T to Dyre Avenue

The line is sort of short but not really bway to jamaica is there stretch they need to make it run frequent because those stops suffer

The combined and run on 5-minute headways from Parsons/Archer to Broad St. But that's only for about an hour during rush hours and only one way (Manhattan-bound in the morning and Jamaica-bound in the evening). And it's only at the "all-stop" stations, so the "skip-stop" stations only get 10-minute headways. Are you saying skip-stop service needs to run more often? In both directions?

Maybe more put-ins from Broadway Jct might help once there are enough R179s in service.

I see your point but overall it ads more service, and it provides an easy connection to 60th street and broadway. BTW why was it cut back in the first place during the '90s?

Budget cuts (from what I remember hearing) are what cut the late-night into a shuttle between 36th and 95th. They also turned the late-night shuttle train into a shuttle bus at the same time (and even that eventually got cut). The became express on Broadway and 4th Ave via the Manhattan bridge at this time as well, except during late-night hours when it substituted for the . Unfortunately, restored Broadway/4th Ave express service was short-lived because DOT inspectors found cracked beams on the bridge and the N went back to being fully local (express on 4th Ave again starting in 1994), while the R remained a late-night shuttle to this day.

As for the being local in Queens, it has been done before. Late-night service ran local in Queens from 1980-87. Before 1980, the (or GG as it was then known) was cut to Queens Plaza and the F took over as local, while the continued to run express. When the R came to Queens Blvd in 1987, it replaced the F as the late-night local, while the late-night F was rerouted to 57th & 6th (then, 21st St/Queensbridge from 1989-2001). The present late-night E local/F express set-up began when the 63rd St Tunnel was connected to the Queens Blvd line.

It's so weird seeing those R68As back on the . It's a blast from the past.

Interesting how that R16-38 sign had a on it, yet no or any other unused letter in a colored circle. Since the rollsign's date is October 1, 1984, I'm guessing the decision to go to all single letter routes on the B Division had already been made and the new letters already chosen. Obviously replaced (AA), < Q > replaced < QB > and the remaining double letter trains became single letter versions of themselves. But that Avenue of the Americas Local sign remains a bit of a mystery. Prior to the 1986-88 shutdown of the Manhattan Bridge north side tracks, there were two services. One ran rush hours only from Coney Island to 168th St-Broadway as a 6th Ave express. The other ran from Coney Island to 57th St-6th Ave seven days a week via 6th Ave local, except rush hours when it also ran express and late nights when it ran as a shuttle from CI to 36th St-4th Ave. In mid-1985, they began using the new single letters, but the 168th St and 57th St services were both still designated as trains and remained that way until April 1986, when the B was cut back to 34th St and it only ran during rush hours. The 6th Ave service that ran from 57th & 6th to Grand St while the north side tracks were shut down was never called the V. It was called the . Who knows what they had in mind for that V sign back in October 1984?

My proposal about rhe Brighton line: I want to rearrange trains there.Q stays local during rush hours. New brown to metropolitan or Brighton introduced with 10 min headways via Nassau Peak direction express on Brighton. Old would still run with same 2 trains less per rush hour. Current B would be express unit newkirk going local afterwards Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk

