|
|
| Re: Bergen Street Lower Level (842381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
|
| (842808) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:00:31 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:32:45 2009. 2 trains are infrequent, they needed the 5 there to help out with the crowds. I'm totally appreciating 5 service during the middays [when I ride it]. Plus sure is better than to wait for the 4 to show up at Franklin if I need the east side. |
|
|
| (842810) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:01:58 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:14:26 2009. no need to be hostile to him... |
|
|
| (842811) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:03:35 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 07:50:54 2009. E to Euclid is far enough. Don't send the E beyond that point.For the two main A train branches, rename one of them as the K or H [to Far Rockaway] and leave the other one as the A [to Lefferts]. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (842812) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:05:06 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 07:50:54 2009. Also outside of rush hours, I don't see many crowded Shuttles. The 4-car S is enough for Rockaway Park until there are more houses built in the area and occupied. |
|
|
| (842815) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 12:10:11 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:00:31 2009. LOL That was a great cross-purposes reply. I was suggesting that more local service should be provided on the inner part of the IND South Brooklyn Line by adding a branch after 7th Avenue/9th Street station serving the Flatbush Avenue corridor. |
|
|
| (842816) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 12:10:54 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:03:35 2009. Nah make the Rockaway branch of the A a branch of the L instead... |
|
|
| (842818) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:21:11 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:28:53 2009. So, pick a shorter run.If they put more money into this run it would be more popular. Each and every BNSF run is 200 miles. There are, I assure you, just as many stops for a coal train as their are for a subway train. You frequently do not get back to your home station in one day. If you do, it would have been a 400 mile run. So do not tell the LION that the run is too long. Go bid on a Montauk train. ROAR |
|
|
| (842819) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:21:35 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:44:22 2009. Bergen Lower has major water issues, it would need significant structural work to deal with the damage what has accumulated over the years. The northbound platform is a disaster. This station does not need two Manhattan services stopping at it. |
|
|
| (842820) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:25:57 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 21:51:44 2009. IAWTP. |
|
|
| (842821) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:31:39 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 08:14:58 2009. The F line's major ridership is north on the IND segment. The section south of Church is overserved as it is, due to the service needs for the IND part of the route. If you wanted to activate the express tracks, here's the scenerio which makes the most sense: - Have the F run express north of Church, stopping only at 7th Ave between here and Jay St. - Reduce peak headways on the F (north AM, south PM) to 10 TPH, which is what the other three lines to CI have. - Extend the V to Church, running also at 10 TPH peak - Extend the G to Church 24/7 Anything more complicated is unecessary. That includes altering the traffic flow at W4th. |
|
|
| (842822) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 11 12:32:53 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 22:21:11 2009. The proposal that I like that I have said before is a rather simple idea:Extend the V-train to Church Avenue as a two-direction express along the Culver line during the V-train's regular running hours - M-F, and during the rush hours extend the V-train to Kings Highway as a peak direction express, am to Manhattan, pm to Kings Highway. Leave the F-train alone, with its current headways and operations as a Brooklyn local along the whole route all of the time - 24/7/365. Simply have the G-train run to/from Church Avenue 24/7/365 as a local with its usual service, and hopefully longer trains. Do not even bother with messing with the A, C, E, or any other transit lines, cause there's no need, or earthly rationale to do so. As the report notes, 2/3 of the riders of the F-line are in the northern Brooklyn segment, the segment bypassed by express trains. In addition, the report notes that there are more F-trains than there are G or V-trains. In addition it has been reported here that there were switch changes to Kings Highway making some track movements not possible. Benefits - 1) the riders in the north Brooklyn, Park Slope areas do not lose any F-train service, at a frequency of service that they have come to expect. This is really important since almost every idea/proposal results in lower service for this group - which is the reason these folks petitioned and squeezed the balls of their political leaders to change the service to all local decades ago. From their point of view they have what they want - frequent service - so why take that away? Doing so gives these people a reason to fight any changes. If the V-train runs express, that should free up space on the F-trains. allowing more Park Slope folk to have one-seat rides to/from Manhattan, with actual greater chances of having a seat. This is a reason to buy-in to the idea of the V-train express service. 