|
|
| Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 14 of 20 |
||
|
| (558233) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Eric B on Wed Jan 23 21:17:26 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 16:56:16 2008. But with budgetary concerns, which lines would they cut? The poorly performing ones, of course. And I did hear there was low ridership from the large headways and people changing to the F at Essex anyway. |
|
|
| (558252) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 22:05:26 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Jan 23 18:36:55 2008. Yes, but the "Water St" alignment requires digging entirely new tunnels, entirely new stations and infastructure. that's not a cheap proposition either. |
|
|
| (558262) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Nyctransitman on Wed Jan 23 22:24:23 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:43:54 2008. I would first have the "M" Line be rerouted in north Brooklyn to instead travel to the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station via the Broadway Brooklyn Line instead of traveling to the Metropolitan Avenue Station as presntly. The "M" Line would provide the local train service both directions along the Broadway Line in (north) Brooklyn but would terminate in (east) Brooklyn at the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station for easier transfer to the "L" Line as well as connection to the LIRR below. This new local Broadway, Brooklyn "M" service would aide in making other transit improvements to speed up the "J", "Z" lines as well as also having the "V" line rerouted and extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the former "M" Line service as described more detailed below. I would then have the "V" Line merge with the "M" Line and travel between the 71st Avenue Forest Hills Station and the Metropolitan Avenue Station via the former "M" Line routing and the Christie Street connection so that the "V" Line would no longer serve the Second Avenue Station in Manhattan. I would also have the "V" Line operate nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue/ Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Metropolitan Avenue toward Midtown, Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08PM and on trips from Midtown, Manhattan toward Metropolitan Avenue from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. By having the "V" Line serve the former "M" Line Stations throughout Middle Village, Ridgewood and Wyckoff Heights along with the nonstop service between the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station would indirectly increase ridership along these subway stations since it would provide a one seat ride to Midtown, Manhattan for Central Queens passengers by eliminating the need for these passengers to take longer bus rides to various Queens Blvd. Subway Stations to access trains to Midtown, Manhattan. Passengers from these stations along the new "V" Line still needing access to Lower, Manhattan would still be able to transfer at the Myrtle Avenue Station to the "J" and/or "J" & "Z" Lines depending on the time of day. Additionally, riders on the "J" , "Z" & "M" Lines would now be able to transfer to the "V" Line at either the Myrtle Avenue or Marcy Avenue Station giving "J", "Z" & "M" Line riders also speedy service to Midtown, Manhattan. Also, in order to speed up service on the "J" & " Z" Lines these trains should travel nonstop between the Broadway Junction Station and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Jamaica toward Lower Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08 PM and on trips from Lower Manhattan toward Jamaica from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. The "J" & "Z" skip-stop service can remain operating during the same rush hour times but would only operate skip-stop between Broadway Junction Station and Parsons Blvd./Archer Avenue Station thus eliminating skip stop service between the Broadway Junction Station and the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station which is being replaced with non-stop service between those two points. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN??? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (558263) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Nyctransitman on Wed Jan 23 22:25:37 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:43:54 2008. I would first have the "M" Line be rerouted in north Brooklyn to instead travel to the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station via the Broadway Brooklyn Line instead of traveling to the Metropolitan Avenue Station as presntly. The "M" Line would provide the local train service both directions along the Broadway Line in (north) Brooklyn but would terminate in (east) Brooklyn at the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station for easier transfer to the "L" Line as well as connection to the LIRR below. This new local Broadway, Brooklyn "M" service would aide in making other transit improvements to speed up the "J", "Z" lines as well as also having the "V" line rerouted and extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the former "M" Line service as described more detailed below. I would then have the "V" Line merge with the "M" Line and travel between the 71st Avenue Forest Hills Station and the Metropolitan Avenue Station via the former "M" Line routing and the Christie Street connection so that the "V" Line would no longer serve the Second Avenue Station in Manhattan. I would also have the "V" Line operate nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue/ Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Metropolitan Avenue toward Midtown, Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08PM and on trips from Midtown, Manhattan toward