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.
Sign in to follow this  
Via Garibaldi 8

Ideas to Alleviate Severe 7 Train Overcrowding

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

lol.... $4.25... Fat chance... I think $6.50 would be more like it or thereabouts.  

I think that's reasonable. You're basically getting the same ammeitties as an Express Bus with a bathroom. But would it be $6.50 all times then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Lil 57 said:

I think that's reasonable. You're basically getting the same ammeitties as an Express Bus with a bathroom. But would it be $6.50 all times then?

Could be a good idea or slightly cheaper. Let's say $6.50 peak and $5.00 off-peak.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Anyone else find it kind of funny that they still have Flushing airport here?

Ha. I didn't notice that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Anyone else find it kind of funny that they still have Flushing airport here?

Since when was there an airport in Flushing? 

Also, @RR503, what software/website did you use to find the density in each given area in The city? Just curious to know. Also, I see 3-4 ideas being thrown around in this thread. Please note that this is just my observation and I have yet to criticize each one. (Which I’ll do later) 

QM3 used as a relief line to the (7) 

LIRR Port Washington Branch as Relief w/ lowered fares and stops at Elmhurst and Corona. 

Some sort of involvement with the Q32. 

and I think someone mentioned the idea of a Q66 Select if I’m not mistaken. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Some obnoxious person in here noted how the LIRR and the (7) go to the same place - Midtown Manhattan. There are a lot of (7) riders that get off at Times Square and at Grand Central so the idea that it doesn't matter where the LIRR goes is just ignorant, but of course this person likely doesn't use the (7) with any frequency to even see who gets off where.  Penn Station, Grand Central and Times Square are three different locations, and lumping together as if they are the same thing is stupid.

My solutions are as follows:

-Propose a lower LIRR fare for the existing stops near the (7) line

-Consider running more QM3 service with a second branch.  What I would want to figure out is the routing and the current QM3 service, who would use it and how to market it.

-Consider restoring some version of the QM22.

-The Q32 would have to run faster. I think ridership has dwindled considerably because it has become slower, so clearly the fact that it is $2.75 doesn't matter. I ride the Q32 a lot in Manhattan and have noticed that the buses are a lot emptier than they used to be.

If you just expand Atlantic Ticket, then folks can transfer from the PW to all the subways at Penn...meaning coverage parity is there.

Generally, I think this is a good list of mitigations except for the Q32. Running a bus that almost completely duplicates the (7) is a waste of resources, as during normal service conditions, really only those who can't take the train will take the bus. Running a Q66 SBS as was suggested by others before is much, much wiser decision as while maybe a little slower, the fact that that Q66 serves a slightly different part of the same market gives it a walking time advantage, swinging normal riders in its direction. Good example of this currently is the M15. 

(Also, slower service leading to declining ridership indicates...people don't care about fares? I beg to differ.)

9 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Yeah well if it wasn't such a big deal it would've been done already, so I don't buy that it's so cheap.  The fares should be lowered, but certainly not to the cost of the (7) train, and the question is will people be willing to pay more to get off of the (7) . Some will... How much? That remains to be seen. What I'm proposing above makes the most sense and could help alleviate some of the overcrowding. From what I've been hearing people are willing to pay more for a direct trip, which is why I'm not all that gung ho on the Atlantic Ticket. You're just moving the crowds from one place in the subway system to another.  The (4)(5) have their own problems, as does the (Q)(D)(N) and (R).  Just lower the fare and let people get into Manhattan directly.  

You clearly have never worked with the LIRR. Something making sense doesn't work for them, it has to be 'the way they've always done it' for it to be done. If you want to talk about myopic, unproductive organizations, the LIRR actually goes above NYCT in the list. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, RR503 said:

If you just expand Atlantic Ticket, then folks can transfer from the PW to all the subways at Penn...meaning coverage parity is there.

Generally, I think this is a good list of mitigations except for the Q32. Running a bus that almost completely duplicates the (7) is a waste of resources, as during normal service conditions, really only those who can't take the train will take the bus. Running a Q66 SBS as was suggested by others before is much, much wiser decision as while maybe a little slower, the fact that that Q66 serves a slightly different part of the same market gives it a walking time advantage, swinging normal riders in its direction. Good example of this currently is the M15. 