But do Brighton Line riders necessarily want a through service to the Nassau St Line? The ( M ) last ran on the Brighton Line in April 1986 when it was rerouted to the 4th Ave/West End Line due to major rehabilitation on Brighton that required removal of tracks from service and the implementation of ( D )/   skip-stop service (the Brooklyn sections of the and trains ran via the Broadway Line and Manhattan Bridge south tracks at the same time). When that work was finished and the Manhattan Bridge north tracks re-opened in December 1988, M service was never restored to Brighton and remained on the West End Line. Instead, they implemented a local/ ( Q ) express setup, which was then replaced in June 2001 by a local/ < Q > express setup when the north side bridge tracks closed for the second time, then finally the current local/ express setup in February 2004. The M has not operated in regular service over the Brighton in 28 years and no one over there seems to be asking for it back. The only thing I've been hearing is that there are some riders in southern Brooklyn bound for Lower Manhattan who aren't happy about the loss of the M, but they aren't necessarily Brighton riders. They may come from the other southern Brooklyn BMT lines and prefer not to have to ride up to crowded Canal St and backtrack southbound on the or for Chambers, Fulton or Broad. Or they would prefer not to have to jam onto the already-crowded and trains at Atlantic Ave. If the issue is having a route from southern Brooklyn to the Nassau St Line during rush hours that might relieve crowding on the 4 and 5 and the crowds transferring at Canal St, then perhaps it's worth considering extending a few trains (like 6-8 J trains) into southern Brooklyn to/from the 4th Ave line during the most crowded times of the rush - roughly 7:30-9:00 AM and 4:30-6:00 PM.

As for the , why would you want it to go from express to local after Newkirk Ave? Given that there are no switch tracks north or south of Newkirk, what would be the point in doing that?

lol I meant "comeback"

 

Anyways, I know because I'm both a Williamsburg ( / ) rider and QBL rider.

 

1. From what I've seen, the has barely any riders or, in some cases, riders along Middle Village and Bushwick need to get to Manhattan and transfer to a at Essex and have to wait a while until another or .

 

2. When I've been along the QBL (Queens Blvd ) Local, I've seen many that have asked one another (including asking me) if "Excuse me. Is this a Manhattan bound or ". Despite that, many people have taken the until a joined QBL stop (I.g. Queens Plaza) and transfer to an or and use the for a transfer at a all-transfer stop.

 

3) Bringing back the Bay Pkwy Brown will increase service in both Brooklyn and Manhattan as passengers can easily travel between Chinatown and Sea Beach as it easily gets overcrowded along the Sea Beach N Q and R lines mostly during rush hour.

 

4) The will increase service in Manhattan and Queens. Before it didn't provide that much service as the served as an alternative because it use to run from 71st-Forest Hills, Qns to [present] Church Av in Bklyn and it also ran along Williamsburg and Bushwick. Rush hour could be useful as now the only runs between Court Sq and Church Av, Bklyn.

I take the QBL every day to work. The only time riders pass up an M in favor of the R is if they want a direct transfer to the 4 or 5, because the R is the only QBL line that connects directly to the 4 and 5. So you would also pass up the E or F for that direct transfer. Or if you want a QBL express. But then you'd also be getting off the R if you want an E or F express.

I can see Queens-bound riders on 6th Ave passing up the M in favor of the F because the F is express in Queens and goes further than 71st Ave. But guess what - they did exactly the same thing when the V was around! And they would still do that if the V were brought back.

Sea Beach riders can already easily travel between their home line and Chinatown via the N train. Unless you're talking about a service that starts/ends at the Bay Pkwy stop on the Sea Beach Line, bringing back the pre-2010 Bay Pkwy ( M ) won't be useful to them. That service terminated on the West End D line and it didn't seem to be of much use to D line riders. And even so, that service would have to run via the 4th Ave express tracks to keep people from passing it up in favor of the N. Really, the only reason to bring back a Nassau St service that serves southern Brooklyn would be to supplement the R train at the 4th Ave local stops. Depending on who posts here or who you speak to, there may or may not be a reason to bring back that type of service.

Lastly, people coming from Bushwick, Middle Village and Williamsburg who want Manhattan can (and do) get to Manhattan on the current service. They do not transfer from the M to the J or Z at Essex St. Why would they? The only reason to transfer there is for Lower Manhattan now. Yes, there are M line riders who want Lower Manhattan, but they are not the majority of the line's riders. And they weren't even the majority of the line's riders when the M was still serving Lower Manhattan and southern Brooklyn during its last years of operation. Before the M was rerouted to Midtown Manhattan, Essex-Delancey was quite the madhouse with people transferring from the J, M and Z trains to the F. Now, it's still busy, but not as bad as it was just five years ago.

