|
|
| Re: Bergen Street Lower Level (842381) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
|
| (842992) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Oct 11 19:49:29 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 08:05:49 2009. The tracks at W4 St are NOT for the sole purpose of G. O.s. At various times during the course of IND operating history CC and E trains operated via Houston St to 2 Ave and Church Ave respectively and until the IND took over the Culver Line, the regular south terminal of the D Line was Hudson Terminal (now WTC). Also, the tracks were specifically designed so that the physically straightest routes were between the upper level and Houston St and the lower level and Spring St. |
|
|
| (842998) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 20:05:41 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 17:33:15 2009. That may be now, but we all know how overcrowded the 6 is, plus if you do take the 6 to the financial district, you either have to walk a bit from Chambers or subsequently switch to the 4/5 to go south of Brooklyn Bridge.Having both the E and V go to the financial district would give people who live in midtown on the east side a new option to get to the financial district (and a lot sooner than the SAS being built) since they can go to Lex/53 and get the E/V there instead of getting the 6 at 51st/Lex or the 4/5/6/R at 59-60/Lex. That is one of the side benefits of the switching that would have the C replace the F as the Culver Local (with the F becoming the full-time Culver express) and the V replacing the C as the Fulton local, with an additional side benefit of having the V in this arrangement running on weekends, which would eliminate was has been a VERY sore sticking point with some: The lack of 6th Avenue service on 53rd Street on weekends, as well as there not being enough local service on Queens Blvd. on weekends. As for the financial district: Sure, there might be more demand on 8th Avenue, but those passengers on the local would have options that give them minimal inconvience: On CPW/8th Avenue, taking the B (from Columbus Circle-145th) to West 4th and switching there to the A, E or V or the A at 59th OR taking the C and switching the E (same platform) anywhere between 50th and West 4th or the A at 59th or the A, E or V at West 4th. That's also why I think this would work once people got used to it. |
|
|
| (843001) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 20:13:40 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by randyo on Sun Oct 11 19:49:29 2009. Exactly, and that is why I brought up the idea of switching the C and V south of West 4th as part of all of this that would allow the F to return to being the Culver Express with the C replacing it as the Culver Local on a full-time basis and the V replacing the C as the Fulton Local 19/7. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (843003) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 20:26:31 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 20:13:40 2009. I really think that the (C) should be left as it is, and if the (V) is going to enter Brooklyn, it should be with the (F). Switching them doesn't seem to bad, but imagine how much riders will ball when they find out that their services are all over the place. Besides, I think that Culver residents are happy with their Sixth Avenue service and the Fulton Street Riders are happy with their Eighth Avenue service. That's just the way I see it. |
|
|
| (843007) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Oct 11 20:35:27 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 21:55:40 2009. LOL...! |
|
|
| (843014) | |
The Rock Park Shuttle (was:Re: Bergen St...; ex RE:Adding C...; nee RE:F train...; WTF Wallyhorse?) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Oct 11 20:44:43 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:50:19 2009. 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.For the two hour period starting at 6am and ending at 8am there are 5 A trains and 6 shuttles departing Beach 116th. I am assuming all trains are 75 feet because this is arguably most advantageous to your position of the full-length trains requiring less equipment and fewer cars. Those 11 trains means that there are 64 cars and 16 operating employees being utilized during that 2 hour block. At the moment there are 16 trains originating at one of the Rockaway terminals (Far Rock or Beach 116th), and splitting that headway between the two terminals would result in 64 trains and 16 operating personnel being utilized at 116th between 6 and 8am. Thus simply based on effective asset utilization this concept would provide no net savings in the number of utilized cars or the number of crew. Indeed, because the shuttle trains do not disappear into a black hole past Howard Beach one can say that while they potentially move 24 carloads between 6 and 8am, there are only 12 cars and 3 to 4 crew members utilized for the service (derived from working backward from 4 car trains, 16 minute round trips and ~15min headways). Because of this we really can only say 52 physical cars and 13-14 actual operating employees are utilized for service from Beach 116th. Similarly the riders would be forced to trade 11 trains per 2 hour period for 8 trains per 2 hour period if the Howard Beach throughput were split between Far Rock and Rock Park. The Shuttle operation allows NYCT to combine the marginal operations on the Rockaway penninsula at their interface with the rest of the world and in doing so to multiply the the capability of those 12 cars to much greater effective capacity and more convenient travel without saddling them with a full round trip to 207th. Thus while effective capacity in terms of carloads