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.

Why is 5 the Bx Express instead of 2?


Deucey
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Oh yes, historically pretty much everything (and everyone) ended up on the East one way or another. But just as the various housing programs of the 80s and 90s revitalized the South Bronx, dynamics in Midtown are changing too. There's a lot of office development taking place on the West Side, which has had the effect of increasing (2) volumes. Outside the corridor, changes in ridership, loading and signalling patterns are putting a lot of stress on areas that were not as bottlenecked 10 or 20 years ago (ex: the Fulton-BG area on Lex). This is to say nothing, of course, of the future operational complexities that come with CBTC interacting with merges. Not necessarily saying that a (2)(5) flip is a good idea, just that it may be worth recontextualizing routing patterns and investment needs in today's system given the plethora of knock-on system-scale effects produced. 

The West Side development is problematic to a layman like me. I certainly support the idea as a former construction worker. I just don’t see what the city or the (MTA) has done to provide long term infrastructure improvements for the area. The Hudson Yard extension of the Flushing line, while helpful, amounts to a minimal investment IMO. The only other thing that I can think about is the TSQ-GC shuttle rebuild. The(MTA) seems to be stuck with the ESA LIRR project to the detriment of even the SAS project. Everything is geared towards the East Side and I’m pessimistic that the SAS project will ever make it to 125th St and certainly will never go south of 63rd. Perhaps the upcoming signaling improvement projects in the subways will help to some degree but, short term, I have a feeling that the Surface folks will do the heavy lifting. My opinion though. I’ve been wrong before 🤫. Carry on.

Edited by Trainmaster5
Added content
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

6 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The West Side development is problematic to a layman like me. I certainly support the idea as a former construction worker. I just don’t see what the city or the (MTA) has done to provide long term infrastructure improvements for the area. The Hudson Yard extension of the Flushing line, while helpful, amounts to a minimal investment IMO. The only other thing that I can think about is the TSQ-GC shuttle rebuild. The(MTA) seems to be stuck with the ESA LIRR project to the detriment of even the SAS project. Everything is geared towards the East Side and I’m pessimistic that the SAS project will ever make it to 125th St and certainly will never go south of 63rd. Perhaps the upcoming signaling improvement projects in the subways will help to some degree but, short term, I have a feeling that the Surface folks will do the heavy lifting. My opinion though. I’ve been wrong before 🤫. Carry on.

Yeah, Hudson Yards is a bit of a mess transportationally. Sure they have the (7), but squeezing even more people onto the already packed platforms and stairways along the (7) in Midtown sure does not sound like a recipe for success -- especially if Hudson Yards-bound commuters have to fight the flow of Queens traffic to get to their trains. Agreed that the capital investment plan seems to be more than a bit dissonant from this perspective.

The one thing that the West Side has going for it is that there's a good bit of room to grow on the 8th Avenue line. No small thanks to its merging pattern, that corridor runs well below capacity. If NYCT can harness it, it could play a big role in managing area capacity needs. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Most people in the Dyre Avenue line go to Manhattan, so not a good idea. I would just reconfigure the train tracks at East 180th so that the 2 and 5 never have to cross each other. Similar to what they did with the Dyre Avenue flyover.

Edited by josephnyy42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/15/2019 at 11:49 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

The West Side development is problematic to a layman like me. I certainly support the idea as a former construction worker. I just don’t see what the city or the (MTA) has done to provide long term infrastructure improvements for the area. The Hudson Yard extension of the Flushing line, while helpful, amounts to a minimal investment IMO. The only other thing that I can think about is the TSQ-GC shuttle rebuild. The(MTA) seems to be stuck with the ESA LIRR project to the detriment of even the SAS project. Everything is geared towards the East Side and I’m pessimistic that the SAS project will ever make it to 125th St and certainly will never go south of 63rd. Perhaps the upcoming signaling improvement projects in the subways will help to some degree but, short term, I have a feeling that the Surface folks will do the heavy lifting. My opinion though. I’ve been wrong before 🤫. Carry on.

The trick is that they didn't :P

Dan Doctoroff, the deputy mayor who spearheaded Hudson Yards, is basically just a huge developer shill. Choice quotes:

Quote

 amNewYork reports Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff "[said] the area around 41nd Street and 10th Avenue in Hells Kitchen is developing without a subway already," therefore no stop is needed to continue the neighborhood's growth.

