How Will SAS Restructure the Broadway Line

[IAlam]

Ok we all know that the will be extended to 96th St when the first phase complete, however this will probably cause the to be reinstated along with other changes.

 

Here is what my theory is on what will happen  

Astoria to Coney Island

- It will return to being the Broadway Express

- It will join the express tracks @ 57th instead of 34th

- Unaffected in Brooklyn

 

96th St to Coney Island 

- New Terminal @ 96th st 

- Remains express in Manhattan

- Remains local in Brooklyn 

- Skips 49th st 

 

Forest Hills to Bay Ridge 

- Unchanged route 

 

* Astoria to Bay Parkway 

* - North Terminal in Astoria w/ train 

* - South Terminal at former terminal in Brooklyn 

* - supplements in Brooklyn 

* - More riders to/from the south on Brooklyn side 

 

* My main theory nothing to confirm it 

[P3F]

If it would be of any use, the could run express in the peak direction on the West End line.

 

Or, if it is the local, then the could run express in the peak direction north of Bay Parkway while the is local, similarly to the .

[Caelestor]

No reason to overthink - We go back to pre - 2010 service. Q express to UES, no stop at 49 St. N back to express south of Herald Square on weekdays. R unchanged, and W reintroduced.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Or even better upgrade and local service and forget the even existed. Or for reliability all express service run by the no switching between local and express slowing service 2 times for .  Then rerouted to Whitehall street all times. Want to kill slow service completely extend the to 95th street then & getting additional service sadly there may be small problems at pacific street due to capacity. Drop the it's a lost cause let & take over the local service then to 71st forest hills as a 2nd local on the QBL additional QBL local service enabled with slight upgrade and the more predictable .  Sorry but the is a failure it shares tracks with other lines on it's whole route and you have trains darting out in front of it all over manhattan this so-called will have the same issues. We need to focus on fewer more frequent lines rather than more infrequent ones. The is just a band-aid and another infrequent line the is infrequent and the yeah you get the idea that is another discussion for another time.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Or even better upgrade and local service and forget the even existed. Or for reliability all express service run by the no switching between local and express slowing service 2 times for .  Then rerouted to Whitehall street all times. Want to kill slow service completely extend the to 95th street then & getting additional service sadly there may be small problems at pacific street due to capacity. Drop the it's a lost cause let & take over the local service then to 71st forest hills as a 2nd local on the QBL additional QBL local service enabled with slight upgrade and the more predictable .  Sorry but the is a failure it shares tracks with other lines on it's whole route and you have trains darting out in front of it all over manhattan this so-called will have the same issues. We need to focus on fewer more frequent lines rather than more infrequent ones. The is just a band-aid and another infrequent line the is infrequent and the yeah you get the idea that is another discussion for another time.

Or maybe making the broadway express and increasing service trains make them use the 57th switch.

[LTA1992]

The issue with not bringing back the is you are literally cutting Astoria Line service in half. You could, theoretically, add more trains, but with the running local with the in Manhattan, that's still less service than just bringing back the .

[Javier]

In case you have forgotten why the was eliminated in the first place...

 

The (MTA was on a short budget on the time and they had to eliminate some routes that were deemed unnecessary. They first thought about eliminating the and extending the to Metropolitaion AV but then rethinked in and chose to instead eliminate the and extend the to Forest Hills, because of 2 things:

 

Essex St to Broad St (or Chambers St pre-2015) was already served by the (J at all times, and the TPH along that portion of the route was ok with the by itself. Having the (M (pre-2010) run along the (J to Chambers was unnecessary since the (J could handle Essex St to Chambers St by itself. The (MTA then thought about how they would replace the (V without affecting Sixth AV service, which is when they put two and two again. The (M line, not needing to serve the Nassau St line in Manhattan since the was ok on its own, was rerouted throughout the original Chrystie St connection to join up with the current service pattern of the Sixth AV line via the (V)'s old route, stopping at every station except for Second Av. This allowed the to be extended as well as providing extra direct service for people from Queens to the Sixth AV lines, while using little money left. So basically, the + = the new Sixth AV .