They could just send the   down Culver to church avenue

No they can't. You can't run the to Brooklyn via Culver. Neither the Cranberry ( ) or Rutgers ( ) tunnels would be able to handle the 15 tph of the in addition to the existing services in both of those tunnels. Not to mention the switching problems that would occur, either at West 4th St or Jay St.

It would be a damn shame if we don't make it to 125th by 2029. Unlike Phase 1 which had to be built entirely from scratch, Phase 2 has the advantage of the two existing tunnel sections. It seems like the most difficult part would be turning west over to Lexington Ave to connect to the , , and Metro-North trains at 125th St due to the double-deck set-up of the Lexington Ave line platforms. With two sections of currently-unused tunnel existing for a total of 16 blocks under 2nd Avenue in East Harlem, there's no reason not to be able to get at least Phase 2 up and running by then. The only way that wouldn't happen is if the usual NYC and NYS political shenanigans are allowed to get in the way. If that's allowed to happen, then it will time to do the political equivalent of "slut-shaming" City and State politicians who drop the ball on continuing construction of the 2nd Ave Subway beyond Phase 1.

I can understand if we can't get Phases 3 and 4 up and running by 2029. Given the history of this project and the usual political garbage we deal with in the city and state, it is over-promising to get the full 2nd Ave Subway up and running 15 years from now. Like Phase 1, almost all of the construction for those phases will have to be done from scratch and they will have to tunnel over and under existing subway lines as well as the Amtrak/LIRR and Queens-Midtown tunnels - not an easy task. But if it takes more than 15 years to get a part of the project that has much of its tunneling already done, well, that will be the usual state/city political shenanigans rearing their ugly heads again.

I agree! They should bring back the Brown & that way service doesn't get overcrowded. The now is only useful to people between QBL until like Forest Hills for the or if they don't show up on time and pass. has no other choice.

 

Here's mine:

 

Brown to Chambers St/Bay Pkwy (after Montague Tube restoration)

Nassau St/Myrtle Av Lcl

 

- To Forest Hills-71st/2nd Ave

Queens Blvd Lcl

 

The should comeback & run between

Astoria and Whitehall St (replace the in Astoria)

 

- Run between 57 St/7th Av and Coney Island

 

- Run along 7th Ave late nights and weekends

 

 

Basically bring back 2001 routes again. The would bring back

service on the QBL and the (should of) camelback when the Montague Tube was closed due

to Post-Sandy

Camelback? How can a train route "camelback"? Sorry, that one kind of just sticks out.

But seriously, how is the current service only useful to people riding between QBL stops? How is it not useful to people riding along 53rd St, or 6th Avenue, or people headed from Myrtle Ave or Williamsburg to Midtown Manhattan? For that last group of people, the was useless because it dead-ended at 2nd Ave. And you really want to bring that back? Why?

And really, you also want to bring back the equally-useless Nassau St ( M ) service, dead-ending at Chambers St and running empty in southern Brooklyn like it did before it was eliminated in 2010? Again, why?

It should be brought back in my opinion, the delays in the morning are extremely high, overcrowded trains.

 

I get on the [225th St] at around 7:25-7:50Am M-F for school getting off at 59th, and usually there's about 2/3 trains out of the 7/8 that come throughout that period that there isn't a seat. And it's only the 4th stop, in my belief this is how it should go:

 

(1)/(9) skip-stop AM/PM Rush/Weekends

225

Dyckman

137

96

And then local go SF, any comments?

That's exactly why you DON'T bring back skip-stop. You will reduce service to the "skipped" stops, which will make trains MORE crowded, not less.

Readability issues don't justify not using the O (even if it's a Q without a stroke). The problem is basically severe enough that that the can't be told from a or at Canal Street until it's halfway into the station. And the E is basically an F with an extra stroke on the bottom. Vital color information and resolution were lost with the NTTs.

