Jump to content

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Stormxx said:

Before: chambers street looked like this: https://nypost.com/2018/05/25/mta-overhauling-forgotten-subway-station-after-post-report/

Now, Chambers street looks like this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Chambers_Street_-_Nassau_Line_Platform.jpg

Hardly sense any difference at all. Except a few elevators and ramps here and there. I understand this is a difficult time for the (MTA), and they suspended a bulk of their capital program, but they need to do something about this station. It isnt affecting just us, but imagine the (J)(Z) riders every day having to board a train at Chambers. I really feel sorry for them.

They really only did that because of the Post?

7 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Rehabbing such a big station is very expensive and we all know the MTA’s financial situation.

Man, you really can't get the (MTA) to do anything without making it cost billions of dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Another thing:

I know you'd all give me reasons why this wouldn't make sense:

I feel like the (1)(6) should be 100% tech, because they're locals, and people need more clear announcements as to which stop is next.

If it were up to me, I'd make the (1)(4)(6) R142/a, because the (1)(6) are locals and the (4) doesn't share a yard.

The (2)(3)(5) would be R62/a because the (2)(5) share a yard and the (3) was R62 to begin with, It'd cost more money to move them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Stormxx said:

Another thing:

I know you'd all give me reasons why this wouldn't make sense:

I feel like the (1)(6) should be 100% tech, because they're locals, and people need more clear announcements as to which stop is next.

If it were up to me, I'd make the (1)(4)(6) R142/a, because the (1)(6) are locals and the (4) doesn't share a yard.

The (2)(3)(5) would be R62/a because the (2)(5) share a yard and the (3) was R62 to begin with, It'd cost more money to move them.

Techs on the 2 & 5 lines makes the most since cause of swapping trains between lines at Flatbush terminal.

 

The 62As have a pretty good PA system, so the manual announcements are fine for now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stormxx said:

4.) Why did they move the (M) to sixth ave? It could've just stayed as a (brownM). That could've worked.

5.) When the (V) was cut back in 2010, they could've done this.

Because they merged (brownM) with (V) for (M) as both a cutback and passenger enhancement since more people go from Middle Village and Williamsburg to 6th Av/Midtown than Broad Street and Brooklyn via Manhattan (especially since it’s faster to go to Bk from MV by doing an OOS x-fer at Hewes or Lorimer to Broadway (G) than riding (brownM) down Nassau St and through Downtown Bk on the northern 4th Av line stops with (R)).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither here nor there, but I still think the (M) to 96th makes the most sense and wish the MTA would run it. 1) QBL already has decent service, 2) we want to build reliance on SAS generally to help calm Lex and get it up to service guidelines, 3) you actually have a lot of people who want to travel between Williamsburg and the UES, whereas almost nobody relies on the (M) for its full horseshoe route from Queens to Queens in its current state. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Neither here nor there, but I still think the (M) to 96th makes the most sense and wish the MTA would run it. 1) QBL already has decent service, 2) we want to build reliance on SAS generally to help calm Lex and get it up to service guidelines, 3) you actually have a lot of people who want to travel between Williamsburg and the UES, whereas almost nobody relies on the (M) for its full horseshoe route from Queens to Queens in its current state. 

But wouldn’t more (B) service be required if (Q) had to be reduced for (M) runnings, and boosting (N) to make up for (W) going to Continental?

(Which I think would make (R) better since (W) would be a shortline (R) instead of a local (N) - so NTTs could be shared on both services.)

You could even make (Q) M-F Brighton Express and (B) M-F Brighton Local and (Q) the weekend local - like (N) is on weekends. No net losses there, methinks.

Edited by Deucey
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

Neither here nor there, but I still think the (M) to 96th makes the most sense and wish the MTA would run it. 1) QBL already has decent service, 2) we want to build reliance on SAS generally to help calm Lex and get it up to service guidelines, 3) you actually have a lot of people who want to travel between Williamsburg and the UES, whereas almost nobody relies on the (M) for its full horseshoe route from Queens to Queens in its current state. 

Thank you for bringing this up; it's the main reason I've opposed the current routing from the very start- same problem as when the (brownM) meandered aimlessly from Metropolitan to Bay Parkway, really.

