|
|
| Re: Brooklyn subway needs (325542) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 12 |
||
|
| (326271) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 19 20:14:01 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 19:27:42 2006. And funny thing about that..is that they are doing exactly that[maintaining AND EXPANDING] RIGHT NOW...though some projects are getting off the ground slower than others... |
|
|
| (326272) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:14:24 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Oct 19 18:07:15 2006. I would love to see improved subway coverage in all five boroughs.But subway lines are expensive, and unfortunately we don't have the funding to build everything we'd like. We have to carefully select the line, or lines, that will give us the biggest bang for the buck. In the case of New York City (and probably all of North America) in 2006, that would be a second line through an incredibly dense neighborhood that is currently served by only one line. Personally, I doubt I'll have much use for it. Personally, I'd benefit much more by an IRT extension in Brooklyn (if it continues along its current alignment). But if we're pooling our resources collectively to build a new subway line, it should be the one that collectively serves the public the best. As an aside, keep in mind that expanding service in Brooklyn would generate additional ridership from people who currently live elsewhere or drive to work, and many of these people are bound for Manhattan. Also, residents in newly served neighborhoods would suddenly find Manhattan jobs much more attractive. That new ridership will generate new demand in Manhattan. So even if Manhattan doesn't need additional capacity for Manhattan's sake, if service is expanded in Brooklyn, then it will need additional capacity for Brooklyn's sake. |
|
|
| (326274) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:15:32 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Osmosis Jones on Thu Oct 19 20:00:54 2006. You first proposed the idea though. So, you questioned your own assertion, and then can't answer it? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (326276) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:16:48 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:13:41 2006. You can doubt it, but it's true nonetheless. |
|
|
| (326277) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:17:48 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:14:24 2006. Excellently argued. |
|
|
| (326279) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:18:13 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 19:22:36 2006. I'll bet some of the better-used locals, like the 1 and 6, do. Many riders of those lines tend to take very short trips. They (um, we?) also tend to ride off-peak more than the overall population (moreso on the 1 than on the 6, from what I can tell). |
|
|
| (326280) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:18:50 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:04:19 2006. There are still two-fare zones. Not quite as many as before, but not zero. |
|
|
| (326281) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:19:19 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 19 20:14:01 2006. I don't know about you, but I don't see any subway expansion going on right now. Point me in the right direction. |
|
|
| (326282) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:19:20 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 19:22:36 2006. The subway as a whole probably comes close to breaking even, but that does NOT include any capital costs or majjor overhauls. |
|
|
| (326283) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:19:41 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:19:20 2006. And the buses lose tons of money... |
|
|
| (326284) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:20:30 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:18:50 2006. Express buses, yes. PATH yes. AirTrain yes. Not city buses and subways. |
|
|
| (326285) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:21:02 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:13:41 2006. So do I, quite strongly. |
|
|
| (326287) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:22:05 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:18:13 2006. I'd agree with that assessment. My observations of off-peak 1 ridership compared to off-peak 6 ridership are similar to yours. |
|
|
| (326288) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:22:31 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:20:30 2006. Yes, city buses and subways. |
|
|
| (326290) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:24:19 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 19:48:31 2006. The subway is considered a necessary evil by most of its riders. Most subway commuters don't enjoy their commutes.Elevators (when they work) are useful to the people who use them, but they make up a tiny segment of the population. Escalators (when they work) are much more useful to the public at large, but where in the system has ADA been responsible for a new escalator installation? Perhaps there is one, but I can't think of a single such station. |
|
|
| (326295) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:33:46 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Oct 19 20:06:45 2006. Why should someone who takes a very short trip pay just as much as someone who takes a very long trip?Imagine how low the fare would be if all trips were a few stops on the local. Imagine how high the fare would be if all trips were a bus ride followed by a long ride on the express. I haven't done a complete survey (although I'm working on it), but I believe that the vast majority of major transit systems around the world have fares, at least on their heavy rail systems, that in some way vary by distance. The primary exceptions seem to be the old North American systems (in, e.g., New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago), where the flat fare was implemented simply to facilitate fare collection and persists, for political reasons, even with fare payment technologies that would make variable fares much easier to implement. |
|
|
