Jump to content

How will the 2nd Avenue extension affect Q service to Astoria?


Xfer2Nowhere

Recommended Posts

This is a question that has been on my mind for a while. The proposed extension of the (Q) onto Phase I and beyond of the Second Avenue Subway was put up before the 2010 service changes. However, the Astoria Line service was not accounted for in the plan anytime since.

 

What will be the most likely service pattern on the Astoria Line on weekdays after the SAS is opened? Will the (Q) be split into branched service like the (5) and the (A), or will (Q) service to Astoria be eliminated entirely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

The (N) will run the full route on weekdays and late night, while the (Q) is always extended to 96 Street.

Are the headways with only the (N) enough to sustain the line during the week? I think that was the main issue why Astoria wanted to keep their second service when the (W) was eliminated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assumed they would just bring the  (W) back with the extra 10 car sets of 179s there getting.. The  (N)  would go back to being express on Broadway again along with the  (Q) .

The (W) was gone, and it's never coming back. Broadway doesn't need the same four lines back on the line and it would be wreak on a wreak with the (N) going back express. The only good thing out of this is that there is service from Brooklyn all the way to Spanish Harlem.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the headways with only the (N) enough to sustain the line during the week? I think that was the main issue why Astoria wanted to keep their second service when the (W) was eliminated.

The MTA could provide some (Q) service to the Astoria line during midday hours and it was because the (W) was a horrible line that took 40 minutes to get to Whitehall Street. It was eliminated because of low ridership and little service to those areas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (W) was gone, and it's never coming back. Broadway doesn't need the same four lines back on the line and it would be wreak on a wreak with the (N) going back express. The only good thing out of this is that there is service from Brooklyn all the way to Spanish Harlem.

Well, 15-20 minute headways to start off SAS sounds like a bad idea and makes the service unappealing.. so sending every other (Q)  to Astoria is a no go IMO.

 

The  (N)(Q) ran express on Broadway prior to the doomsday cuts just fine, so I don't see why it would be an issue if the  (N) ran express again. It would great if they moved the actual switching from 34th to 57th this time though.

 

Bringing the  (W)  back just seems like the most logical solution to this problem... if the TA bought back bus routes then they would certainty bring back a subway route that would be useful once the SAS opens. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The (W) was gone, and it's never coming back. Broadway doesn't need the same four lines back on the line and it would be wreak on a wreak with the (N) going back express. The only good thing out of this is that there is service from Brooklyn all the way to Spanish Harlem.

 

You do realize that at one time the ENTIRE BMT southern division was routed onto Broadway. Given the track layout. It can work. 

 

The MTA could provide some (Q) service to the Astoria line during midday hours and it was because the (W) was a horrible line that took 40 minutes to get to Whitehall Street. It was eliminated because of low ridership and little service to those areas.

the W was removed because the MTA need to save money and chopping that off was one of the only options they had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been beaten to death countless times, so I'm not even going to bother with this thread.

 

Anyway, I'll just say this as my only response in this thread: another reason why they cut the (W) was because it was simpler to just run the (N) local in Manhattan at all times and extend the (Q) to/from Astoria on weekdays. The (R) can handle all the stops below Canal on its own. Until SAS opens, the (W) isn't worth it at all in the meantime. That's why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic has been beaten to death countless times, so I'm not even going to bother with this thread.

 

Anyway, I'll just say this as my only response in this thread: another reason why they cut the (W) was because it was simpler to just run the (N) local in Manhattan at all times and extend the (Q) to/from Astoria on weekdays. The (R) can handle all the stops below Canal on its own. Until SAS opens, the (W) isn't worth it at all in the meantime. That's why.

As soon as I read the thread title, I said to myself "How many posts in, before someone mentions the W"....

I count 3 :D

-------------------

 

Seriously though, I've thought about (well, questioned) how (bad) Q service would be affected running up to Harlem.... I wasn't too focused on Astoria because simply put, they have the N... Not that Q's running to Astoria significantly negatively affected service overall on the line, but my concern is that Q's would be utilized just as much as "T's" (if not more!), which could mean drastic enough slowdowns/crawls/however you want to dub it, on the Brighton line.... I mean, I don't know what the numbers say, but the Q I'd say is one of the most reliable lines in the system.....

 

I get the necessity of 2nd av service (sorely needed, long time coming), and I get that running Q's from 57th to CI made the line efficient as all get out, but if push came to shove, I'd rather have the thing assist T's up to Harlem or w/e, than running to Astoria.... I'm not crying rivers over Astoria, because they got it good enough with a what, 20 min. ride to Midtown (if that).....

 

As it pertains to the question in the thread title, I'd ask how would 2nd av service affect N service (if my concern & focus was on Astoria, that is).....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue at hand is whether the (N) would be able to handle Astoria alone at peak times once the (Q) is changed. I'd like to know if ridership numbers, load factors, or economic development in the area support the continuation of a second Astoria service or not.

 

If a second Astoria service was not so necessary, why was the (Q) extended after the (W) in the first place?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue at hand is whether the (N) would be able to handle Astoria alone at peak times once the (Q) is changed. I'd like to know if ridership numbers, load factors, or economic development in the area support the continuation of a second Astoria service or not.

 

If a second Astoria service was not so necessary, why was the (Q) extended after the (W) in the first place?

