|
|
| Re: Bergen Street Lower Level (842381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
|
| (842880) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:23:47 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 14:10:45 2009. That's an argument for more trains on the local, not for having some trains by-pass those stops.No, it's not, since the trains serving the local will not arrive loaded up with riders from points south. 10 empty V trains trumps 12 loaded ones any day. |
|
|
| (842881) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:25:47 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:56:11 2009. All I'm saying is that riders are not into how many tph a line runs like we do. To them they only perceive: F = frequent, V = infrequent.You can't win against a mentality that's set like this. That's why I offer a compromise to work around this problem. Besides is it really 'that' much of a difference to have the V run south of Church in place of the F? I mean if the F was trimmed down, you can run a lot more F service from 179th to Church. |
|
|
| (842882) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:27:05 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:57:35 2009. It still sounds like something that needs to be fixed regardless of whether or not the lower level is used for passenger service (as even if not, it is still needed to turn trains on G.O.'s like this weekend's and when the F needs to run express on the Culver line). That is why I would go all the way and fix the LL of Bergen to restore it for passenger service while implementing the changes previously noted that would greatly improve service in several instances. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (842883) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:27:08 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:20:39 2009. Demand on Nostrand Ave probably dictates more than just one line outside rush hours. |
|
|
| (842885) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:30:12 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:25:47 2009. All I'm saying is that riders are not into how many tph a line runs like we do. To them they only perceive: F = frequent, V = infrequent.Once you explain it to them, they will understand the benefit. |
|
|
| (842886) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:33:16 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:27:08 2009. Exactly, I used to ride the 2 daily in the midday hours and I can attest to the point about the 2 as being inadequate on its own.I would see quite a number of emptier 4 trains passing by me on Franklin heading towards Utica and how it would be nice if at least one of those 4 trains were a 5 train to fill in for the gap on Nostrand. Things are much better now with the 5 running there so that I no longer need to wait for a crowded 2 to show up and can take either the 2 or the 5 to Flatbush Av. |
|
|
| (842888) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:36:24 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:30:12 2009. Well all I can say is good luck with that. These are the same people that killed the Culver express years ago when the F was express leaving the G local.I understand the V is going to Manhattan, but I would guess that they fear any changes to the 'status quo' is a bad thing. I say offer a compromise instead. Plus this way shortening the F to Church, you can then run as many extra trains it needs as the southern portion would not need as much service. |
|
|
| (842889) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:38:53 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:27:05 2009. I think the MTA would feel it is best to keep the lights off and let the platform rot away [but fix it up enough to prevent the structure from failing completely].If the majority of riders are heading to Manahttan, there's no need for the Bergen Lower level. G riders have no choice heading north and would have to stay on the G anyway. |
|
|
| (842890) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 11 14:43:41 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 12:10:11 2009. by adding a branch after 7th Avenue/9th Street station serving the Flatbush Avenue corridor.Old half-assed fantasy map... Part 1 Part 2 |
|
|
| (842891) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:43:55 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:33:16 2009. The 5 should probably run to Flatbush Ave all day long. The 2 empties out at Franklin anyway. |
|
|
| (842893) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:50:33 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:43:55 2009. When only the 2 ran, it was jammed especially when around after 8-8:30pm when 5's ran only to utica. |
|
|
| (842894) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:52:41 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:38:53 2009. The changes I'm proposing that including fixing Bergen LL so it can be used for passengers again would have far reaching effects, including as noted with the C/V swap below West 4th and the V as a result becoming a 19/7 line and C a 24/7 line riders along 6th Avenue (outside of overnights) having service to the WTC and financial district, in the process relieving severe overcrowding at Lex/53rd.Re-opening Bergen LL allows the C, F and G to all stop there as I would do it (C & G on the upper level, F on the lower level) would help a lot as well. This is much different than 35-40 years ago as such service (once the Culver Viaduct project is complete) is likely now warranted where it may not have 30 years ago. |
|
|
| (842896) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:55:01 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:23:47 2009. True, except as I would do it, it would be the C on those local stations instead of the V (with the V on the Fulton Line) as there are many other benefits well noted to that move. |
|
|
| (842897) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:56:43 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 14:52:41 2009. Well 8th Av riders can get the G if they stay on the A to Hoyt.And if riders want the Culver express or local, they can wait for their train at Jay st, just one station north. I just don't see the real need for reopening Bergen St ll. |
