Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
hoodciti

Maybe the V should operate via the 63rd Street Line.

Recommended Posts

I've always thought the (V) should operated via the 63rd Street connector instead of the (F). I mean what if passengers at any of the local stations between Roosevelt Ave./Jackson Hgts. and Queens Plaza wanted to reach any 63rd St. line stations they'd have to back track to Roosevelt Ave./Jackson Hgts. seems like a waist of time. Also seems like the (F) is pretty crowded by the time its reaches Roosevelt Ave. while the (V) is not nearly as utilized.

And Nights and Weekends the (F) can operate via the 63rd St.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've always thought the (V) should operated via the 63rd Street connector instead of the (F). I mean what if passengers at any of the local stations between Roosevelt Ave./Jackson Hgts. and Queens Plaza wanted to reach any 63rd St. line stations they'd have to back track to Roosevelt Ave./Jackson Hgts. seems like a waist of time. Also seems like the (F) is pretty crowded by the time its reaches Roosevelt Ave. while the (V) is not nearly as utilized.

And Nights and Weekends the (F) can operate via the 63rd St.

 

I see that your new on here but we've had the discussion numerous of time.....the (V) will not go via 63rd Street. There was a article in the Daily News last year of this year I think saying the (F) via 63rd Street ridership increased a lot. If you send the (F) via 53rd Street it would a disaster!

Edited by via White Plains Road
Spelling error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see where he's coming from. There should be a local service going down the 63rd Street as well as an express. But that going to be extremely hard to do once you figure out the amount of junctions and ridership stance. It would just fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see that your new on here but we've had the discussion numerous of time.....the (V) will not go via 63rd Street. There was a article in the Daily News last year of this year I think saying the (F) via 63rd Street ridership increased a lot. If you send the (F) via 53rd Street it would a disaster!

 

I think the Most Ridership is off Roosevelt Isl. That wat i heard.

________________________

BTW seems like the (V) is now popular atm(here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Most Ridership is off Roosevelt Isl. That wat i heard.

________________________

BTW seems like the (V) is now popular atm(here)

 

It said nothing about Roosevelt Island having high ridership!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It said nothing about Roosevelt Island having high ridership!

 

Well i dunno, it was this yr, that a TV News report said that it was RI thats getting high ridership on the 63rd st tunnel... But for station not line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the Most Ridership is off Roosevelt Isl. That wat i heard.

________________________

BTW seems like the (V) is now popular atm(here)

 

No offense, but that's quite strange considering that Roosevelt Island consists of just a few apartment buildings. I think the most ridership comes from Lexington Av. instead since that's where the most workplaces are located.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me, because the MTA will not finish the Second Avenue Subway until 2030 (!), there really should be two lines operating via the 63rd Street Line and the 53rd Street Line until then, therefore revamping the entire line of Queens Boulevard:

 

 


  • The MTA really needs to do something with the (G) train. It's bad enough that it barely operates to Forest Hills anymore due to "construction". The (G) should be sent back to Forest Hills at all times as a local.
     
    The (Q) should be sent to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays as a local; other times to 57th Street, its current terminal. So the Broadway Line will have a Manhattan Local and Express operate as a Queens Local, with the (R) operating to Forest Hills-71st Avenue at all times. (There was talk about making the (R) operate overnight anyway until the financial crunch hit.)
     
    The (V) becomes the weekday Queens Express via 53rd Street where it currently operates; it will not run at all at other times.
     
    The (F) operates express to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays (via 63rd Street where it currently operates); it will operate local after Forest Hills at other times.
     
    The (E) will have split services: local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center and express straight to 179th Street. Late nights it will operate local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center only.

 

 

So 53rd Street will have two expresses, the (E) and the (V). This will ease congestion at Queens Plaza because there will be two expresses and two locals, whereas before 2001 when the (G) and the (R) operated together on weekdays this was the same, and after 2001 there was only one express and two locals.