 

Same thing with the . The thought about rerouting one line to be in place of the , which is when they came up with the going to Astoria, via the (W)'s old route, since the was ending at 57 St - 7 Av 24/7 (pre-2010). Astoria needed two lines to serve it unless the MTA wanted Astoria residents to throw a fit.

 

So let's jump 2 years into the future when the is rerouted to 96 St. Astoria will again complain that they need two lines to serve Astoria, which is when the comes back to life. The (W is restored to its normal service pattern with the becoming Broadway Express again and the skipping 49 St in both directions in order for it to reach the Second AV line. This will not be a problem for the MTA since it isn't in a budget crisis like it was in 2010. The , being brought back, will serve all residents of Astoria and Manhattan, allowing the (Q and (N lines to get upgrades in their service pattern.

[LTA1992]

I am confident in two things. 

 

The first is that post really wasn't needed.

 

The second is that it could have been shortened to a paragraph and a half at most.

 

Budget problems or not, if a service NEEDS to come back to keep service levels consistent in areas that will be effected, then it needs to be restored.

[Fresh Pond]

In case you have forgotten why the was eliminated in the first place...

 

The (MTA was on a short budget on the time and they had to eliminate some routes that were deemed unnecessary. They first thought about eliminating the and extending the to Metropolitaion AV but then rethinked in and chose to instead eliminate the and extend the to Forest Hills, because of 2 things:

 

Essex St to Broad St (or Chambers St pre-2015) was already served by the (J at all times, and the TPH along that portion of the route was ok with the by itself. Having the (M (pre-2010) run along the (J to Chambers was unnecessary since the (J could handle Essex St to Chambers St by itself. The (MTA then thought about how they would replace the (V without affecting Sixth AV service, which is when they put two and two again. The (M line, not needing to serve the Nassau St line in Manhattan since the was ok on its own, was rerouted throughout the original Chrystie St connection to join up with the current service pattern of the Sixth AV line via the (V)'s old route, stopping at every station except for Second Av. This allowed the to be extended as well as providing extra direct service for people from Queens to the Sixth AV lines, while using little money left. So basically, the + = the new Sixth AV .

The ONLY thing they changed was the letter they used. It was supposed to be called , but people weren't too keen on that, so they changed their minds and called it .

 

or , its the same exact thing, and the same exact plan. Dunno where you getting everything else from.

[bstar1]

 

is returning soon whether people like it or not.

[Javier]

The ONLY thing they changed was the letter they used. It was supposed to be called , but people weren't too keen on that, so they changed their minds and called it .

or , its the same exact thing, and the same exact plan. Dunno where you getting everything else from.

Not the same exact plan. Based on the R160 programs, there was a to Metropoltian Av and a to Rockaway Parkway, showing that the MTA was first considering the being eliminated and being replaced by the , so they went vice-versa.

[Art Vandelay]

There are a whole lot of signs programmed into trains that the MTA has no active plans to ever use. 
Just because there is a V to Metropolitan and a V to Canarsie programmed into the R160 fleet does not mean that the MTA had any expectation of that service pattern coming to be. You can sign a train as B to Bay Ridge IINM. That is not a reason to assume that the B will end up being changed to go to Bay Ridge. 

[Kamen Rider]

The 160s are programmed with nearly ever possible B division combination of route and terminal. It's part of the F in "FIND", Flexible.

 

As to this thread, it will most likely be a return to pre-2010 on Broadway. We don't need to rehash this every other day...

[Fresh Pond]

Not the same exact plan. Based on the R160 programs, there was a to Metropoltian Av and a to Rockaway Parkway, showing that the MTA was first considering the being eliminated and being replaced by the , so they went vice-versa.

Based on the R160 programs, the is also going to Far Rockaway, so it must mean they gonna send the there.

[Javier]

You guys are twisting what I said. Every program that was made was thought about from the MTA. They didn't just slap on random terminals like the to Far Rockaway, they carefully thought out every route.

[Art Vandelay]

Q to Far Rockaway is not particularly possible. 