moved from 116th and other Rock Park branch stations would remain constant, your plan would require an increase in the number of trains and crews required to provide that service all while making the service less convenient for the passengers. Then of course you have to worry about the other end of the Rockaway Penninsula. You'd have to hope around 7:50, when the Far Rock branch headways drop to about 8 minute headways, that you could continue to accomodate the Rock Park trains. If you simply split the current 8tph A train service through Howard Beach between Beach 116th and Far Rockaway then Far Rock would be faced with just 4tph between 7 and 8am. As we established above 4tph from Beach 116th is a marginal solution in terms of capacity (admittedly the utilization of that capacity is debatable), and convenience to the riders along the Rock Park end. However, regardless of whether they'll utilize all 8 cars you can't short shrift the Rock Park riders by sticking them with headways longer than 15 minutes during the morning peak. You've already done away with the shuttle so that's not an option. Thus the only possible outcome would be to use more trainsets for the Far Rock line, perhaps bringing the number of northbound trains through Howard Beach (that is, combined Far Rock and Beach 116th originating trains) up to 18 or even 20 between 6am and 8am. But then you're adding service to a line you've already established is marginal at best in terms of its equipment utilization by those station's ridership. Finally you have to consider the E to Lefferts and its 15tph along with a potential 9-10tph of A train service from the Rockways combined north of Liberty Jct. 24-25tph is a hell of a lot of service for the stations between Euclid and Rockway Boulevard. Even the 20tph of the A train without a service increase and the E train combined would likely be overkill during that time, as it'd be a vast increase over the current 15tph through Rockaway Blvd. And as an addendum: Wallyhorse, is it really neccesary to change the subject of the thread every time you post? It makes it virtually impossible to follow a given thread in the chronological view and can even make a threaded view difficult to follow. If you feel your post marks some tangent from the OP then I see no problem with inserting a note to that effect. However, I hardly see how Bergen St LL justifies a subject change in a thread about the F train in Brooklyn. And please, I humbly beg you to at the very least document the subject title change. At least attach the the original thread title for those of us who don't care to continuously come back to subthreads of the same original posting because you continue to change the thread subject. |
|
|
| (843015) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 20:44:44 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 17:31:59 2009. L to 72nd seems interesting. But wow about the rest of the map... I think i'm lost :)It's basically a load of ideas that have come up on Subchat/talk over the years. I admit the whole thing looks rather overwhelming (it may or may not help that I've given trunk lines letters/numbers, rather than branches, but there weren't enough letters!). But if you look at any particular line (or area), you should be able to see why it's like that. So the 6th Avenue Local (F) gets an extra branch along Flatbush Avenue (this is a maximalist version to Hammels), whilst the 63rd St tunnel gets connected to a second Queens Express, with the predictable extension beyond 179/Hillside. Meanwhile, the (L) gets a Rockaway Blvd Branch to give the Rockaways faster more frequent service without piling everyone onto the Queens IND. This also provides more trains on the busier western half of the (L). That has the knock-on effect of needing a better terminal than 8th Av, and so on... |
|
|
| (843019) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 20:47:39 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sun Oct 11 20:44:44 2009. Interesting, though I'm not really sure the L going outside of Brooklyn as really necessary plus you'll get a lot of angry NIMBY crowds for building a subway line below their streets when a bus would do. IMO.For your L: love the Manahttan segment, not too sure about the Queens side. |
|
|
| (843074) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 22:13:37 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 18:34:23 2009. And what would run as a local when the C is not running in that scenario? |
|
|
| (843082) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 22:25:59 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 20:05:41 2009. The 6 overcrowding lessens at 51st and even more at Grand Central. OTOH, the E is overcrowded until Fifth Ave. and gets overcrowded again by Penn Station.I also think that the V should run on weekends in some form but not if it's going to Lower Manhattan. That's not where it's wanted. As for the financial district: Sure, there might be more demand on 8th Avenue, but those passengers on the local would have options that give them minimal inconvience: etc... You ignore Penn Station and PABT traffic and good luck telling them that a transfer at West 4th with its "guess the level game" is a minimal inconvenience. |
|
|
| (843083) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 22:28:27 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 20:26:31 2009. Besides, I think that Culver residents are happy with their Sixth Avenue service and the Fulton Street Riders are happy with their Eighth Avenue service. That's just the way I see it.IAWTP. That was a factor to decide where they live. And for those who need the other ways, Jay St. offers an across the platform transfer. |
|
|