2) The riders who want express service can transfer to the V-train which makes the same midtown Manhattan stops as the F-train, less rider confusion. When the V-train stops running, the express service is over, and of course no confusion about what runs local, the F-train - 24/7/365. 3) No need for regular switch operations at West 4th Street, Second Avenue, etc. - Bergen Street, Church Avenue and Kings Highway become the switch points a task that they already serve. 4) Having the V-train as a Brooklyn Culver express is no more strange as having the B-train local in Manhattan and the Bronx, but express in Brooklyn -something done for decades - get over that nugget already. 5) The Bergen Street station becomes so much less of an issue. Why? F-train riders from the Park Slope stations have no need to change to the V-train to Manhattan, since by the time the F-train reaches Bergen Street - everything F or V-train is local to Manhattan. No transfer needs to be done there. On the Brooklyn bound side of things in Manhattan, the riders can "sort themselves" on to F or V-trains, especially when they know that V-trains run express. 6) Transit fans and buffs often like to "screw with the subway map" suggesting all sorts of changes to solve a very simple problem - in this case some folks want Culver express service. The simple way to do that is to extend the V-train as an express, once there's more subway cars, once the whole viaduct is repaired, once there's money in the budget for more TO's, etc. 7) Keep talking about substituting less frequent local service (C, G or V-train Culver local trains, or F-trains from Kings Highway only) for the current local service at frequencies of trains every 4 minutes (all current F-trains locals) -- and the Park Slope folks and their political allies will shut down all talk of by-passing their stations. They did it before, and they can certainly do it again. What benefits them (the Park Slope riders, the two-thirds of the lines ridership) with less frequent service? Those folks can count, and they know when they are getting less service! What is the benefit of less frequent service? Would you want less service at your own local station, so that other folk can ride an express train that by-passes your stop? As you make these proposals think about that. Mike |
|
|
| (842823) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:35:09 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:07:24 2009. Damn, stop making sense. It will get you banned here. |
|
|
| (842824) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:35:22 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 12:10:54 2009. The L? what about the other L? |
|
|
| (842825) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:36:42 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 12:10:11 2009. Oh, lol. I just realized that after posting it, but yeah the nostrand line has really improved now that there are two train lines serving it as opposed to just the 2 on its own. |
|
|
| (842826) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:37:38 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 10:32:45 2009. The IND in Brooklyn was poorly designed, most notably the interlocking where the Nostrand Ave line diverges and the Flatbush Ave terminal itself. The problem here is that riders will NOT surrender their #5 service under any conditions, so #2 riders here will continue to get screwed. |
|
|
| (842827) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:38:07 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:35:58 2009. This is why I despise NYCT. They treat their crew like shitAnd here is the nub of the problem. And I quite agree with you. The adversarial relationship between labor and management has to go. And it is 100% up to management to make it so. On this issue the LION is very pro-labor. Each employee is a valuable asset to a company and must be protected. If I want a train to run so and such a route, *I* would call may workers together and ASK THEM how they want to do this. Is the run too long can we break it? Perhaps there are different offsets that the company can offer, such as longer breaks and turn arounds on these lines. If I was intent on running "This train This way" then I have to be willing to pay for the labor that it takes to make it so. If I am not, then perhaps I must run a train differently. But the LION is neither a worker nor a manager, he is simply looking at the physical plant like any railfan would, and suggesting what looks doable to him. The LION is looking at the interlocking plants to the extent that he is aware of them and suggesting how they may be used. You can terminate the (E), the (C) or the (V) at Chambers WTC, but apparently only one of