(Also, slower service leading to declining ridership indicates...people don't care about fares? I beg to differ.)

You clearly have never worked with the LIRR. Something making sense doesn't work for them, it has to be 'the way they've always done it' for it to be done. If you want to talk about myopic, unproductive organizations, the LIRR actually goes above NYCT in the list. 

Yeah, but there are people that are fine taking the bus over the subway. Bus service in general needs to be sped up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I made some edits to my QM3/QM9 Proposal, I've also made a map and a mock schedule for both routes.

QM3/QM9 Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Wu7J7h6judAnkS2OhfEQdjFwqXqFBzx2&usp=sharing

QM3/QM9 Schedule: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/17OVrb56S64FfBr8pmqv64AvgHGiuUV1SucJUKqQvrus/edit?usp=sharing

Main Points:

QM3:

- The first/last stop in Queens in both directions is Northern Blvd/College Point Blvd.  The QM9 would cover the Western half of Northern Blvd.

- Span increases and AM service runs every 20 minutes from 6:30 AM to 7:30 AM. All other times service runs every 30 minutes.

QM9: 

- Route rerouted to severe Northen Blvd instead of Roosevelt Ave from 69th Street to 108th Street.

- The first/last stop in Queens in both directions is Northern Blvd/69th Street.

- Service runs 7 days a week.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/13/2019 at 5:20 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Because any subway will take YEARS to build. Alternatives could be up and running faster. More subways are a long-term solution. You can live in fantasy world or in reality. The reality is there has been NO subway expansion in the outer boroughs in DECADES. Those are the facts. 

What's the saying? The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, and the second best time to do it is now? Same applies for a subway.

It's a long term solution, but it's going to never be a solution if we keep whining about how it takes too long and putting it off. At some point I would hope a new subway gets built in my lifetime in Queens because the buses and ferry will never be enough. Queens is about to become the biggest borough by population if it isn't already, yet it's got the second-fewest subway connections of any borough to Manhattan. I thought our city was full of people who could walk and chew gum, but this toxic mindset has gotten into everybody's heads, which is why we don't have nice things anymore.

My new city has plans for transit, housing, development out to 2040, with buses, trains, ferries, all of the above. New York's plan for 2040 appears to be crying while sitting on its hands.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

What's the saying? The best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, and the second best time to do it is now? Same applies for a subway.

It's a long term solution, but it's going to never be a solution if we keep whining about how it takes too long and putting it off. At some point I would hope a new subway gets built in my lifetime in Queens because the buses and ferry will never be enough. Queens is about to become the biggest borough by population if it isn't already, yet it's got the second-fewest subway connections of any borough to Manhattan. I thought our city was full of people who could walk and chew gum, but this toxic mindset has gotten into everybody's heads, which is why we don't have nice things anymore.

My new city has plans for transit, housing, development out to 2040, with buses, trains, ferries, all of the above. New York's plan for 2040 appears to be crying while sitting on its hands.

Free to start planning for a new subway now but the point remains that we need short term solutions while fhe subway problems are fixed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

My new city has plans for transit, housing, development out to 2040, with buses, trains, ferries, all of the above. New York's plan for 2040 appears to be crying while sitting on its hands.

I hear people say New York is long past it’s Industrial Age when it was developing and got things done, okay. But it’s crestfallen to even look at cities like London (much more than hundreds of years old) and still see some notable progress in addressing these issues, age isn’t just the issue as we know. Politics in NY are tougher than nails for good and certainly bad, that’s another argument. So I can’t say Seattle will be 100% successful in accomplishing it’s plans for 2040, but neither was NY either at any time, at least or most some of what we got done (ex.Program For Action) actually still is being used today and technically fixed a problem to varying degrees. Why can’t we have more of that? 

Know this post is off topic, but I won’t put down my critisms until I actually see something that’ll matter 20+ years from now. Short term is asking for more short term.