The other issues I've always had with the (M) is the excessive interlining (line went from sharing tracks with four services to five) and capacity issues; the 480' trains do not handle rush hour on Queens Blvd as well as the 600' trains on the (V) did, not by any stretch of the imagination.

Edited by R10 2952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Stormxx said:

Ah yes, the (J)(M)(Z).

1.) Whats the difference between the (J) skip stop and a plain old (Z) train?

2.) I saw a (J) skip-stop around 2:00 yesterday, doesn't skip stop service only run during rush hours?

3.) Why did they make the (Z) a thing when the (J) has the same starting and ending point? Also, remember the (J) skip stop. It almost has the same number of stops as the (Z).

4.) Why did they move the (M) to sixth ave? It could've just stayed as a (brownM). That could've worked.

5.) When the (V) was cut back in 2010, they could've done this.

a) they should've kept the (B)(D)(F) as 6th ave, and then made Nassau street (J)(brownM) full time, instead of the (Z) only running part time.( (brownM) local, (J) express)

b) here's my version of the (brownM), starting point Broad St, ending point Forest Hills, but there would be new track going from Metropolitan Ave to Forest hills. 

c) (Z) service would be eliminated.

(this is my opinion)

 

(J) / (Z) are skip stop trains during rush hours. (J) trains only stop at (J) stations and (Z) trains only stop at (Z) Stations during rush hours. It is designated on the map as such

For example on the subway map 85th St-Forest Parkway is a (J) only stop and 75th St- Elders Ln is an (Z) only stop during rush hours (J skips it during that time) . Woodhaven Blvd is an all train stop, which means during rush hours both (J) and (Z) stops. Outside of rush hours (J) makes all stops

In short (J) and (Z) are only designation of which stations they stop at during rush hours

 

(M) was moved to 6th Ave for efficiency purposes. Instead of routing trains down Bay Parkway they used the crews to route them to Forest Hills. During the same service change the (V) was eliminated. There is a net loss in service so the (MTA) saved money. The side effect of this change is that people no longer pack the (L) at Myrtle-Wyckoff. (they still do but some elect to stay on)

 

By cutting the (Z) , (J) will still have to run every 7 minutes. The only way to save money is running the (J) every 10 minutes during rush hours which is not good. There is no good reason to route the (brownM) downtown other than nostalgia reasons. More people simply want Midtown, and passengers going downtown can take the (J) or (Z).

 

For your last proposal, its a shame the IND Second System wasn't built. 

2 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Neither here nor there, but I still think the (M) to 96th makes the most sense and wish the MTA would run it. 1) QBL already has decent service, 2) we want to build reliance on SAS generally to help calm Lex and get it up to service guidelines, 3) you actually have a lot of people who want to travel between Williamsburg and the UES, whereas almost nobody relies on the (M) for its full horseshoe route from Queens to Queens in its current state. 

The (R) alone is not going to cut it for Queens Blvd Local. The Queens Blvd Express is overcrowded so routing one of them local is not an option. In my opinion what needs alleviation these days is not the Lexington Av local. QBL has decent service for a reason. Trains are packed and that lines needs alleviation. BAD. Even improving the SAS won't do much to alleviate the (4) and (5) because passengers are coming from the Bronx

2) I doubt people take it from W'sburg and UES

 

People don't take the (M) the whole route. Just like people don't take the (R) the whole route from Bay Ridge to Forest Hills. The (M) services two markets Metro-Midtown and Midtown- 71st Ave. The two ridership is completely different

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

Thank you for bringing this up; it's the main reason I've opposed the current routing from the very start- same problem as when the (brownM) meandered aimlessly from Metropolitan to Bay Parkway, really.

The other issues I've always had with the (M) is the excessive interlining (line went from sharing tracks with four services to five) and capacity issues; the 480' trains do not handle rush hour on Queens Blvd as well as the 600' trains on the (V) did, not by any stretch of the imagination.

The (M) currently serves two different ridership with the same train versus the (V) which only served one market and that is Midtown- QBL. The current set up is simply more efficient. 

We could reduce some of the interlining by rerouting the (M) onto 63rd St and running the (F) via 53rd St, but that would cause overcrowding at Lex-53rd

 

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Which I think would make (R) better

Haha nothing will ever make the (R) better.  

