MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting

MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (1133001)	Home · Maps · About

Home > SubChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >

(1133001)	view threaded
MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jan 18 21:33:43 2012 edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Van Bramer held a town hall meeting with the MTA at Sunnyside Community Services on January 11. The No. 7 line will be shut down between Queensboro Plaza and Times Square for 11 consecutive weekends, beginning Saturday, January 21 and ending early Monday morning, April 2. For the same period of time, the 45th Road/Court Square station on the No. 7 line will be shut down completely and bypassed every day, although the connected Court Square station below it will remain open. Further weekend shutdowns in the fall are also on schedule. At a town hall meeting on January 11 held at Sunnyside Community Services, a panel from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority discussed the coming shutdown and the problems of maintaining and repairing a branch of the system some 95 years old, problems that have been the MTA’s stated reason for these wintertime shutdowns for the past several years. Past shutdowns have given rise to annual complaints and led to a town hall meeting conducted by Councilmember Jimmy Van Bramer last year. Even so, the shutdown is more severe than ever this year and brought about another town hall meeting, again led by Van Bramer. At this latest meeting, the MTA panel articulated its plans and provided illustrations of both the problems and projected solutions. In turn, the town hall audience was given the opportunity for inquiries and commentary and showed both understanding of what the MTA faces and impatience that, for all the efforts, each year seems to leave the No. 7 line in further disrepair. The first MTA panel speaker was Lois Tendler, MTA vice president of government and community relations, who introduced a PowerPoint demonstration that was referred to for the rest of the meeting. Demetrius Chrichlow, assistant chief officer of the No. 7 line, used it to show what the MTA must endure. There are nearly 600 trains traveling on the line every workday, carrying 425,000 riders. On Saturdays and Sundays, the number of train trips is reduced to about 440. The No. 7 line is and always has been a 24-hour operation, so normally repairs and cleaning occur in the hours when the schedule is slower. Of necessity, periods of down time have had to be introduced, and those periods have been on the increase. So far as repair and cleaning are concerned, the most difficult section of the line, which in its entirety runs from Main Street in Flushing to Times Square in Manhattan, lies between Queensboro Plaza and Times Square. Between Willets Point and Queensboro Plaza there are three tracks, one of them for express service that alternates in each direction. But after Queensboro Plaza the express track disappears, narrowing the available space for repair work. The consequent difficulty becomes acute in the tunnel that runs from Hunters Point to the Times Square terminus. Known as the Steinway Tube, it was excavated between 1892 and 1907 to provide trolley car service. When the Flushing Line was being built during the World War I era, the Steinway Tube was converted to subway train service. The tunnel was necessarily accepted as a finished product that could not be enlarged. The greater amount of room needed for subway cars and third rails meant that maintenance workers had to adjust to less room in which to operate, making normally difficult repair work even more so. The MTA contends that limited and makeshift repairs have led to a critical mass of wear and damage. A dip in service last March compelled a project of scraping and digging out immensities of sludge in the roadbeds to take away what had become an impediment to the electrical system. According to the MTA’s Joseph Leader, who is in charge of maintenance of way, 22 track circuits had been damaged, six critically. All have been repaired. Leader said that the obsolete signal system, often a cause of delay, is undergoing longrange rehabilitation that will produce a complete modernization by 2016. During the 11-weekend shutdown, repairs to the Vernon-Jackson and Hunters Point stations, generally agreed to be quite run down, will be made, and there will be further work to rehabilitate the so-called Davis Street Curve on the tracks between the 45th Road/Court Square and Hunters Point stations. A woman whose station is a local one between two express stations, 61st Street/Woodside and Queensboro Plaza was the first to speak from the audience. She said she is tired of watching several express trains pass each morning as she waits for the local amidst a gathering crowd of similarly frustrated commuters. Chrichlow replied that better coordination between express and local trains should be possible with full implementation of communication based train control (CBTC), radio contact between trains, at a far superior level than the present situation. Other MTA officials at the meeting concurred. Most of the audience members wanted to discuss the shutdown that is about to begin. During each shutdown, the MTA offers free shuttle bus service between Queensboro Plaza and the three closed Queens stations, allowing isolated No. 7 riders to get to Queensboro Plaza, where they can pick up Astoria line service to and from Manhattan. Not good enough, said Angus Grieve-Smith, a Woodside resident, who noted that the MTA owns the Queens-Midtown Tunnel, so why couldn’t it simply run buses at intervals through the tunnel to designated spots in Manhattan? Service could even be paid for with Metrocards. MTA Chief of Operational Planning Peter Cafiero replied that, bottom line, it would be an insupportable additional expense. Van Bramer immediately called that nonsense, saying he could pay for such a bus with money from his own City Council fund. Several speakers later, a woman came back to the bus-and-tunnel theme, warning the officials that lack of emergency bus service in Hunters Point could move local residents to buy automobiles. Brent O’Leary said the Hunters Point and Vernon-Jackson stations were so far from Queens Plaza it would be much more practical to base a bus near the QMT entrance that isolated local residents could use for direct service. He repeated that Van Bramer had said he could pay for it, so why shouldn’t it be in operation? But Cafiero would not budge. Brody Enoch, head of the Rider Rebellion group, said that the MTA and communities “should not be in an adversarial position”. Enoch saw hope even as he was critical. Van Bramer tried again the following day to persuade the MTA to establish bus service through the QMT during the shutdown. He again emphasized that he could pay for it, and again was rebuffed. --- http://www.qgazette.com/news/2012-01-18/Features/MTA_Officials_Face_7_Line_Riders_At_Town_Hall_Meet.html
Post a New Response

