Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: If you could give a short extension to one subway line, which would it be

  1. #1

    Default If you could give a short extension to one subway line, which would it be

    I got to think how ridiculously expensive the 7 train extension is for one station only (originally it was supposed to be two, and hopefully the other station will be added eventually). There's been talk of extending it to NJ, or having it go back East to Penn Station. I think it should go South towards the WTC. Maybe it could just use some of the existing tracks that the other lines use. If one new station ends up being all they build, it will be a monumental waste of funds, IMO.

    Anyways, back on topic, I was thinking the L Train should go one more stop West. I'd put a stop between 9th and 10th Avenues, maybe right under the High Line. If Phase 3 of the park does end up getting built, it's northern terminus should be right near the 34th/11th stop on the 7 that's being built, so with my idea there could be a subway station near the southern terminus as well.

    If you could give a short extension to one line, which would it be and why?

  2. #2
    Fearless Photog RoldanTTLB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Broomfield, CO
    Posts
    2,910

    Default

    This is a superb question. Can I actually rattle off a couple?

    1.) The A train should have a second terminus at 21X street. Then Airport A trains could start there (and not stop at 207 or Dyckman) and Lefferts trains can start at 207. They could then build up all the non-railyards (and even on top of the railyards). This is a super cheap extension, as they just need some (maybe even only 1) platform. Boom!

    2.) 1 Train extended to city limits. Inexplicably, the 1 train stops 20 blocks short of the end of the city in a rather awkward spot. Extend the train to the end of the city and you cut much of the buses there. Additionally, you can set up the northern terminus to turn express trains (1/9 service) that also turns at the old south ferry so as not to interfere with the new south ferry.

    3.) Extend the L train the OTHER direction. It used to go all the way to actual Canarsie. It would not be hard to do that again.

    These are crazy low hanging fruit. There are some other options that would be great too (extend the M northward - relatively easy, extend the E southeast - partially easy, lots of tunnel there).

    Anyway, this was lovely! we should do it again some time!

  3. #3

    Default

    We've done it a few times.

    The 1929-1940 Plan was discussed in some of the subway threads, NYC Subway, SAS, #7.

    Also this.

  4. #4

    Default

    How about this. Full length second avenue line. Extend both the 7 and the L lines to form new cross Manhattan lines along 23rd street and 57th street forming loops along 9th and 11th avenues.




  5. #5

    Default

    I would first spend money on subway projects in the outer boroughs into Manhattan. The biggest car-commute neighborhoods within the city to Manhattan are those with little or no subway service.

  6. #6

    Default

    ^ Only 17% of commuters from the "outer-boroughs" drive or carpool into Manhattan. People outside Manhattan that do drive or carpool to it do so either because they lack transit options or they choose to do so. The latter can largely be dealt with and/or profited from by bridge tolls, congestion schemes, what have you; the former can be partially handled by a better bus system or by entirely new subway lines. Since most of New York's car travel is outside Manhattan, extensions would do little to aid most motorists.
    Although outside the bounds of the thread, it would be ideal to rationalize the bus system and build the TriboroRX line. Building transfers between the G and J at Hewes and Broadway and the 3 and L at Junius and Livonia, respectively, would also be a much cheaper way to induce transit ridership via new-found convenience.
    Last edited by marnegator; May 25th, 2011 at 02:09 AM. Reason: omissions and stuff

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marnegator View Post
    ^ Only 17% of commuters from the "outer-boroughs" drive or carpool into Manhattan.
    That figure has to be weighted, or are you saying that 1 person taking the subway = 1 person driving?

    Additionally, you're giving a distorted picture by ignoring the base number of all commuters into Manhattan, which is huge. 17% sounds low, but over 830,000 cars enter Manhattan every day. More than half of car-commuters live in the city, not the suburbs. Places like eastern Queens and southern Brooklyn have high percentages of car-commuters. One look at a subway map will tell you why.

    People outside Manhattan that do drive or carpool to it do so either because they lack transit options or they choose to do so.
    Obviously.

    The latter can largely be dealt with and/or profited from by bridge tolls, congestion schemes, what have you;
    We've been trying the what-have-you for decades.