them. The others must go elsewhere. Where else is there on the Fulton Line that can turn a service? You show me how to do it, and I will look at it (for all the good that will do anybody). The LION's major premise was to send the (V) to Chambers WTC to give 6th Avenue access to the financial district. If I do this the (E) must obviously go elsewhere. It is on 8th Avenue, thus I can run it on the express track through the Cranberry and onto Fulton, or I can send it on the Local, through Rutgers to Church, or I can terminate it at Second Avenue, but if so, then I may not be able to run another service through the Rutgers. Maybe I can send the (V) to Chambers; the (E) to Second; and leave the (C) alone, but this keeps the bottleneck at Canal which I was hoping to eliminate. Oh well, you cannot do all things. Still, I would extend the (E) out Fulton to reduce congestion at Canal, and take the penalty of adding more crews to allow for longer breaks at each end. ROAR |
|
|
| (842829) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:42:34 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:31:39 2009. Well if the north part needs more service than southern Brooklyn, then I say split the F and keep the F as a local, but end it at Church and extend the V to CI [Culver express].Obviously it would be very easy now that there are only R46's and R160's as the majority of the fleet [and run the older SMEE's on the R]. This way Park slope riders keep their mouths shut about having the F left alone and riders south of Church can bypass Park Slope and go directly to Manhattan. The more I think about it, I do believe the F should stay a local, but south of Church riders should be able to skip Park Slope. And to do this you need two lines serving different riders. |
|
|
| (842830) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:42:39 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Oct 11 10:45:13 2009. Sure it is. They did it before, both (pm) trains are running lighter there and so loading is less of an issue. All it does is move the merge from Canal to 50th. But 50th looks far and away the better place to merge onto the express than at Canal where trains are heavy and loadings take more time, thus putting well planned meshing out of joint.ROAR |
|
|
| (842832) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:45:07 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Oct 11 10:52:53 2009. MDBF is a nice number, but that is all it is. The question is "What Failed" On a newer car it may be something as simple as rebooting a computer, or fixing some dodad that is out of spec. On an older car the failure will tend to be more catastrophic and require more time and greater assets to repair.ROAR |
|
|
| (842833) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:47:10 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Oct 11 11:02:43 2009. No point in it. They would not have taken the (GG) in the first place but would have waited for the Manhattan Train. From Bergen Street express and local to sixth avenue is meaningless. They will all make the same stops.ROAR |
|
|
| (842837) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:50:19 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:05:06 2009. Yes. So what. If all of the (A)s were to divide between the Rocks, you eliminate the shuttle entirely. THAT would require less equipment and fewer crews.ROAR |
|
|
| (842840) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:56:21 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:42:34 2009. Yes. The LION likes that package.ROAR |
|
|
| (842842) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:59:39 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:50:19 2009. If you were to divide it then have at least 2 A's to Far Rock for every 1 A to Rockaway Park, because that segment doesn't need much service. Or just bring back the round robin and have Howard Beach as the transfer point. |
|
|
| (842843) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 13:00:02 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:56:21 2009. Thanks! |
|
|
| (842845) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 11 13:01:24 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:31:39 2009. The report establishes that F-train service runs at 15 trains per hour, while V and G trains do not. The V-train may run at 8-10 trains per hour, but the G-train does not.In effect you are proposing that local station riders have trains at 10 trains per hour, one every 6 six minutes. In addition, you have also posited that F-express trains run at 5 trains per hour - one every 12 minutes. From the point of view of a Park Slope rider, why opt for less frequent service when what they have now is 15 trains per hour? How does it benefit them to have less service? They would propose that since the F-express trains you proposed are so few in number and should be made local, since the ridership needs at the local stations is that great. That was done before, all trains were made for Park Slope folk. What to many transit fans simply do not understand is that any combination of V-train or G-train service will never match the frequency of F-train service! Ten (10) trains per hour will never match 15 trains per hour. People can count! To Park Slope local station riders who want a one-seat ride to Manhattan, beefing up G-train service to one every 6 minutes - simply does not HELP THOSE FOLKS - they are headed to Manhattan where the G-train does not go. The simple thing to do, is to LEAVE F-TRAIN SERVICE ALONE! Leave it just as it is, Park Slope folk are happy, and much less likely to put the kabash to your ideas. How to get express service along the Culver segment. The simple way to do that is to extend the V-train as an express (both directions to Church Avenue, peak direction to Kings Highway rush hours), once there's more subway cars, once the whole viaduct is repaired, once there's money in the budget for more TO's, etc. Mike |