| (843087) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Oct 11 22:41:08 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 18:40:37 2009. Don't forget the sawdust!-w- |
|
|
| (843090) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Oct 11 22:50:47 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Oct 11 22:41:08 2009. Nah ... these is modern times. We just turn up the heat in the car and COOK it off. :) |
|
|
| (843098) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Oct 11 23:14:44 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Oct 10 16:44:07 2009. What part of "Will NOT be used." is unclear.Maybe the part where you lack any and all decision making responsibility in this process? |
|
|
| (843102) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Oct 11 23:25:32 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by lrg5784 on Sun Oct 11 20:26:31 2009. But why would they? The V currently dead-ends at 2nd Avenue. In fact, the only time it ever operated in Brooklyn was via Fulton Street after an electrical fire in the switch room near Chambers Street forced the suspension of the C train. Culver residents would still have 6th Avenue service with the F and Fulton Street riders will still have 8th Avenue service with the A. But they will also have the option of service to a different part of Manhattan instead two services going to the same place in Manhattan. |
|
|
| (843109) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 23:46:17 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 22:25:59 2009. Wado:I was specifically thinking lower Manhattan as far as the C/V. Those going to Penn Station and PABT on the C from upper Manhattan would NOT be affected at all (as the C would still stop on 8th avenue at both 34th and 42nd), while from lower Manhattan and Brooklyn those passengers would still have the E train from Chambers and points north and the A where it currently stops (and at Jay Street, both the A and C), plus Park Slope and Culver Line riders would (from Church Avenue northward) have a one-seat ride to Penn Station they currently do not have since the C would be on the Culver line instead of Fulton in Brooklyn (while on the Fulton line, at worst those at local stops would have a cross or even same platform transfer to the A). |
|
|
| (843110) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 23:50:08 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Oct 11 23:25:32 2009. And that is my point in making these changes:Culver and Fulton Line riders would BOTH (at express stops) have the choice of either a sixth or eighth avenue train, and as noted elsewhere, Culver Line riders from Church Avenue northward (and Park Slope residents) would for the first time have a one seat ride to Penn Station and PABT they currently don't have. |
|
|
| (843111) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 23:56:38 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Oct 11 22:13:37 2009. As noted in my posts, the C would become a full-time 24/7 line (which would have the side benefit of the A running express in Manhattan during the overnights) so that would not be an issue, but if the C didn't run overnights, then the F would run local in Brooklyn with the G as it does now.I suspect by 2012-'13 when work on the Culver Viaduct is complete the needs would warrant my changing the C and V south of West 4th with the C joining the F and G on the Culver Line and the V going to Euclid as the Fulton Local (and by then also fixing up the lower level of Bergen Street and re-opening that for the F express). There are multiple side benefits to these changes as I would do it here. |
|
|
| (843155) | |
Re: Changing titles in the subject lines |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 07:10:59 2009, in response to The Rock Park Shuttle (was:Re: Bergen St...; ex RE:Adding C...; nee RE:F train...; WTF Wallyhorse?), posted by WillD on Sun Oct 11 20:44:43 2009. Will:I don't always change the titles in the subject lines, it just seems like it at times. I only change the title of the subject line to what we actually are discussing. It can be very annoying to click on what you think is the subject line only to find it is something completely different, which, along with making it easier to follow what is actually discussed, is why I do it where warranted. |
|
|
| (843164) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 07:45:43 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Grand Concourse on Sun Oct 11 20:47:39 2009. Interesting, though I'm not really sure the L going outside of Brooklyn as really necessary plus you'll get a lot of angry NIMBY crowds for building a subway line below their streets when a bus would do. IMO.Well, there are nimbies everywhere. Perhaps the worst ones on that route would actually be the relatives of the dead nimbies. But it's one answer to giving Lefferts and the Fulton St local a full service each. And IMHO it pwns trying to crush every line in Queens into Roosevelt/Broadway. For your L: love the Manahttan segment, not too sure about the Queens side. Thanks. The Manhattan segment's also partially about enabling the Jersey segment of the (7). Which in turn is related to another idea that comes up all the time: Park and Ride subway stations. (And the slightly less frequent idea of: there are those two terrific railroad ROWs going to waste.) |
|
|
| (843174) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 08:01:26 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 23:46:17 2009. You're cutting service where it's most needed (PABT, NYP <-> Financial District) and adding service where demand is less. |
|
|
