|
|
| Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity (451845) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (452008) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:40:22 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:36:45 2007. Hmm, this may be it: LINKCheck out the two linked PDFs. |
|
|
| (452012) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Tue Jun 26 12:07:21 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 26 11:38:17 2007. The E is crowded, but PATHMAN's ascribing that to the new service pattern is utter nonsense.The new service begun in 2001 succeeded in redistributing the passenger loads on the F train as well as improving local service along Queens Blvd. That was the goal of the service plan. Indeed, but even the figures suggest that the (V) is underutilized. It's been suggested here (and I agree with this) that the (V) and (M) lines should be combined as one. Take two underutilized lines and make them one viable line. Retains basic function of current (V) service while introducing direct Midtown/6 Av service for those along the (M) line and B'way Brooklyn. The E is crowded because ridership is up generally, the E serves the heart of Jamaica and is fed by an army of buses, LIRR and AirTrain. Jamaica Center is truly a zoo in the morning. While it is true that some people board the E because it is the express service headed for 53rd/Lex, the answer is not to cancel the service plan; the answer is to improve J service for people headed to Lower Manhattan, and post comparative arrival times at 53rd/Lex for the V. Agreed that the (J) should be improved. My idea: -Upgrade the Jamaica El by rehabilitating structure and installing a center track. This center track would run along the alignment, but rise in the vicinity of Cypress Hills and take the "Jamaica Ave Shortcut", avoiding the slow S-curve into Crescent and connecting to Broadway Junction via the so-called "Alabama Ave Launchpad". -Replace current skip-stop pattern with (J) local and (Z) peak direction express service. Service pattern shall run rush hours and middays (as opposed to one hour in each direction). (J) makes all stops to Broad; (Z) makes all stops to Woodhaven Blvd (or 75 St), then nonstop to Broadway Junction (via aformentioned Jamaica Shortcut), then Myrtle, Marcy, and all stops on Nassau. Each service runs 7 TPH (or 8 Z's and 6 J's) -Combined (M)/(V) service would run as the (M) 6th Ave Local via Chrystie Connector. I see the service running 9 TPH peak, with 6 TPH going to Metropolitan (due to Myrtle's at-grade crossing) and 3 TPH short-turning at LES/2 Ave. Combined with my proposed TPH levels for the (J)/(Z), 20 TPH will cross the Williamsburg Bridge. That shouldn't overburden it IMO. Of course, cash and NIMBY's (especially with regard to the Jamaica Shortcut) will pose a problem. Also, 4th Ave and West End would lose the (M)...perhaps (J)/(Z) or even (W) could be extended there? If anything, at the very LEAST expand the hours of skip-stop operation on the (J)/(Z). |
|
|
| (452014) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 12:18:07 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:40:22 2007. I've confirmed that those are what was handed out to the media. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (452015) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Jun 26 12:19:05 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 11:07:53 2007. Um, and where did you learn this 'fact' about the shells? |
|
|
| (452016) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:20:38 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by Jace on Tue Jun 26 12:19:05 2007. This was posted here a while back, that mis-constructed shells were being scrapped at the Brazil plant where the shells were constructed. |
|
|
| (452017) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:21:18 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:24:17 2007. If Alstom had built them right, then cars would already be in service, as R160Bs have already entered service. |
|
|
| (452018) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:21:18 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:24:17 2007. If Alstom had built them right, then cars would already be in service, as R160Bs have already entered service. |
|
|
| (452019) | |
LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 12:22:03 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. We have had some extensive debate on "SubChat.com" on the New York Times piece on subway congestion. It was very interesting, and some thought about the impact on the Mayor's plans for congestion pricing of automobiles.As the LION sees it, the problem is NOT with the signal system, but with the equipment. Trains are heavier, and now use composite brake shoes, and so the stopping distances are greater than optimum for this signal system. Yet this signal system used to work at a much higher tph capacity. The equipment *should* have been spec'd for the signal system, but even now, improving the braking characteristics of the equipment is much to be preferred over extending the train lengths which would require major capital construction AND construction delays to an already stressed system. The LION, therefore suggests improvements to existing rail equipment. That is the installation of track brakes one each truck. This is a packaged job that can be done in the shops and need not delay on line service. Yes track brakes cause wear to the rails, but the LION would suggest that this system only be tied to the BIE brakes, and not necessarily to the service brakes. Thus trains will be able to run faster and closer together, and still be safely protected by the existing signal system. Now in furtherance of the Mayor's plans for congestion pricing, the LION would suggest larger multi-unit buses on Broadway and on 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Avenues. That Broadway should be converted to a pedestrian only mall (with buses), and that bus routes on the avenues be bi-directional, usurping the parking lanes on both sides of the street. Further these buses should not collect fares in the CBD, this permits faster boarding at all doorways. Let us assume that the passenger will transfer to a subway train and pay the fare there. Or else it is just the city's contribution to more car-free Manhattan. Perhaps this open fare could be subsidized by the the congestion pricing fees. We also read that the east side subways seem to be more crowded than the west, and that their appears to be some spare passenger capacity on the west side IND. That capacity can be tapped by riders from the Bronx being bussed to the 207th and 181st Street stations. Cross Bronx buses on Fordham Road and on Tremont Avenue could very nicely distribute passengers to places where more capacity exists. This free "big-bus" solution could be implemented as soon as the equipment could be obtained, certainly within a year. Of course us rail-fans would extend the Second Avenue subway north along Third Avenue in the Bronx as far as Fordham University, for if this is not done, then nothing is really accomplished to relive crowding that originates in the Bronx. Sincerely, Elias Thienpont aka The Broadway LION Richardton, North Dakota |
|
|
| (452020) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Tue Jun 26 12:36:46 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 08:41:36 2007. the V runs all R46 cars which are 75 feet long. Due to shorter platforms (8 60 foot cars in length) and curves that would cuase two 75s to clip each other, R44s, R46s and R68/R68As are banned on the BMT Eastern div lines (L,J/Z,M) |
|
|
| (452023) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by metropod on Tue Jun 26 12:46:45 2007, in response to LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 12:22:03 2007. A few things about that1.Broadway. Not the MTA's descision. That's DOT territory. 2.Free buses. They won't go with it 1. It will cut into thier revenue, 2. Everyone else will want free servce, with will really hit thier pockets 3. It will jack up the fare for the rest of us in order to cover the lost cash. all in all I would say your plan doesn't work as it sifts the burder to others. |
|
|
| (452027) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 26 13:11:13 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:20:38 2007. Good thing they weren't artillery shells. 8-) |
|
|
| (452029) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 13:13:58 2007, in response to Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by metropod on Tue Jun 26 12:46:45 2007. Yes, Broadway is not an MTA decision, but moving people around is, and it takes coordination.For congestion pricing to work, there needs to be other transportation. That transportation has to come from the MTA. LRVs are nice, but would take 20 years to build. Big buses could manage it, but then you would need better access to the bus. Yes it could be POP, but that is almost really pointless. The point is you need more people on and off the buses more quickly. As I said they really are not free, you just pay for it when you transfer to a train. As for within CBD movements, let the Congestion Pricing pay for it. If other neighborhoods want free buses, let them ban cars. ROAR |
|
|
| (452030) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 13:20:51 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:05:53 2007. Perhaps the R160s should be used to increase the size of the fleet then, rather than retiring entire classes of cars. Just use the really worn-out examples for parts. |
|
|