|
|
| (842847) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:18:21 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:35:22 2009. The L is much busier west of about Myrtle than east of there (same issue as the F really). It's so tempting to get out the ruler and extend the alignment of Wyckoff to Liberty Avenue (well, maybe make that a curve-rule!). That way, both 14th and Cranberry would serve two branches and service levels could be rebalanced. |
|
|
| (842848) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:25:20 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:42:34 2009. Why would you want to swap the V and F south of Church? That's just dumb. |
|
|
| (842849) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:26:08 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:37:38 2009. The IND in Brooklyn was poorly designed.Just in Brooklyn? ;-) Yes, it would be much better if the G could use Bergen Lower. most notably the interlocking where the Nostrand Ave line diverges and the Flatbush Ave terminal itself. And now we're onto the IRT. They should extend the platforms so that there isn't an express/local distinction between Franklin and Utica. Then have all Lex to New Lots (and extend it to Howard Beach!) and all 7th to Flatbush (and extend it to Manhattan Beach!). The problem here is that riders will NOT surrender their #5 service under any conditions, so #2 riders here will continue to get screwed. The terminals as presently configured couldn't really cope with much better anyway. Between Woodlawn and Flatbush something has to give. |
|
|
| (842851) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:28:45 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Oct 11 11:02:43 2009. Thanks, that is what I meant. |
|
|
| (842852) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:29:38 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:47:10 2009. I'm talking about Crosstown line riders that want to transfer to the express, not upper Culver line riders. |
|
|
| (842854) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:32:18 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:25:20 2009. No, it makes more sense. If you're going to make the trains skip the busier stops, you should use the less frequent line. But really there isn't anything much wrong with the F as is (at least not at the Brooklyn end). People would probably on average lose more time waiting for the V express than they would sitting through the extra stops on a local F.The F express ranks with the Sea Beach super express for ideas that really aren't worth doing. |
|
|
| (842855) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:33:11 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 11 13:01:24 2009. What to many transit fans simply do not understand is that any combination of V-train or G-train service will never match the frequency of F-train service! Ten (10) trains per hour will never match 15 trains per hour. People can count!7th Avenue, the major (F) train station in Park Slope would now get 25 TPH to Manhattan, with one train getting them to Manhattan faster, and the other one getting them to Manhattan slower, but with more chances of getting a seat. How can they complain to that? |
|
|
| (842857) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 13:45:11 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:25:20 2009. Park Slope riders will never want to give up the F as they percieve it as 'frequent'. Why should riders south of Church have to put up with the demands of Park Slope?Split the F up and you can satisfy both ridership groups that's why the V should run south of Church and as an express. So they can bypass Park Slope and the Park slope riders can keep their 'damn F train'. |
|
|
| (842858) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:46:01 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:38:07 2009. The LION's major premise was to send the (V) to Chambers WTC to give 6th Avenue access to the financial district. If I do this the (E) must obviously go elsewhere. It is on 8th Avenue, thus I can run it on the express track through the Cranberry and onto Fulton, or I can send it on the Local, through Rutgers to Church, or I can terminate it at Second Avenue, but if so, then I may not be able to run another service through the Rutgers.I'm for swapping the (E) with the (V), but not at West 4th Street, the only way to make sense of any swap between the (C)/(E) and (F)/(V) would be to give Culver riders direct service to the Financial District in my opinion. |
|
|