Metropolitan Avenue from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. By having the "V" Line serve the former "M" Line Stations throughout Middle Village, Ridgewood and Wyckoff Heights along with the nonstop service between the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station would indirectly increase ridership along these subway stations since it would provide a one seat ride to Midtown, Manhattan for Central Queens passengers by eliminating the need for these passengers to take longer bus rides to various Queens Blvd. Subway Stations to access trains to Midtown, Manhattan. Passengers from these stations along the new "V" Line still needing access to Lower, Manhattan would still be able to transfer at the Myrtle Avenue Station to the "J" and/or "J" & "Z" Lines depending on the time of day. Additionally, riders on the "J" , "Z" & "M" Lines would now be able to transfer to the "V" Line at either the Myrtle Avenue or Marcy Avenue Station giving "J", "Z" & "M" Line riders also speedy service to Midtown, Manhattan. Also, in order to speed up service on the "J" & " Z" Lines these trains should travel nonstop between the Broadway Junction Station and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Jamaica toward Lower Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08 PM and on trips from Lower Manhattan toward Jamaica from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. The "J" & "Z" skip-stop service can remain operating during the same rush hour times but would only operate skip-stop between Broadway Junction Station and Parsons Blvd./Archer Avenue Station thus eliminating skip stop service between the Broadway Junction Station and the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station which is being replaced with non-stop service between those two points. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN??? |
|
|
| (558286) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 23:00:44 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Jan 23 18:47:08 2008. Lots of branches here haha.I think your question was comparing Bushwick and Ridgewood? Well, Ridgewood has held it's own right through the 70's and 80's. It never "fell" like Bushwick did. You never had abandoned buildings, burnouts, or anything like that through the 70's and 80's like Bushwick did. Ridgewood's housing stock remained at about 99% occupancy, unlike Bushwick which lost entire city blocks. And while it never got bad in Ridgewood with all that, it never had to "recover" from anything. And while RIdgewood is probably in better shape than it was 10 or 15 years ago, it didn't have to "rise from the ashes like Bushwick is doing now. Bushwick had to come back from a complete hell, and there's lots of new construction and refurbishment there now. And in addition to lots of public first time homebuyer incentives, and housing like that, there's also a lot of private investment in housing now too in the Bushwick area, which you really didn't see before 4 or 5 years ago. Bushwick has come a long way, and millions and millions of dollars are now being pumped into Bushwick's housing stock whereas just 10 or 20 years ago no one was spending a dime there. The policies of the 60's and 70's there were a recipe for disaster, and thankfully it has finally come back from that. |
|
|
| (558291) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Jan 23 23:05:30 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 22:05:26 2008. Exactly:Extenstions at The Bowery, Canal, Chambers, Fulton and Broad Street can if necessary be added to Phase 3 if that helps in providing a Nassau Street line connection from the SAS (and at The Bowery and Canal Street, since only one side of the station is now used, they only have to be done on one side as opposed to two). Those extensions might have to be done anyway as part of doing such on the full J/M/Z line since with those neighborhoods expanding, those platforms may need to be extended to accomodate 10 car trains. The Water Street segment, when that is gotten to is going to take a considerable amount of time anyway, so the Nassau Street connection from the SAS would be very useful if for no other reason in that it allows for the SAS to reach lower Manhattan several years earlier. |
|
|
| (558294) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Wed Jan 23 23:08:02 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 22:05:26 2008. If the costs are similar, its better to build the Water St alignment because it adds capacity to the system in an area that will use it. |
|
|
| (558305) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 23:31:33 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Russ on Wed Jan 23 23:08:02 2008. Maybe, but the Nassau alignment is an instant connection to Brooklyn via the currently underused Montague tunnel. |
|
|
| (558371) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 24 01:58:52 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Wed Jan 23 18:36:55 2008. I would connect it to Nassau St via Park Row after Chatham Sq. It would be south of Canal and Chambers anyway. Construction would be cheapest there because the two SAS tracks can double stack just before plugging in directly into the two Nassau stacks. No fly-over or under needed for the track connections. Any issues with NYPD during construction are easily resolvable. This would be much cheaper then a Water St segment which can be done later anyway while also sending the (T) to Brooklyn. The Wall St crowd would love it, especially the ones residing on the UES. |
|
|
| (558372) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 24 02:00:22 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Russ on Wed Jan 23 17:28:34 2008. And how do you propose to pay for redundant connections when the need has not been established?With the added value in tax receipts that the City would get from these connections. |