| (452031) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Tue Jun 26 13:24:38 2007, in response to LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 12:22:03 2007. Of course us rail-fans would extend the Second Avenue subway north along Third Avenue in the Bronx as far as Fordham University The (T) should really be extended on Webster Avenue north of Fordham Road to replace the 200th Street, 204th Street (210th Street station could be left out though to speed up the ride) and Gun Hill Road stations [connection to (2)(5)] that were on the (8) line (this could also get some riders off the IRT who are going to the east side on the (4) and (5)). A new NYBG parking garage will be built on Webster Avenue (near 200th Street), that could be a park and ride for a new Webster Avenue subway (or elevated) station, and also an easier way for those getting to the Botanical Garden (which was there until 1973). If NYBG would go along with this idea, a Bronx Park and ride location would be created along with replacing some stations lost on Webster Avenue. This would also allow for the elimination (or reduction in service) of the Bx55 LIMITED route. Cross Bronx buses on Fordham Road and on Tremont Avenue could very nicely distribute passengers to places where more capacity exists Longer bus rides to wait longer for the IND, the CPW express had better be a lot faster to warrant all that wasted time going crosstown. The (4) is more frequent than the (A) and you are not going to convince a lot of people who live by the (4) to bus over to the (A). The East Bronx will continue to use the IRT, so the crowding will not really go away. (6) and <6> riders will continue to board the (4) and (5). The (A) also does nothing for those needing to go to the east side in midtown. |
|
|
| (452034) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Tue Jun 26 13:43:34 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 26 11:38:17 2007. Of course. Anyone that disagrees with the great Ron Aryel must be a moron...The 2001 service change shifted the crowds from the F to the E. Riders that used to take the F to Manhattan now switch at Union Turnpike for the E since the F no longer goes to 53rd. Add that to the ridership the E already has and that explains why the E is at maximum capacity. |
|
|
| (452036) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Tue Jun 26 13:47:25 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:23:45 2007. I've taken the 5 to the last stop. Dyre Avenue is a ghost town. The 5 is actually underutilized at that point. The 5 gets its crowd from 2 riders heading to the east side and 6 riders wanting express service. Many people also board at 86st. The 5 has many standees but its crowding is not as severe as the 2 or 4 lines. |
|
|
| (452037) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 13:50:17 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by PATHman on Tue Jun 26 13:47:25 2007. Dyre Ave isn't in the UES. As I said, the (5) is crowded all the way down from the UES. You wrote that it was only crowded from Bowling Green to Grand Central. |
|
|
| (452038) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 13:50:38 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by PATHman on Tue Jun 26 10:59:39 2007. I'm slightly surprised that the (N) gets more than the (Q). |
|
|
| (452042) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 13:56:20 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by metropod on Tue Jun 26 12:36:46 2007. the V runs all R46 cars which are 75 feet long. Due to shorter platforms (8 60 foot cars in length) and curves that would cuase two 75s to clip each other, R44s, R46s and R68/R68As are banned on the BMT Eastern div lines (L,J/Z,M)I know that. What you do is to transfer the 8-car R46 trains to lines that are currently running 10-car R32/38/40/42 trains. Those trains can then be reformed into 8-car trains, which can go to the (V) and the (L). |
|
|
| (452043) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Kid Twist on Tue Jun 26 13:56:40 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 13:50:38 2007. My guess is that the Astoria run causes that, not the Sea Beach. |
|
|
| (452044) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Pelham R62A on Tue Jun 26 13:57:37 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by PATHman on Tue Jun 26 13:47:25 2007. It depends on what time of day you go to Dyre Avenue. Yes, it is mostly commercial but Dyre and Baychester Avenues are big stations during the rush.Baychester Ave is primarily used by high school students in the area along with area residents. Dyre Avenue is also important as it has connections with Bee Line bus service to Portchester (these get off at Baychester primarily), New Rochelle and Mount Vernon. Now, it's not as crowded as other terminals but you can't say its not important because if it wasn't, the northern terminal of the 5 could be easily moved south to Baychester Ave, using the Dyre Avenue area for switching purposes. |
|
|
| (452046) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 14:01:27 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Kid Twist on Tue Jun 26 13:56:40 2007. My guess is that the Astoria run causes that, not the Sea Beach.I thought that, but: 1) It's an average. 2) The (W) is no more crowded than the (N). Therefore, the Sea Beach is doing a little better than we thought. |
|
|