| (843177) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 08:06:26 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 23:56:38 2009. the C would become a full-time 24/7 lineNo demand for it. but if the C didn't run overnights, then the F would run local in Brooklyn with the G as it does now. "Is this F, local or express?" at Jay St. There are multiple side benefits to these changes as I would do it here. More people inconvenienced than those who would benefit. |
|
|
| (843186) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 08:34:27 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Oct 11 23:50:08 2009. They already have a transfer as good as (or better than) any express station at Jay. |
|
|
| (843202) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 09:25:56 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 08:06:26 2009. IAWTP. The needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. This goes for Fulton Street/Sixth Avenue and Culver/Eighth Avenue service. NOT for it. |
|
|
| (843236) | |
Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Oct 12 10:58:17 2009, in response to Re: Adding the C or V to the Culver Line, posted by WillD on Sun Oct 11 23:14:44 2009. *I* didn't decide it. THEY DID.ROAR |
|
|
| (843249) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 12 11:21:19 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 09:25:56 2009. In my experience traveling to Brooklyn, and using the Jay Street station, with the A, C and F lines - if the following happened I might support some of the changes that were suggested for the A, C, F and V lines - switching the lower Manhattan trunks on which they run.If almost whole entire F-trains were emptied at Jay Street during the morning to Manhattan rush hours, where all of those riders boarded and overcrowded A and C trains for the journey to Manhattan. And in the evening this was repeated, F-trains basically arrived almost empty to Jay Street from Manhattan, and upon leaving Jay Street were filled to the brim with riders for the trip home, of course reliving the over-crowding on the A and C trains. Sorry but that does not happen. From my experience of living in Brooklyn along and using the A and C lines, and traveling to work in Brooklyn over a couple of decades - such a passenger transfer scenario does not happen. Yes, sure plenty of folk transfer from the F-train to the A and C trains for the trip to Manhattan especially during the rush hours, and again at night transfer at Jay Street back to F-trains for the trip home. However it is not hordes of folks, maybe 20-25% of the F-train riders, at most one-third - would be my estimate. There are not a lot of A and C train riders running off of the A and C trains at Jay Street for F-train service to Manhattan on a regular basis. If I had to estimate from memory it would be about 10-20% of the A and C train riders, and 20% would be pushing it as the upper limit of the estimate. I remember when there was a blockage in A or C train service to Manhattan, plenty of A and C train riders would take the F-train to Manhattan and transfer to complete their journey, simply to get to work on time. My point is that I really doubt that there are great hordes of folk who just have to transfer at Jay Street, that the trains need to be through routed to those points. The across-the-platform transfer works well enough. The A and C lines tend to take folks to where they want to go, and the same with the F-train, and both lines offer transfer opportunities to other lines. Plenty of folks manage their ways around the subways just fine. I know it is a part of transit buff membership dues to propose every kind of subway map changing alternative that could possibly exist, even if they make little sense in the real world. Mike |
|
|
| (843285) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 13:01:42 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Oct 11 12:45:07 2009. 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.I disagree. |
|
|
| (843293) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 13:20:32 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Oct 12 08:01:26 2009. Those are as of now:How do we know those will be the same demands come 2012-'13, when the Culver Viaduct project will be complete? Remember, these changes would not be taking effect until that work is done as I would do it. Further, as previously noted, the C service would not change from West 4th and points northward. The big change would be Fulton and Culver riders at local stops would have the opposite trunk line from what they do now (with a simple cross or same platform transfer available at varying stations along the way), and even then those going to the financial district on the Fulton Street Line would actually see no change in their service since the V would be operating with the A to West 4th (except for the additional stop on the V at Spring before joining the 6th Avenue Line at W4). Also, those at Jay Street would actually see additional service in this setup since the V train, which currently does not operate in Brooklyn would be as it would be replacing the C on the Fulton Street line, meaning four lines instead of the current three would be stopping at one of busiest stations in the system that will likely become busiser with the new transfer there to the R/M trains at Lawrence-Metrotech opening soon. |
|
|
| (843296) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Oct 12 13:25:19 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 13:01:42 2009. Yes, and so?How does this surprise us? ROAR |
|
|
| (843297) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 13:25:33 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 08:34:27 2009. Yes, but this setup would severely reduce the crowded train problem on the Culver Line while at the same time give riders on that line the choice of 6th or 8th avenue line service before Jay Street, with the same true on the Fulton Street line in this incarnation. |