 

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Deucey said:

But wouldn’t more (B) service be required if (Q) had to be reduced for (M) runnings, and boosting (N) to make up for (W) going to Continental?

(Which I think would make (R) better since (W) would be a shortline (R) instead of a local (N) - so NTTs could be shared on both services.)

You could even make (Q) M-F Brighton Express and (B) M-F Brighton Local and (Q) the weekend local - like (N) is on weekends. No net losses there, methinks.

Yeah, that all makes sense to me. Would the (Q) have to be reduced? I'm not aware of the 96th capacity TPH offhand...would it work?

8 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

People don't take the (M) the whole route. Just like people don't take the (R) the whole route from Bay Ridge to Forest Hills. The (M) services two markets Metro-Midtown and Midtown- 71st Ave. The two ridership is completely different

The (M) currently serves two different ridership with the same train versus the (V) which only served one market and that is Midtown- QBL. The current set up is simply more efficient. 

Disagree on this. Bringing up the (R) Bay Ridge to Forest Hills is an apples to oranges comparison - you're talking a 95 minute experience versus a 35 minute one. Think about the demographic on Yorkville/far-East UES: a lot of affluent millennial types, twenty- and thirty-somethings who like to party etc. Then think about who's in Williamsburg and Bushwick, and who views those neighborhoods as a destination. Tons of millennials in Yorkville who go out to Williamsburg/Bushwick to drink/go out every Thursday-Sunday. Bedford Ave in Williamsburg has almost the exact same demographic as a lot of Yorkville. Currently many of those people Uber, but the (M) routing covers that. I can speak from personally observation that the evening M-to-96 trains were often packed with this.

Same thing, by the way, with the UES to LES crowd (not served by the Q at Canal anywhere near as much as the M at Delancey).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

Techs on the 2 & 5 lines makes the most since cause of swapping trains between lines at Flatbush terminal.

 

The 62As have a pretty good PA system, so the manual announcements are fine for now.

Think about the summer, though. What if you have to go to a local stop that is really far away and it is really hot outside? The 142's have better A.C then the 62's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Disagree on this. Bringing up the (R) Bay Ridge to Forest Hills is an apples to oranges comparison - you're talking a 95 minute experience versus a 35 minute one. Think about the demographic on Yorkville/far-East UES: a lot of affluent millennial types, twenty- and thirty-somethings who like to party etc. Then think about who's in Williamsburg and Bushwick, and who views those neighborhoods as a destination. Tons of millennials in Yorkville who go out to Williamsburg/Bushwick to drink/go out every Thursday-Sunday. Bedford Ave in Williamsburg has almost the exact same demographic as a lot of Yorkville. Currently many of those people Uber, but the (M) routing covers that. I can speak from personally observation that the evening M-to-96 trains were often packed with this.

Same thing, by the way, with the UES to LES crowd (not served by the Q at Canal anywhere near as much as the M at Delancey).

In my experience people from UES on the (Q) usually is off the trains by 14th Street and people from Brooklyn is usually off the train by 42nd Street. Not a partyer so I don't know where people go, but I suspect people want Midtown or lower Midtown more than heading into another neighborhood outside the central core such as W'sburg or UES. Maybe its the same places Long Islanders go when they get off the LIRR all drunk and all that.

Delancey can be accessed by the (F) directly cross platform at Lex so I don't think it would be too big of an inconvenience. 

I don't think its justified rerouting the (M) completely from QBL just to cover people who wants to party. But on weekends I'm not against an extension of the (M) from Delancey. Its just that a four car train probably won't cut it lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Neither here nor there, but I still think the (M) to 96th makes the most sense and wish the MTA would run it. 1) QBL already has decent service, 2) we want to build reliance on SAS generally to help calm Lex and get it up to service guidelines, 3) you actually have a lot of people who want to travel between Williamsburg and the UES, whereas almost nobody relies on the (M) for its full horseshoe route from Queens to Queens in its current state. 