And this wonderful gem:

Quote

But not everybody’s ideas for transit struck us as so enlightened. Bloomberg (first the mayor, and now the corporation) executive Dan Doctoroff and Brookfield’s John Zuccotti sat on stage and chatted, and we could scarcely believe our ears when they started talking about the Second Avenue subway: they hate it.

“A silly little spur that doesn’t generate anything other than some convenience for people who are perfectly happy to live where they lived before,” Mr. Doctoroff said. Why, he wondered, was the city going through with it, “even though it’s a subway that doesn’t have any value added?” A “pet project” of the MTA and Sheldon Silver, he called it.

...

But alas, the comments were the perfect illustration of the mile-wide chasm between transit planners and real estate folks when it comes to picking projects. Transit planners think of projects in terms of the riders who will be served (200,000 each weekday for the Second Avenue line’s first segment, from 63rd Street to 96th)—to many transit advocates, a neighborhood with an existing population deserves infrastructure more than an empty one whose sole constituency is developers.

The Bloomberg administration did lasting damage to the long term planning in this city; all this because they needed someone to stroke their egos after they couldn't drag the Jets to the Javits Center.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

The trick is that they didn't :P

Dan Doctoroff, the deputy mayor who spearheaded Hudson Yards, is basically just a huge developer shill.

And then this:

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/doctoroff-meola-station-stop-42nd-street-article-1.2357806

Looks like he should have thought of it earlier. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

The trick is that they didn't :P

Dan Doctoroff, the deputy mayor who spearheaded Hudson Yards, is basically just a huge developer shill. Choice quotes:

And this wonderful gem:

The Bloomberg administration did lasting damage to the long term planning in this city; all this because they needed someone to stroke their egos after they couldn't drag the Jets to the Javits Center.

No, because of the failed 2012 Olympic Bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For better or for worse, Doctoroff did have a point when he said we needed to be building into underdeveloped areas. NYC’s housing crisis has everything to do with anemic supply growth and overly restrictive zoning in dynamic areas, but it also, IMO, has to do with the fact that we haven’t significantly expanded the supply of buildable (ie rapid transit-served) land since the late 1940s which makes the political lift of housing supply expansion that much greater. 

Now of course outwards expansion is contingent on there being core capacity, but SAS isn’t a huge contributor in that respect, nor does it necessarily fulfill an investment goal that is impossible to achieve through more TSM-y means (CBTC, increased subway service on corridors complimentary to the Lex, better dwell management, etc). This is all to say that HY was a disaster, but wasn’t totally wrongheaded. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RR503 said:

For better or for worse, Doctoroff did have a point when he said we needed to be building into underdeveloped areas. NYC’s housing crisis has everything to do with anemic supply growth and overly restrictive zoning in dynamic areas, but it also, IMO, has to do with the fact that we haven’t significantly expanded the supply of buildable (ie rapid transit-served) land since the late 1940s which makes the political lift of housing supply expansion that much greater. 

Now of course outwards expansion is contingent on there being core capacity, but SAS isn’t a huge contributor in that respect, nor does it necessarily fulfill an investment goal that is impossible to achieve through more TSM-y means (CBTC, increased subway service on corridors complimentary to the Lex, better dwell management, etc). This is all to say that HY was a disaster, but wasn’t totally wrongheaded. 

There is so much room for housing along existing lines like the Jamaica Line east of Bwy Junction, the Queens Boulevard Local west of Roosevelt, the D, N and R in South Brooklyn, along Fulton Street on the C, and so on. If housing is the goal, change zoning to allow for denser construction. Two lines that should be built to allow for the development of areas are Utica Avenue and Northern Boulevard, which is one big auto dealership.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

There is so much room for housing along existing lines like the Jamaica Line east of Bwy Junction, the Queens Boulevard Local west of Roosevelt, the D, N and R in South Brooklyn, along Fulton Street on the C, and so on. If housing is the goal, change zoning to allow for denser construction. Two lines that should be built to allow for the development of areas are Utica Avenue and Northern Boulevard, which is one big auto dealership.