 

63rd Street will have one express and one local, the (F) express and the (Q) local. I had originally wanted the (R) to operate via 63rd Street and make the (Q) operate via 60th Street instead, but there were no local connections to the 63rd Street line, and making the (R) cross over to the express at 57th Street would probably back up the (N), (Q) and (W). Maybe in the future this could be readjusted. But this is my implementation of Queens service: three expresses and three locals on weekdays; other times two. Think the line could handle all those services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am kind of new here.... But for a few years since the 63rd Street line completely opened I've always noticed how crowded the (F) was compared to the (V). and since its been stated that ridership is up at the Roosevelt Island Station, why not utilize the (V) which I've never seen very crowded. But I guess right now everyone is used to the current configuration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am kind of new here.... But for a few years since the 63rd Street line completely opened I've always noticed how crowded the (F) was compared to the (V). and since its been stated that ridership is up at the Roosevelt Island Station, why not utilize the (V) which I've never seen very crowded. But I guess right now everyone is used to the current configuration.

 

Not to mention the fact that 63rd has only one line and 53rd Street has two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you move the (V) over the 63rd St.Tunnel , your eliminating the purpose of having a (V) line. The (V) line was creating to cover the areas the (F) wouldn't stop after the connection opened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you move the (V) over the 63rd St.Tunnel , your eliminating the purpose of having a (V) line. The (V) line was creating to cover the areas the (F) wouldn't stop after the connection opened.

 

Not only that, there wouldn't be a direct access to the 6th Avenue line off the 53rd st line. Instead youd take the (E) to 7th Ave for the (:)/(D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am kind of new here.... But for a few years since the 63rd Street line completely opened I've always noticed how crowded the (F) was compared to the (V). and since its been stated that ridership is up at the Roosevelt Island Station, why not utilize the (V) which I've never seen very crowded. But I guess right now everyone is used to the current configuration.

 

Because 53rd/Lex is at near or over capacity during the rush hour and that station needs relatively empty (as in, there is standing room on those trains) to get people OUT of that station to prevent major safety concerns. Sending a crowded F train along with the E into that station would spell disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you ask me, because the MTA will not finish the Second Avenue Subway until 2030 (!), there really should be two lines operating via the 63rd Street Line and the 53rd Street Line until then, therefore revamping the entire line of Queens Boulevard:

 

 

  • The MTA really needs to do something with the (G) train. It's bad enough that it barely operates to Forest Hills anymore due to "construction". The (G) should be sent back to Forest Hills at all times as a local.

     

    The (Q) should be sent to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays as a local; other times to 57th Street, its current terminal. So the Broadway Line will have a Manhattan Local and Express operate as a Queens Local, with the (R) operating to Forest Hills-71st Avenue at all times. (There was talk about making the (R) operate overnight anyway until the financial crunch hit.)

     

    The (V) becomes the weekday Queens Express via 53rd Street where it currently operates; it will not run at all at other times.

     

    The (F) operates express to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays (via 63rd Street where it currently operates); it will operate local after Forest Hills at other times.

     

    The (E) will have split services: local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center and express straight to 179th Street. Late nights it will operate local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center only.

 

 

So 53rd Street will have two expresses, the (E) and the (V). This will ease congestion at Queens Plaza because there will be two expresses and two locals, whereas before 2001 when the (G) and the (R) operated together on weekdays this was the same, and after 2001 there was only one express and two locals.

 

63rd Street will have one express and one local, the (F) express and the (Q) local. I had originally wanted the (R) to operate via 63rd Street and make the (Q) operate via 60th Street instead, but there were no local connections to the 63rd Street line, and making the (R) cross over to the express at 57th Street would probably back up the (N), (Q) and (W). Maybe in the future this could be readjusted. But this is my implementation of Queens service: three expresses and three locals on weekdays; other times two. Think the line could handle all those services?

 

That would be a very, very long (Q) line. Probably too long. And plus, the QBL is already at maximum capacity. Four lines is a lot already. But six? Won't happen.