    The former can be partially handled by a better bus system or by entirely new subway lines.
    New subway lines, extended subway lines - what's the difference?

    Since most of New York's car travel is outside Manhattan, extensions would do little to aid most motorists.
    Not sure what you mean by "aiding motorists." I'm trying to get them to be ex-motorists.

    I think the best way to improve transportation to and within Manhattan is to reduce car traffic. The bus service you'd like to implement in the boroughs would work very efficiently in a Manhattan grid with less auto traffic.

    It comes down to what you think the bigger problem is: Subway service in Manhattan or vehicle traffic in Manhattan.

  8. #8
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    I'd rather see a crosstown on 34th. than 23rd.

  9. #9

    Default

    1) N/Q train extension to LaGuardia Airport. That way, all three major NYC-area airports are connected by trains.

    2) PATH train extension to Newark Airport. Currently, to get to the Newark Airtrain, you have to take NJ Transit, which has nearly hour long gaps during the weekends. For example, let's say you arrive at Newark Penn Station at 10:35am. The next NJ Transit train to Newark Airport Station is 50 minutes away! You could probably walk outside with your suitcase, and walk the 2 miles to Newark Airport Station, and it would be faster.

  10. #10
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    A Ringway Railway is needed like other International Cities like London , Moscow , Tokyo have that would take the pressure off the outer borough roadways and highways. It would need to connect Elizabeth,NJ , Bayonne , Staten Island , Brooklyn and Queens , it would act as a Manhattan Regional Rail / Rapid Transit bypass. I think the LIRR needs to add more / Restore stations in Queens , that could solve some of outer borough transit needs , they also need to stop charging a higher fare then outside the city same with MNRR. I like the plan the Transport Politic came up with a last year... I also agree with N/Q extension to LGA and the PATH extension to EWR is in the works. The R train should branch off at Forest Hills and go east under Union Turnpike to Hillcrest. The 7 Train should be extended to Beechhurst / Bayside.

    http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?hl=en...,0.617294&z=11


  11. #11

    Default

    I guess my editing leaves something to be desired
    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    That figure has to be weighted... eastern Queens and southern Brooklyn have high percentages of car-commuters.
    Ok, the city-wide average of outer-borough commuters driving into Manhattan is ~17% (158,650) and of that, ~30% are car-poolers. To break it down further, ~70% of car-poolers are two per-car (32,806 or 16,403 cars) and the remainder are three or more per-car (14,075 or no more than 4,692 cars). So yes, there is plenty of automotive traffic entering Manhattan from the outer-boroughs, but very little of this can be affected by building a couple new stations on the end of a subway line. Furthermore, considering that most commuting from outside Manhattan remains on the periphery - the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens have 51%, 61%, and 56% employment outside Manhattan, respectively - and has anywhere from 29% to 66% automobile usage depending on intra or inter-borough travel, subway extensions will not improve the transit situation enough to convince most drivers to leave their cars. (I've excluded Staten Island because of its unique position regarding subway extensions and the fact that it moves percentages by no more than 200 basis points and represents small absolute numbers).

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    New subway lines, extended subway lines - what's the difference?
    The difference is that extending lines out brings marginal benefits to the city at large, reaching to less densely populated areas in general and bringing in relatively few riders for the enormous capital expense. New lines can at least bring relief to existing lines (2nd Ave) and / or add to system and city-wide connectivity (TriboroRX).

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    Not sure what you mean by "aiding motorists." I'm trying to get them to be ex-motorists.
    Oops, not what I meant to write. I meant "people".