This is all true, but the fact of the matter is that it’s a hell of a lot easier to develop corridors like Northern than it is to exert unending upwards pressure on areas currently served — especially if your new subway construction can change economic geographies by creating satellite CBDs. To be clear, I completely agree with you insofar as there’s a lot of room for upzoning in this city. I merely wish to point out that this process would be easier if there was more land to spread the change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

This is all true, but the fact of the matter is that it’s a hell of a lot easier to develop corridors like Northern than it is to exert unending upwards pressure on areas currently served — especially if your new subway construction can change economic geographies by creating satellite CBDs. To be clear, I completely agree with you insofar as there’s a lot of room for upzoning in this city. I merely wish to point out that this process would be easier if there was more land to spread the change. 

Agreed, but for me, by the day, I am becoming more skeptical that we are ever going to expand the subway other than Phase 2 of SAS.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is my current experience.

I work on the east side. 1st Avenue & 32nd Street. I live in Soundview, and the stop I use is the Simpson Street (2)(5) station. My evening rush hour commute involves walking to Grand Central and take the (5) to 3rd Avenue-149th Street where I transfer to the (2) local to Simpson Street. From what I've observed, there are much more (5) trains running to Eastchester than there are (2) trains to Wakefield. Often times, I have seen up to three (5) trains come through 3rd Avenue-149th Street bound for Dyre before a (2) train shows up. By then, the platform at 3rd Avenue-149th Street is crowded, and so is the (2) train with all the passengers who need the local stations between Jackson Av & West Farms, PLUS north of East 180th. Meanwhile, the (5) express trains bound for Dyre are no where near as crowded as the (2).

It would be nice, for passenger distribution, to have the (5) make the local stops between 3rd Avenue-149th Street & East 180th Street. This would solve the merger problem at East 180th between (2) to Wakefield and (5) to Eastchester. Both trains can arrive and depart at East 180th without crossing each other, during both southbound AM service and northbound PM service. However, I can imagine that the Dyre Avenue branch residents won't be happy about adding 7 additional stops to their commute.

  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

Here is my current experience.

I work on the east side. 1st Avenue & 32nd Street. I live in Soundview, and the stop I use is the Simpson Street (2)(5) station. My evening rush hour commute involves walking to Grand Central and take the (5) to 3rd Avenue-149th Street where I transfer to the (2) local to Simpson Street. From what I've observed, there are much more (5) trains running to Eastchester than there are (2) trains to Wakefield. Often times, I have seen up to three (5) trains come through 3rd Avenue-149th Street bound for Dyre before a (2) train shows up. By then, the platform at 3rd Avenue-149th Street is crowded, and so is the (2) train with all the passengers who need the local stations between Jackson Av & West Farms, PLUS north of East 180th. Meanwhile, the (5) express trains bound for Dyre are no where near as crowded as the (2).

It would be nice, for passenger distribution, to have the (5) make the local stops between 3rd Avenue-149th Street & East 180th Street. This would solve the merger problem at East 180th between (2) to Wakefield and (5) to Eastchester. Both trains can arrive and depart at East 180th without crossing each other, during both southbound AM service and northbound PM service. However, I can imagine that the Dyre Avenue branch residents won't be happy about adding 7 additional stops to their commute.

I know what's written in black and white doesn't matter, since reality always says otherwise, but based on the Trip Planner, the (2) is officially scheduled to come every 6 minutes during this timeframe (PM Rush). Mathematically, that's 10 trains an hour. Meanwhile, concurrently, the (5) is scheduled to come every 4-6 minutes. Mathematically, that's 12 trains an hour.

The poor time performances on the (2) may stem from the fact of those poorly built at-grade junction levels, such as Rogers Avenue Junction in Brooklyn and the 142nd Street Junction in Manhattan. That, combined with the current design of Flatbush Avenue, and the schedule often has both the (2) and (3) being spaced evenly apart (or the (3) being immediately right behind the (2) instead of the other way around) in both directions between the 142nd Street Junction interlocking and the Rogers Junction interlocking. The (2)'s relatively high ridership and long winded route is secondary. I said secondary because, if there are no delays and scheduling with the other lines (the (3) and (5)) along its run and crowding levels are properly distributed, the (2) can actually more reliably run on time.

The (5) during the PM Rush doesn't seem to have this problem since most of the trains on that line during rush hours are put-ins (which means coming in from a yard or layup track btw) and go into service at various terminals instead of its usual Flatbush Avenue one. The (2) on the other hand only has a few trains coming from Livonia Avenue Yard and going into service at New Lots Avenue, but that's just it. And of course, the (5)'s ridership is relatively less than the (2)'s. 