|
|
| (843300) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 13:30:28 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Oct 12 13:25:19 2009. Yes, and so?So as usual, you don't care about the truth. |
|
|
| (843311) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Oct 12 14:03:38 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 07:45:43 2009. Yeah I guess that's true. But I don't really see that many people on the Rockaway Park segment has being a 'high demand' for subway service. That's just me. |
|
|
| (843312) | |
Re: Changing titles in the subject lines |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Mon Oct 12 14:04:44 2009, in response to Re: Changing titles in the subject lines, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 07:10:59 2009. You can change the subject line, but keep the original title in (). |
|
|
| (843322) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 14:24:00 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by Michael549 on Mon Oct 12 11:21:19 2009. Mike:That may have been true, and may continue to be true, but as noted the main purpose of this is to relieve a very serious overcrowding problem on the F by bringing in express service on the Culver Line between Jay Street and Church Avenue that apparently is very sorely needed, while at the same time appeasing Park Slope local riders who still want their service. The problem with doing this with the V train, at least to me, is the perception that some have with the V line. I suspect Park Slope residents would not go for having the V as a local train replacing the F (which would become express), whereas I do think they would be much more inclined if it were the C train because those passengers would now have a one-seat ride to the 8th avenue line (north of West 4th) they currently do not have, while at express stops have the choice of 6th or 8th avenue service in Manhattan. You also mentioned the Jay Street transfer, however, I wonder how many of those people who don't transfer at Jay simply use their current one-seat ride, either on the 6th or 8th avenue line, and walk the balance if they actually work (or live) near the opposite branch)? That to me is something that gets overlooked. There also is another factor in this that I also overlooked previously, and that is those coming on the Broadway Brooklyn line into Manhattan who currently if they want 8th Avenue service have to ride to Fulton Street (unless the A/C happens to be running a G.O. via the F), which isn't even an option on weekends. This change also gives those riders a new transfer to the C at Essex-Delancey, something I don't think can be discounted either. That transfer being available may in particular help in relieving overcrowding on the L train by those who currently get off the M at Myrtle-Wyckoff to switch to the L there, since those passengers could in this scenario instead stay on the M to Essex Street and switch at Essex-Delancey for the C. That is to me yet another side benefit of this switch. |
|
|
| (843323) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 14:24:25 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 13:30:28 2009. IAWTP. Just because a car is "new", doesn't necessarily mean it's "better". |
|
|
| (843325) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 14:27:35 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 14:24:25 2009. Yes. But the other arguments you are making about the R-32 are pretty bogus. |
|
|
| (843340) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 15:06:27 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 14:27:35 2009. Maybe so, but the only reason why I back them up in such a manner is because of all the history behind it. If they were really unreliable, they would have all been gone by now. |
|
|
| (843343) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 15:13:24 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 15:06:27 2009. At least you admit they are bogus arguments. |
|
|
| (843344) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Oct 12 15:14:42 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 15:06:27 2009. I'm fairly certain that if they could have been replaced at less cost, the R32s would already be gone.As it is, you know, the GOH program was not cost-effective. NYCT would have been better off purchasing many more R62/68/As and a 60' car modeled on the R68/A. I miss the R32s, but that said, I mean the R32s of old, pre-GOH. Although the improved climate control is a great improvement post-GOH, the cars emerged, in my view, quite fugly. |
|
|
| (843345) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 15:15:38 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 15:13:24 2009. W/e. |
|
|
| (843348) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Oct 12 15:22:17 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 13:25:33 2009. All these ideas are very good and I would imagine that the original planners of the IND had exactly such a set of service patterns in mind, but the MTA probably has different ideas for different reasons. Up until the last Manny B reopening, the C originated on the Concourse and the B originated in Wash Hts at 168 St. Ever since 6 Av opened, both Wash Hts and Concourse passengers had the option of 6 or 8 Av service during rush hours and more recently during middays and early evenings as well. With the latest opening of the Manny B, the MTA decided to have all Wash Hts service operate via 8 Av and all Concourse service operate via 6 Ave so I don't think who passes for planners in the NYCT's Operations Planning Dept really care about making things any more convenient for the passengers than it already is. |