(1133003)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by PATHman* on Wed Jan 18 21:37:12 2012, in response to MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jan 18 21:33:43 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Why are people bitching about a simple across-the-platform transfer to the N train or a 10 minute ride on a shuttle bus? This isn't the worse GO in the world. When the MTA shuts down A services to the Rockaways, those people are justified in complaining.
Post a New Response

(1133006)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster)
Posted by Gold_12TH* on Wed Jan 18 22:08:26 2012, in response to MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jan 18 21:33:43 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d
Post a New Response

(Sponsored)

iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It

(1133016)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Henry R32 #3730* on Wed Jan 18 23:16:06 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by PATHman on Wed Jan 18 21:37:12 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I agree yet disagree. There actually is a legitimate complaint about this G.O., but no one has made it: The #7 frequency has to drop to every 10 minutes to turn at Queens Plaza. On Saturdays, normal is 4-6 minutes, and on Sundays it is 6-8 minutes. This is where the problem is. Every 7 leaving QBP is crush loaded... and returns to crush loaded status at Roosevelt Av. Same with 3/4 of the train leaving Main St. If you think that the line should be able to handle dropping the schedule from 12TPH to 6TPH, keep in mind that no other line has 12TPH on the weekend, not even the L or 6. The 12TPH schedule was deemed necessary enough to survive the budget cuts that set almost all B division lines to 6TPH, the 1 & 6 to 7.5TPH, and the remainder of the IRT to 5TPH. Not sure if there is anything that can be done about it, other than using both levels at Queensboro to turn the trains. Maybe the solution could be a LIRR shuttle? This G.O. sucks donkey balls, but not because of the transfer or the bus.
Post a New Response

(1133021)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster)
Posted by Italianstallion on Wed Jan 18 23:48:31 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster), posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jan 18 22:08:26 2012. edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d "transfer between the 7 and the E at Court Sq." ??????
Post a New Response

(1133027)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Dyre Dan* on Thu Jan 19 00:01:19 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 18 23:16:06 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d An excellent point that I wasn't aware of, and that has not been given any publicity by the MTA. Would it be possible to increase the number of tph by using both levels at QBP? If so, they certainly should do so. As for the people at Queens stops west of QBP, the shuttle buses don't seem that bad, but if this councilman is able to get funding for running buses to Manhattan, why should the MTA turn it down?
Post a New Response

(1133032)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Edwards!* on Thu Jan 19 01:17:40 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jan 19 00:01:19 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d More of the ol" Do what I say,Not what I do" MTA Style.. Doesnt matter if he had the cash or not..they were told THIS IS THE PLAN..AND THIS IS WHAT WE ARE STICKING TO..DONT LIKE IT..DRIVE.
Post a New Response

(1133033)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster)
Posted by G1Ravage on Thu Jan 19 01:33:56 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster), posted by Italianstallion on Wed Jan 18 23:48:31 2012. edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I suppose they meant to say to take the free shuttle bus from Queensboro Plaza to Court Square for the (E) downstairs.
Post a New Response

(1133035)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster)
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Jan 19 01:37:56 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster), posted by G1Ravage on Thu Jan 19 01:33:56 2012. edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d If that's what they mean, they should just let people walk downstairs to the E at Queens Plaza.
Post a New Response