Edited by NoHacksJustKhaks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NoHacksJustKhaks said:

I hear people say New York is long past it’s Industrial Age when it was developing and got things done, okay. But it’s crestfallen to even look at cities like London (much more than hundreds of years old) and still see some notable progress in addressing these issues, age isn’t just the issue as we know. Politics in NY are tougher than nails for good and certainly bad, that’s another argument. So I can’t say Seattle will be 100% successful in accomplishing it’s plans for 2040, but neither was NY either at any time, at least or most some of what we got done (ex.Program For Action) actually still is being used today and technically fixed a problem to varying degrees. Why can’t we have more of that? 

Know this post is off topic, but I won’t put down my critisms until I actually see something that’ll matter 20+ years from now. Short term is asking for more short term.

The only reason NY won't be successful, in contrast to Seattle and other places' success, in transit, is because everywhere else transit is considered a solution to a problem while here in NY transit is considered a problem.

The perspective matters.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Deucey said:

The only reason NY won't be successful, in contrast to Seattle and other places' success, in transit, is because everywhere else transit is considered a solution to a problem while here in NY transit is considered a problem.

The perspective matters.

For a City that has had influence on many others in the past, I’d consider that some very Backwatds Logic. Heck, it’s almost as if since 1975, NY has completely lost its sense of Logic when it comes to Transit. And that’s a problem. A huge problem 

  • Thumbs Up 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

For a City that has had influence on many others in the past, I’d consider that some very Backwatds Logic. Heck, it’s almost as if since 1975, NY has completely lost its sense of Logic when it comes to Transit. And that’s a problem. A huge problem 

NYC basically was one of the first to do anything transit-related, and then we just kind of stopped in the late 1900s (thanks Robert Moses). Now we have to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/16/2019 at 7:50 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Free to start planning for a new subway now but the point remains that we need short term solutions while fhe subway problems are fixed.

Right. We do need short term solutions, like @Lil 57‘s QM3/QM9 plan or a sort of Atlantic Ticket on the PW Branch. But there seems to be no will to do even that on the part of the MTA or the City. It’s not like overcrowded (7)<7> trains just started happening. It’s been going on for decades. At the same time, we do need to make a long term plan to address the overcrowding because the (7) and the areas it serves show no sign of getting any less crowded. 

On 2/17/2019 at 10:02 PM, Bay Ridge Express said:

NYC basically was one of the first to do anything transit-related, and then we just kind of stopped in the late 1900s (thanks Robert Moses). Now we have to pay for it.

And that’s the problem too. It almost seems like the foul spirit of Robert Moses continues to dictate policy DOT, while bureaucrats there and at the MTA seem to be stuck squarely in 1975, so they won’t make any kind of long-term plans. The City is continuing to increase in population and become more crowded, while MTA and  DOT management refuse to get with the times. Nothing good will come from that. We’ve really got to start addressing the overcrowding and make  long term plans to handle it. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And that’s the problem too. It almost seems like the foul spirit of Robert Moses continues to dictate policy DOT, while bureaucrats there and at the MTA seem to be stuck squarely in 1975, so they won’t make any kind of long-term plans. The City is continuing to increase in population and become more crowded, while MTA and  DOT management refuse to get with the times. Nothing good will come from that. We’ve really got to start addressing the overcrowding and make  long term plans to handle it. 

Not to veer too far from topic, but Robert Moses gets scapegoated too much. IND 2nd System wasn't built because RM took all the cash, but because the state wouldn't raise the city's debt limit. RM built highways instead of transit not because he was some revolutionary evil, but because pretty much all available funding on the federal level was for highways.

I actually would argue that its the reaction to RM culture -- this highly siloed, fear based, community centric, can't do mentality -- that is killing NYC. He created a governmental revolution, one that led to partial decentralization of key powers, to NIMBYism, and to bureaucracies that became so focused on meeting minute project goals that they lost sight of the larger picture while also being almost entirely disempowered. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2019 at 1:02 PM, RR503 said:

Not to veer too far from topic, but Robert Moses gets scapegoated too much. IND 2nd System wasn't built because RM took all the cash, but because the state wouldn't raise the city's debt limit. RM built highways instead of transit not because he was some revolutionary evil, but because pretty much all available funding on the federal level was for highways.

This is a bit of a half truth. It's true that the Second System was never going to happen, but that's mostly because the First System was extremely complicated to build (building subways under active els and around PATH is not a cheap endeavor) and went severely over budget, and the Second System would've probably been even more ridiculous and over-budget.

