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.
EE Broadway Local

SUBWAY - Random Thoughts Topic

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

The (6) has to run at 5 tph when the (5) is replacing the (2) as 241 St and Flatbush Av can't have 20 minute headways. The (4) has to run local when this happens though

 

It is either: 

(4) 7.5 / (5) 3  / (6) 7.5  

or

(4) 7.5  / (5) 5  / (6)

Yes, this was the pattern that was ran all through Clark. The point is again not that it’s impossible to run (5) at 5, just that the agency prefers not to given the runtime impact of (4) local and the relatively high weekend ridership on Pelham. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This afternoon I just missed an Canarsie Bound (L) at Broadway Junction, had to wait 17 minutes for the next one SMH, thanks Cuomo. Garbage G.O. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

This is very much a NYCT problem. Weekend service reduction is a direct result of the agency’s lack of attention to GO productivity and of flagging rules developed largely by the agency. The agency may not have control over some of the more arcane work rules, but it absolutely can do a better job coordinating projects, properly scheduling work trains and flagging crews, etc. It also could either invest in track barriers to eliminate adjacent flagging, or review flagging rules to understand what in them is working and what is not while comparing to other systems’ practices. And of course there’s always the option of changing the predominant GO format — emphasizing less frequent full shutdowns over the endless dribble of one-direction reroutes. 

With the (4)(5), the issue is the (6) and Brooklyn. You can’t run the (6) at 5tph, nor can you run Lex-Brooklyn or Jerome that low. So you run 7.5/3/7.5, which itself is really pushing it in terms of flagging capacities. I just wish they’d run 3tph of overlay service as far as 149-GC to complement the 3 of Manhattan service. 

Turning (5) trains there would be a real pain, whereas turning the (4) (on the upper level) is rather straightforward. If we must decrease service in Manhattan, the best course would be to run both at 5 tph, have the (5) serve Brooklyn (Flatbush Avenue unless the Nostrand Avenue Line is closed, in which case it'll run to Utica Avenue) and run (4) short-turns between Woodlawn and 149th Street. This keeps the number of people screwed over to a minimum and avoids excessive relaying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lex said:

Turning (5) trains there would be a real pain, whereas turning the (4) (on the upper level) is rather straightforward. If we must decrease service in Manhattan, the best course would be to run both at 5 tph, have the (5) serve Brooklyn (Flatbush Avenue unless the Nostrand Avenue Line is closed, in which case it'll run to Utica Avenue) and run (4) short-turns between Woodlawn and 149th Street. This keeps the number of people screwed over to a minimum and avoids excessive relaying.

Running (4) shuttles in the Bronx solves nothing because just about everyone riding is going to Manhattan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, paulrivera said:

Running (4) shuttles in the Bronx solves nothing because just about everyone riding is going to Manhattan.

I could've phrased that better, but the shuttles are supposed to run in addition to the trains serving Brooklyn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lex said:

Turning (5) trains there would be a real pain, whereas turning the (4) (on the upper level) is rather straightforward. If we must decrease service in Manhattan, the best course would be to run both at 5 tph, have the (5) serve Brooklyn (Flatbush Avenue unless the Nostrand Avenue Line is closed, in which case it'll run to Utica Avenue) and run (4) short-turns between Woodlawn and 149th Street. This keeps the number of people screwed over to a minimum and avoids excessive relaying.

Good luck scheduling a 2.5tph overlay onto a 5tph service without creating all sorts of strange gaps in Manhattan. 3/3 is quick and easy that way. This would also get complicated whenever all service is on one track in Brooklyn. 

Relaying (5)s on the upper level, fwiw, is not at all complicated. All the switches are there, and scheduling a 6/7.5tph merge is doable even for the most incompetent schedulers at NYCT. Then you have legible service patterns (every other (5) to 149, all (4)s through), you don’t have people walking down to the deep platforms at 149 just to crawl back up, and you get slightly improved frequency for intraboro/(2) transfer riders on WPR. I say a win. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

This afternoon I just missed an Canarsie Bound (L) at Broadway Junction, had to wait 17 minutes for the next one SMH, thanks Cuomo. Garbage G.O. 