(1133043)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by (4) Lexington Av Exp* on Thu Jan 19 02:48:18 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by PATHman on Wed Jan 18 21:37:12 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I'd complain too if my line was shut down for the weekends in February and March... year, after year, after year... 2012 2011* 2010 2009 2008 2007. *:2011 was unplanned. Other G.O's outside of January-March window not included.
Post a New Response

(1133044)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by G1Ravage* on Thu Jan 19 03:00:38 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by (4) Lexington Av Exp on Thu Jan 19 02:48:18 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d They do the bulk of it before the Mets season starts up again.
Post a New Response

(1133046)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster)
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 19 03:07:55 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster), posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Jan 19 01:37:56 2012. edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Except you also have the (G) at Court Square.
Post a New Response

(1133054)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Train2104* on Thu Jan 19 06:58:56 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 18 23:16:06 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Both the L and 7 have 5-6 minute headways on Saturday as per the public schedules.
Post a New Response

(1133068)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by merrick1* on Thu Jan 19 07:49:49 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 18 23:16:06 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d An LIRR shuttle would be a good idea It should run all the way from Port Washington and charge a Metro Card fare. It would siphon off people who transfer from buses in eastern Queens and western Nassau as well as those traveling from Flushing and Woodside.
Post a New Response

(1133076)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Lou from Brooklyn* on Thu Jan 19 08:28:06 2012, in response to MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jan 18 21:33:43 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Poor old 7 line, how about my Bustitution from Prospect Park to Atlantic Ave every weekend to the end of March? Will they finally fix the holes in the Court Square Platform?
Post a New Response

(1133084)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Henry R32 #3730* on Thu Jan 19 08:53:21 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Train2104 on Thu Jan 19 06:58:56 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d True. I hadn't noticed due to the L's 12TPH section being only the PM, versus both rush periods for the 7.
Post a New Response

(1133085)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster)
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Thu Jan 19 08:54:17 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting (big poster), posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 19 03:07:55 2012. edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Well yes, but we were talking about the E.
Post a New Response

(1133086)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Dyre Dan* on Thu Jan 19 08:59:25 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by merrick1 on Thu Jan 19 07:49:49 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I don't think LIRR is equipped to take Metrocards, and anyway, why should people in Port Washington get a subway-fare ride to the city just because of work on the subway in Queens? In the past, when there was work that shut down the 7 between Woodside and Flushing, they have run FREE LIRR shuttles between NYP and Flushing, stopping at Woodside. If they can't increase the 7 frequency between QBP and Flushing to what it needs to be to handle the crowds, then maybe they should do that again. (If they can, then making people transfer to the N or Q at QBP should not be a problem.)
Post a New Response

(1133087)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Stephen Bauman* on Thu Jan 19 09:05:20 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Lou from Brooklyn on Thu Jan 19 08:28:06 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Will they finally fix the holes in the Court Square Platform? Yes. No service at Court Square (elevated station) in both directions 24/7 between Jan 23rd and April 2nd. What's interesting is that all the platforms between 52nd and Junction were originally wooden. The platforms were replaced about every two years with no service interruption. The Court Square platform was also originally wooden. It was replaced by concrete platforms circa late 1950's early 1960's. They did this without any service interruption.
Post a New Response

(1133108)	view threaded
Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by PATHman* on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012, in response to MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Gold_12TH on Wed Jan 18 21:33:43 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d This is an idea I thought of. It seems like the Astoria line is overserved (especially outside of rush hour). On the other hand, the Steinway Tubes were not designed for the level of service it current has. With that in mind, is it possible to run a 7 "shuttle" train from Astoria to Times Square while running the N from Coney Island to Flushing (local) and the Q would be extended to Flushing as a peak express? I realize there are issues with the width of B Division rolling stock, but I'm hoping that this idea would merely require a few staton modifications.
Post a New Response

(1133110)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by italianstallion* on Thu Jan 19 11:33:51 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d A few? Every 7 station platform would have to be shaved back, and every Astoria line station platform would have to be extended. It could probably be done, though. One problem is that N/Q service headways are probably not sufficient to handle current 7-line capacity. And what happens once the 7 is extended past TSQ?
Post a New Response

(1133114)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Railman718* on Thu Jan 19 11:42:26 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Not sure those R160s will fit in those tubes. Unless you Are talking new cars. Let's not forget The Seven line isn't in the B Div factor in personnel costs with the training...
Post a New Response

(1133115)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Stephen Bauman* on Thu Jan 19 12:11:13 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I realize there are issues with the width of B Division rolling stock, but I'm hoping that this idea would merely require a few staton modifications. Which yard will you use to store trains on the Astoria-Times Square Line, when they are not in use?
Post a New Response