|
|
| (843355) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 15:46:24 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 13:25:33 2009. Yes, but this setup would severely reduce the crowded train problem on the Culver Line while at the same time give riders on that line the choice of 6th or 8th avenue line service before Jay Street, with the same true on the Fulton Street line in this incarnation.1) This isn't the was to reduce crowding on the IND South Brooklyn Line; short turns have a lower PVR and don't have duplicate parallel empty capacity. 2) There's no need to give the choice before Jay. Transferring between levels at Bergen to a train that's half as frequent is massively more inconvenient. And that's without considering delays knocking on from one line to another. The current service pattern is basically fine. The only thing that should be done to the F train is a second pair of express tracks between the East River and the end of the Queens IND Local. |
|
|
| (843362) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 16:09:04 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 15:46:24 2009. >>The only thing that should be done to the F train is a second pair of express tracks between the East River and the end of the Queens IND Local. >>Which probably won't happen for a long line, but definitely are needed along Queens Blvd. The C/V switch as I would do it I suspect would long term be beneficial to all since the F would be express and over time, riders would get used to the patterns of having both 6th and 8th Avenue service on both the Culver and Fulton lines (as the V becomes a 19/7 line and the C becomes a 24/7 line in this scenario). As for switching the C to 168th from Bedford Park Blvd., I suspect that had more to do with the C being a full-time line (seven days a week) while the B (which replaced it in The Bronx) is a part-time line (five days a week). They likely needed more service to 168 on the C than to Bedford Park Blvd. |
|
|
| (843373) | |
Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Oct 12 17:13:52 2009, in response to Re: Switching the C and V south of West 4th, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Oct 12 16:09:04 2009. No, it wouldn't do "it", as we've been trying to tell you for the past two days. That is just a recipe for spending more money on a worse service. |
|
|
| (843379) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Oct 12 17:35:49 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 13:30:28 2009. What in the world are *you* talking about?I was speaking of MDBFs. It has nothing to do with R32s or R160s. All I said is that there are different kinds of failures. A newer car may be pulled out for a small item that takes only an hour or two to fix and cost very little. It is lowers the MDBF without necessarily being more expensive to operate. An older car may go for months before a failure: It has less things to fail, but when there is a failure it may be out of service for a day or two, and have cost more money to repair. Thus it could be possible for a train with a lower MDBF is still the better car, and more economical to operate. Thus what the LION said, MDBF is a number, it is a pretty number, well understood by bean pushers, but is not reflective of the cost of said repairs or availability. AND the LION is only speaking theoretically, and without any sort of numbers or reports to analyze. Please pass the toothpicks. ROAR |
|
|
| (843389) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by f179dj on Mon Oct 12 17:47:20 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Oct 12 17:35:49 2009. "Thus what the LION said, MDBF is a number, it is a pretty number, well understood by bean pushers,"Say the magic word, and win a hundred dollars. Bean pushers. Many people's yearly raises depend on MDBF numbers, and there are (I suspect) ways to massage those figures. Figures don't lie, but liars figure, I believe was attributed to Mark Twain. PS, I think they also created a new measurement years ago to get away from the word "failure." MDBSI = mean distance between service interruption. And if the dispatcher had a put-in to take the immediate place of the arriving bad order train, well, there was no service interruption, really, was there? Go figure. |
|
|
| (843390) | |
Re: Bergen Street Lower Level |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Mon Oct 12 17:48:39 2009, in response to Re: Bergen Street Lower Level, posted by lrg5784 on Sat Oct 10 19:26:06 2009. The report throws a big bucket of cold water on re-expressing Bergen Lower. |
|
|
| (843391) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 17:48:40 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Oct 12 15:14:42 2009. Sure the GOH brought new life into the old fleet, but now even GOH wore out and it's time for the cars to go. I never got to see an R32 pre-GOH, and I sure wish I could get an interior shot of one pre-GOH. The TA could restore it into its original state but it will be VERY hard for them to, because there are a lot of parts that were original that new "replica" parts just wouldn't do it. |
|
|
| (843393) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by lrg5784 on Mon Oct 12 17:51:44 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by f179dj on Mon Oct 12 17:47:20 2009. Wow...MDBSI would be a better way to measure how reliable a subway car class is. If the class doesn't interrupt service, then it's doing it's job, isn't it? |
|
|
| (843399) | |
Re: The F report |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Mon Oct 12 18:13:46 2009, in response to Re: The F report, posted by Broadway Lion on Mon Oct 12 17:35:49 2009. Huh? I quoted exactly what I disagreed with. |
|
|
|
Page 5 of 6 |
||