I feel your pain. The (L) is annoying now compared to before. Most of the time on the weekends when I transfer at Broadway Junction from the (J) , I always miss the (L)  by a few seconds to a minute and then there is a 10-15 minute wait usually. I still think they should have shut down the line in Manhattan and cut the (L) to Bedford Ave. I feel like the extra service provided by the (M) is a waste, because most people take the train to Lorimer Street and wait for the next (L) . However I do think it’s nice having third service along 6th Ave on the weekends and removing the need to transfer from the (J) to the (F).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Good luck scheduling a 2.5tph overlay onto a 5tph service without creating all sorts of strange gaps in Manhattan.

Because 5/5 totally isn't a thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Lex said:

Because 5/5 totally isn't a thing...

I mean yeah, you could run 5tph of Bronx (4) shuttles, but is that honestly a good use of resources given alternative plans exist? Remember, weekend crewing arrangements are extremely complicated given the number of CRs sucked into flagging — you have to pick what you’re gonna spend crew hours on wisely.

Anticipating the argument about the (4) shuttle being shorter than the (5) and the crew issue thus not being as clear cut, the frequency difference (5tph vs 3tph) would require the (4) shuttle to be 60% or less the length of the (5). This is not the case. Last I remember, running time from 149 to Woodlawn is around 20 mins, and 138 to Dyre is 28 or 29. That’s at best 69%. 

Once again, I want to go back to the larger problem of value here. What does this service pattern gain riders? Jerome loses 2.5tph of its only Manhattan service so that WPR can gain 2 on its second. Is it worth making yet another corridor suffer when you can add an overlay and call it a day? 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

I was shocked that they didn't at least have the southbound (B) Trains end at Kings Highway. 

 

The last southbound (B) that left 145th Street when they started suspending service did end at 2nd Avenue and went back Uptown in service however. 

I have a feeling maybe that might have been since there is no crew office there or something? I guess since it was 7pm already they just thought they would call it a day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Once again, I want to go back to the larger problem of value here. What does this service pattern gain riders? Jerome loses 2.5tph of its only Manhattan service so that WPR can gain retain 2 on its second (which is also the only service on the Dyre Avenue Line, and it already runs the bare minimum by default). Is it worth making yet another corridor suffer when you can add an overlay and call it a day? 

Even taking the horrific topography around Jerome Avenue (street and line) into consideration, the (4)'s route is still more accessible than the bulk of the (2) and (5) in the Bronx. Not trying to half-ass everything with an overlay from harder-to-reach (read: out of the way) areas in the Bronx also translates to not screwing over Brooklyn, particularly those trying to reach stations along Nostrand Avenue (again, harder to reach, albeit in a drastically different manner), as well as giving Brooklyn more of the preferred service (Lexington Avenue). In addition, a 5/5 overlay on Jerome would make it easier to travel between 149th Street and points north for everyone, and while those with mobility issues would have longer-than-normal waits between trains serving Manhattan, it would not be as severe as for those experiencing that 3/3 overlay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never understood why out of the two White Plains Road Lines, the (5) was the one to have a reduced weekend frequency and normal weekend operation to end at Bowling Green.

The (2) serves 7th Avenue which isn't nearly as busy as Lexington Avenue, so why is the (5) the one to always get the boot when theres a G.O?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lex said:

Even taking the horrific topography around Jerome Avenue (street and line) into consideration, the (4)'s route is still more accessible than the bulk of the (2) and (5) in the Bronx. Not trying to half-ass everything with an overlay from harder-to-reach (read: out of the way) areas in the Bronx also translates to not screwing over Brooklyn, particularly those trying to reach stations along Nostrand Avenue (again, harder to reach, albeit in a drastically different manner), as well as giving Brooklyn more of the preferred service (Lexington Avenue). In addition, a 5/5 overlay on Jerome would make it easier to travel between 149th Street and points north for everyone, and while those with mobility issues would have longer-than-normal waits between trains serving Manhattan, it would not be as severe as for those experiencing that 3/3 overlay.