(1133116)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by via Pelham* on Thu Jan 19 12:14:32 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I think that there would be some capacity issues on the BMT Broadway Line. I could be wrong...
Post a New Response

(1133120)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Thu Jan 19 12:23:20 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d No. The N and Q run at 10 TPH during rush hours, meaning no more than 20 TPH could be run to Flushing, a net service cut. There's absolutely no advantage to swapping the lines, and plenty of downside.
Post a New Response

(1133121)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Chris R16/R2730* on Thu Jan 19 12:27:10 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 19 12:11:13 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Secaucus.
Post a New Response

(1133128)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Avid Reader* on Thu Jan 19 12:35:03 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu Jan 19 12:23:20 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d What is the capacity difference between an 11-car R62 and a 10-car R160 ? Loading 40 doors vs 33 doors. Seating, standing Capacities?
Post a New Response

(1133155)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by FYBklyn1959* on Thu Jan 19 13:43:58 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 19 11:42:26 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d I think (and I could be mistaken) PATHman's proposal would still have the N/Q use 60th St from Manhattan, and the 7 would still use Steinway, then they would switch after QBP. So, no tunnel issues, but (almost as bad) switching issues. The northbound switches are in place already (though it would probably lead to delays, especially in the rush hour). Southbound, switches would have to be installed. Probably not worth the trouble.
Post a New Response

(1133157)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Dyre Dan* on Thu Jan 19 13:47:45 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Aside from the issue of car width, the trains would cross each others' paths. And only the upper (outbound) level even has switches between the Flushing and Astoria lines.
Post a New Response

(1133159)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Railman718* on Thu Jan 19 13:48:20 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by FYBklyn1959 on Thu Jan 19 13:43:58 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Yeah my bad on that not a good idea though too many things have to be put in motion thats money the Emm-Tee-yaa claims they dont have...
Post a New Response

(1133163)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by LRG5784* on Thu Jan 19 13:57:58 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Avid Reader on Thu Jan 19 12:35:03 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The R62As have 40-44 seats per car, which equals between 440-484 seats per train. The R160s have also 40-44 seats per car, but that equals 400 - 440 seats per train, so as big as the R160 cars are to hold more standees, they seat less.
Post a New Response

(1133172)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by randyo* on Thu Jan 19 14:14:51 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by LRG5784 on Thu Jan 19 13:57:58 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d However, on paper, IRT sized cars are considered to be "40 seaters" while 60 Ft cars are considered to be "50 seaters." That's how the traffic checkers in the schedule dept used to determine required service levels.
Post a New Response

(1133173)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by N6 Limited* on Thu Jan 19 14:18:41 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by randyo on Thu Jan 19 14:14:51 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d What are the logistics of traffic checking on the Subway?
Post a New Response

(1133174)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by randyo* on Thu Jan 19 14:20:01 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jan 19 09:05:20 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Even more amazing than that is that the original 2 track spiderlike Fulton St el structure between Nostrand Av and Bway Jct was rebuilt to a 3 track dual contract structure without any disruption to Fulton St el service.
Post a New Response

(1133176)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Broadway Lion* on Thu Jan 19 14:42:23 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The LION has thought of this. The (7) is tied to the Steinway Tunnel, but from there there are options. The LION would run the (R) via 60th Street to Main Street and the (7) on a new track following LIE and then branching out via Montauk and Rockaway to the Airport and the Rockaways. Rather very few stops, it is supposed to be an Airport service. PROBLEMS: 1) (R) [nor any B div train] has the capacity to serve the Flushing. 2) 60th Street tunnel will need to serve Astoria and Main Street, it may not have the capacity on Broadway (the LOCAL) for all of these trains. ROAR
Post a New Response

(1133186)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Fisk ave Jim* on Thu Jan 19 15:39:11 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Heres what we do, build a flyover track just west of Rawson St to run over Sunnyside yard to connect #7 trains with the tunnel portal of the LIRR adjacent to Hunterspoint Ave. to run to a dedicated track/platform in Penn Sta. 7 trains could run with LIRR trains there a/c the overriding 3d rail shoe. Signal issues could be resolved. Problem solved!!!
Post a New Response

(1133189)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by PATHman* on Thu Jan 19 15:55:47 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Railman718 on Thu Jan 19 11:42:26 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d No, the IRT 7 would still use the Steinway Tubes, but it would head to Astoria.
Post a New Response