 

Also, and I don't know how important this is, but there is a loss of a one-seat ride to the Sixth Avenue Line from the QBL local stations by making the (V) express.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I you're sending the (Q) to 179th St:

 

1. Will crowd up Queens Blvd with locals.

2. Will make a trip from lower Brooklyn to north Queens via Manhattan??? That sounds like a very long all-local train.

3. 179th St terminal would most likely not handle the (F) and the (Q) on weekdays, and (E)(F) other times.

Edited by Paul P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Charles

 

The (Q) should be sent to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays as a local; other times to 57th Street, its current terminal. So the Broadway Line will have a Manhattan Local and Express operate as a Queens Local, with the (R) operating to Forest Hills-71st Avenue at all times. (There was talk about making the (R) operate overnight anyway until the financial crunch hit.)

 

The (F) operates express to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays (via 63rd Street where it currently operates); it will operate local after Forest Hills at other times.

 

The (E) will have split services: local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center and express straight to 179th Street. Late nights it will operate local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center only.

 

 

 

 

 

3 trains to Jamaica/179 Street during rush hours? That's not going to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I you're sending the (Q) to 179th St:

 

 

Will make a trip from lower Brooklyn to north Queens via Manhattan??? That sounds like a very long all-local train.

 

 

But dosent the (R) come from south Brooklyn?. Secondly, there are a few lines that have it worse. If the (Q) were to run local all the way to 179th, the amount of stops would be about 15-20 stops less then the longest normal and/or G.O created locals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The MTA really needs to do something with the (G) train. It's bad enough that it barely operates to Forest Hills anymore due to "construction". The (G) should be sent back to Forest Hills at all times as a local.

The (G) will be the least used local then. During rush hours, people want to get to Manhattan, not Brooklyn. Not everyone, but a vast majority of the people do. There is not enoughtrack capacity to run the (G)(R)(V) together, because of terminal capacity at Forest Hills.

The (Q) should be sent to Jamaica-179th Street on weekdays as a local; other times to 57th Street, its current terminal. So the Broadway Line will have a Manhattan Local and Express operate as a Queens Local, with the (R) operating to Forest Hills-71st Avenue at all times. (There was talk about making the (R) operate overnight anyway until the financial crunch hit.)

Not necessary. There is not enough local track capacity, and this will create problems at Forest Hills as the tower operators will have too much on their hands; terminating trains at the station and continuing trains past the station at the same time. The (R) is enough for this purpose.

The (V) becomes the weekday Queens Express via 53rd Street where it currently operates; it will not run at all at other times.
Not enough track capacity on the express tracks, which are already at maximum capacity. There would also be merging issues at Forest Hills with the (V) switching from the local to the express tracks.

operates); it will operate local after Forest Hills at other times.

 

The (E) will have split services: local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center and express straight to 179th Street. Late nights it will operate local after Forest Hills to Jamaica Center only.

I don't think this is needed.

So 53rd Street will have two expresses, the (E) and the (V). This will ease congestion at Queens Plaza because there will be two expresses and two locals, whereas before 2001 when the (G) and the (R) operated together on weekdays this was the same, and after 2001 there was only one express and two locals.

 

63rd Street will have one express and one local, the (F) express and the (Q) local. I had originally wanted the (R) to operate via 63rd Street and make the (Q) operate via 60th Street instead, but there were no local connections to the 63rd Street line, and making the (R) cross over to the express at 57th Street would probably back up the (N), (Q) and (W). Maybe in the future this could be readjusted. But this is my implementation of Queens service: three expresses and three locals on weekdays; other times two. Think the line could handle all those services?

What are you going to do when the SAS opens? The (Q) will have to be sent up Second Avenue. BTW, the whole reason the (V) was created was so two expresses don't have to go through 53rd St. Keep reading my post for an explanation.