I have never heard anyone refer to topography as “horrific”. I guess you mean hilly...

9 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I never understood why out of the two White Plains Road Lines, the (5) was the one to have a reduced weekend frequency and normal weekend operation to end at Bowling Green.

The (2) serves 7th Avenue which isn't nearly as busy as Lexington Avenue, so why is the (5) the one to always get the boot when theres a G.O?

The (4)(5) are so busy mainly because prior to the (Q) , you had no other subway serving the East Side, so naturally the Lex line is crowded. That said, the (2) and (5) share a lot of territory together, and the (4) eventually runs by itself in the Bronx covering rather dense areas. Given the resources it makes sense. The (2) gets slammed, as does 7th Avenue, and the (5) Dyre Avenue line covers areas that aren’t as dense and generally have more express bus service to make up for it such as Morris Park. The location of the (5) Dyre Avenue line stops are not exactly that accessible which is another issue. I never understood the location of that line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I never understood why out of the two White Plains Road Lines, the (5) was the one to have a reduced weekend frequency and normal weekend operation to end at Bowling Green.

The (2) serves 7th Avenue which isn't nearly as busy as Lexington Avenue, so why is the (5) the one to always get the boot when theres a G.O?

If the (2) is cut, there's no way to get to 7th Avenue from the Bronx by subway. However, if the (5) is cut, you can still get to Lexington Avenue (It's inefficient, but you still can) The (2) is the more important line in 7th Ave, since the (3) can be replicated by the (4), so they try to keep it open, or keep its frequency higher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, W4ST said:

If the (2) is cut, there's no way to get to 7th Avenue from the Bronx by subway. However, if the (5) is cut, you can still get to Lexington Avenue (It's inefficient, but you still can) The (2) is the more important line in 7th Ave, since the (3) can be replicated by the (4), so they try to keep it open, or keep its frequency higher.

The other thing is that if the (2) were to end within Manhattan, it would have to switch back and forth with the (1) at Chambers St.

Edited by Lawrence St

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I have never heard anyone refer to topography as “horrific”. I guess you mean hilly...

The (4)(5) are so busy mainly because prior to the (Q) , you had no other subway serving the East Side, so naturally the Lex line is crowded. That said, the (2) and (5) share a lot of territory together, and the (4) eventually runs by itself in the Bronx covering rather dense areas. Given the resources it makes sense. The (2) gets slammed, as does 7th Avenue, and the (5) Dyre Avenue line covers areas that aren’t as dense and generally have more express bus service to make up for it such as Morris Park. The location of the (5) Dyre Avenue line stops are not exactly that accessible which is another issue. I never understood the location of that line.

The Dyre line was orginally a railroad which had much better ridership north of Kingsbridge since one of the main purpose was to bring people from Westchester into Manhattan.

When NYWB went out north of Dyre, so did the ridership and everything else with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Lex said:

Even taking the horrific topography around Jerome Avenue (street and line) into consideration, the (4)'s route is still more accessible than the bulk of the (2) and (5) in the Bronx. Not trying to half-ass everything with an overlay from harder-to-reach (read: out of the way) areas in the Bronx also translates to not screwing over Brooklyn, particularly those trying to reach stations along Nostrand Avenue (again, harder to reach, albeit in a drastically different manner), as well as giving Brooklyn more of the preferred service (Lexington Avenue). In addition, a 5/5 overlay on Jerome would make it easier to travel between 149th Street and points north for everyone, and while those with mobility issues would have longer-than-normal waits between trains serving Manhattan, it would not be as severe as for those experiencing that 3/3 overlay.