|
|
| (558381) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 24 02:30:32 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Eric B on Wed Jan 23 21:17:26 2008. But with budgetary concerns, which lines would they cut? The poorly performing ones, of courseOr the ones serving neighborhoods with no political pull...especially in the 70s. |
|
|
| (558398) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 05:22:33 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 23:31:33 2008. That is true.The Water Street segment should be built, but I would ALSO build the Nassau Street connection, as that will help and probably be a lot cheaper to build than the Water Street segment. |
|
|
| (558399) | |
Re: M-V combo via Park Row/Chatam Square |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 05:26:01 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 24 01:58:52 2008. That is very true. If you can do it that way, which actually is more direct to Nassau Street anyway, it would work. I would, however, also have a connection at Houston Street since the segment will be ready at least 2-3 years before the Chatam Square station and a connection there would. |
|
|
| (558401) | |
Re: M-V Combo and new M train |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 05:32:38 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Nyctransitman on Wed Jan 23 22:24:23 2008. Actually:Your M train idea is similar in some ways to my K train, except my K would replace the L between Rockaway Parkaway and Atlantic Avenue, with the L shortened to either Broadway Junction or Atlantic Avenue to better serve what is the much more heavily used part of the L line. What needs to be done to have a line terminate at Atlantic Avenue is to rebuild the tracks there so that trains can use the as-present standing-but-unused portion of the Atlantic Avenue station. Then, one of the two can terminate there with an across-the-platform transfer to the other there to Rockaway Parkway. |
|
|
| (558593) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 16:23:02 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 23:31:33 2008. Maybe, but the Nassau alignment is an instant connection to Brooklyn via the currently underused Montague tunnel.That's a valid point. My concern is that even if the M is merged with the V, the J plus the T would fill up capacity to the point where an SAS/QB line would not be possible. I don't consider terminating any of these lines at Chambers to be a good option because then you have a line that does not go to the Lower Manhattan CBD. |
|
|
| (558594) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 16:29:24 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by SMAZ on Thu Jan 24 02:00:22 2008. With the added value in tax receipts that the City would get from these connections.I seriously doubt that this would come remotely close to covering it. If this was a reliable method of financing subway expansion, we would have seen more of it. The only example of this kind of finance mechanism for NYC subway expansion that I can think of is the 7 to Javits. That is being built into an area that was rezoned to accommodate an additional 40 million square feet of commercial and residential real estate. Lower Manhattan is an area far less room for real estate growth, and the real estate is already at the high end of the market. |
|
|
| (558612) | |
Re: Connecting the SAS to the Nassau Street Line |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 17:26:01 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 16:23:02 2008. I understand your concerns, however:Connecting the SAS to the Nassau Street Line and the Montauge Street Tunnel would be very good on several fronts, most notably the fact that doing such a connection once the SAS is built to Houston, or if Phase 3 can be extended to Chatam Square, doing so there. It might very well require extensions of the Nassau Street line stations in Manhattan, but those extensions may be required anyway well before the SAS reaches Houston to deal with having to lengthen the J and M trains in Brooklyn regardless of any merger of the M and V lines into one. |
|
|
| (558615) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 17:36:35 2008, in response to Re: Connecting the SAS to the Nassau Street Line, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 17:26:01 2008. We're only getting one SAS connection to Lower Manhattan. Unless the capacity issue of the Nassau Street alignment is addressed, and I was referring to TPH and not platform length, Water Street is the way to go. |
|
|
| (558617) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 17:42:10 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 17:36:35 2008. That's right now, but:Between now and the time it comes to get the SAS to Houston, which won't be for several years, it may dawn upon them to add this connection to have a more immediate connection to lower Manhattan via Nassau Street and Brooklyn while the Water Street segment is being built. It's a connection that even if after Water Street is built is not used normally will be important to have for G.O.'s, as it would allow Broadway trains when needed to use 2nd Avenue in Manhattan before going to Brooklyn via Montauge. |
|
|
| (558618) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 17:47:09 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 17:42:10 2008. Between now and the time it comes to get the SAS to Houston, which won't be for several years, it may dawn upon them to add this connection to have a more immediate connection to lower Manhattan via Nassau Street and Brooklyn while the Water Street segment is being built.It's a connection that even if after Water Street is built is not used normally will be important to have for G.O.'s, as it would allow Broadway trains when needed to use 2nd Avenue in Manhattan before going to Brooklyn via Montauge. Let me get this straight. You want funds for other important capital projects to be diverted to build a redundant connection to Lower Manhattan that will eventually only be used during G.O.s? |