|
|
| (842901) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Oct 11 15:17:33 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 13:26:08 2009. Howard Beach already has subway service. They should extend the New Lots branch to the Gateway Center and have it swing west to serve Spring Creek Towers/Starrett City. |
|
|
| (842903) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 15:21:58 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:47:16 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.Ahem... not to reign on your peerade... but... What about the Queens end of the route. THAT IS WHERE THE TRAINS ARE NEEDED. LION might send the (F) to CI and then send the (V) to Church plus short turning a number of (F)s at Church and/or Kings Highway. ROAR |
|
|
| (842904) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 15:26:14 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 14:36:24 2009. BUT *THEY* ARE THE ONES WHO ASKED FOR AN EXPRESS SERVICE, EVEN THOUGH THEY LIVE AT A LOCAL STATION!ROAR |
|
|
| (842906) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 15:29:24 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:29:38 2009. There is NO REASON for a Crosstown rider to transfer to an Express.From Bergen Street both the express and the local will make the exact same stops, ergo thwy would not have gotten on a GG train in the first place. ROAR |
|
|
| (842907) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 15:31:42 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Osmosis Jones on Sun Oct 11 13:46:01 2009. You cannot swap trains at Jay Street.Only the LOCAL trains can swap, and only at West 4th St. ROAR |
|
|
| (842908) | |
Re: Culver Line, C/V flipping, etc. |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 15:34:00 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:30:12 2009. That's why I would do it with the C train and NOT the V, aside from all of the other side benefits from such a switch (including relieving overcrowding at Lex/53rd since the E and V would both now go to the financial district).Doing so with the C gives Culver (and also Fulton Line riders since the V would replace the C to Euclid) 6th and 8th Avenue line service. Park Slope local riders would still have their one-seat-ride to Manhattan, and unless they are going north of West 4th, that one-seat ride does not change (and not at all for express riders since the F would be an express train at all times), which those in Park Slope who currently need to switch to 8th Avenue line at Jay or West 4th for 8th Avenue line service north of West 4th would now gain a one-seat ride they currently do not have. That's why I do it that way. |
|
|
| (842909) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 15:35:08 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 11:21:05 2009. Yep ... pic says blackout, happy "customers" say waiting for that lineup. :) |
|
|
| (842917) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Hank Eisenstein on Sun Oct 11 16:00:53 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:50:19 2009. Would also eliminate confusion for airport passengers. |
|
|
| (842922) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 16:34:07 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:23:47 2009. That's intrinsically inefficient, as you're carrying around parallel spare capacity on board trains. It's the same problem transit operators had in the South with segregationist laws. |
|
|
| (842923) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 16:35:05 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 12:01:58 2009. Just felt like flaming the living shit our of someone. I think I just may do it again.... |
|
|
| (842924) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 16:37:05 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 11 12:32:53 2009. IAWTP x10000000000000. |
|
|
| (842927) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 16:43:09 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 14:19:10 2009. It used to be worse. Before the V, the F ran 18 TPH peak in Queens and peak in Brooklyn.That's no reason to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The current service pattern is better than that. 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. The disparity is still significant, and still the same way round. And it's not just Astoria: it's exactly the same reason why the 1/9 skip-stop lost people time. You don't have to use express tracks just because they're there. And there was no G to supplement the local. It's a piece of terrible IND design that the G has to end up there at all. And no-one wants to play guess the level at Bergen. 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. But you are screwing over the majority of Manhattan-bound riders whilst still screwing over a segment of the outer riders you're trying to favor (okay, there might not be many using that transfer -- we have no data -- but it's still a plausible one to make en route to Manhattan). |
|
|
| (842929) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 16:53:53 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 11 14:43:41 2009. It's on my old half-assed fantasy map too. Although I didn't think of putting a subway on that part of Linden. And I'd use the subway version of the BBT for something quite different... |
|
|
| (842930) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 11 17:07:33 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 16:53:53 2009. Although I didn't think of putting a subway on that part of Linden.Like the Flatbush Avenue option, it was merely an alternative routing designed to elicit public opinion on the entire process. I still prefer the original routing in turquoise in order to serve a broad area of Central Brooklyn. For what it's worth, I'd figure for the fun factor alone, I should draw up a map with the Franklin Shuttle connecting into SAS and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan or the Utica Avenue subway connecting into the L at Montrose Ave... |
|
|
| (842932) | |||
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|||
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 17:13:25 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 16:35:05 2009.