(M) to 96th would be nice but the (R) as the only local on queens blvd would suck. It sucks on weekends and makes me wish the (G) would comeback (which needs to happen). The only issue is that the (E) would be the only line serving 53rd st which would be an issue. this is why they need a 6th ave service to balance out the ridership. The (M) carries on queens blvd during the rush.

 

but on weekends the (M) to 96th st should be kept.

 

My only solution for a 2nd line on 2nd ave is have the (V) run between 2nd ave and 9th st at a 15 min headway during the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mtatransit said:

In my experience people from UES on the (Q) usually is off the trains by 14th Street and people from Brooklyn is usually off the train by 42nd Street. Not a partyer so I don't know where people go, but I suspect people want Midtown or lower Midtown more than heading into another neighborhood outside the central core such as W'sburg or UES. Maybe its the same places Long Islanders go when they get off the LIRR all drunk and all that.

Delancey can be accessed by the (F) directly cross platform at Lex so I don't think it would be too big of an inconvenience. 

I don't think its justified rerouting the (M) completely from QBL just to cover people who wants to party. But on weekends I'm not against an extension of the (M) from Delancey. Its just that a four car train probably won't cut it lol

Well, just partying is maybe an exaggeration, but you have a lot of young people who live on the UES who spend their nights/weekends in Williamsburg, and vice versa. Also people who work in Williamsburg and work in Midtown. It's a decent market. My only point is that it's a market that exists, whereas there is no demographic that takes the full (M) on the horseshoe loop into Queens and back.

26 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

(M) to 96th would be nice but the (R) as the only local on queens blvd would suck. It sucks on weekends and makes me wish the (G) would comeback (which needs to happen). The only issue is that the (E) would be the only line serving 53rd st which would be an issue. this is why they need a 6th ave service to balance out the ridership. The (M) carries on queens blvd during the rush.

but on weekends the (M) to 96th st should be kept.

My only solution for a 2nd line on 2nd ave is have the (V) run between 2nd ave and 9th st at a 15 min headway during the week.

Well, maybe that's the play. (M) to 96th and (G) to Continental to cover the (R). I never understood cutting off the (G) anyway, Court Square is a lousy last stop. I guess now we're talking a real increase but to me it makes sense in the future. Definitely  (M) to 96th weekends as a compromise, it's possible the demographic I'm talking about is more of a weekends thing than weekdays. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Deucey said:

But are the wires connecting those signs modular - meaning they can be replaced with a LCD sign without running new lines and/or reprogramming the OS?

I can't say for sure. But the factory-new R188s were built after the R143s and R160s were and by the same company, so some modularity should have been built in. Not to mention they were able to refit the former R142As with the CBTC technology. They also replaced the R44s and R46s' side roll signs with digital destination signs in GOH. With that in mind, I can't imagine how replacing the R142/R142A digital signs with newer ones would be an insurmountable task. Besides, a few converted R188s did get side digital signs that look very similar to the R143/R160 models. 

19 hours ago, Stormxx said:

Ah yes, the (J)(M)(Z).

1.) Whats the difference between the (J) skip stop and a plain old (Z) train?

2.) I saw a (J) skip-stop around 2:00 yesterday, doesn't skip stop service only run during rush hours?

3.) Why did they make the (Z) a thing when the (J) has the same starting and ending point? Also, remember the (J) skip stop. It almost has the same number of stops as the (Z).

4.) Why did they move the (M) to sixth ave? It could've just stayed as a (brownM). That could've worked.

5.) When the (V) was cut back in 2010, they could've done this.

a) they should've kept the (B)(D)(F) as 6th ave, and then made Nassau street (J)(brownM) full time, instead of the (Z) only running part time.( (brownM) local, (J) express)

b) here's my version of the (brownM), starting point Broad St, ending point Forest Hills, but there would be new track going from Metropolitan Ave to Forest hills. 

c) (Z) service would be eliminated.

(this is my opinion)

 

 

 

 

 

There isn't a "plain old" (Z) train, although some PM rush hour put-ins at Broadway Junction that travel down to Broad Street are signed as (Z) and make all stops to Broad. The northbound (J) runs express between Marcy and Myrtle at 2 PM. 