|
|
| (558619) | |
Re: R Train |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 17:47:09 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Fri Jan 18 07:51:15 2008. Actually:When I rode what was the RR in the early '80s (when it was an Astoria line), it was never that bad. While it did have some of the older equipment, it did not have what was at that time the oldest eqiuipment in use then (which then was the R10s in use on the A/C/E and the R16s on the LL). I quite often got the R32s or R42s on the RR then. |
|
|
| (558622) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:11:24 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Jan 24 05:22:33 2008. Aside from digging under landmarked buildings which raise the cost, there is this issue which may stop any construction for a considerable amount of time and make the connection very expensive.From the FEIS: Physical improvements at the Chambers Street Station around and beneath Foley Square could impact the sensitive, subterranean portions of this historic station. Furthermore, this construction zone would be within the boundaries of the African Burial Ground and The Commons Historic District, and could permanently impact potential below-grade resources in this area. There is a significant risk that the construction of the subway would require complete cessation if intact skeletal remains were uncovered. |
|
|
| (558624) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:13:37 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 23:31:33 2008. But why build something that neither the local people and NYCTA do not want? |
|
|
| (558627) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:18:20 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 17:47:09 2008. There is a connection in my neighborhood that was built in the sixties that's not even used for G.O.s anymore, let alone regular service... |
|
|
| (558628) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 18:19:55 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:18:20 2008. That's a shame to spend all that money and then get no use out of it. Chrystie Cut? |
|
|
| (558638) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:33:55 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 16:23:02 2008. The re-alignment of the Canal-Chambers area whether they connect at Delancey/Kenmare or the former bridge tracks at Canal (which seems not possible with the deep Chrystie) will also be disruptive to J/M/Z service, which is also one of the reason they don't want it. |
|
|
| (558641) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:45:03 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 18:19:55 2008. According to some Subchatters, it would be useful now. |
|
|
| (558731) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Nyctransitman on Thu Jan 24 23:03:43 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:45:03 2008. Before thinking about the Second Avenue Subway Expansion almost ten years away the MTA should do this now.I would first have the "M" Line be rerouted in north Brooklyn to instead travel to the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station via the Broadway Brooklyn Line instead of traveling to the Metropolitan Avenue Station as presntly. The "M" Line would provide the local train service both directions along the Broadway Line in (north) Brooklyn but would terminate in (east) Brooklyn at the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station for easier transfer to the "L" Line as well as connection to the LIRR below. This new local Broadway, Brooklyn "M" service would aide in making other transit improvements to speed up the "J", "Z" lines as well as also having the "V" line rerouted and extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the former "M" Line service as described more detailed below. I would then have the "V" Line merge with the "M" Line and travel between the 71st Avenue Forest Hills Station and the Metropolitan Avenue Station via the former "M" Line routing and the Christie Street connection so that the "V" Line would no longer serve the Second Avenue Station in Manhattan. I would also have the "V" Line operate nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue/ Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Metropolitan Avenue toward Midtown, Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08PM and on trips from Midtown, Manhattan toward Metropolitan Avenue from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. By having the "V" Line serve the former "M" Line Stations throughout Middle Village, Ridgewood and Wyckoff Heights along with the nonstop service between the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station would indirectly increase ridership along these subway stations since it would provide a one seat ride to Midtown, Manhattan for Central Queens passengers by eliminating the need for these passengers to take longer bus rides to various Queens Blvd. Subway Stations to access trains to Midtown, Manhattan. Passengers from these stations along the new "V" Line still needing access to Lower, Manhattan would still be able to transfer at the Myrtle Avenue Station to the "J" and/or "J" & "Z" Lines depending on the time of day. Additionally, riders on the "J" , "Z" & "M" Lines would now be able to transfer to the "V" Line at either the Myrtle Avenue or Marcy Avenue Station giving "J", "Z" & "M" Line riders also speedy service to Midtown, Manhattan. Also, in order to speed up service on the "J" & " Z" Lines these trains should travel nonstop between the Broadway Junction Station and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Jamaica toward Lower Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08 PM and on trips from Lower Manhattan toward Jamaica from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. The "J" & "Z" skip-stop service can remain operating during the same rush hour times but would only operate skip-stop between Broadway Junction Station and Parsons Blvd./Archer Avenue Station thus eliminating skip stop service between the Broadway Junction Station and the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station which is being replaced with non-stop service between those two points. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN??? |