We may just have to agree to disagree here. The impossibility of assessing a route's 'horrificness' aside, the Dyre line in the end of the day only attracts a fraction of Jerome's ridership. WPR draws more, but the line also gets more baseline service than Jerome (thank you, (2)). However much I may bemoan the MTA's weekend routing decisions in Brooklyn, there is some logic to them: every time they need to put all service on one track and flag, the (5) would likely be cut to Bowling Green if not further north. The same would likely be true in the case of a Nostrand shutdown, what with the (2) and (4) already using Utica. I understand the impulse to choose the plan that provides more service in aggregate, but again, there needs to be a consideration of priorities here: is it worth messing with Jerome, forcing ugly transfers at 149, to run a more expensive service plan? I say no. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option would be to run half of the (5) trains as (2) trains to South Ferry to maintain the service between E 180 St and 149 St - Grand Concourse, this way the (5) can be reduced on Lexington Avenue and there would still be the same amount of service in the Bronx.  MTA did this on a Friday evening once by suspending all (5) service from 8:30pm to 10:30pm S/B and from 10:00pm to 12:00am N/B and ran the (2) to both 241 St - Flatbush Ave and Dyre Av - South Ferry at the same time.  The (5) resumed service when the (2) and (5) swapped terminals though, the (2) just went to/from Dyre early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

Another option would be to run half of the (5) trains as (2) trains to South Ferry to maintain the service between E 180 St and 149 St - Grand Concourse, this way the (5) can be reduced on Lexington Avenue and there would still be the same amount of service in the Bronx.  MTA did this on a Friday evening once by suspending all (5) service from 8:30pm to 10:30pm S/B and from 10:00pm to 12:00am N/B and ran the (2) to both 241 St - Flatbush Ave and Dyre Av - South Ferry at the same time.  The (5) resumed service when the (2) and (5) swapped terminals though, the (2) just went to/from Dyre early.

Aside from confusing passengers more, the (5) reductions have a bad tendency to come up alongside (2) reductions stemming from work in Manhattan (which, incidentally, comes up far more often than similar work in Brooklyn).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Lex said:

Aside from confusing passengers more, the (5) reductions have a bad tendency to come up alongside (2) reductions stemming from work in Manhattan (which, incidentally, comes up far more often than similar work in Brooklyn).

MTA  already does this sometimes on Monday mornings after a Clark Street Tunnel shutdown. (2) service runs Flatbush - 241, but there are still (2) trains running South Ferry - Dyre after 5am, so from about 5-7am there may be two different (2) services running N/B from Chambers St to E 180 St. Also the (5) is running N/B as a Dyre shuttle while (2) trains are still running to Dyre. Guess people are used to this happening during the "transitional service period". MTA would rather run two different (2) trains than run the (5) to/from Bowling Green after 4am (like they used to do in 2011)

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

MTA  already does this sometimes on Monday mornings after a Clark Street Tunnel shutdown. (2) service runs Flatbush - 241, but there are still (2) trains running South Ferry - Dyre after 5am, so from about 5-7am there may be two different (2) services running N/B from Chambers St to E 180 St. Also the (5) is running N/B as a Dyre shuttle while (2) trains are still running to Dyre. Guess people are used to this happening during the "transitional service period". MTA would rather run two different (2) trains than run the (5) to/from Bowling Green after 4am (like they used to do in 2011)

That still doesn't address the main issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This question is  for my Bronx experts...VG8 in particular cause he lives in riverdale....I gotta go visit a friend at Methodist Home in Riverdale...How far is that from the (1) train after you get off...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

This question is  for my Bronx experts...VG8 in particular cause he lives in riverdale....I gotta go visit a friend at Methodist Home in Riverdale...How far is that from the (1) train after you get off...

https://goo.gl/maps/zMd4Jp64DAsX29aX9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

It's right up the hill from the 1 train stop at 242nd, like a 3 block walk. It should not take as long as the 9 minutes shown on Google Maps. And DO NOT take the shorter solid-line route -- that meanders through the Manhattan College campus, requires a steep staircase, and you may be stopped by security. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.