There was a big reason to move the (M) to 6th Avenue - money. The State was broke in 2009-10, as a result of the sub-prime mortgage economic crisis. Believe it or not, the first proposed service cuts plan in 2009, called for something similar to what you suggested in your a) , except it would have retained the (V) as it was and the (brownM) would have terminated at Chambers on weekdays and remained the same at other times (shuttle between Metropolitan and Myrtle).

 

16 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Neither here nor there, but I still think the (M) to 96th makes the most sense and wish the MTA would run it. 1) QBL already has decent service, 2) we want to build reliance on SAS generally to help calm Lex and get it up to service guidelines, 3) you actually have a lot of people who want to travel between Williamsburg and the UES, whereas almost nobody relies on the (M) for its full horseshoe route from Queens to Queens in its current state. 

As a former QBL rider who still occasionally rode it until last March, I can tell you QBL already did not have decent service pre-pandemic. Taking away the (M) and leaving just the (R) as the local in Queens is not going to go well. It's true that many people don't ride the full horseshoe (M) route, but the same could be said for just about every subway route. And if we want to build reliance on the SAS, then we should increase Broadway service, rather than create a new merge at Lex-63rd between the F, M and Q.

15 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Thank you for bringing this up; it's the main reason I've opposed the current routing from the very start- same problem as when the (brownM) meandered aimlessly from Metropolitan to Bay Parkway, really.

The other issues I've always had with the (M) is the excessive interlining (line went from sharing tracks with four services to five) and capacity issues; the 480' trains do not handle rush hour on Queens Blvd as well as the 600' trains on the (V) did, not by any stretch of the imagination.

I used to ride the (M) regularly on QBL from 2012-15. It seemed to handle rush hour on QBL pretty fine to me. Not much worse than the V and certainly better than the G.

14 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

By cutting the (Z) , (J) will still have to run every 7 minutes. The only way to save money is running the (J) every 10 minutes during rush hours which is not good. There is no good reason to route the (brownM) downtown other than nostalgia reasons. More people simply want Midtown, and passengers going downtown can take the (J) or (Z).

 

For your last proposal, its a shame the IND Second System wasn't built. 

The (R) alone is not going to cut it for Queens Blvd Local. The Queens Blvd Express is overcrowded so routing one of them local is not an option. In my opinion what needs alleviation these days is not the Lexington Av local. QBL has decent service for a reason. Trains are packed and that lines needs alleviation. BAD. Even improving the SAS won't do much to alleviate the (4) and (5) because passengers are coming from the Bronx

2) I doubt people take it from W'sburg and UES

The (M) currently serves two different ridership with the same train versus the (V) which only served one market and that is Midtown- QBL. The current set up is simply more efficient. 

We could reduce some of the interlining by rerouting the (M) onto 63rd St and running the (F) via 53rd St, but that would cause overcrowding at Lex-53rd

 

Haha nothing will ever make the (R) better.  

 

Terminating the (R) at Whitehall will make it better. Then, either have a full time (W) or a full time (Z) replace the (R) in Brooklyn. We had a whole long discussion about this in 2019.

If the (Z), then run it to/from Broadway Junction. Run the (J) peak express between Bway Jct and Marcy. Extend the (W) to South Brooklyn to supplement the (Z) on weekdays.

If the (W), then run it as the sole Astoria service and reroute the (N) to 2nd Ave alongside the (Q)

 

5 hours ago, MHV9218 said:

Yeah, that all makes sense to me. Would the (Q) have to be reduced? I'm not aware of the 96th capacity TPH offhand...would it work?

Disagree on this. Bringing up the (R) Bay Ridge to Forest Hills is an apples to oranges comparison - you're talking a 95 minute experience versus a 35 minute one. Think about the demographic on Yorkville/far-East UES: a lot of affluent millennial types, twenty- and thirty-somethings who like to party etc. Then think about who's in Williamsburg and Bushwick, and who views those neighborhoods as a destination. Tons of millennials in Yorkville who go out to Williamsburg/Bushwick to drink/go out every Thursday-Sunday. Bedford Ave in Williamsburg has almost the exact same demographic as a lot of Yorkville. Currently many of those people Uber, but the (M) routing covers that. I can speak from personally observation that the evening M-to-96 trains were often packed with this.

Same thing, by the way, with the UES to LES crowd (not served by the Q at Canal anywhere near as much as the M at Delancey).