|
|||
|
| (842933) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 17:14:43 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Michael549 on Sun Oct 11 12:32:53 2009. IIRC PARK SLOPE ASKED FOR EXPRESS TRAINS.ROAR |
|
|
| (842934) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 17:23:58 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Oct 11 13:25:20 2009. One benefit of running the V as express would be that it avoids confusion at Jay St. southbound. "Is this F local or express?" |
|
|
| (842935) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 17:27:41 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Oct 11 17:07:33 2009. For what it's worth, I'd figure for the fun factor alone, I should draw up a map with the Franklin Shuttle connecting into SAS and Sixth Avenue in Manhattan or the Utica Avenue subway connecting into the L at Montrose Ave...Go for it! |
|
|
| (842936) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:31:59 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 16:53:53 2009. L to 72nd seems interesting. But wow about the rest of the map... I think i'm lost :) |
|
|
| (842937) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 17:33:15 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 13:59:13 2009. There is much more demand for "Eighth Ave. <-> Financial District" than "Sixth Ave. <-> Financial District", especially during rush. You already know that but ignore it.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. No it won't reduce overcrowding. People headed to the Financial District from that area mostly use the Lex. People who remain on the E past 7th Ave. to the Financial District are people riding from Queens. |
|
|
| (842938) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:33:41 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Oct 11 10:34:47 2009. Either way I'm hoping it means the R46's from the G will be freed up and replaced with either R68/a's or CI's R160's. |
|
|
| (842939) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:35:08 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by mci guy on Sat Oct 10 17:04:46 2009. If the F is too long a line, then split the F in Brooklyn by having it terminate at Church Av and have the V run all the way to CI via Culver express. |
|
|
| (842944) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sun Oct 11 17:53:13 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Marc A. Rivlin on Sun Oct 11 10:52:53 2009. As I said, to the suits at NYCT, MDBF is what ist's all about.Even if it can be deceptive! |
|
|
| (842946) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:55:51 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 16:32:45 2009. Just be happy if the R32's are the last of the 60' smees to retire from revenue service. |
|
|
| (842951) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 18:27:57 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Bill From Maspeth on Sat Oct 10 15:14:53 2009. Whatever....I'm being "sarcastic"? No..I'm not.. If I were,You would know. |
|
|
| (842952) | |
Re: L to 72nd/Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 18:27:59 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:31:59 2009. That is something I have suggested many times myself:As noted before, how I would do it would be to after 8th Avenue have the L make a diagonal jaunt to 10th Avenue, stopping first at 23rd Street (exits at 22nd, 23rd and 25th street). That would be a three-track station which would allow for short-turning both from Canarsie AND from 72/Broadway. The line north of that would be three tracks, allowing for a peak-direction express between 23rd and 72nd, with stops likely like this: 34th Street (Express, exits at 32nd and 34th and possibly 35th for the Javits Center) 42nd Street (Express, exits at 41st for a possible 7 transfer, 42nd and 44th) 52nd Street (Local, exits at 49th, 50th and 52nd Street) 66th Street-Amsterdam Avenue (Local, exits at 63rd and 66th Street) 72nd-Broadway (Last Stop, station would be under the existing 1/2/3 station at 72nd and Broadway with transfers to that line there along with a separate exit at 75th and Amsterdam in this scenario). |
|
|
| (842953) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 18:30:54 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 15:35:08 2009. m,mvc0m1mmmmmmmmmm2 mmmmk;, l,ko mmmmmmmmmmnhp/ fffo,;08 kkj, nm uj79ioooi7j |
|
|
| (842954) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 18:33:56 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 18:30:54 2009. OMG ... cleanup in car 6! :) |
|
|
| (842955) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 18:34:23 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 17:23:58 2009. Maybe initially, but as I would do it the C would be doing that (being the Culver local) while the V would replace the C as the Fulton Local. That would avoid confusion from Jay Street southbound since the C would be clearly the local and the F the express. |
|
|
| (842957) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 18:39:42 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 18:33:56 2009. sorry ,dude..my daughter decided to play while I was away... |
|
|
| (842958) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 18:40:37 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 18:39:42 2009. It's all good ... have mop, have handles. Buzz-buzz. :) |
|
|
| (842962) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Oct 11 18:47:39 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 18:40:37 2009. You forgot the slap-slap.:) |
|
|
| (842966) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 18:52:15 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Oct 11 18:47:39 2009. We're not allowed to do that anymore. :) |
|
|
| (842974) | |
Re: L to 72nd/Broadway |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 19:11:32 2009, in response to Re: L to 72nd/Broadway, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 18:27:59 2009. And that way 10th Av would have a subway line running below it. |
|
|
| (842980) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 19:19:22 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:55:51 2009. IAWTP. I definitely will. |
|
|
| (842986) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 19:27:18 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by G1Ravage on Sun Oct 11 00:41:18 2009. No..I haven't,but I have worked a Greyhound trick during the Spring Break season..summer..Christmas..july 4th..and FRIDAY-SUNDAY.I know what it like to be under pressure just living..so don't run that by me. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 6 |
||