|
|
| (558732) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Nyctransitman on Thu Jan 24 23:04:54 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:33:55 2008. Before thinking about the Second Avenue Subway Expansion almost ten years away the MTA should do this now.I would first have the "M" Line be rerouted in north Brooklyn to instead travel to the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station via the Broadway Brooklyn Line instead of traveling to the Metropolitan Avenue Station as presntly. The "M" Line would provide the local train service both directions along the Broadway Line in (north) Brooklyn but would terminate in (east) Brooklyn at the Atlantic Avenue/Van Sinderen Avenue Station for easier transfer to the "L" Line as well as connection to the LIRR below. This new local Broadway, Brooklyn "M" service would aide in making other transit improvements to speed up the "J", "Z" lines as well as also having the "V" line rerouted and extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the former "M" Line service as described more detailed below. I would then have the "V" Line merge with the "M" Line and travel between the 71st Avenue Forest Hills Station and the Metropolitan Avenue Station via the former "M" Line routing and the Christie Street connection so that the "V" Line would no longer serve the Second Avenue Station in Manhattan. I would also have the "V" Line operate nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue/ Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Metropolitan Avenue toward Midtown, Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08PM and on trips from Midtown, Manhattan toward Metropolitan Avenue from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. By having the "V" Line serve the former "M" Line Stations throughout Middle Village, Ridgewood and Wyckoff Heights along with the nonstop service between the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station would indirectly increase ridership along these subway stations since it would provide a one seat ride to Midtown, Manhattan for Central Queens passengers by eliminating the need for these passengers to take longer bus rides to various Queens Blvd. Subway Stations to access trains to Midtown, Manhattan. Passengers from these stations along the new "V" Line still needing access to Lower, Manhattan would still be able to transfer at the Myrtle Avenue Station to the "J" and/or "J" & "Z" Lines depending on the time of day. Additionally, riders on the "J" , "Z" & "M" Lines would now be able to transfer to the "V" Line at either the Myrtle Avenue or Marcy Avenue Station giving "J", "Z" & "M" Line riders also speedy service to Midtown, Manhattan. Also, in order to speed up service on the "J" & " Z" Lines these trains should travel nonstop between the Broadway Junction Station and Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station and nonstop between the Myrtle Avenue Broadway Station and the Marcy Avenue Station on trips from Jamaica toward Lower Manhattan from 5:00AM thru 12:08 PM and on trips from Lower Manhattan toward Jamaica from 12:24PM thru 11:00PM. The "J" & "Z" skip-stop service can remain operating during the same rush hour times but would only operate skip-stop between Broadway Junction Station and Parsons Blvd./Archer Avenue Station thus eliminating skip stop service between the Broadway Junction Station and the Myrtle Avenue/Broadway Station which is being replaced with non-stop service between those two points. SOUNDS LIKE A PLAN??? |
|
|
| (558761) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Fri Jan 25 00:12:55 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Nyctransitman on Thu Jan 24 23:03:43 2008. How many times are you going to post the exact same message?As I and others have pointed out, if you have been reading along rather than just jumping in: A regular service using Atlantic on the Canarsie for a terminal is a non-starter because it would create delays on both the el and whatever is coming down from the 14th Street line. (Same reason why 57th can't be a terminal with 63rd Street service running through.) The only possibility for a service terminating on the Canarsie line is if it runs through and every other L train turns back at Myrtle. A Met/6th Av service would be best utilized as a local since the stated purpose is to provide a one-seat alternative to the L or "south to go north" transfers. Running it express Myrtle-to-Marcy means pax between those pax still have to transfer. The express run has to be for the Jamaica service, to attract riders from the E. With a same-platform transfer to a 6th Av service available, it might attract even more people would would choose the E for its transfers on Queens Blvd. Lastly, the number of TPH required to make an additional service for Nassau/South Brooklyn would create an over-service condition on Broadway. So, there you have it. Until CBTC *and* ATO are up and running along the Broadway/Nassau trunk, there is no way your idea will can work. |