But we can’t give everyone a one-seat ride the subway. Even if there are a lot of people Ubering from the UES/Yorkville to Williamsburg or the LES, the subway isn’t going to beat Uber by trying to be Uber. Definitely not during its highest ridership periods. There would to many merging delays, which will eventually lead to signal and switch problems.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MHV9218 said:

Well, just partying is maybe an exaggeration, but you have a lot of young people who live on the UES who spend their nights/weekends in Williamsburg, and vice versa. Also people who work in Williamsburg and work in Midtown. It's a decent market. My only point is that it's a market that exists, whereas there is no demographic that takes the full (M) on the horseshoe loop into Queens and back.

Well, maybe that's the play. (M) to 96th and (G) to Continental to cover the (R). I never understood cutting off the (G) anyway, Court Square is a lousy last stop. I guess now we're talking a real increase but to me it makes sense in the future. Definitely  (M) to 96th weekends as a compromise, it's possible the demographic I'm talking about is more of a weekends thing than weekdays. 

I agree with you on weekend, it may be beneficial to extend the (M) if the (MTA) 's budget allows. But I can't agree with extending the (M) to 96th during the week. You are right about no one taking end to end, but that is not what train is designed for. There is the Q38 for that. I believe the (M) serves its purpose well today. Just because the train begin and ends in Queens doesn't mean everyone has to ride it end-end. There is extensive turnover in ridership in Midtown, where one seat vacated by a passenger from Williamsburg will be filled by a passenger heading to QB

This is way more efficient than the old (V) where the train is basically empty by West 4th Street. 

There may be a potential market for sure, but I do not believe it is as important as it is to reroute service off the second busiest line (maybe first now). Passengers could continue to transfer at 34th St- Herald Square, or at 53rd Street to the (6) 

We could even reroute the (M) over 63rd St and make the (F) go via 53rd St. This way passengers could transfer to the (Q) directly cross-platform at Lexington Av-63rd. 

 

I also can not agree with extending the (G) from Court Square. Most QB Local riders have no use for travel into Brooklyn. They primarily use it to transfer to the Express train at Roosevelt Avenue and Queens Plaza. You will overload the (E) at Queens Plaza or Court Square with the (G) extension. You could reroute the (F) via 53rd to establish the pre 2001 pattern, but then something will have to cover 63rd Street. 

55 minutes ago, R32 3838 said:

(M) to 96th would be nice but the (R) as the only local on queens blvd would suck. It sucks on weekends and makes me wish the (G) would comeback (which needs to happen). The only issue is that the (E) would be the only line serving 53rd st which would be an issue. this is why they need a 6th ave service to balance out the ridership. The (M) carries on queens blvd during the rush.

 

but on weekends the (M) to 96th st should be kept.

 

My only solution for a 2nd line on 2nd ave is have the (V) run between 2nd ave and 9th st at a 15 min headway during the week.

Maybe when construction is finished, we could consider a (G) come back during weekends and late nights. Right now the (E) and (F) runs local every other weekend so the (G) will probably be cut back to Court Square every single weekend. 

I remember back in 2008 I think for the entire year the (G) ran to 71 Ave only two weekends. It was actually a railfanning moment when the (G) does run!

I'm not sure if a 15 minutes (V) will be popular to passengers taking the (F) or (M) to 34th St and transferring to the (Q) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As a former QBL rider who still occasionally rode it until last March, I can tell you QBL already did not have decent service pre-pandemic. Taking away the (M) and leaving just the (R) as the local in Queens is not going to go well. It's true that many people don't ride the full horseshoe (M) route, but the same could be said for just about every subway route. And if we want to build reliance on the SAS, then we should increase Broadway service, rather than create a new merge at Lex-63rd between the F, M and Q.