That being said, rail could have simultaneously been built out along highways, most notably the Van Wyck and Horace Harding. These types of projects did get federal funding in DC and Chicago. But Robert Moses did not really want rail with his highways, and as the sole person distributing all federal funds to New York, he was basically the blocker for it.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This is a bit of a half truth. It's true that the Second System was never going to happen, but that's mostly because the First System was extremely complicated to build (building subways under active els and around PATH is not a cheap endeavor) and went severely over budget, and the Second System would've probably been even more ridiculous and over-budget.

The IND was complex, yes, but ascribing its failure to expand to cost overruns is reductive. Cost overruns were one reason the debt limit was reached quickly, yes, but the main driver I've seen cited is actually fares. The political impossibility of raising the $.05 fare forced the city to heavily subsidize IND operations, which consumed massive amounts of capital (and was, beyond the bankruptcies, a main driver of unification, as the city hoped to reap cost savings from elimination of redundancies). This wouldn't have mattered if they could have raised the debt limit (or had a federal government that was extremely amenable to transit investment) but, well, it did. 

15 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

 That being said, rail could have simultaneously been built out along highways, most notably the Van Wyck and Horace Harding. These types of projects did get federal funding in DC and Chicago. But Robert Moses did not really want rail with his highways, and as the sole person distributing all federal funds to New York, he was basically the blocker for it.

Moses was no fan of transit -- no contest there. But the point I'm trying to make is that ascribing the subway's stunting to him alone ignores a lot of really bad policy decisions made at the time. 

And FWIW, Moses was instrumental in bringing subway service to the Rockaways. Were his motives for doing so good? No, but you also can't ignore the fact he did it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 6:58 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This would be an excellent start. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why there’s no express bus to Manhattan from downtown Flushing. Everyone will say, “Money!” I say, “Bullshit” to that! Because they always manage to find money for other things. It’s a matter of will. When there’s a will, there’s a way. Unfortunately, “will” doesn’t work for the extremely recalcitrant MTA or New York City DOT.

The LIRR already offers premium-fare service to Downtown Flushing and has extra capacity. Also the Chinatown vans do provide some sort of direct bus service to Manhattan.

On 2/15/2019 at 7:01 AM, Union Tpke said:

The Q70 went to MTA Bus.

It was technically done as part of the Q33 split/restructuring so it's not an entirely new route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 3:58 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I can’t, for the life of me, understand why there’s no express bus to Manhattan from downtown Flushing.

There used to be one until 2010. The main problem is that most people in Flushing didn't patronize it.

  • The express bus fare was extremely expensive compared to other options, and even rich Asian people are budget conscious; even today the Chinatown vans are only $3-ish
  • The express bus wasn't fast compared to the LIRR or crazy Chinatown van drivers; van + subway is easily faster than the express bus coming from 34 St
  • With traffic, the express bus could be slower than the <7> 
  • Flushing customers are generally looking for destinations that aren't the 6th Av corridor
  • Extremely poor frequency; weekdays you probably won't wait more than five minutes for a Chinatown van to depart, and on the weekends they leave almost every ten minutes (there is no schedule, but the bus leaves as soon as it's full)
Edited by bobtehpanda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Extremely poor frequency; weekdays you probably won't wait more than five minutes for a Chinatown van to depart, and on the weekends they leave almost every ten minutes (there is no schedule, but the bus leaves as soon as it's full)

Every 12-15 minutes was ok for the AM rush but the PM rush was ridiculous, every 40-60 minutes after 5:06 PM. No one is going to wait that long for a bus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2019 at 1:29 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Some obnoxious person in here noted how the LIRR and the (7) go to the same place - Midtown Manhattan. There are a lot of (7) riders that get off at Times Square and at Grand Central so the idea that it doesn't matter where the LIRR goes is just ignorant, but of course this person likely doesn't use the (7) with any frequency to even see who gets off where.  Penn Station, Grand Central and Times Square are three different locations, and lumping together as if they are the same thing is stupid.

 

I see you didn't have the coglioni to call me obnoxious to my face. I don't think my tone was obnoxious. But the real issue is that you were the one who said you loved how living in Riverdale gave you 3 transit options - and you then said it was great because THEY ALL WENT TO DIFFERENT PLACES -- while in the same breath knocking the LIRR as an option for the 7 because THEY GO TO DIFFERENT PLACES.