(1133190)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by PATHman* on Thu Jan 19 15:58:46 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Fisk ave Jim on Thu Jan 19 15:39:11 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Just to be clear, this was just a hypothetical idea. I took into account all of those empty Q trains heading to Astoria middays as well as the fact that the Steinway Tubes basically constrains the capacity of the 7 line.
Post a New Response

(1133202)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by Joe V* on Thu Jan 19 16:56:08 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by merrick1 on Thu Jan 19 07:49:49 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d LIRR instituted weekend half-hour service to Port Wash because of a jump in ridership from all the #7 G.O's. Then they got rid of them all, leaving weekday service with the lowest and slowest levels (no more skip-stop in Queens) since the 1950's, if not before. There should be half-hourly service on weekdays to Great Neck and Flushing on weekends. That would be a good balance on what even the LIRR admits is the branch with the highest farebox recovery of 61%.
Post a New Response

(1133208)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Fisk ave Jim* on Thu Jan 19 17:33:33 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 15:58:46 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Just to be clear, my idea was just simply off the wall. But hell, some empty suit from 347 might just think its brilliant. Nothing from the MTA would suprise me nowadays. How many "off the wall" ideas came from them since 1965??
Post a New Response

(1133212)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by LRG5784* on Thu Jan 19 17:51:28 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 15:58:46 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Best thing to do would be to just cut midday (Q) service back to Manhattan then if these trains are "empty".
Post a New Response

(1133218)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by R36 #9346* on Thu Jan 19 18:22:57 2012, in response to Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 11:13:48 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Here's an idea I had. It's a bit crazy though. The gist of it involves replacing the existing underwater tunnels with new ones. Bulkheads and fill would be installed at a distance from the Grand Central and Vernon-Jackson stations. These installations would be designed to shield the existing tunnel from flooding with river water. The existing tunnel would then be demolished and replaced with a new tunnel with more clearance, a wider loading gauge, and higher operating speeds. During this time, 7 service would be reduced to operating between 5th Avenue and Hudson Yards. The Queens section of the current 7 line would be served with two services. The W train would operate between Whitehall Street and Main Street. The Q51 bus would operate between Queens Plaza and Times Square via the Queens-Midtown Tunnel and 42nd Street. The W train would operate nine-car trains with modified safety equipment for operation on both the Flushing Line and the Broadway Line, using G2 track through Queensboro Plaza in both directions. The N train would operate on G1 track through Queensboro Plaza in both directions. The Q train would by this time be operating between 57th Street/7th Avenue and 96th Street/2nd Avenue, so they won't be affected.
Post a New Response

(1133220)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by handbrake* on Thu Jan 19 18:26:14 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jan 19 13:47:45 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d With 20-20 hindsight, Flushing, as well as the northern Queens corridor would have been better served with a four track subway under the entire length of Northern Blvd, including the line to Ditmars in Astoria, as opposed to the present Flushing Lines physical routing, and construction. It's simple from today's perspective to say the above, however the tree track mentality of the Dual Contracts was built on the elevated railway principle common at the time, and a far less expensive alternative. Aside resolving a dual BRT/IRT tunnel configuration for running subway trains underground, an ideal operation by B Division equipment under NYCT, the northern Queens transit corridor would have been in a better position to carry passengers compared with today's IRT #7 layout. Especially when one considers subway line extensions to the east and north of the present Main Street Flushing business district. Something that today would choke the #7 line. Given the cost of subway construction, even a four track elevated line would have been better than the existing three track elevated mishap into Flushing. The Achilles Heel to any subway line into Flushing of course would still have been the Steinway tunnels. However with the 63rd Street tunnel in place, the tunnel could permitted additional capacity into Manhattan if a Northern Blvd subway line had been built. A Northern Blvd route into Flushing could have even influenced the routing of the existing IND QB route to use QB from its beginning in the vicinity of Thompson Avenue.
Post a New Response