| (842859) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:47:16 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:32:18 2009. There is no need to create such confusion. Once the V is extended to Church, there will no longer be the need to run the F at current headways. The F can run at 10 TPH (adequate for Culver el needs) and the V can run at 10 TPH (which, because these trains will START at Church, will be adequate for IND local needs). If you thow away BMT transferees at 4th Ave, the busiest station on the IND segment of the F is 7th Ave, which will be served by all trains.With the V, the pressure on the F can be abated, much like it was in Queens, where before 12/01 it ran at 18 TPH, not the current 15. |
|
|
| (842860) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Oct 11 13:49:41 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:21:35 2009. so if repairs to the lower are not done,there will be no structrual threat to either the express trackways or ultimately the entire station? |
|
|
| (842862) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:50:31 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:33:11 2009. He's also using bad math. 10 V + 8 G = 18 total local trains per hour. Right now, replacing the F with the V will result in 2 fewer trains per hour.F trains do not run at 15 TPH in the peak Brooklyn direction. They do that for the peak direction to/from Queens. |
|
|
| (842863) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:56:11 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 13:45:11 2009. Park Slope riders will never want to give up the F as they percieve it as 'frequent'.They will when they realize the V will have available seating. Like I said elsewhere, the difference between peak V and peak Brooklyn F service is a whopping 2 TPH. Trading an additional 60 seconds in waiting time for the chance of a seat and the ability to get on any train without having to play human Tetris will appeal to P.S. riders. The only reason the Park Slope stations get all the service it does today is because it's riders have to squeeze onto trains which arrive in Park Slope already crowded (from riders along the ex-BMT el section). |
|
|
| (842864) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:57:35 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Oct 11 13:49:41 2009. The lower level has suffered significant water damage. Probably not enough to risk collapse, but enough to hamper it's use as a passanger station.The northbound platform is always covered in water. |
|
|
| (842865) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:58:36 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:47:16 2009. Once the V is extended to Church, there will no longer be the need to run the F at current headways.That would need to be an extremely asymmetrical service pattern: those F trains are needed in Queens. The F can run at 10 TPH (adequate for Culver el needs) and the V can run at 10 TPH (which, because these trains will START at Church, will be adequate for IND local needs). Or you could stop repeating the Astoria El mistake and run both local. If you thow away BMT transferees at 4th Ave, the busiest station on the IND segment of the F is 7th Ave, which will be served by all trains. But that is a big thing to throw away. You'd be inserting an extra transfer into people's journeys by having the express be the only train south of Church. Ultimately, this would have a negative effect on Culver El ridership as riders who formerly used that transfer used buses to the West End and Brighton Lines. |
|
|
| (842866) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:59:09 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:26:08 2009. Actually, I meant the IRT in Brooklyn was poorly designed.The IND line the F uses was designed to handle additional branches that were never built. |
|
|
| (842867) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 13:59:13 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 10:03:50 2009. You get my point:The C replacing the F as the Culver Local, with the V replacing the C as the Fulton Street local and both switching lines at West 4th has the major side benefit of giving riders along the 6th Avenue line a one-seat ride to the financial district. This would especially be important because it likely would reduce overcrowding at the Lex/53rd Station since riders there who are going to the financial district would now have both the E and V trains as options to get there as opposed to only the E at that station currently. This is in addition to the real purpose of having the C replace the F as the Culver Local, and that is freeing up the F to become a full-time Culver Express route. |
|
|
| (842870) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 14:10:45 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:56:11 2009. The only reason the Park Slope stations get all the service it does today is because it's riders have to squeeze onto trains which arrive in Park Slope already crowded (from riders along the ex-BMT el section).That's an argument for more trains on the local, not for having some trains by-pass those stops. If you take the giving-each-few-stops-its-own-train, you end up with something like this: (F1) 2tph Stillwell, local to Av X, then express to Jay (F2) 2tph Av X, local to Kings Hwy, then express to Jay (F3) 2tph Kings Hwy, Av P, 22nd Av, 18th Av, then express to Jay (F3) 2tph Kings Hwy, Av N, Av I, 18th Av, then express to Jay (F5) 2tph 18th Av, local to Church, then express to Jay (V1) 4tph Church Av, FHP, 7th Av, Smith/9th, Bergen, then all stops (V2) 4tph Church Av, 15th St, 4th Av, Carroll, Bergen, then all stops If you want service patterns like that, you should move somewhere served by the LIRR. |