    Quote Originally Posted by ZippyTheChimp View Post
    I think the best way to improve transportation to and within Manhattan is to reduce car traffic... subway service to Manhattan or vehicle traffic in Manhattan
    I completely agree that improving transportation to Manhattan is important and public transportation should certainly be given the highest planning priority, but I think it's equally important to consider peripheral travel. I would agree with most that the first priority is to build a full-length 2nd Ave line, but considering the volume of people that travel outside Manhattan for work (or pleasure), it makes sense to make travel between the boroughs convenient via transit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey
    The 7 Train should be extended to Beechhurst / Bayside.
    I would rather we make better use of existing infrastructure, just like you wrote a couple sentences earlier. Extending the 7 would be expensive; beefing up the LIRR Port Washington Branch's headway outside rush hour wouldn't. Admittedly, this would be a major turf-war inside the MTA, but if the commuter rail's City Ticket zone were extended into the weekday and made part of the combined fare - e.g. bus and subway transfers, Paris between the Metro and RER, Berlin U-Bahn and S-Bahn, etc - and the LIRR ran rush-hour headways during all hours (or better since they barely match off-peak subway headway) on said branch, you would create a de facto subway extension that covers the same area as the proposed 7 train extension at a fraction of the cost (suburban travelers benefit from the frequency as well). Strengthen the adjacent bus line service and that part of eastern Queens will suddenly have decent transit options.
    Last edited by marnegator; May 25th, 2011 at 10:27 PM. Reason: math error, additional sentence, sentence modification

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marnegator View Post
    I would agree with most that the first priority is to build a full-length 2nd Ave line,
    I used to think that. But the new M15 Select Bus (runs north on 1st Av, and south on 2nd Av) actually works really well (a lot better than other MTA buses). It's almost as fast as riding a subway.

    * Frequent service: on high readership BRT corridors buses arrive every five to ten minutes or more frequently.
    * Station spacing: BRT stops are spaced about every half a mile, reducing travel time.
    * Off-board fare payment: riders pay their fares at stations before boarding, reducing stop time. (This also allows passengers to board via the back doors, as well as the front doors, which makes boarding quicker).
    * Traffic Signal Priority (TSP): BRT buses receive an extended green at traffic signals.
    * Bus lanes: BRT buses operate in their own bus lane or busway, bypassing congestion.

    http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/

    http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/sbs/whatis.htm

    The only problem with the new M15 Select bus service is that the "Off-board fare payment" seems prone to fraud. When people board the bus, the bus driver really isn't checking people's paper receipts.
    Last edited by normaldude; May 25th, 2011 at 08:48 PM.

  13. #13
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    Wasn't that the idea? To reduce boarding time? And then I was under the impression that agents would board buses to spot check receipts, like on NJT light rail(?).

  14. #14

    Default

    @normaldude
    The M15, at 51,461 (weekday) riders, is just too small to make a proper impact on the transit needs of eastern Manhattan. Bus service like it, or better service still (true BRT), would go a long way toward curing some of what ails countless New Yorkers, but the 2nd Avenue corridor is just too densely populated and the need too great to substitute buses for a new subway line. Phase 1 alone is projected to carry over 200,000 riders; the full line is expected to have a ridership of 560,000 (more than any rapid-transit system in the United States outside Washington or Chicago).
    The articulated buses used by the MTA have a listed capacity of 112 people, so in order to meet the projected demand from the full line, a demand that exists whether the full line is ever finished or not, there would need to be 5000 bus trips, or 208 buses per hour (averaged over 24 hours). The only way to meet that service need would be to grade-separate the buses from car traffic and that would require using aerial structures at the intersections, and that's just using a gross 24-hour average; nevermind the actual service needs that would be required of the rush hours. It's doable to be sure, but I don't think anybody would vote in favor of aerial structures over the length of 1st or 2nd Avenues.
    Oh, and stache beat me to it, but yeah, the paper receipts were added in order to eliminate the very slow practice of paying when one boards. As long as enforcement is effective, fare evasion rates shouldn't be higher than the average bus route.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marnegator View Post
    @normaldude
    The M15, at 51,461 (weekday) riders, is just too small to make a proper impact on the transit needs of eastern Manhattan. Bus service like it, or better service still (true BRT), would go a long way toward curing some of what ails countless New Yorkers, but the 2nd Avenue corridor is just too densely populated and the need too great to substitute buses for a new subway line.
    I'm not saying that the 2nd avenue subway is no longer needed. I'm saying that the new M15 Select Bus service (which only started in October 2010) is surprisingly good, and certainly helps bridge the gap until the 2nd avenue subway is up & running.

    I normally hate MTA buses, but the new M15 Select Buses have certainly made a positive impact on my life.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software