The (Q) extension was to give Astoria a Broadway express after the (N) became fully local in 2010. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main issue at hand is whether the (N) would be able to handle Astoria alone at peak times once the (Q) is changed. I'd like to know if ridership numbers, load factors, or economic development in the area support the continuation of a second Astoria service or not.

 

If a second Astoria service was not so necessary, why was the (Q) extended after the (W) in the first place?

 

Here are the numbers you need: http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

 

By my calculation, the Astoria line is actually at 91% of capacity, not 89%. (At 145 per car, with 15 10-car trains in the peak hour, total guideline capacity is 21,750. Passenger volume during the peak hour is 19,767, so we're looking at 19,767 / 21,750 = 91% of capacity. Did I miscalculate something?) If even a third of the trains currently on the line were to be diverted elsewhere, that number would jump up to 136% of capacity, which is simply untenable.

 

Every rush hour Q train that operates to Queens will be replaced by something else. The least expensive replacement is one that short-turns in Manhattan rather than continuing to Brooklyn. Whether that service is labeled N or Q or W or X or anything else isn't particularly critical, but the 2004-2010 service that ran from Astoria to Manhattan without continuing into Brooklyn was labeled W, and I see no reason that letter wouldn't simply come back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the numbers you need: http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

 

By my calculation, the Astoria line is actually at 91% of capacity, not 89%. (At 145 per car, with 15 10-car trains in the peak hour, total guideline capacity is 21,750. Passenger volume during the peak hour is 19,767, so we're looking at 19,767 / 21,750 = 91% of capacity. Did I miscalculate something?) If even a third of the trains currently on the line were to be diverted elsewhere, that number would jump up to 136% of capacity, which is simply untenable.

 

Every rush hour Q train that operates to Queens will be replaced by something else. The least expensive replacement is one that short-turns in Manhattan rather than continuing to Brooklyn. Whether that service is labeled N or Q or W or X or anything else isn't particularly critical, but the 2004-2010 service that ran from Astoria to Manhattan without continuing into Brooklyn was labeled W, and I see no reason that letter wouldn't simply come back.

Thanks, those are the stats I needed that would pretty much answer my question. :)

 

It looks like the logical solution would be to bring back the (W), after all the service pattern was created before the 2010 service cuts. My main issue with the whole thing is that the planning for the SAS project continues to proceed as if the the 2010 cuts never happened even though it directly created a new logistical challenge by altering the (Q) from its original plan. The (MTA) really did not make public any plans as to what would happen to Astoria when they lost their second line. These numbers should make the issue more urgent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

could some of these Ns go to 9th Avenue.

  

Either 59 Street or Kings Highway could turn trains too, and those are both along the (N)’s normal route.

Most likely Kings Highway. I remember the first and last (W) trains of each day would start or end there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, those are the stats I needed that would pretty much answer my question. :)

 

It looks like the logical solution would be to bring back the (W), after all the service pattern was created before the 2010 service cuts. My main issue with the whole thing is that the planning for the SAS project continues to proceed as if the the 2010 cuts never happened even though it directly created a new logistical challenge by altering the (Q) from its original plan. The (MTA) really did not make public any plans as to what would happen to Astoria when they lost their second line. These numbers should make the issue more urgent.

 

There's no logistical challenge in bringing back the W, unless the R179 order runs even later than SAS.

 

There are only two likely outcomes: a massive increase in (N) service; or an addition of a (W) local and (N) express. I'd be happy with either. A huge frequency increase more than makes up for slower local service.

 

A massive increase in N service would pump massively more southbound trains in the AM rush over the Manhattan Bridge and down the Sea Beach line. Are southbound N trains over the Manhattan Bridge overcrowded in the AM rush? (Answer: No, they are in fact quite lightly loaded.)

 

The MTA is not going to waste money by running 15 tph on the southbound Sea Beach line in the morning rush. It would be a massive waste of operating dollars and there won't be enough cars.

 

could some of these Ns go to 9th Avenue.

 

 

Either 59 Street or Kings Highway could turn trains too, and those are both along the (N)’s normal route.

 

Fantasize all you like, but aside from a small number of trains that need to reach Coney Island Yard, the extra Astoria service won't run anywhere south of Whitehall Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are only two likely outcomes: a massive increase in (N) service; or an addition of a (W) local and (N) express. I'd be happy with either. A huge frequency increase more than makes up for slower local service.

Yeah, but that would over-serve Astoria, and as Andrew stated, the Sea Beach as well.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, but that would over-serve Astoria, and as Andrew stated, the Sea Beach as well.....

That's why I believe the (Q) should keep at least select rush hour trips to Astoria. With the R179s coming soon, I don't realy see a problem with rush hour (Q) trains to Astoria (unless the R179 order delays once again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why I believe the (Q) should keep at least select rush hour trips to Astoria. With the R179s coming soon, I don't realy see a problem with rush hour (Q) trains to Astoria (unless the R179 order delays once again).

Question: What is your stance on Q's running up to 125th (when 2nd av service begins)?

 

I'm asking that because you say the Q to Astoria be maintained during the rush.... I just want to know where you'd terminate Q's during off peak hours... Would you have it assist the T on up to 125th? Stop short at 57th? Something else?

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but with me, it's not that Q's running to Astoria is problematic.... I think it's a better use of current resources if the Q were to assist the T; since the east side needs all the help it can get....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.