That was the MTAs justification way back when, before the NTTs. You still have to consider that the bullets are on more than just the trains themselves (signs, maps, service changes, etc.), and for those who don't use the Latin alphabet or are colorblind, usage of the I and O would just make things more difficult.

 

For me, I wonder why they didn't put a digital sign where the rollsign used to be.

If they had stuck with left-window front rollsigns on the NTTs, this wouldn't be an issue. Every car fleet from R40 to R68A and the R110B all had left-window front rollsigns that showed the train's letter in a big colored circle or diamond and it worked well enough. They should have left well enough alone and they didn't. At least they should have stuck with front rollsigns until it becomes feasible and cost-effective to put in a digital route sign in place of a front left-side rollsign (if it hasn't already).

Green is 239th

Black is E180th

 

Corona had two yard stickers

Black with a purple diamond was Westinghouse equipment

Yellow with a purple diamond was GE equipment

After the was 100% R62A's they made the yard sticker completely purple

The R33s that ran on the never had their yard stickers changed from black to green when they moved from the to the and the R26/28/29 "salad trains" that moved over to East 180th Yard retained their green stickers until the end of their service lives.

As much as i think it'd be nice to have the yellow yard stickers for the 6 again, i don't see them changing it. I mean look at the r62s. They were left orange which was for the 4, but the 3 had blue stripes. I would figure they are going to just leave the ones that goes to the 6 purple and change the cars that goes to the 1 to red. It isn't like the r62a's are going to be split, so there's no need to change the colors back.. Imo.

Why even go through all the trouble changing the yard stickers? They never did it when the R62s moved over from the to the and the R142s/142As never got them at all. I think it's time to just phase them out completely.

No on both ideas...

The B if anything should be extended full time to Bedford Park Blvd... Allows Exp D service

Also I would just simply bring back the V and W

The M can go back to Bay Pkwy 4th Ave Local...

V goes back to being QBL/6th Ave Local to 2ve... With plans to eventually extend into Brooklyn (provided Culver Line is completed)

W goes back to Whitehall St-Astoria

And being that the W is coming back to Astoria... the Q needs a new home...

Q to Parsons/Hillside via 63rd at QBL Exp... (Till the R stops running into Queens) then is cut back to 71st and Runs Local overnight via 60th St

Doing this give QBL the option to run the E Exp overnight or continue it's current local service but now giving riders Broadway access from QBL 24/7

And no on extending the onto the Queens Blvd Line, bringing back the and reverting the back to its pre-July 2010 route. The current route is more popular than the old one was and is going to be extended to Essex St on weekends, eliminating the need to transfer to the at Myrtle for Manhattan service. If it was still running the old route, you'd never see this happen. Why would you want to mess with that?

I don't disagree with bringing back the . The W should - and most likely will - come back when the is rerouted to 96th St and 2nd Ave. If the is not enough and it is not possible or efficient to increase R service, and the loss of the old ( M ) is really that much of a loss, then perhaps resurrected the W should operate in Brooklyn to supplement the R at the local stops between 36th and Pacific (I will not call it "Atlantic Ave - Barclays Center"). And because the W will almost certainly be based out of Coney Island Yard, perhaps at least rush hour W trains can go into service at Bay Pkwy. At least then, they can cut down on deadheading and line riders can have the option of direct service to downtown Brooklyn and Lower Manhattan again. Midday W service can run from Astoria to Whitehall; there's probably no need for the extra service in Brooklyn during midday hours.

MTA hasn't run mixed sets of cars in a very long time. When was the last time you saw a mixed consist of trains? The MTA is fine ordering non-compatible cars; for Christ's sakes, we're going to have two sets of cars restricted to just one line (the (L)'s R143s and the (7)'s R188s)

There are a lot more R143s and there will be a lot more R188s than there will be of 5-car sets of R179s. Neither of those fleets are oddballs. The 40 R179s in 5-car sets will be, especially if they get assigned to CI or Jamaica. Best place for them to go is Pitkin or 207, where at least there they will be able to run alongside other R179s, even if never in the same trains with the 4-car sets.