| (452049) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by Jace on Tue Jun 26 14:13:38 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:20:38 2007. You might want to check your sources for more accurate information or provide back up for your claim. |
|
|
| (452053) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 14:19:49 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 11:23:45 2007. Based on my conversation with a reporter who I believe attended the session where these materials were handed out, the capacity figures appear to be describing the peak loading point of the line over the entire AM peak hour. |
|
|
| (452056) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Pelham R62A on Tue Jun 26 14:24:02 2007, in response to LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 12:22:03 2007. Running a Third Avenue line would become as useful as the Concourse line. Besides rush hours, it would be empty for always so why waste money like that. Other times stations are empty and usage isn't that popular along the route.If you look at Third Avenue, as it goes north of 161st up to Fordham Road, it is unterutilized. And at nights, I would not want to be getting off in one of those areas either. As it is today, Bx15 and Bx55 are adequate for that corridor. What about running the T through the South Bronx completely? The whole reason why (6) riders take the (4) (5) is because there is nothing available to them south of the (6) line except buses. A new line in the South Bronx will not only alleviate the (6) line during rush hours but provide (6) riders with an option to the East or West Side - something that White Plains and Grand Concourse riders have already. |
|
|
| (452079) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by error46146 on Tue Jun 26 15:07:39 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. Not suprised. |
|
|
| (452080) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by David Fairthorne on Tue Jun 26 15:08:28 2007, in response to LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 12:22:03 2007. The LION, therefore suggests improvements to existing rail equipment. That is the installation of track brakes one each truck. This is a packaged job that can be done in the shops and need not delay on line service. Yes track brakes cause wear to the rails, but the LION would suggest that this system only be tied to the BIE brakes, and not necessarily to the service brakes. Thus trains will be able to run faster and closer together, and still be safely protected by the existing signal system.I don't know much about braking systems, but I do know that braking distances are a big factor in determining headways. Installing track brakes sounds like an easy and effective way to increase the capacity of the more crowded subways. |
|
|
| (452090) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by GIS Man on Tue Jun 26 15:16:05 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. This is NEWS by them? It has an impact similar to that of "40-year study reveals that professional wrestling is fixed"LOL Bob |
|
|
| (452093) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Tue Jun 26 15:20:10 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 11:13:07 2007. Might be a good idea to extend the SAS northbound into the Bronx, then. Is the former 3rd Ave el alignment an option?Any ideas for relieving the E? |
|
|
| (452097) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Alargule on Tue Jun 26 15:25:08 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 11:15:39 2007. Might this be an option for better braking performance? Or maybe NY should divert its attention to Italy, where the only real brakes in the world are made:  ;-) |
|
|
| (452114) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jun 26 15:53:15 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Clayton on Tue Jun 26 07:14:26 2007. If they hold off on congestion pricing until the transit system is more than adaquate for the job of handling the folks who suddenly find driving too pricey it will never be implemented. I'd be interested to see just how far beyond capacity the streets in Manhattan are during peak hours. At the very least the implementation of a congestion pricing system could lead to a public outcry to push neccesary transit improvements through the bureaucratic red tape currently holding them back. As it stands right now the commuters can bitch and moan all they want but there's no real push on the politicos to get anything done. I'm inclined to believe that there will be a tipping point at which the number of passengers and the crowding that they experience will combine to create just that push. I hold no illusions as to the ability of the congestion charge to actually fund any of the neccesary improvements, but rather it can act as a key to get the funding to get them built.This of course unless it turns out that NYers are like every other American and will drive no matter the cost. We keep predicting higher and higher costs for fuel that will cause people to give up their cars en masse only to be baffled when they keep driving. Now some of that is due to the fact that most cities don't have any sort of alternative transportation, but some folks truely seem unwilling to abandon their SUVs. If that turns out to be the case then the congestion charge could turn out to be a failure in terms of keeping traffic down, but could turn into a magical money tree from which any sort of project can be funded. In either case what funding results needs to be redirected back into NYC's tranportation needs, something I'm not sure the current legislation would enable. |
