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  
vioreen

4 line change in Bronx

Recommended Posts

There has to be changes on the 4 line.  The MTA should restore the rush hour express 4 train in order to alleviate congestion. 

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, vioreen said:

There has to be changes on the 4 line.  The MTA should restore the rush hour express 4 train in order to alleviate congestion. 

This didn't warrant a separate thread.

And no, they shouldn't. Reinstating that peak express crap will have the opposite effect, especially with the ridership at the local stations being as high as it is.

  • Thanks 1
  • Thumbs Up 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was a pilot service and it failed. The only way this would make sense is if you deinterlined 149th, sending the (3) up Dyre and the (5) up Jerome. If that is the case, I would rebuild Bedford Park Boulevard as an express station.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already had a thread recently for this Jerome Avenue express crap. The (4) is scheduled to come approximately twelve to fifteen times an hour during the peak. Once the (4) gets to 125th Street, it starts going express from there anyway. Starting express service from that far north in the Bronx will just result in many of the busiest stations being skipped for no reason.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this user is a foamer they can just take one of the (4)s to Burnside that runs express.

Edited by Union Tpke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real talk, the Jerome line should just be destroyed and rebuilt again. I feel like the (4) and (D) up in the Bronx really needs help. The (4) just makes lots of stops and the (D) is so infrequent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NY1635 said:

Real talk, the Jerome line should just be destroyed and rebuilt again. I feel like the (4) and (D) up in the Bronx really needs help. The (4) just makes lots of stops and the (D) is so infrequent.

What did I just read?

  • LMAO! 6

Share this post


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

We already had a thread recently for this Jerome Avenue express crap. The (4) is scheduled to come approximately twelve to fifteen times an hour during the peak. Once the (4) gets to 125th Street, it starts going express from there anyway. Starting express service from that far north in the Bronx will just result in many of the busiest stations being skipped for no reason.

It's not impossible, it just needs to be worked on. You can do a similar (6)<6> setup by adding a switch at Burnside Avenue.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

What did I just read?

Apologies, it's just that I get the sense that OP lives North of Fordham and they're the only group of Bronx residents I know that want a faster commute into Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

It's not impossible, it just needs to be worked on. You can do a similar (6)<6> setup by adding a switch at Burnside Avenue.

You just won’t give up, huh kid...you said that shit before too...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

You just won’t give up, huh kid...you said that shit before too...

I have an opinion, this is a forum...

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vioreen said:

There has to be changes on the 4 line.  The MTA should restore the rush hour express 4 train in order to alleviate congestion. 

 I don’t know about all of that, but I have tried it from Mosholu Parkway and it is brutal. It takes forever. I don’t consider it a real option, especially compared to the (1). For those of us in Riverdale, we don’t have a real East Side subway. The Bx1 takes a while and the (4) is very slow.  By comparison, I’d rather put up with the numerous transfers necessary from it to reach the East Side or just take an Uber to Metro-North or the shuttle bus, which is much faster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its been established multiple times that the (4) Express peak express is a horrible idea. They did a pilot years ago and it failed, mainly because you're skipping high ridership stations. The (4) is already terrible as is, this is just adding fuel to the fire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, subway4832 said:

Its been established multiple times that the (4) Express peak express is a horrible idea. They did a pilot years ago and it failed, mainly because you're skipping high ridership stations. The (4) is already terrible as is, this is just adding fuel to the fire. 

No it isnt. The express carried people, while it wasnt express to the max, it was still used.

  • LMAO! 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the pilot program for the express <4> line failed, some (4) trains terminate at Burnside Avenue during rush hours and get taken out of service, instead maybe some Manhattan bound (4) trains can originate there trip from Burnside Avenue while, some can originate from Woodlawn. Since stops that are south of Burnside Avenue have a higher ridership than stops north of Burnside Avenue that way it can alleviate train congestion on the (4) line during rush hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

No it isnt. The express carried people, while it wasnt express to the max, it was still used.

Yeah it carried, but wasn't it skipping a bunch of high ridership stops? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, vioreen said:

If the pilot program for the express <4> line failed, some (4) trains terminate at Burnside Avenue during rush hours and get taken out of service, instead maybe some Manhattan bound (4) trains can originate there trip from Burnside Avenue while, some can originate from Woodlawn. Since stops that are south of Burnside Avenue have a higher ridership than stops north of Burnside Avenue that way it can alleviate train congestion on the (4) line during rush hours.

Idk, the (4)'s that originate at Burnside Ave going Manhattan Bound look really empty when they do those midday G.O's. I don't know if it would be worth running express all the way down to 149.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a Skip Stop (4) Train work? Just like the (J). In the Summer, I take the (4) from Fordham Road to 125 to catch the (6). Normally it takes about 20 minutes to get from Fordham to 125. You could make both trains stop at important stops (Kingsbridge, Fordham, 161) and let the other stops alternate between trains. The (MTA) could use the <4> or some other unused designation for the skip stop idea. But I'm just throwing this up in the air, I usually take the (D) to go to The Bronx anyway. But hey, its just an idea...

Edited by Q23 via 108

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Q23 via 108 said:

Can a Skip Stop (4) Train work? Just like the (J). In the Summer, I take the (4) from Fordham Road to 125 to catch the (6). Normally it takes about 20 minutes to get from Fordham to 125. You could make both trains stop at important stops (Kingsbridge, Fordham, 161) and let the other stops alternate between trains. The (MTA) could use the <4> or some other unused designation for the skip stop idea. But I'm just throwing this up in the air, I usually take the (D) to go to The Bronx anyway. But hey, its just an idea...

As it is, the (4) is about as frequent as the (1) was when skip-stop service was discontinued.

Moreover, there's been quite a few people -- myself included -- who have talked about/thought of killing skip-stop entirely because of, among other things, the artificially high wait times that come with it. The closest to it I'd remotely push for is having peak (4) service skip 138th Street via the main tracks so additional (4) trains can run north of 149th Street (and to avoid having southbound trains do the nonsense currently done, which is performed at a snail's pace, to boot).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, subway4832 said:

Idk, the (4)'s that originate at Burnside Ave going Manhattan Bound look really empty when they do those midday G.O's. I don't know if it would be worth running express all the way down to 149.

Not express, but local

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lex said:

The closest to it I'd remotely push for is having peak (4) service skip 138th Street via the main tracks so additional (4) trains can run north of 149th Street (and to avoid having southbound trains do the nonsense currently done, which is performed at a snail's pace, to boot).

(4)s skipping 138 on the middle is really important for junction fluidity at 149. Having (4)s plugged behind (5)s s l o w l y merging in front from the connector tracks in the AM/diverging s l o w l y and potentially getting plugged by (2)s in the PM wouldn't do anything good for Lex capacity. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, RR503 said:

(4)s skipping 138 on the middle is really important for junction fluidity at 149. Having (4)s plugged behind (5)s s l o w l y merging in front from the connector tracks in the AM/diverging s l o w l y and potentially getting plugged by (2)s in the PM wouldn't do anything good for Lex capacity. 

Are there any places in the system where adding a middle track for junction fluidity could help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Union Tpke said:

Are there any places in the system where adding a middle track for junction fluidity could help?

If we could figure out a way to rebuild 135 so that nb (3) trains could hold short of the junction on the spur for a crossing move before proceeding through, that'd be great. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RR503 said:

If we could figure out a way to rebuild 135 so that nb (3) trains could hold short of the junction on the spur for a crossing move before proceeding through, that'd be great. 

 

Could you explain this in more detail? Would trains skip 135th?

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.