 

I am kind of new here.... But for a few years since the 63rd Street line completely opened I've always noticed how crowded the (F) was compared to the (V). and since its been stated that ridership is up at the Roosevelt Island Station, why not utilize the (V) which I've never seen very crowded. But I guess right now everyone is used to the current configuration.
The (V) has two main purposes. One purpose is so local stations along Queens Blvd. have access to Lexington and 53rd. This will prevent them from cramming onto crowded express trains at Queens Plaza. The second purpose is to switch the (F) to 63rd St. If two expresses serve Lex, there will be severe crowding issues because everyone will crowd on to the express, when a train comes. When a train opens its doors on the Manhattan-bound side, the train will empty out spewing local and express riders. In the current situation, the express trains carry express riders instead of both express and local riders, and the (V) carries the local riders. The amount of people getting off is more evenly distributed with a pattern of express-local-express-local of trains entering 53rd St.

 

But dosent the (R) come from south Brooklyn?. Secondly, there are a few lines that have it worse. If the (Q) were to run local all the way to 179th, the amount of stops would be about 15-20 stops less then the longest normal and/or G.O created locals.

Yes but the (R) is one of the longest lines in the system. This means that the (Q) will still be extremely long, making more opportunities to delay service along the line, which will cause worse service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But dosent the (R) come from south Brooklyn?. Secondly, there are a few lines that have it worse. If the (Q) were to run local all the way to 179th, the amount of stops would be about 15-20 stops less then the longest normal and/or G.O created locals.

 

The (R) line in brooklyn is much shorter then the (N) Which extends down Sea Beach via Lcl. The (R) Is longe rof course in Queens then in Manhattan and Bklyn.

 

The (Q) Wouldnt be that long tho. (Q) can be the Queens Blvd Exp. If it were lcl it would be similar to the (2) which makes all lcl stops in bronx, exp in manhattan(LCl Late Nights) and Lcl in BK. Similar. (Q) is Exp on the BWay which makes it shorter then the Brighton Beach line

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes but the (R) is one of the longest lines in the system. This means that the (Q) will still be extremely long, making more opportunities to delay service along the line, which will cause worse service.

 

The (R) isnt that Long, maybe Long for a Local. But look at the (A) Which Runs from 207 down to Mott Ave or Rk pk(Excluding Lefferts) Thats over 31miles according to the (MTA)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The (R) isnt that Long, maybe Long for a Local. But look at the (A) Which Runs from 207 down to Mott Ave or Rk pk(Excluding Lefferts) Thats over 31miles according to the (MTA)
It's a long line, plus add all the timers and the other routes that the towers send ahead of the (R) it adds up in time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Q) on queens blvd = no.

 

Queens Blvd can barely handle 5 services, 6 won't be pretty.

 

If you ask me, because the MTA will not finish the Second Avenue Subway until 2030 (!)

 

If you are talking about all 4 phases, then that would be a laugh. Realistically, they will finish phase 4 around 2050+. If you are only talking about phase I, then no, it will be completed in 2016. The (MTA) is fully funded for Phase I so there is no reason for it to slow down. Besides, the federal government (whos funding a majority of this) won't let it happen. Originally when it was supposed to be completed in ~2013 the (MTA) told the federal govt. that it won't be completed to 2016. They were upset because they gave the (MTA) adequate time to complete the project and yet the couldn't. I don't think the (MTA) is going to push back the completion of Phase I by much after this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To address the original suggestion, there's no need to send the (V) via 63rd Street.

 

The (V) was created to give passengers from Queens Boulevard local stations access to 53rd Street stations previously only accessible from express (E) and (F) trains. Sending the (E) and (V) through 53rd Street provides access to passengers from as many Queens Boulevard stations as possible.

 

Sending the (V) via 63rd Street and running the (F) via 53rd defeats the original purpose of the reconfiguration. (F) trains would be much more crowded and (V) trains would run empty.

 

There's also no need to extend the (Q) past its current terminal until the first stage of the SAS is completed. Queens Boulevard passengers already have access to Broadway via the (R), and there are two Broadway lines operating on Astoria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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