Well in that case, they might as well have dropped the five car sets altogether, then. Doesn't make sense. 

Really, changing it to mostly four car sets limits options in the future, like expanding the to 10 cars (like if there's a lot of growth on the Fulton local, especially with the gentrification going on), or even switching the lines, like in a proposal for a Manhattan Bridge outage where the would replace the . It was supposed to be a few four car sets to fill out the . (Again, it should have just been a 160 option).

 

But they get into this "cutback" mode, and then "burn their bridges behind them", like reducing the capacity of Franklin (which would have worked with that plan in that scenario) or eliminating 72nd St. middle track.

Agreed. Either the R179 order should have consisted exclusively of four-car sets to finish off the R32s and 42s completely or the cars should have been ordered as married pairs, so they could be assigned anywhere within the B-Division.

If the contract doesn't call for them to be compatible, then they won't be compatible. And the contract doesn't call for them to be compatible. Yes, the R179's and R160's and R143's all look very similar, but that has no impact on compatibility.

This decision could potentially come back to bite them on the butt, especially if the five-car sets are indeed sent to CI or Jamaica yards. Only 40 out of the 300 cars are going to be configured that way and if they can only run in trains by themselves, they will be orphans "within an order of orphans" (300 cars is a relatively small order of cars by NYC Transit standards). Having spare parts for just 40 cars is not practical. And what if the cars end up being "shop queens?" That shouldn't be a problem with the four-car sets because there will be a lot more of them.

Broadway / Brighton: The line is just absolutely cramped, and it starts in Manhattan with the . With the running all the way out to Astoria now, it takes forever for the damn train to come back to serve Broadway on the Express, causing the platforms to fill up. They used to just all get out at Church, but now its bringing people from stops way past that cramped up between 42 and Canal. We need the back to 57. Or running full time Express in Astoria, just something to get it back to Broadway faster.

 

I thought some about sending the down there. There is a transfer to almost every line through that Nassau St borough, and this could be instrumental in keeping the strain off. Of course, the would have to run longer, and Express past Myrtle Av to balance the less trains that we will be having up in that area. The , has to either be via the or the in Brooklyn, Express of course.

 

Culver: I know everyone hates those dreaded Express tracks, but they could be a lot more useful. I know the isn't running as frequently as it could be, and people are complaining a bit about that. If the ran Express from Church all the way to Bergen / Jay, assuming that a Local would leave every time an left, this problem would be a problem no more. I thought of the coming down and ending at Church, but that will just never happen with the .

The going back to 57th & 7th full-time is not happening unless the comes back (perhaps even before SAS opens if Gov. Cuomo doesn't get his wish to divert $40 million from the MTA to pay down the state's general debt). And forget about the Q going express in Astoria. They already tried that once before in 2001 when the W debuted and it failed. It saved very little time and the trains were empty while trains were overcrowded. The N cannot handle Astoria alone. And what exactly would sending the down the Brighton Line accomplish, given that it only serves Lower Manhattan and runs less frequently than the ? (Remember, it's combined J/Z service that runs 12 tph, not just the J or Z). The doesn't need to be (and should not be) rerouted via the or lines. You would have another failed W-express-in-Queens situation. Why would you want that? Not to mention that there are plenty of Brighton Line riders who want service to 6th Avenue (at least on weekdays).

As for Culver, the alone isn't going to cut it, not even if it leaves Church every time an arrives. It's been explained many times before why that's a non-starter.

Not really the best idea. The is only a few blocks away and Norwood is not really the best place when it comes to terminating trains. So a nice, new terminal at Co-Op would be great. The also isn't that far from Co-Op, it even crosses the border with Eastchester to reach Dyre. But I'm in for the because of the wider trains and the better terminal argument.