That said, I think it may in fact be there on R46s

[LTA1992]

Q to Far Rockaway is not particularly possible. 

 

That said, I think it may in fact be there on R46s

It will be once Second Avenue comes online.

 

But I do agree with all those on the topics of the R160 having almost every possible combination. Just in case it's ever needed (whether it be disaster, track work, or permanent service change), it's there.

[Roadcruiser1]

Extending the to Brooklyn will not happen unless if you kill the , because doing so will make skip stop service impossible hence you will get the residents along the B.M.T. Jamaica, and Myrtle Avenue Lines to skin you alive.

[RailRunRob]

Extending the to Brooklyn will not happen unless if you kill the , because doing so will make skip stop service impossible hence you will get the residents along the B.M.T. Jamaica, and Myrtle Avenue Lines to skin you alive.

What's the current headway on the 4th ave Local? Does the current ridership warrant more coverage?  

[Roadcruiser1]

In some ways it does on the local side. If you see the recent complaints about the train. However even if a new is sent to South Brooklyn I would like to see something like what happened when the north side of the Manhattan Bridge reopened in if the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line, or the B.M.T. West End Line is the line that benefits more with the running there.

[RailRunRob]

In some ways it does on the local side. If you see the recent complaints about the train. However even if a new is sent to South Brooklyn I would like to see something like what happened when the north side of the Manhattan Bridge reopened in if the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line, or the B.M.T. West End Line is the line that benefits more with the running there.

So there are more people on the WestEnd that want Direct Broadway or Lower Manhattan service? Or growth in service and the could use help? 

[Roadcruiser1]

It has more to do with relieving crowding on the South Brooklyn Lines, and to increase service, but even then the B.M.T. West End Line would win, because it has a higher ridership number than the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line. .

 

Ridership for the B.M.T. West End Line : 18,624,302. (2015.). .

 

Ridership for the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line : 16,000,000. (2015.). . 

[RailRunRob]

It has more to do with relieving crowding on the South Brooklyn Lines, and to increase service, but even then the B.M.T. West End Line would win, because it has a higher ridership number than the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line. .

 

Ridership for the B.M.T. West End Line : 18,624,302. (2015.). .

 

Ridership for the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line : 16,000,000. (2015.). . 

Gotcha! Didn't know ridership was going up like that on the Westend. What was the ^% change from 2013 YTD? 5-7%?

[Lordsaitamaboss]

The issue with not bringing back the is you are literally cutting Astoria Line service in half. You could, theoretically, add more trains, but with the running local with the in Manhattan, that's still less service than just bringing back the .

Here is a better idea add more trains have it go to whitehall full-time drop the it's a lost cause replace with extended in brooklyn and in queens upgraded for manhattan and boosted would eliminate the switching delays between the broadway lines. Extending the would have it still shorter than many lines as the will go from 30 stations to 46 which is still less than other lines. At rush hour the would be at 37 total route. The combined skip-stop service would slash 4th ave local wait times and replace the horrible with something more reliable huge portions of the are only served by the meaning few merges. Skip-stop service won't change for no extension just add service to counter the complaints.

Broadway local would be better served with one frequent excellent line than 2 shitty ones. Sadly in some cases merges are unavoidable such as the and now I am curious how do the and say 6th ave lines with all the services interfacing stay on time? I heard the was reliable but it's under served and the brighton line sucks.

What's the current headway on the 4th ave Local? Does the current ridership warrant more coverage?  

The service is horrible. Another way can be to truncate the R at whitehall boost it's service and extend the J to bay ridge.  Something as the R is horrid.

[Fresh Pond]

Here is a better idea add more trains have it go to whitehall full-time drop the it's a lost cause replace with extended in brooklyn and in queens upgraded for manhattan and boosted would eliminate the switching delays between the broadway lines. Extending the would have it still shorter than many lines as the will go from 30 stations to 46 which is still less than other lines. At rush hour the would be at 37 total route. The combined skip-stop service would slash 4th ave local wait times and replace the horrible with something more reliable huge portions of the are only served by the meaning few merges. Skip-stop service won't change for no extension just add service to counter the complaints.

Lolwut?