IMO, the (MTA) should rewrite and update the entire printed schedules for the entire (2), (3), (4), and (5) lines in both directions, so that delays like the ones (including from your post I quoted) described above are kept to a minimum.

Edited by Jemorie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

It would be nice, for passenger distribution, to have the (5) make the local stops between 3rd Avenue-149th Street & East 180th Street. This would solve the merger problem at East 180th between (2) to Wakefield and (5) to Eastchester. Both trains can arrive and depart at East 180th without crossing each other, during both southbound AM service and northbound PM service. However, I can imagine that the Dyre Avenue branch residents won't be happy about adding 7 additional stops to their commute.

They wanted to have that done in 2000, but Dyre residents stopped those plans from coming to fruition. However, in light of the fact that the (5) train has been getting more put ins than before, perhaps they should

  1. Look into reverting to the original alignment as has been mentioned before with the (2) train being the Bronx Park Dyre Local and the (5) train being the Bronx Park thru Express and Local to 241st Street, or
  2. Implement the plan that they wanted to use in 2000.

There's just no reason why the (4) train has to skip 138, knowing how the Mosholu interlocking there goes into trouble every morning, having it slow down the entire Lexington - 4 Avenue Express. It isn't as bad in the afternoon, which is quite surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 4 via Mosholu said:

There's just no reason why the (4) train has to skip 138, knowing how the Mosholu interlocking there goes into trouble every morning, having it slow down the entire Lexington - 4 Avenue Express. It isn't as bad in the afternoon, which is quite surprising.

The reason for that is to give the (5) room to merge without delaying the (4).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The reason for that is to give the (5) room to merge without delaying the (4).

I've known about that reasoning, but I really think this slowdown has to do with the (2) train, since it bypasses the Mosholu Junction most of the time while going inside the Lenox Junction with the (3) train. If that was looked into first, the (4) train shouldn't have to suffer because of a bad interlocking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The reason for that is to give the (5) room to merge without delaying the (4).

And the (2) downstairs as well. Two (5) trains can come in a row, one sitting in the tunnel and the other ahead sitting in the station waiting for the (4) on the express track to cross directly infront of it. Meanwhile, the (2) downstairs at 149-GC is not delayed. If the (4) were to stop at 138 St-GC, everything behind is delayed one at a time and the cycle repeats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

Here is my current experience.

I work on the east side. 1st Avenue & 32nd Street. I live in Soundview, and the stop I use is the Simpson Street (2)(5) station. My evening rush hour commute involves walking to Grand Central and take the (5) to 3rd Avenue-149th Street where I transfer to the (2) local to Simpson Street. From what I've observed, there are much more (5) trains running to Eastchester than there are (2) trains to Wakefield. Often times, I have seen up to three (5) trains come through 3rd Avenue-149th Street bound for Dyre before a (2) train shows up. By then, the platform at 3rd Avenue-149th Street is crowded, and so is the (2) train with all the passengers who need the local stations between Jackson Av & West Farms, PLUS north of East 180th. Meanwhile, the (5) express trains bound for Dyre are no where near as crowded as the (2).

It would be nice, for passenger distribution, to have the (5) make the local stops between 3rd Avenue-149th Street & East 180th Street. This would solve the merger problem at East 180th between (2) to Wakefield and (5) to Eastchester. Both trains can arrive and depart at East 180th without crossing each other, during both southbound AM service and northbound PM service. However, I can imagine that the Dyre Avenue branch residents won't be happy about adding 7 additional stops to their commute.

I don't know exactly where you live relative to the Simpson St. station but  i would catch the (6) at 33rd street for a one seat ride to Hunt's Point Avenue. Less changes always appealed to me. I remember during service outages that many people would abandon the (2) and (5) and make the walk to the (6)  from Simpson. Just an idea to ponder.  Carry on. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I don't know exactly where you live relative to the Simpson St. station but  i would catch the (6) at 33rd street for a one seat ride to Hunt's Point Avenue. Less changes always appealed to me. I remember during service outages that many people would abandon the (2) and (5) and make the walk to the (6)  from Simpson. Just an idea to ponder.  Carry on. 