That's not totally true though. There are, conceivably, a few riders who want to go from 241 St. to Flatbush, or Canarsie to 8th Avenue, and you see a decent number of full-route straphangers on every line. Obviously it's a minority of people, but my point is that they do exist. It's a service provided by the MTA on their behalf, even if they aren't the main patrons of the line. You wouldn't want to lose that if your goal is a system that provides real accessibility around the city. But the (M) on the other hand is pointless by design - there is no practical reason anybody would ride it end-to-end, and it would be quicker to take basically any other form of transportation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the (R) would terminate at whitehall and the (W) would run via the (R) to Bay Ridge full time? Good idea. Maybe the (Z) could run via the (F) from delancey-essex to West 8th St full time. There needs to be another line running via Culver, because many people ride the (F) every day. Bring back the R32's, put 'em on the (A) and (C). Take the 179's from the (A)(C), (3010-3049 and 3238-3327) and bring them to Coney Island. Also, take 80% of the 160a-1's from ENY and bring em to coney. That should be enough for the (Z). One last problem, 4 car vs 5 car units. The (Z) is 4 car, while the (D)(F)(N)(Q) is 5 car, so the (Z) would have to be a little short in train length.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Kingsbridgeviewer382 said:

Outdoor subway service is being suspended starting at 2 PM. Underground service will still be available but that could change. The snowstorm must be bad right now.

Not sure If anyone has brought this up in the past, but I was wondering why the "underground portions of the subway cut off access to subway stations that could normally be serviced in a manner similar to how the (1) train serves stops north of 96 St (bypassing 125 St due to it being an outdoor station). If that were possible, then couldn't one argue that we could serve more neighborhoods as follows:

1. A version of the (B) train running from Bedford Park Blvd to Prospect Park (via the Manhattan Bridge)

2. Extending the (D) so that it runs from 205 St to Grand St, then via the Manhattan Bridge, stopping at DeKalb Av, then running to/from 36 St.

3. Extending the (Q) so that it runs from 96 St-2 Av to Canal St, then via the Manhattan Bridge and to/from Prospect Park (*or even running the (Q) via lower manhattan to/from Brooklyn)

4. Extending the (F) and (G) trains so that they run from their northern terminals to Church Avenue (bypassing Smith-9 Sts and 4 Av-9 St due to the outdoor station closures).

5. Running the (5) train from 3 Av-149 St to Flatbush Av (so that "The Hub" and Nostrand Av) have a direct Lexington Av Service)

6. Extending the (L) so that it runs to/from Bushwick Av-Aberdeen St (bypassing Wilson Av eastbound).

7. Running the (M) train from 71 Av to Essex St (the reverse pattern that is run when there are incidents along the (E)(F)(R) lines, where the (M) only runs from Essex St to Metropolitan Av).

 

 

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mtatransit said:

I agree with you on weekend, it may be beneficial to extend the (M) if the (MTA) 's budget allows. But I can't agree with extending the (M) to 96th during the week. You are right about no one taking end to end, but that is not what train is designed for. There is the Q38 for that. I believe the (M) serves its purpose well today. Just because the train begin and ends in Queens doesn't mean everyone has to ride it end-end. There is extensive turnover in ridership in Midtown, where one seat vacated by a passenger from Williamsburg will be filled by a passenger heading to QB

This is way more efficient than the old (V) where the train is basically empty by West 4th Street. 

There may be a potential market for sure, but I do not believe it is as important as it is to reroute service off the second busiest line (maybe first now). Passengers could continue to transfer at 34th St- Herald Square, or at 53rd Street to the (6) 

We could even reroute the (M) over 63rd St and make the (F) go via 53rd St. This way passengers could transfer to the (Q) directly cross-platform at Lexington Av-63rd. 

 

I also can not agree with extending the (G) from Court Square. Most QB Local riders have no use for travel into Brooklyn. They primarily use it to transfer to the Express train at Roosevelt Avenue and Queens Plaza. You will overload the (E) at Queens Plaza or Court Square with the (G) extension. You could reroute the (F) via 53rd to establish the pre 2001 pattern, but then something will have to cover 63rd Street. 

Maybe when construction is finished, we could consider a (G) come back during weekends and late nights. Right now the (E) and (F) runs local every other weekend so the (G) will probably be cut back to Court Square every single weekend. 

I remember back in 2008 I think for the entire year the (G) ran to 71 Ave only two weekends. It was actually a railfanning moment when the (G) does run!