The is a long way off from the , and lines. And the does not cross any border to get to Dyre Ave; it stays entirely within the Bronx. The railroad line the 5 uses to get to and from Dyre did used to continue into Westchester County as the New York, Westchester and Boston Railway, but it has not done so since 1938. The Bronx portion of "the Westchester" was acquired by the City of New York in 1940. Sadly and unfortunately, the Westchester County portion was abandoned and demolished. Virtually no trace of it exists today.

The IND originally planned to extend the line east toward what is now Co-Op City (it did not exist at the time those plans were drawn up), but once the City acquired the Westchester line from the City line (just north of Dyre Ave) to East 180th St, they simply incorporated that into the existing subway system and abandoned the plan to extend the D eastward.

Wallyhorse, do you wanna get this thread locked or what? Previous threads where the '© to Lefferts' got discussed got locked too, you know...

 

What also could work is rebuilding the Fulton St line. That way the Franklin Ave shuttle can be exterminated and the line would continue like it used to in the past. It would help Fulton St passengers with an extra connection.

That's because previous threads about extending the to Lefferts were about extending the LOCAL there. No one wants that; they want an express. In this case, Lefferts riders would still have express service, only under a different letter. I don't see why that would be a reason to lock this thread and we shouldn't presume that will happen here.

The Franklin Shuttle cannot continue onto Fulton St because the shuttle platform is elevated and the platform is underground. It's not feasible to build a track connection between them.

But how much of the lack of Fulton St demand is due to the lack of East Side options? Right now, if you want the East Side, only the Brooklyn IRT can get you there; however, if you've got a East Side transfer at Hoyt Schermerhorn, you can avoid the Lex crush by using the Fulton Line, particularly if you need to get somewhere on Water St or east of Second.

 

That being said, a far more likely service pattern if a Hanover Sq-Court St tunnel is built would be as follows:

 

Weekdays: and on the Fulton local to Euclid. pattern is unchanged.

Weekends: on the Fulton local to Euclid. terminates at WTC. pattern is unchanged.

Nights: on the Fulton local to Euclid. makes express stops to Euclid. Lefferts and Rockaway shuttles continue.

Right. Maybe with a more direct connection to the East Side, the Fulton Street IND (which parallels the very busy Brooklyn IRT) might see a real increase in ridership that would justify three services. It's also a good answer to the question of "Where do we run the in Brooklyn?" Part of the problem with most T in Brooklyn proposals on these message boards is that much of Brooklyn isn't too far from a subway station and extending the T onto any of the existing routes would require duplicating, shuffling around or outright elimination of an existing service, which all of the "T via Montague Tunnel" proposals would do.

Although this proposal does that too (either the duplicates the or shifts it onto the Fulton St express tracks), and it does require a new tunnel to connect Hanover Sq to Court St, it would relieve the crowding on the and trains between Brooklyn and Manhattan, which there surely is. The Fulton St IND line mostly runs parallel to the Brooklyn IRT line and many bus routes serve connect with both lines. If Fulton St had more subway options, we might see some riders shift from IRT to IND.

But there is one part of Wallyhorse's proposal that I like. That's putting the on the Fulton Express tracks to/from Lefferts and running the alone as the Fulton Local. The reason for this is that the unused outside tracks at Hoyt-Schermerhorn are the Fulton Local tracks and the currently has to switch from the local to the express tracks between Lafayette and H-S in order to continue to Manhattan. That merge on between the and slows trains down and limits the number of trains each line can run. But if the T were to become the new Fulton St local, that merge between the A and C can be eliminated, minimizing delays at Lafayette. Fulton express service would go to Jay St, the Cranberry St Tunnel and 8th Ave and Fulton Express service would go to Court St, the new East River tunnel and 2nd Ave.