| (326296) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 20:35:50 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Newkirk Plaza David on Wed Oct 18 17:37:03 2006. I have the paperwork somewhere....but let's put it this way: a proposal was made in the early 70's that stipulated SHOULD the LIRR ever give up using the Bay Ridge line for freight service, the MTA/NYCTA was going to purchase it from them and redo the Canarsie Line whereby -- to make a long narrative short -- the Canarsie line would be merged into the Bay Ridge branch near Wilson Avenue and it would use the Bay Ridge all the way down to McDonald Avenue. This would have made a true Brooklyn-crosstown line connecting Eastern sections of Brooklyn with South-western Brooklyn neighborhoods w/o having to travel thru Manhattan (or via long bus routes). The Elevated portion of the Canarsie line would be kept breifly as a shuttle service and then be discontinued. Canarsians new 'home' station would be on the Bay Ridge branch at Rockaway Parkway and Linden Blvd. (essentially where Linden Yard is today). The B-42 free bus service would be extended up to Linden so that Canarsians would not be inconveninced by losing E. 105th and Rockaway Parkway.That's the paperwork in a nutshell (IIRC) |
|
|
| (326297) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:37:08 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:18:50 2006. Yes, there are two-fare zones. Unless you're referring to unofficial out-of-system subway transfers (e.g., Jay/Lawrence), they're what used to be three-fare zones. And only for people using pay-per-ride cards. (Anybody who regularly makes a two-fare commute would undoubtedly be better off with some sort of unlimited.) |
|
|
| (326298) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:39:13 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:22:05 2006. I still find it shocking that the 6 gets by just fine with 8-minute headways on weekends, while the 1 fills up with 6-minute headways. (It was noticeably better a few years ago when weekend headways were 5 minutes.) |
|
|
| (326299) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:39:40 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:33:46 2006. where the flat fare was implemented simply to facilitate fare collection and persists, for political reasons, even with fare payment technologies that would make variable fares much easier to implement.Yeah. Who can afford to pay what, and where they live is a big issue. |
|
|
| (326300) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:40:15 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:18:13 2006. They (um, we?) also tend to ride off-peak more than the overall population (moreso on the 1 than on the 6, from what I can tell).And how many of them use Unlimited-Ride cards? |
|
|
| (326301) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:41:05 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:33:46 2006. For the record, Beijing's subway isn't distance-based -- fares are ¥3 for all trips on Lines 1, 2 and 13. Line 8T is ¥2.However, transferring between Line 2 and Line 13 requires a special transfer ticket priced at ¥5, and transferring between Line 1 and Line 8T costs ¥4. |
|
|
| (326303) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:41:30 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 20:35:50 2006. The problem with that proposal is that it connects to the Bay Ridge ROW at the wrong end, IMO. anyone going to manhattan has to take a circuitous route, unnecessarily. |
|
|
| (326304) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:41:42 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:37:08 2006. (Anybody who regularly makes a two-fare commute would undoubtedly be better off with some sort of unlimited.)True. |
|
|
| (326305) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:44:13 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:39:13 2006. I feel that this has a lot to do with the fact that the 1 doesn't have an express alongside it until 96th. I've noticed that the 1 really fills up between 125th and 96th, while the 6 is able to unload some riders at 125th. |
|
|
| (326307) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 20:46:11 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by MATHA531 on Thu Oct 19 20:06:45 2006. [allowing transfer from bus to subway was something that should have been done a century before.]Sorry to burst yer bubble, but a century ago (actually less) the subway system was made up of TWO and later THREE competing transit companies (IRT, BMT, and the city-owned IND). Not to mention that many of the bus companies in the early years were independent companies as well. |
|
|
| (326308) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 20:48:12 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:41:30 2006. No....I neglected to mention that there would still be a connection with the A, J, and LIRR via a new complex at Broadway Junction. The Bay Ridge branch passes BENEATH the A train at East New York station (near the western end of the station). |
|
|
| (326309) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:48:18 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:44:13 2006. That's part of it, but I believe that the peak load point on the 1 is between 72 and 66. Although most of the local stations between 103 and 137 are very busy, the ones between 50 and 86 are even busier. (That said, the two busiest local stations in the entire system are on the East Side, at 68 and 77. Thank goodness for the express platforms at 59!) |
|
|
| (326313) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:51:03 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 20:48:12 2006. The Bay Ridge branch passes BENEATH the A train at East New York station (near the western end of the station).That explains the cuts in the wall. I never knew about that. It's STILL a circuitous route that goes eastward before heading north, and would take longer than going directly west. |
|
|
| (326314) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Tunnel Rat on Thu Oct 19 20:52:37 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:51:03 2006. what cuts in what wall? |
|
|
| (326315) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:53:33 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:41:30 2006. It's not meant to be primarily a line towards Manhattan; it works fine as a cross-Brooklyn route that connects to other lines. |
|
|
| (326316) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:53:59 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Tunnel Rat on Thu Oct 19 20:52:37 2006. Broadway Juction IND platform. Near the southern end of the station. |
|
|
| (326317) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 20:54:44 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:33:46 2006. Philly has zone fares. The C is about as long if not longer than the BSS and it's one zone, why should the BSS be two? The 15 is almost as long as the MFL and it's one zone so why should the MFL be two? It's bad enough transfers aren't free. |