I'm not sure if a 15 minutes (V) will be popular to passengers taking the (F) or (M) to 34th St and transferring to the (Q) 

I remember riding the (V) above West 4th St during rush hours with plenty of seats available. I recall seeing passengers passing up the (V) to wait for an (F). Now I won’t say that’s not the case with the (M), but with its 480-foot trains (could be 540-foot trains if they’d reconfigure the switches at Metro and extended the platform 60 feet south). 

If I recall correctly, the MTA were considering implementing the weekday (F) via 53rd / (M) via 63rd sometime early last year. Unfortunately, the pandemic kicked that plan entirely off the stove, let alone to the back burner. 

Agree bringing the (G) back to QBL is a waste of capacity that could be used to bring more service into Manhattan. Where is the heavy demand for service from Forest Hills/Rego Park to Greenpoint and Williamsburg? There is much more demand for service to Midtown Manhattan. When the (G) ran there, trains emptied out at Roosevelt and Queens Plaza for the (E) or (F) (which doesn’t even stop at QP anymore). 

Also agree that a (V) service running at only 4 tph won’t be very well-used. It would also push 6th Ave local capacity to the limit and make emergency (A)(C) or (E) reroutes all but impossible. 

1 hour ago, MHV9218 said:

That's not totally true though. There are, conceivably, a few riders who want to go from 241 St. to Flatbush, or Canarsie to 8th Avenue, and you see a decent number of full-route straphangers on every line. Obviously it's a minority of people, but my point is that they do exist. It's a service provided by the MTA on their behalf, even if they aren't the main patrons of the line. You wouldn't want to lose that if your goal is a system that provides real accessibility around the city. But the (M) on the other hand is pointless by design - there is no practical reason anybody would ride it end-to-end, and it would be quicker to take basically any other form of transportation. 

Of course. No one would take the (M) from end to end...though past proposals to extend the (M) north from Metro to North Queens have been floated here. The most recent being via the Bay Ridge and Port Washington LIRR r-o-w’s to Flushing (not sure where there’s room to lay two subway tracks along either of those r-o-w’s). 

The other option in 2010 would likely have been to combine the (V) with the (J) / (Z) and likely run the (brownM) between Metro and Broad full time. But that combined route would have been a much longer route than the (M) and would also have no practical reason to ride end-to-end. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The other option in 2010 would likely have been to combine the (V) with the (J) / (Z) and likely run the (brownM) between Metro and Broad full time. But that combined route would have been a much longer route than the (M) and would also have no practical reason to ride end-to-end. 

Oh boy I can imagine people saying this if this happens 

"what if we extend the (J)  to Jamaica Center from 71 Ave so it can be on both the lower level and the upper level at Sutphin and Parson Archer!"

Edited by Mtatransit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Not sure If anyone has brought this up in the past, but I was wondering why the "underground portions of the subway cut off access to subway stations that could normally be serviced in a manner similar to how the (1) train serves stops north of 96 St (bypassing 125 St due to it being an outdoor station). If that were possible, then couldn't one argue that we could serve more neighborhoods as follows:

1. A version of the (B) train running from Bedford Park Blvd to Prospect Park (via the Manhattan Bridge)

2. Extending the (D) so that it runs from 205 St to Grand St, then via the Manhattan Bridge, stopping at DeKalb Av, then running to/from 36 St.

3. Extending the (Q) so that it runs from 96 St-2 Av to Canal St, then via the Manhattan Bridge and to/from Prospect Park (*or even running the (Q) via lower manhattan to/from Brooklyn)

4. Extending the (F) and (G) trains so that they run from their northern terminals to Church Avenue (bypassing Smith-9 Sts and 4 Av-9 St due to the outdoor station closures).

5. Running the (5) train from 3 Av-149 St to Flatbush Av (so that "The Hub" and Nostrand Av) have a direct Lexington Av Service)

6. Extending the (L) so that it runs to/from Bushwick Av-Aberdeen St (bypassing Wilson Av eastbound).

7. Running the (M) train from 71 Av to Essex St (the reverse pattern that is run when there are incidents along the (E)(F)(R) lines, where the (M) only runs from Essex St to Metropolitan Av).

 

 

Or we could just do what we've done prior to the past decade and just serve the entire system. (Hell, noisy as it is, Chicago has a plan to keep trains and passengers moving.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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