(1133225)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Michael549* on Thu Jan 19 19:10:22 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by PATHman on Thu Jan 19 15:58:46 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d From a previous message: "Just to be clear, this was just a hypothetical idea. I took into account all of those empty Q trains heading to Astoria middays as well as the fact that the Steinway Tubes basically constrains the capacity of the 7 line." Regardless of the hypothetical nature of the idea, I am confused about how the Steinway Tunnel constrains the capacity of the #7 line. In the 1960's and 1970's it was claimed that the #7 line was running about 32-33 trains per hour during the rush hours - when the usual standard was 30 trains per hour. Publicly available time schedules for the #7 line given out in the 1970 and early 1980's showed three terminals in rush hour operation in Queens - Flushing, Shea Stadium-Willets Point, and 111th Street -- with all trains terminating at 42nd Street-Times Square. Of course the Steinway Tunnel is limited to IRT-type subway cars, but is that "really" a constraint or just a fact of subway life? The 42nd Street-Times Square station has often been regarded by many transit fans as quite a peppy station for carrying out the work that it has to do on a daily-yearly basis. Those layup tracks that existed at the end of the station comes in quite handy. The basic reality-based problem with your scenario is the 59th Street Bridge, and the fact that the #7 train route is along one side of the bridge, while the entrance to the 60th Street tunnel is on the other side of the bridge. With the bridge being so close to the station there is little space to create a flying junction or other track arrangement to switch the two sides. Even if by magic a set of flying junctions near the could appear, it seems that the N and Q lines do not supply enough trains to handle the crowds that the #7 line handles on a regular basis. It is always a good idea to wonder about "what could be" though. Mike
Post a New Response

(1133227)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by italianstallion* on Thu Jan 19 19:11:05 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by handbrake on Thu Jan 19 18:26:14 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d "Especially when one considers subway line extensions to the east and north of the present Main Street Flushing business district. Something that today would choke the #7 line." I've heard this said many times on SubChat. But is it true? Wouldn't a 7-line extension just draw the same passengers who now take the dozens of bus lines that feed Main Street?
Post a New Response

(1133235)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by Fisk ave Jim* on Thu Jan 19 19:30:43 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by Michael549 on Thu Jan 19 19:10:22 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Bottom line, the 60th st tunnel could not handle any rerouted #7 trains. The tunnel & Broadway line is already maxed out with existing traffic. Face it , were stuck with the Steinway tunnel until someday our grandkids ride in its replacment Reality sucks sometimes
Post a New Response

(1133238)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by handbrake* on Thu Jan 19 19:48:27 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by italianstallion on Thu Jan 19 19:11:05 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d That would be a valid argument for R/T expansion to points east & north, however urban development would most likely follow a subway line, and adding to the number of users that connect to the Flushing line by surface transportation. Looking at the bigger picture, one must take into consideration how many riders would not use Express buses, and the LIRR due to a an attractive one seat ride. Riders mid way along the northern Queens corridor would, I believe, continue to find themselves short changed when it comes to finding space onto a subway train that now originates four or five miles farther that it does today. That's why a four track trunk line, especially along Northern Blvd, would have been an ideal route selection during the Dual Contract period. With all the past discussion of conversion of the Flushing to physical B Division train operation, one major stumbling block is Queensboro Plaza's vestigial overhead iron work of trackways that now lead to no where since 1964. Had the re-engineering of QB Plaza taken into account a tunnel at 63rd Street, proposed in 1965, then I am of the opinion that rolling the Flushing line over to B Division equipment operation would have resolved the many interconnection issues that plague any such operation today. As for joint A & B Division equipment operation today, I don't see it happening. There are are far too many issues with potential litigation suits that can arise because some individual did not watch the gap between the platform and the train as its crossed. True if operating A Div equipment on a RoW simultaneously carrying B Div car equipment and clearances. I believe that the MTA will keep what is presently in place on the #7, and continue to try to squeeze ten pounds of "stuff" into a one pound bag. ATO with CBTC at the heart of a #7 line squeeze operation that is sending one additional pound into an already overflowing one pound bag.
Post a New Response

(1133239)	view threaded
Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q
Posted by italianstallion* on Thu Jan 19 19:54:02 2012, in response to Re: Flip Flopping the 7 and N/Q, posted by handbrake on Thu Jan 19 19:48:27 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d It's true that new subways would increase development, unless zoning laws were tightened to prevent that.
Post a New Response

(1133240)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by merrick1* on Thu Jan 19 19:55:15 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Dyre Dan on Thu Jan 19 08:59:25 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d The subway fare ride would be a substitute for the NICE Bus to subway MetroCard transfer.
Post a New Response

(1133242)	view threaded
Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting
Posted by italianstallion* on Thu Jan 19 20:01:11 2012, in response to Re: MTA Officials Face (7) Line Riders At Town Hall Meeting, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Wed Jan 18 23:16:06 2012.* edf40wrjww2msgDetail:detailStr fiogf49gjkf0d Mid-day Saturday headways on the 4 are every 8 minutes.
Post a New Response

[1 2]
	Page 1 of 2	Next Page >

[ Return to the Message Index ]