|
|
| (558763) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Fri Jan 25 00:14:11 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Nyctransitman on Thu Jan 24 23:04:54 2008. ENOUGH OF THIS SAME MESSAGE ALREADY! Capice??? |
|
|
| (558799) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 25 02:54:42 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 16:29:24 2008. Lower Manhattan is an area far less room for real estate growth, and the real estate is already at the high end of the market.That's very true. However the Water St corridor has a lot of residential real estate planned. This will of course attract other businesses catering to the new residents. Tax receipts should rise significantly there especially if a subway is close. In other words, money budgeted for the Water St subway can be partially diverted into a Nassau connection. The remainder plus the added tax reciepts along Water St should then pay (or come close to paying) for the Water St segment below Chatham Sq. That final segment shouldn't have any problems getting federal and State financing either considering where it runs. It's also in Sheldon Silver's district. |
|
|
| (558806) | |
Re: L train at Broadway Junction/Atlantic Avenue |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 25 03:12:01 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Fri Jan 25 00:12:55 2008. A regular service using Atlantic on the Canarsie for a terminal is a non-starter because it would create delays on both the el and whatever is coming down from the 14th Street line. (Same reason why 57th can't be a terminal with 63rd Street service running through.) The only possibility for a service terminating on the Canarsie line is if it runs through and every other L train turns back at Myrtle.Actually, wouldn't it make more sense to short-turn the L at Broadway Junction? That has both an island and a side platform, and it might make more sense to do it there. Saying that, if you can rebuild the tracks leading to and including the as-present unused platform at Atlantic Avenue, it can be set up that one line terminates there while the other continues to Canarsie. |
|
|
| (558808) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 25 03:28:24 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Jan 24 18:11:24 2008. I agree. I've come to the conclusion that the only place where such a connection can be cheaply and realistically done is from Chatham Sq straight into the two Nassau St stacks along Park Row. Since this would have to be cut-and-cover, any other location would prove impossible. |
|
|
| (558815) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 25 03:44:04 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 17:36:35 2008. That's why I would split the (T) into two services. The (T) would go down Nassau/Montague while the Bronx bound (U) train would have Water St. (or vice versa) The Queens SAS (the Y train) would also get Water.Upper SAS (125-63rd) : T + U + Q = 30 or so TPH Lower SAS (63-Chatham): T + U + Y = 30 or so TPH Nassau below Chambers : J/Z + M + T= 30 or so TPH Water St below Chatham: U + Y = 20 or so TPH The SAS would separate at Chatham Sq with the Brooklyn bound (T) headed for Nassau St via Park Row. The (U)+(Y) would continue down St James Place to Pearl/Water St. The actually TPH distribution between the (T) and the (U) would be determined by ridership. |
|
|
| (558833) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 25 04:45:14 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 25 03:44:04 2008. I agree with that, except again, to do it from there and speed up the start of the Nassau Street Line phase of the SAS would require phase 3 to be extended to Chatam Square and beyond there enough to include such a connect to the Nassau Street line (though that would be good because it also means the Grand Street connection to the B/D would be open a lot sooner as well). That was why I was saying do it from Houston if possible.As for the potential problems of lengthening the Nassau Street Line stations, that is a potential issue regardless of any SAS connection since it may be necessary to extend those stations and the rest of those on the J/M/Z anyway because of increased ridership on the Broadway Brooklyn lines. |
|
|
| (558854) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Fri Jan 25 07:57:25 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Jan 25 04:45:14 2008. None of that would be done in any of our lifetimes, if at all, so its pointless to talk about it. |
|
|
| (558879) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 09:12:13 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by SMAZ on Fri Jan 25 02:54:42 2008. However the Water St corridor has a lot of residential real estate planned.No it doesn't. We're comparing 40 million sq. ft. on the undeveloped Far West Side to whatever will happen in the already developed area - where I live. This will of course attract other businesses catering to the new residents Tax receipts should rise significantly there especially if a subway is close. There will be more dry cleaning shops, more delis, etc. Tax receipts, however, will NOT rise significantly. There will not additional revenue generated that will cover the hundreds of millions of dollars to build a redundant connection. In other words, money budgeted for the Water St subway can be partially diverted into a Nassau connection. The remainder plus the added tax reciepts along Water St should then pay (or come close to paying) for the Water St segment below Chatham Sq. Nope. That final segment shouldn't have any problems getting federal and State financing either considering where it runs. It will have HUGE problems qualifying for matching grants if it is a redundant connection. It's also in Sheldon Silver's district. So what? He has never been able to bring home the bacon for large scale projects before, so will he be able to do so now? |