 

On the substance, you say a lot of 7 riders get off on the east side. Yes, they do. Do they all then walk to work? Many do. But many also transfer to other lines. And many of them could get to the same destination by taking the LIRR to the west side and transfering to other lines. Financial District destinations are an example. LIRR riders can even get easily to the great complex of office buildings just north of Grand Central -- by transferring to the E. I personally knew many who did that when I worked on Park and 48th. They can also take the N,Q,R,W. And probably arrive at work faster than by using the 7.

 

So, yes, the LIRR can be a perfectly good alternative to the 7 for a lot of riders.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Italianstallion said:

I see you didn't have the coglioni to call me obnoxious to my face. I don't think my tone was obnoxious. But the real issue is that you were the one who said you loved how living in Riverdale gave you 3 transit options - and you then said it was great because THEY ALL WENT TO DIFFERENT PLACES -- while in the same breath knocking the LIRR as an option for the 7 because THEY GO TO DIFFERENT PLACES.

 

On the substance, you say a lot of 7 riders get off on the east side. Yes, they do. Do they all then walk to work? Many do. But many also transfer to other lines. And many of them could get to the same destination by taking the LIRR to the west side and transfering to other lines. Financial District destinations are an example. LIRR riders can even get easily to the great complex of office buildings just north of Grand Central -- by transferring to the E. I personally knew many who did that when I worked on Park and 48th. They can also take the N,Q,R,W. And probably arrive at work faster than by using the 7.

 

So, yes, the LIRR can be a perfectly good alternative to the 7 for a lot of riders.

 

 

We aren’t supposed to break forum rules. There is always a workaround. :D I’m not knocking it at all. I am saying that you are underscoring the fact that the LIRR serves a different part of Midtown. You simplified things by saying that the LIRR and the (7) both go to Midtown. The (7) does not serve Penn Station. The LIRR does. Different catchment area, and yes some people transfer, but you’re talking about different clientele even within that catchment area. I could go on with that but I’ll use Riverdale riders as an example.

It’s like the people that take the BxM1 to 56th and Lex or 50th and Lex. Grand Central is nearby but requires backtracking and that backtracking can eat up the time saved on Metro-North. The Hudson Raillink can be quite fast to the train but you are still waiting to make that transfer unless you live along Palisade with a very short work to the station (I walk to the station as well at times, but it is still about 15-20 minutes walking, so roughly still 40-45 minutes) so in total maybe you spend 40-45 minutes for that part of the commute, but you then lose it with backtracking 10-15 minutes or more depending on the wait, so it becomes a wash and it makes sense to just use the express bus which is one bus and less up and down. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

There used to be one until 2010. The main problem is that most people in Flushing didn't patronize it.

  • The express bus fare was extremely expensive compared to other options, and even rich Asian people are budget conscious; even today the Chinatown vans are only $3-ish
  • The express bus wasn't fast compared to the LIRR or crazy Chinatown van drivers; van + subway is easily faster than the express bus coming from 34 St
  • With traffic, the express bus could be slower than the <7> 
  • Flushing customers are generally looking for destinations that aren't the 6th Av corridor
  • Extremely poor frequency; weekdays you probably won't wait more than five minutes for a Chinatown van to depart, and on the weekends they leave almost every ten minutes (there is no schedule, but the bus leaves as soon as it's full)

Not only that but quite frankly the demographics just didn’t support an express bus. When Flushing was less ethnic the express bus did better. I think in more immigrant neighborhoods, people are less established, and they just think about the train more than anything. The bus also went up Sanford and didn’t make that many stops anyway. An express bus has to hit areas where there is money. I was in Howard Beach yesterday checking service. The QM15 serves probably the most toniest parts of Howard Beach because that’s where the money is. If you are going to charge $13.00 a day you had better go to the areas where people aren’t sweating spending that kind of money or they can spend it more often without worrying as much. The (MTA) definitely studies this, which is why they proposed a cap for some of their LIRR and MNRR riders in the latest fare increases. They want to keep those riders from saying screw this, I can just drive. $500+ for a ticket... Likely cheaper to drive.

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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