|
|
| (326318) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:55:20 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:53:33 2006. Yeah, but if you make a connection that's costs just as much on the west end of the line, as opposed to the east, you now get a useful, direct service.BTW: if you were to take this L train to the junction, the A would not get you to midtown any faster. |
|
|
| (326319) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:55:46 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:22:31 2006. Which subways are on a two fare zone? |
|
|
| (326320) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:56:39 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:55:46 2006. If you take two buses to the subway, you'll pay twice in virtually all situations. |
|
|
| (326321) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:56:52 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 20:37:08 2006. Which ones are two-fare zones? |
|
|
| (326322) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:57:16 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:55:20 2006. What would you connect the west end of the line to? The Cross-Harbor Tunnel? |
|
|
| (326323) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:57:25 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:56:39 2006. OK, that's true. |
|
|
| (326324) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 21:01:07 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 19:42:55 2006. Theres only so much money in the budget.I think the problem is that by not addressing transportation infrastructure needs, there are other losses/wastes that can be translated into monetary terms (or even money itself) and that from a utilitarian standpoint, there would be more value (or less lost/wasted value) in investing in expansion of the existing transportation network than in not doing so. |
|
|
| (326326) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by Tunnel Rat on Thu Oct 19 21:03:39 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:53:59 2006. The only cuts that are on the A in that location are at jamaica ave&fanchon pl.this was for a jamaica ave.subway to run under the jamaica ave. el. |
|
|
| (326332) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 21:17:04 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:51:03 2006. True, but the cost-savings of a ready-made ROW (no deals to make with property owners along the ROW or Eminent-Domain policies to institute) would be worth the it.Don't forget the new line would be tying together the north-south running lines of the 2/5 at the Junction, the B/Q of the Brighton with the F Culver line all via the Bay Ridge route. Folks wouldn't have to ride all the way down to West 8th St. or Coney Island to transfer from the B/Q or do the Franklin Shuttle transfer to get the Brighton trains if you live on the 2/5. |
|
|
| (326334) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 21:19:36 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by Tunnel Rat on Thu Oct 19 20:52:37 2006. Yeah....I'm at a loss....I might have to head ove there and take a look cuz I don't remember any 'cuts in the walls'.BTW, the Bay Ridge line running under the A is evidenced by the noticable upward slope of the platform as you walk AWAY from the staircases at the fare control area. |
|
|
| (326336) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 21:20:52 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:57:16 2006. He wants to connect it to the F. I say connect it to the N. |
|
|
| (326340) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 21:27:59 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by R4 Bryn Mawr LCL/R5 Paoli EXP on Thu Oct 19 21:20:52 2006. Heh! I mentioned the F becasue that's what the report said should be the terminus. It was mentioned, however, that if the money and usage warrants, a provision would be made to run it further west and connect with the N -- naturally since the two lines parrallel each other at Fort Hamilton Parkway -- and even with the R at 4th Ave. and 65th Street. |
|
|
| (326345) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 21:32:14 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Oct 19 20:56:52 2006. Any trip involving a bus to a bus to a subway or a bus to a subway to a bus or a subway to a bus to a bus or (with a handful of exceptions) a bus to a bus to a bus. Unless it involves the B42 and the L train. |
|
|
| (326346) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 21:33:56 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 21:17:04 2006. How many people ride up the Brighton only to ride back down the 2/5? Surely the vast majority of those who use the shuttle to make the Brighton-IRT connection are transferring to the 3/4. |
|
|
| (326359) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by BMT Guy on Thu Oct 19 21:49:18 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by David of Broadway on Thu Oct 19 21:33:56 2006. Durng the morning compute I'd bet alot of folks are coming from the 2/3/4/5 to jump on the F/S to make the connection with th C train at Fulton more than the B/Q since that transfer can be made further up the line (and with less foot-work) via Atlantic Avenue. |
|
|
| (326369) | |
Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention |
|
|
Posted by D to E to Jamaica on Thu Oct 19 22:05:19 2006, in response to Re: Flatbush Avenue Brooklyn College extention, posted by J trainloco on Thu Oct 19 20:13:41 2006. I think some of you guys are missing the point. The main point was about subway expansion in brooklyn, not station rehab or other projects that have indirectly benefitted brooklyn.for example: Extending the 2 to Kings plaza, Utica Av route to Kings Plaza, or the 3 to Jfk via the Gateway Mall. Those would be direct benefits since those things primarily serve brooklyn commuters. Things like the Archer Ave. Extension, 63rd street connector, even the Chrystie Street connector benefitted bklyn folks indirectly. Can anybody recall the last time any new track extensions were made in brooklyn? If anything, tracks were taken away (culver shuttle). I know that's a stretch. |
|
|
| (326370) | |
Re: Brooklyn subway needs |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Oct 19 22:06:20 2006, in response to Re: Brooklyn subway needs, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Oct 19 20:41:05 2006. Wait, why would you pay more to transfer instead of just paying a second fare? |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 12 |
||