|
|
| (452117) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Tue Jun 26 16:07:37 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 08:52:54 2007. completely new trunk for Queens that would branch off Second Avenue.Pardon? How would that work? A new tunnel under the East River or somehow joining the 63rd St tunnel then avoiding the connector with the Queens Blvd lines? Where would it serve in Queens? Why not find a way to connect the SAS to what might be called the South 4th St subway, then extend that beyond the V's southern terminus into Queens? |
|
|
| (452122) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Tue Jun 26 16:21:18 2007, in response to Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Pelham R62A on Tue Jun 26 14:24:02 2007. Running a Third Avenue line would become as useful as the Concourse line. Besides rush hours, it would be empty for always so why waste money like that. Other times stations are empty and usage isn't that popular along the route.Eeeehhh wrong answer. The Concourse Line is not empty off peak (it even has standees especially middays), and many people use crosstown buses to get to the (4) train (adding to Jerome/Lexington crowding). The Concourse Line's ridership is growing. If you look at Third Avenue, as it goes north of 161st up to Fordham Road, it is unterutilized. And at nights, I would not want to be getting off in one of those areas either. As it is today, Bx15 and Bx55 are adequate for that corridor. Projects at Claremont Parkway serve many people. St Barnabas Hospital is also there. You don't expect a street which lost rail service to be fully utilized do you? As if everyone is thrilled for 30+ minute rides on 3 Av just to get to 149 St. Although 3 Av is on the rise again. Also what about Fordham Plaza, unless you want to see how many more additional people the Bx12 can carry. A major area Fordham Plaza, not even served by a subway, they nearest subway is at least 6 blocks away. The Bx15 and Bx21 have rising ridership numbers the past few years. 3 Av Subway will draw more than just people on 3 Av, Bx41 and Bx41 LIMITED riders will also use the subway, it could even help increase development in some areas. |
|
|
| (452126) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jun 26 16:28:39 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. bring back the REDBIRDS !!!rofl uh huh !! should kept the ones in good condition eh ? rofl |
|
|
| (452144) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Pelham R62A on Tue Jun 26 16:55:39 2007, in response to Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Tue Jun 26 16:21:18 2007. Projects at Claremont Parkway serve many people. St Barnabas Hospital is also there. You don't expect a street which lost rail service to be fully utilized do you? As if everyone is thrilled for 30+ minute rides on 3 Av just to get to 149 St. Although 3 Av is on the rise again.I used to work along the Cross Bronx Expressway around Third Avenue. Past 11 PM, there is no one outside no matter what day of the week it is. The Bx15 has about 20 people on the bus (none whom get off in the area as most of them get off by East Tremont and walk or take the Bx40 (Bx42 doesn't run nights past 12-1 AM) crosstown. The area where you are talking about is full of residental development yes but if they have the Bx15 running farily empty at 60 minute headways then there is no need for service. Third Avenue is residential, I agree but most of the development is taking place by 161st Street (served by the Bx6 and Bx21, which run overnight as well with the Bx21 running at slightly smaller headways of 50 mins). North of 161St is residential but desolate. Subway service there doesn't make sense. Also what about Fordham Plaza, unless you want to see how many more additional people the Bx12 can carry. A major area Fordham Plaza, not even served by a subway, they nearest subway is at least 6 blocks away. The Bx15 and Bx21 have rising ridership numbers the past few years. 3 Av Subway will draw more than just people on 3 Av, Bx41 and Bx41 LIMITED riders will also use the subway, it could even help increase development in some areas. As for Fordham, I understand what you are saying but overnight, there is no problem what so ever with that area. For the area you are talking about, I do understand but you have a service which serves it - MNRR. And since people aren't using these stations, only limited service is provided to them. Why build a subway when you have a line committed to that area already? What about the South Bronx? East of the Bronx River, only (6) service is provided to commuters. Their only option is to take a bus to catch a subway, which also adds 30 minutes to their commute. And unlike Third Avenue, there is no railroad making stops in that area. Let's give service to an area that really needs it. |