 

Yes. That would make sense if I lived right near the (6) subway station. However, I have to take the Bx5 bus to Story Avenue after the subway. The first stop on the Bx5 (which is a very crowded, high ridership route, however, had terrible service) is Simpson Street. My chances of getting on the bus and getting a seat are MUCH higher at Simpson Street than at Hunt Point. Usually, once the Bx5 gets to Hunts Point Av, which is the second stop, the bus is packed, and many are not able to board at Hunts Point. So Simpson Street is the better option.

Late at night, after rush hour, if I am on the East Side, I will take the (6) to Hunts Point, but that doesn't happen often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

Yes. That would make sense if I lived right near the (6) subway station. However, I have to take the Bx5 bus to Story Avenue after the subway. The first stop on the Bx5 (which is a very crowded, high ridership route, however, had terrible service) is Simpson Street. My chances of getting on the bus and getting a seat are MUCH higher at Simpson Street than at Hunt Point. Usually, once the Bx5 gets to Hunts Point Av, which is the second stop, the bus is packed, and many are not able to board at Hunts Point. So Simpson Street is the better option.

Late at night, after rush hour, if I am on the East Side, I will take the (6) to Hunts Point, but that doesn't happen often.

What is stopping you from taking the (6) to Hunts Point Avenue and walking over one stop to the Bx5 terminal ? Whole lot easier commute compared to three trains,  at least to me. You're complaining about a routing problem with two lines that you can easily avoid, a self inflicted wound IMO .It's your decision.  Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

What is stopping you from taking the (6) to Hunts Point Avenue and walking over one stop to the Bx5 terminal ? Whole lot easier commute compared to three trains,  at least to me. You're complaining about a routing problem with two lines that you can easily avoid, a self inflicted wound IMO .It's your decision.  Carry on. 

I only take two trains. (5) express from Grand Central to 3rd Avenue-149th Street and then the (2) to Simpson Street. 

I wouldn't call my observation complaining. I just stated what I observed. I choose that route because to me it makes more sense. I can see, however, how one may choose to take the (6) to Hunts Point, and then walking north to Simpson Street, just not what I do.

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, <6>PelhamExp said:

I only take two trains. (5) express from Grand Central to 3rd Avenue-149th Street and then the (2) to Simpson Street. 

I wouldn't call my observation complaining. I just stated what I observed. I choose that route because to me it makes more sense. I can see, however, how one may choose to take the (6) to Hunts Point, and then walking north to Simpson Street, just not what I do.

My bad. Was thinking that you walked over to 33rd from First Avenue and entered the system there. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

My bad. Was thinking that you walked over to 33rd from First Avenue and entered the system there. Carry on.

No. Tbh, I think you’re actually right. He can easily avoid the (2) train delays and irregularity by taking the (6)<6> (from Grand Central to Hunts Point Avenue and then the bus) which, despite the line’s fleet being taken over with R62As, is more frequent. But then he is just here going “it’s not what I do”. So what else can you say?

Smh. Then again, as you said, it’s his decision.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simplest fix really seems to be adding a second flyover from the middle track at 180th Street to Morris park on the (5) The problem is i remember back in 2011 i think it was all the trackwork was rearranged so i doubt the (MTA) will want to tear up new tracks there again. And having lived near the WPR line all my life on Simpson Street it really does seem to be about ridership. The (5) will pull into 180th street either full or 3/4s full and if a (2) pulls in at the same time coming southbound the transfer will fill the (5) And as some people have mentioned here most people between East Tremont and Jackson Avenue are heades for the west side, you dont see many hop off at 3rd avenue or Grand Concourse and the same can be said on the return trip. If the (2) and (5) were to switch roles in the bronx not even terminals but just express and local,  you would have a bad crowding situation at 3rd avenue and 149th-GC because you would have the people from the west farms transfering to the lexington line and vice versa unless you completely take it to a next level and switch the lines completely. 

Edited by Andres
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/25/2019 at 6:02 PM, RR503 said:

This is all true, but the fact of the matter is that it’s a hell of a lot easier to develop corridors like Northern than it is to exert unending upwards pressure on areas currently served — especially if your new subway construction can change economic geographies by creating satellite CBDs. To be clear, I completely agree with you insofar as there’s a lot of room for upzoning in this city. I merely wish to point out that this process would be easier if there was more land to spread the change. 

The main issue with satellite CBDs in New York is that suburban/outer borough connections to such hubs are extremely bad, lopping off huge sections of the regional labor markets.

The only realistic-ish construction project that I can think of that *might* create them would be Triboro RX.

Link to comment
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.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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