|
|
| (559211) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by 67th Avenue on Fri Jan 25 21:02:13 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Osmosis Jones on Wed Jan 16 07:01:04 2008. Sad, isn't it? The M.T.A. is considering returning the (R) to 24/7. While that would cover nights, what about weekends? |
|
|
| (559212) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Jan 25 21:08:21 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by 67th Avenue on Fri Jan 25 21:02:13 2008. The M.T.A. is considering returning the (R) to 24/7. While that would cover nights, what about weekends?24/7 means 24 hours a day and 7 days a week. Unless we now have more than 7 days in a week, 24/7 should cover weekends. |
|
|
| (559367) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 04:56:26 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jan 23 23:31:33 2008. Exactly! |
|
|
| (559368) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 05:03:37 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Russ on Wed Jan 23 23:08:02 2008. But what good is a Water St segment taht ends in Manhattan [assuming funds dry up b4 they can build a new East River tunnel?]That's the point of the Nassau line being annexed to the SAS so at least right now the SAS would have a connection to Brooklyn rather than to wait another decade or more until more $ is raised to fund the tunnel. So maybe Fulton can't handle a 10-car train, have announcements saying riders must be in the first 8-cars to get off then. But at the very least there should be a way to allow at least 9-cars to open safely. I can't see how it can only open to just 8 cars. Also for the 10th car rather than the normal width of a platform, maybe have it curved like on Av H on Brighton where it is only enough space to exit rather than to enter. I dunno, just throwing out ideas... |
|
|
| (559370) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 05:29:54 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Thu Jan 24 17:47:09 2008. IMO, I think the Nassau segment should be incorporated into the SAS as a direct connection to southern Brooklyn and making better use of the Montegue tunnel. That SAS line would be virtually parallel to the Lexington line and would hopefully draw off enough riders as well as mirroring the 4/5 from 125th to Atlantic-Pacific.M trains are more or less empty going to 4th Av and riders are still packed on the 4/5 lines. IMO Water St can just be a stub that ends in Lower Manhattan. Much like the 1. |
|
|
| (559379) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 07:15:06 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 05:29:54 2008. You can't build both. It is one or the other. As Wado MP73 pointed out from the FEIS in a previous post:Physical improvements at the Chambers Street Station around and beneath Foley Square could impact the sensitive, subterranean portions of this historic station. Furthermore, this construction zone would be within the boundaries of the African Burial Ground and The Commons Historic District, and could permanently impact potential below-grade resources in this area. There is a significant risk that the construction of the subway would require complete cessation if intact skeletal remains were uncovered. That makes the Nassau St a crap shot. In addition, the Nassau St. alignment is problematic because it restricts capacity. Even if the M is merged with the V, the J plus the T could exceed 30tph. Throw in a SAS/QB route and it could be over 40tph. |
|
|
| (559535) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 26 15:32:44 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 07:15:06 2008. Yes, but they may need to build extensions to the Nassau Street line stations anyway due to the need to make the Broadway Brooklyn trains 10 cars instead of eight regardless of any other changes. |
|
|
| (559536) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 26 15:33:14 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Grand concourse on Sat Jan 26 05:29:54 2008. Yes, unless the 1 is extended to Staten Island like some suggest it should. |
|
|
| (559549) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:50:48 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 26 15:32:44 2008. Even if the platforms are extended, it still does not address the the capacity issue. |
|
|
| (559729) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 26 22:21:32 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:50:48 2008. True, but even without anything else on the Nassau Street Line, those extensions would help as the Broadway Brooklyn line, whether we ever get an M-V merger or not would be able to have 10 car trains to help with what should be ever increasing ridership no matter what. It also would help whatever train goes through Nassau to South Brooklyn via Montauge since those would now be 10 car trains as well. |
|
|
| (559799) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 04:55:43 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by Russ on Sat Jan 26 15:50:48 2008. It does if you split the (T) into two services, with the (T) coming out of 125/Lex and a (U) train coming out of the 125/2 miniyard. (and perhaps one day out of the Bronx) |
|
|
| (559830) | |
Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Sun Jan 27 09:29:49 2008, in response to Re: SAS Phase 4: Water Street, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jan 27 04:55:43 2008. It does if you split the (T) into two services, with the (T) coming out of 125/Lex and a (U) train coming out of the 125/2 miniyard. (and perhaps one day out of the Bronx)How does that address the issue of the J + T + other SAS train at 40+tph on Nassau St.? |
|
|
|
Page 14 of 20 |
||