|
|
| (452166) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Jun 26 17:40:00 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by WillD on Tue Jun 26 15:53:15 2007. I hold no illusions as to the ability of the congestion charge to actually fund any of the neccesary improvements, but rather it can act as a key to get the funding to get them built.Actually, the reverse is true. Anytime, the transit system has shown some sign of getting its own income stream, it has been taken as a sign by government to reduce its spending or other governments have tapped the pipeline. NYC reduced its capital contribution under Guiliani, when the TA unexpectedly generated cash-on-cash surpluses. The state's capital contribution dropped, when they discovered that the MTA could float its own bonds guaranteed by the farebox. The increase of tolls on the TBTA facilities was supposed to provide a sustainable stream to augment subway farebox receipts. That surplus is now shared 50-50 with the commuter railroads. A similar story is already under way with congestion pricing. The NYS Senate Republicans see congestion as a way to free the state from spending hundreds of millions of dollars for mass transit. The county executives from the suburban counties are looking at NYC's congestion pricing program to fund their own mass transit initiatives. They have indicated this as their reason for their support of Bloomberg's program. |
|
|
| (452167) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 17:42:42 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jun 26 16:28:39 2007. I agree with you, Salaam. But really, the 2nd/3rd Av Els should never have been demolished. |
|
|
| (452171) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by 600VDC on Tue Jun 26 17:59:16 2007, in response to Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Hoghead on Tue Jun 26 00:49:01 2007. Generally speaking, it looks like IRT riders are pretty much out of luck in getting any relief....short of completion of the 2nd Avenue line on the east side or installation of CBTC.I wonder how much train per hour capacity would be added if CBTC were installed on IRT lines? In so far as added service on lines where it's needed, it would seem that the IRT would be the next logical hoice after the L. |
|
|
| (452177) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by mambomta on Tue Jun 26 18:16:49 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by PATHman on Tue Jun 26 13:43:34 2007. Of course. Anyone that disagrees with the great Ron Aryel must be a moron...He didn't call you a moron. He just finds that your opinion is not based on fact but on your selfishness. The 2001 service change shifted the crowds from the F to the E. Riders that used to take the F to Manhattan now switch at Union Turnpike for the E since the F no longer goes to 53rd. Add that to the ridership the E already has and that explains why the E is at maximum capacity. The E is at maximum capacity because the V removed some riders off of both the E & F. Before the V, both the E and F were above maximum capacity. Just because the new pattern does not benefit you does not mean it doesn't benefit others. Of course your myopia prevents you from seeing this. |
|
|
| (452186) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 18:26:31 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by WillD on Tue Jun 26 16:07:37 2007. LION would build a new tunnel at 72nd Street: It would connect to NORTHERN BLVD and run all the way to the county lion.But this has NOTHING to do with the 2nd Avenue Subway, for it is part of the Myrtle-Fifth Avenue Subway. ROAR |
|
|
| (452188) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Tue Jun 26 18:27:02 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by RonInBayside on Tue Jun 26 11:23:16 2007. "Read the article! It says 27 tph, not 21." I did read the article. However according to the MTA in the SAS FEIS, the 4/5 runs 25tph, and 6 runs 21tph. |
|
|
| (452198) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Tue Jun 26 18:32:59 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 11:13:07 2007. Although I haven't used that section of the line during morning rush in a while, between 96th St. and Times Sq., the downtown 1 was usually more crowded than the downtown 2. Some got off and got on at Times Sq. and it was at Penn Station that the downtown 2 and 3 become really crowded. |
|
|
| (452200) | |
Moreiran Logic (Was: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity]) |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Jun 26 18:36:22 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:21:18 2007. So alstom must have built them right then... |
|
|
