the would also be running there before SF during those hours.  

 

The area by Bowling Green isn't residential. Battery Park City is further west. And South Ferry is literally between Battery Park and the ferry building itself. There's no residences near there that can't already be accessed by walking from Bowling Green.

 

So you'll have the only connection between the Lexington Local and Broadway/7th Avenue Local. Now what practical purpose will that accomplish? People are going to have to go all the way to Downtown Manhattan to take another train going uptown when walking or taking a crosstown bus to the other line would end up being faster.

 

You do have a point of doubling the service between Bowling Green & Brooklyn Bridge if the were extended. I can see the purpose of doing that overnight, for the additional connections available.

 

That's precisely why it needs to go.  That screeching sound is deafening, not to mention the lack of capacity to handle passengers coming from the Ferry and elsewhere.

 

I take the train at South Ferry often. Capacity-wise, it's fine.

 

The idea is to give east side riders on the Lex easier access to the ferry terminal.  Not everyone wants to walk outside, and especially at night (and it's not always people being lazy or disabled either). 

 

As a Staten Island resident who needs to use Bowling Green at all hours of the night, I can tell you that even with this new shuttle running, I'd have a better chance of making my ferry if I hit the ground running as soon as the train pulls into Bowling Green than taking a train for 2 blocks and having to deal with the slow curves and (if it's a full length train) waiting for everybody to get into the first 5 cars.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The area by Bowling Green isn't residential. Battery Park City is further west. And South Ferry is literally between Battery Park and the ferry building itself. There's no residences near there that can't already be accessed by walking from Bowling Green.

 

So you'll have the only connection between the Lexington Local and Broadway/7th Avenue Local. Now what practical purpose will that accomplish? People are going to have to go all the way to Downtown Manhattan to take another train going uptown when walking or taking a crosstown bus to the other line would end up being faster.

 

You do have a point of doubling the service between Bowling Green & Brooklyn Bridge if the were extended. I can see the purpose of doing that overnight, for the additional connections available.

 

 

I take the train at South Ferry often. Capacity-wise, it's fine.

Just because you think it is doesn't mean everyone agrees.  That was one of the reasons cited for building the new South Ferry by numerous politicians.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

The idea is to give east side riders on the Lex easier access to the ferry terminal.  Not everyone wants to walk outside, and especially at night (and it's not always people being lazy or disabled either). 

 

The real purpose of reviving the BG-SF shuttle is to have access to the loop station during the week when you can't divert trains there as easily so you can other hours have the and terminate at old SF.  That has the main benefit of (with the running to SF instead of BB evenings, nights and weekends) giving lower Manhattan additional service outside of weekdays in an area that has seen residential population go way up in the last three decades.  This is also about off-hours when the (when not running to Brooklyn) and would be going to old SF.

That's all fine and good, but my point stands.

[Mtatransit]

Bowling Green and South Ferry is literally a few blocks apart. You go all the way to the end of the platform and go up, walk 1-2 block is literally the South Ferry Station Entrance. The BG-SF shuttle train lasted as long as it did surprised me, they should've abandoned it when the older rolling stock got retired.

[agar io]

(First post on these forums, but I've been observing for a long time.) The shuttle between Bowling Green and South Ferry is unneeded, and an out-of-system transfer works fine for most people. If not, riders can make connections from the SF terminal to Lexington Av by taking the and transferring to the at Canal St or the at Union Sq. An off-peak extension of the to the loop platforms means that riders would only have direct Lex service at SF during the off-peak. They can't be extended during the peak hours because of the need for Brooklyn service and lack of capacity on the lower Lex, yet it is during peak hours where the need is highest. Optimally, a passageway could be built between BG and SF, but can't be done because of $$, so the is the best we have.

 

The switches north of the area on the 7 Av line, where the loop and new platforms' tracks diverge, will cause congestion if the and all use the line at the same time. 

[checkmatechamp13]

Just because you think it is doesn't mean everyone agrees.  That was one of the reasons cited for building the new South Ferry by numerous politicians.