If you're going to split the into two services that terminate so far away from each other, then one of them should have a different letter. Perhaps use U or V for the Co-op City service. I know at one point MTA and/or City planners considered using all or part of the Northeast Corridor r-o-w in the Bronx (then operated by the New York, New Haven and Hartford RR) for 2nd Avenue service to/from Co-op City. The 1968 MTA plan called for 2nd Avenue service to/from Dyre Ave and Pelham Bay Park using the existing and lines up to the points where they got close to the Northeast Corridor and shaving back the platform edges so the existing stations could platform B-Division trains. I thought that was a good plan, but I'm not sure how feasible it would be today, especially considering the MTA tore down the old el structure that would have been used to connect the Dyre Avenue line to the Northeast Corridor r-o-w and built an expanded bus depot in the path of the el's r-o-w (which had been used by New York, Westchester and Boston interurban trains until 1938, then later used for storage after subway service started on the portion of  NYW&B r-o-w from Dyre Ave to East 180th St).

Smh... Anybody who's really knows why there's NO 24/7 6th Ave service on Brighton is because after the reopening of the 6th Ave side of the Bridge... Brighton customers preferred the Broadway Q over the return of the 6th Ave D... Now they can't cut the D so the only other option was to swap it with the B... So that the D remains 24/7... They scaled the B back to 18/5... The B becomes the NEW part time 6th Ave weekday option for Brighton riders... D goes down 4th Ave Exp and West End to Coney Island

Exactly. The MTA got it right in 2004 when they decided to run the weekday-only down Brighton express and the down the West End Line. Going back to the pre-2001 and service patterns in Brooklyn would have been wasteful because there was and still is a preference for the Broadway Line over the 6th Avenue Line. Had the and resumed their previous service patterns, Broadway would have had only the and the on weekends and probably no express service. Broadway line ridership in Manhattan justified more than just those two lines (and still does). Meanwhile, the less busy 6th Avenue Line would have had two expresses in the B and D trains that it didn't and still doesn't need. And probably overcrowded trains because that probably would have been the only 6th Ave local (as it was from 1989-2001).

If the ridership is there on Grand Concourse, I say run the to/from Bedford Park all day on weekdays. If the midday runs too frequently to risk causing delays at Bedford Park Blvd, then perhaps they should consider running the peak direction express if there's demand for midday peak express service. Or switch the and back to their pre-1998 northern terminals (i.e., all-day B to 168th St and all-day C to Bedford Park Blvd). But that would likely require a slight bump in the C's headways.

Both can be extended, since they both make all stops past Marcy, so there shouldn't really be any scheduling conflict by extending the all-stops pattern to Bay Parkway .

But the and currently run a combine 12 tph during rush hours. Factor in the and that seems like it would be over-serving the West End Line. The M never ran that much service when it ran on the West End or Brighton lines.

As of now, there aren't enough trains for both to go all the way to Bay Parkway without seeing a slight reduction in frequency, even if one service short-turned at ENY and the other ran express west of there. The had enough, but all of those trains are now going to Midtown. Headways won't decrease by all that much if it runs to 9th Avenue, but Bay Parkway is 9 stops further. Broad Street to 9th is 10 stops. Short-turning the and having the run express east of Myrtle would (theoretically) speed up service enough for an extension to Brooklyn, but not all the way to Bay Parkway.

Right. One problem is that so many pre-R46 cars were reefed or scrapped, so the MTA now has just enough to run the current service patterns. Hopefully, the upcoming R179 cars help solve that problem. They're very fortunate that the R160 cars are not lemons. My guess is that extending the to 9th Avenue would be sufficient; it would be there just to supplement the at the 4th Ave local stations above 36th St. The West End Line doesn't seem to have a pressing need for direct Lower Manhattan/downtown Brooklyn service, so the alone seems to be just fine from Fort Hamilton Pkwy to Stillwell. I do wonder if the Sea Beach Line might have such a need, especially given the increasing ridership on the , especially at 8th Ave and Fort Hamilton Pkwy.