| (452206) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Tue Jun 26 18:43:36 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Jun 26 17:42:42 2007. okthats what haqppened !! is this where the #8 used to run if i may ask please ? thankz |
|
|
| (452210) | |
Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by TheGreatOne2k7 on Tue Jun 26 18:58:56 2007, in response to Re: LION sends note to MTA: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Pelham R62A on Tue Jun 26 16:55:39 2007. People do use MNRR at Fordham, to commute to White Plains and Stamford. Fordham is actually the 4th highest MNRR station in total usage.There is a reason why many people don't use MNRR to go to Manhattan, high fares, especially peak fares. They discourage usage outside of reverse commuting (with the exceptions of Riverdale and Spuyten Duyvil). Tremont and Melrose barely have service as it is, for a while many people didn't even know that an MNR station was there. Also MNR is a double fare unless you live within walking distance of the station. It is not economically feasible to use MNRR to commute to/from Manhattan for many people with high peak fares. That is why many people go to the (4) train or take one of the buses to 3 Av-149 St. Would you use MNR and pay even extra money for a service that doesn't even go all they way downtown (going below 42 St is also a double fare for those that live by MNR). Why should late night ridership be a big factor used to decide whether a subway should be built or not? Late night headways also discourage people from travelling late nights. 20 minute headways and nearly all local service doesn't encourage everyone to stay out late. If daytime ridership (rush hours middays, weekends and evenings) is good enough it can justify a subway. A new 3 Av subway likely wouldn't even have a 174 St station anyway so that area wouldn't even be an issue. Tremont Avenue (177th Street) would however be one of the stations. 180 Street could be a station as well (Bx36 24/7 bus). Bx15 runs 20 minutes late nights, NOT 60 minutes on 3 Av. Reverse commuters and other MNR riders looking to save money (like those at Marble Hill) would transfer from rail to/from subway. People in Harlem could use the SAS to get MNR at Fordham. Like how some people go to Marble Hill to get MNR (Marble Hill is also an "express" stop as well). Not everyone who would use this subway is only going to be commuting to/from 3 Av, those who also use Bx41, Bx41 LIMITED and the crosstown buses could also use the 3 Av subway as well, so Bx15, Bx21, and Bx55 ridership doesn't tell the whole story. Also more people would likely use a subway late night than wait on a corner for a bus. |
|
|
| (452221) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by R68A - 5200 on Tue Jun 26 19:19:32 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Jun 26 11:10:44 2007. You also forgot that older trains like the R1 had 1.75 mph/s/s acceletation while the current equipment has 2.5 mph/s/s acceleration. Ready to go back to that too? |
|
|
| (452222) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by R68A - 5200 on Tue Jun 26 19:20:20 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by R68A - 5200 on Tue Jun 26 19:19:32 2007. Whoops, the units were supposed to be mph/s |
|
|
| (452251) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by shadyelstation on Tue Jun 26 20:08:33 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by WillD on Tue Jun 26 16:07:37 2007. Pardon? How would that work? A new tunnel under the East River or somehow joining the 63rd St tunnel then avoiding the connector with the Queens Blvd lines?The SAS FEIS mentions construction of non-revenue connections to Queens using parts of the 63 St Connector. If such a line would run in revenue it would probably be via Queens Blvd (which could pose a problem due to capacity issues already present on Queens Blvd). Why not find a way to connect the SAS to what might be called the South 4th St subway Would this South 4th Street subway connect to, say, a Utica Avenue Subway (to Kings Plaza)? An idea I have for such a line is to have a branch of SAS turn south of 14 St, onto Houston St, going to South 4 and eventually running under Utica to Kings Plaza. |
|
|
| (452277) | |
Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Tue Jun 26 20:39:10 2007, in response to Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity, posted by 600VDC on Tue Jun 26 17:59:16 2007. I believe the 7 and F are next after the L. The logical choice is not necessarily which line could benefit the most, but rather which line would make for the next least complicated installation and implementation. |
|
|
| (452294) | |
Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity] |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Jun 26 21:01:49 2007, in response to Re: Capacity of the (L) [Was: Re: Some Subways Found Packed Past Capacity], posted by AMoreira81 on Tue Jun 26 12:21:18 2007. If Alstom had built them right, Al D'Amato wouldn't have gotten paid. Those are his boys ... :( |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