 

If that were the case, that would mean that people were bring forced to wait for the next train because they couldn't fit into the first 5 cars of the train that was already in the station (whether it's at South Ferry or Chambers/Rector Street). I've never seen that happen in all my times using the station. (I've seen people miss the train because they couldn't run from the ferry quickly enough of course, but that has nothing to do with being able to physically fit on the train)

 

That, and if the station itself couldn't handle the passengers, that would mean the platform is so crowded that you have crowds of people waiting on the stairs or something like that. Again, even with a delay, I've never seen that happen.

 

The capacity that you're referring to is that it reduced the number of trains that could be run on the line overall. But with the MTA being as cheap as it is, they didn't take advantage of the supposed extra capacity. (I say supposed because the trains would end up crawling into the new South Ferry station anyway, so a 50% increase in capacity.....sounds a little optimistic)

 

Here's the last schedule that was in effect before it opened.

 

Here's the first schedule I could find from after it opened.

 

Trains were running every 3-4 minutes in the AM rush hour both before and after the station opened.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

If that were the case, that would mean that people were bring forced to wait for the next train because they couldn't fit into the first 5 cars of the train that was already in the station (whether it's at South Ferry or Chambers/Rector Street). I've never seen that happen in all my times using the station. (I've seen people miss the train because they couldn't run from the ferry quickly enough of course, but that has nothing to do with being able to physically fit on the train)

 

That, and if the station itself couldn't handle the passengers, that would mean the platform is so crowded that you have crowds of people waiting on the stairs or something like that. Again, even with a delay, I've never seen that happen.

 

The capacity that you're referring to is that it reduced the number of trains that could be run on the line overall. But with the MTA being as cheap as it is, they didn't take advantage of the supposed extra capacity. (I say supposed because the trains would end up crawling into the new South Ferry station anyway, so a 50% increase in capacity.....sounds a little optimistic)

 

Here's the last schedule that was in effect before it opened.

 

Here's the first schedule I could find from after it opened.

 

Trains were running every 3-4 minutes in the AM rush hour both before and after the station opened.

Nope... The politicians cited overcrowding of the station.  I used to use the station during rush hour when I would take the ferry and agree with their assessment. The new South Ferry makes more sense.  All doors can open and it's also safer since you don't have worry about the gaps nor walking between cars to get to the emptier ones.

[checkmatechamp13]

Nope... The politicians cited overcrowding of the station.  I used to use the station during rush hour when I would take the ferry and agree with their assessment. The new South Ferry makes more sense.  All doors can open and it's also safer since you don't have worry about the gaps nor walking between cars to get to the emptier ones.

 

Since they cited it, find the source (but more importantly, find a quote of the MTA agreeing with said politician)

 

Walking between cars....that's only for the people who rush to catch the train that's sitting in the station, which can happen at the new station too (besides, the door between the 5th & 6th car is usually locked). 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

Since they cited it, find the source (but more importantly, find a quote of the MTA agreeing with said politician)

 

Walking between cars....that's only for the people who rush to catch the train that's sitting in the station, which can happen at the new station too (besides, the door between the 5th & 6th car is usually locked). 

You can find it.  They allocated monies for the project (millions I may add) so obviously they and plenty of other riders didn't agree with your assessment.  Some of the politicians that did so are no longer serving.  

[agar io]

Since they cited it, find the source (but more importantly, find a quote of the MTA agreeing with said politician)

 

http://web.mta.info/capconstr/sft/documents/chapters/1_purpose_and_need.pdf#page=7

 

The FEIS, page 7, says:

 

 

The combination of a constrained configuration, and the surge of passengers entering and exiting, adversely affects service by creating an overcrowded platform, an overcrowded entry/exit stairwell condition, longer dwell times for subway trains, and reduced or poor passenger flow. 

 

The data for "overcrowding" is on another document. Oddly, the data states that otherwise is the case.

 

From: http://web.mta.info/capconstr/sft/documents/chapters/59_transportation_ped_circulation.pdf

 

 

For subway stairways, LOS A describes operations with an unrestricted flow of pedestrians, while pedestrian flow is slightly restricted for LOS B.

 

Page 5-44 says that at worst, the crowding was at LOS B levels.

 

I haven't been there in a while, so I don't know if these data hold true now.