I'm all for restoring Nassau service to/from Brooklyn after Montague reopens. Could take some people off the . The biggest problem is ensuring that there are enough 4-car sets to extend the line by ~60% without reducing service frequency to unacceptable levels. People along the Jamaica line won't like seeing the headways on the double (which is what would happen if the net amount of cars assigned to the does not change).

 

 

Agree entirely. If anything (providing that the aforementioned issue is resolved), have the run express north of Bay Parkway (or, preferably, add another crossover south of 62nd St and have the express run start there. Ideally, the would run local on 4th Avenue, supplementing the absymal service it currently sees. It would then run local on West End and end at Bay Parkway. There's no way Stillwell could reliably handle another service. Cut them back to 9th Avenue during middays (and maybe weekends) so the poor folks transfering from the at 9th Street have a semi-decent chance of waiting less than 20 minutes for a BMT local to appear. I'd say keep it at Chambers on weekends. There's a reason why such a weekend service has never existed (to my knowledge, at least).

So am I. I work in the courts in Lower Manhattan with a lot of people who live in southern Brooklyn who used to take the M train to Chambers, before it got rerouted up 6th Avenue. I'm definitely not in favor of bringing back the old M service; it would be wasteful to do that. But maybe by having either the run express at 8 tph between Broadway Jct and Marcy (because it would have to make all stops east of Broadway Jct) and the run local to/from Broadway Jct, one of those trains can provide the extended service into southern Brooklyn.

The would be great as an express service between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue. It would certainly speed up service to/from areas east of ENY. Heck, they could theoretically do what is done with the in the Bronx and have some (but not all) trips short-turn at Broadway Junction.

 

No way 95th Street could handle both the and the as it currently stands. With how the timetable is set up, a train leaves <2 minutes after one pulls in on the other track. The would see its frequency cut and Fourth Avenue local riders would be no better off, actually losing some service to Midtown. The would have to terminate at 9th Avenue, 62nd Street, or Bay Parkway (all on West End) for it to work. If they ever built a tunnel to SI, send the over there and then the could end at 95th.

I agree. But I think the express's headways would have to be decreased. and trains run 6 tph apiece, so either increasing the Z's number of tph (the and would be two separate services under this scenario) or running some J's past Broadway Jct (like you suggested) would have to be done to give acceptable service east of Broadway Jct. I wonder if the Broadway/Jamaica Ave el can handle a running 8 tph without fouling up the flat junction at Myrtle Ave.

And yes, it makes more sense to terminate the extended on the West End Line than at 95th St. But the should stay local south of 36th St. There's no need for express service on the West End Line.

I got on an train at 67th Ave. It was running between 71st Ave and 34th St. This was at 7:40 AM. The M was going via Queensbridge, so I had to change trains at Roosevelt. Tried to get on an train there, but it was going over the (yes, G) line, so I had to take the following train. Look what one water main break can do.

The is not going to be extended to South Brooklyn, since many of the and riders are on their way to/from the CBDs. And the can easily handle the loads on the 4th Avenue line with its current headways. Current service on the Fourth Avenue, West End and Fourth Avenue lines is fine as they are. If the former old brown was well below than what loads call for, then same will go for the and/or . It will not do anything to achieve current ridership demands and loading guidelines. Sorry, sir.

Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn aren't CBDs anymore? Well, you could have fooled me with all the people with all the lunch crowds at the many restaurants on Broadway and Chambers St. Same goes for all the places located on Fulton and Adams Sts. Not to mention that, as far as 4th Ave/southern Brooklyn riders go, the and trains bypass these areas on the Manhattan Bridge, while only the serves them both. Just not very frequently. The is very likely to be reinstated once the is rerouted to 2nd Ave. The W will almost certainly come out of Coney Island Yard if it does come back. Rather than deadhead between CI and Whitehall St, just run those trains in service. Why not?