|
|
| (842872) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 14:13:35 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:59:09 2009. The IND still wasn't well designed though. It makes those private companies really not look that bad. |
|
|
| (842874) | |
Re: C replacing F as Culver Local/V replacing C as Fulton Local |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:14:46 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:47:16 2009. As noted elsewhere:I would have the C and V switch lines south of West 4th, with the C (and the G as well) replacing the F as the Culver Local while the F goes express between Jay Street-Church Avenue, including stopping at a reopened lower level of Bergen Street. I suspect Park Slope riders would not object to having the C replace the F as the Culver Local because they still would have their one-seat ride to Manhattan, the only difference being it would be via the 8th Avenue Line instead of 6th Avenue (except at the 7th Avenue stop, where riders would have the choice of either 6th or 8th Avenue service). That I suspect would work because I'm sure a good number of Park Slope riders as it is have to transfer at either Jay or West 4th to the 8th Avenue Line, so this change would eliminate that transfer for those going to points north of West 4th on 8th Avenue while for others who use 6th avenue all the way through, unless they are going north of West 4th on the 6th Avenue line, their situation is unchanged (and for those who do, they have at worst a cross or same-platform transfer they can make at 7th Avenue, Jay or Broadway-Lafayette). Since as part of this the V would replace the C as the Fulton Local, the major side benefit of that change is that 6th Avenue riders would now have a one-seat ride of their own to the financial district. This would be huge at Lex/53rd, a station notorious for its being overcrowded as riders for the financial district coming from Midtown on the East Side now would have two trains stopping at Lex/53rd instead of the current one. |
|
|
| (842875) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:19:10 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:58:36 2009. That would need to be an extremely asymmetrical service pattern: those F trains are needed in Queens.It used to be worse. Before the V, the F ran 18 TPH peak in Queens and peak in Brooklyn. Or you could stop repeating the Astoria El mistake and run both local. Astoria is different. N/W individual headways in 2001 were less than 10 TPH and the disparity between express and local ridership was much greater. And there was no G to supplement the local. But that is a big thing to throw away. You'd be inserting an extra transfer into people's journeys by having the express be the only train south of Church. Ultimately, this would have a negative effect on Culver El ridership as riders who formerly used that transfer used buses to the West End and Brighton Lines. Manhattan-bound riders outnumber these people exponentially. My pattern is beneficial to the largest number of riders while causing the least amount of cofusion between it and the current one. |
|
|
| (842876) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:19:24 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 10:23:52 2009. LOL!!!! |
|
|
| (842877) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:20:39 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 12:37:38 2009. Even when only the 2 runs, the 2 is terrible as there's long gaps between trains and they arrive to Franklin crowded. The 5 is a welcomed addition, plus why should only the Utica-New Lots riders get a choice of both Lex or 7th Av service? Why not riders along the Nostrand line as well?The problem is the junction as set up the 5 has to enter on the local tracks before switching back to the express track. And unless they can rebuild it like the set up for the 63rd St tunnel connection to the QB line, then the 5 will have to continue 'obstructing traffic'. |
|
|
| (842878) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:20:46 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 14:13:35 2009. The IND was over-engineered in many places. But I think that for traffic flow, it was designed well. There are no grade crossings or really sharp curves. My only beef is that the Concourse line should have been 4 tracks, not 3. |
|
|
| (842879) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:22:43 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:20:46 2009. Totally agreed about that, but also they should've made 161st an express stop as it is the last stop in the Bronx and for the connection to the 4 above.The IND also should've built 4th av on the culver line as an express stop so the G never would've had to terminate at Smith-9th all these years. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 6 |
||
