The (2) and (5) Should Permanently Swap on the Southern End

[SubwayGuy]

That means that during the hours that the 5 does not currently serve Brooklyn, Livonia riders have the same level of service to local stations on the Brooklyn IRT

 

They already do with the 4 local overnight in Brooklyn...

 

and to the west side.

 

What if they want the east side? Now you just made those people make a transfer.

 

It also means they have more express service on the Brooklyn IRT as well as more Lexington line service: They can transfer to the 5 in addition to the 4 at Franklin, instead of the 4 by itself at Utica.

 

Again, saving just under 2 minutes on the northbound. Evening headways are far enough apart that this inconveniences more people than it helps.

 

125 Street is even worse of a terminal? Just have the 4 terminate on the upper level (uptown) express track all night.

 

Right. And then explain to those people that they need to go downstairs to continue downtown. And then make signage that accurately reflects this boneheaded service pattern.

 

It does not block any train during overnight hours based on what the track map is showing me.

 

But it does block places where work trains can "hide" to get out of the way of road trains.

 

If people on the uptown 5 or 6, which use the local track, want the uptown 4, which is on the express track, they walk across the platform. If they are on the downtown 6 and want the uptown 4, they go upstairs as they do now. If they are on the downtown 4 terminating at 125 and want the downtown 5 or 6, they go downstairs.

 

Like I said...dumb.

 

That last bit is the only big difference people would have to get accustomed to. The conductors can announce this until the people get used to it. Alright, so perhaps they will have to make the announcement indefinitely because the public is the public. But making these announcements indefinitely has no effect on operating costs. The conductor gets paid the same whether s/he makes the announcement or not.

 

And what about the signage indicating such when there is no train in the station, and therefore no conductor? Should there be paid platform personnel at all overnight hours (which does add significant cost) just to explain the boneheaded new service pattern?

 

The reason why I want this overnight pattern is to minimize the differences between my daytime service idea (5 to Brooklyn at all times) and the overnight service idea.

 

So to minimize the difference between one dumb idea and another.

 

Now the lack of a Bronx/west side overnight subway connection is, in my opinion, the only outstanding issue to kill off. Bronx IRT ridership exceeds Brooklyn IRT ridership. So let us attempt to solve that one.

 

Underlined is the first true thing you've posted so far, and a big reason why the 2 goes all the way through on the overnights.

 

I was thinking kill the 2 designation overnight and send the 3 to 241 Street.

 

Because this won't add more confusion when you now have to replace signage at (minimum) 20 stations to reflect to people that they should look for the 3 overnights? What serves Lenox...the vaunted shuttle bus?

 

Now in post #13, I said that the surplus in minutes of train operation was 11. (-54) + (51) + (-61) + (75) = 11 additional minutes of travel time per 2 and 4 pairing replaced with 3 and 5 pairing in the Bronx/Manhattan/Brooklyn.

 

This might be confusing, so I will clarify as necessary. Just ask. This is all based on plans described in post #13.

 

Eliminating the 2 overnight from 241 Street to 96 Street saves 40 minutes on paper. So now there is a net savings of 29 minutes of train operation since 11 - 40 = -29.

 

Now knock off 3 minutes since it takes 3 minutes for a 3 to go from Lenox Terminal to 135 Street. The 3 will no longer serve Lenox Terminal or 145 Street. So now the net savings is 32 minutes.

 

Now add 32 minutes for a 2, which would be a 3 under my proposal, to get from 241 Street to 135 Street.

 

(-32) + (32) = 0. 0 minutes of train operation. So it would be cost neutral to change overnight service in the way I described. The replacement of the local 2 with the express 5 in Brooklyn during the times that the 5 currently does not serve Brooklyn, excluding overnight hours, definitely saves money. So now the entire plan saves money.

 

Cutting the running time of a trip does not necessarily save money. You have crews that need to staff those trains, and just because a train isn't running doesn't mean they aren't getting paid. Because they have to wait for their next trip whenever that is.

 

Also sending the 3 to the Bronx adds back that time and then some, especially if you're talking about leaving it to New Lots on the overnight.

 

The reason the PM 5 jobs work very well is that most of them have one round trip to Flatbush, one round trip to Bowling Green, and one one-way trip to East 180th. Then the 10 car train goes to the yard. A few of the late jobs end at Dyre, which allows those trains to be cut into two 5 car units, which become the late night shuttles.

 

That gets the most service out of those crews with a fair amount of breaks and rest/recovery time.

 

3 from Wakefield to New Lots overnight and 5 from Dyre to Flatbush overnight. 3 and 5 make all local stops.

 

So because the 2 is too long, now you're plan is to make the 3 even longer???

 

Perhaps the 2 should go from Lenox Terminal to Flatbush during the times that the 5 currently serves Brooklyn in that case, while the 3 just goes from Wakefield to New Lots 24/7, operating express in Manhattan during the day and local in Manhattan overnight. Local in the Bronx and Brooklyn 24/7 like now.

 

All that does is redesignate the services the way it used to be years ago when the 3 and 4 went to Flatbush and the 2 and 5 to Utica (with the 2 to New Lots). You've just changed some names and flipped east/west side. No real point here.

 

I think that South Ferry could take the 1 trains and the 2 trains during the times that the 5 does not currently serve Brooklyn.

 

Maybe in your mathematical world it could, but there are a lot of situations which could cause delays entering the station which would then back up service. Especially on weekends, trains are very crowded because the weekend service forces crush loading even during middays in the name of fiscal efficiency. Trains along Broadway/7th Ave. CAN'T be late even by a little or the quality of the ride goes downhill fast.

 

A similar situation, in which there are probably more trains within a given time frame, exists at Flatbush Avenue when the 5 currently does serve Brooklyn.

 

And that station often has delays in service pushing trains out, so it's a bad example to use.

 

There are trains coming in and out of that terminal every few minutes (I believe the 2 and 5 combined have an average 3-4 minute headway along Nostrand) during the times that the 5 currently serves Brooklyn. How bad are the delays there at these times anyway?

 

At times fairly bad.

 

It is slightly similar to the service pattern from 30 years ago.

 

Which didn't work for the same reasons this won't.

['89 Liberty MCI]

LRG: How about my plan from post #37? That one is far less intricate than my other ones.

 

RC: Keeping the following statements limited to one-seat rides, Nostrand riders ride the to go to the west side 24/7. If they want the east side they take the when it serves Brooklyn. Other times (no one-seat ride) they take the to the .

 

Please keep in mind that the following statements, as well as all of my other statements, are based on post #37 only. If, as you said, there is equal demand for the west side and east side, would it be so bad to have the Lexington trains serve Nostrand 24/7 rather than the , with west-side-bound passengers from Nostrand transferring between the and at either Franklin, Atlantic, Nevins, or Borough Hall?

 

As I said in post #37 it would be the to Flatbush most of the time and the to Flatbush during overnight hours. The would be express in Brooklyn during the times that the is currently express in Brooklyn. Overnight the and would be local in Brooklyn as they are now.

 

Please refer back to post #37 if this is unclear. This would cut costs for the MTA, and the majority of the people that use the Brooklyn IRT would probably benefit in the long run.

 

Sure, some will complain at first, but I believe that, in the long run, the majority would be thankful for the change.

[2Line1291]

There only needs to be 2 IRT services during late nights in Brooklyn. One for west side and the other for east side. There's number of ways it could work. , , and to Flatbush or Nostrand. But economically the current to Flatbush and to New Lots setup works just fine fine fine fine fine fine fine ooh!!

[TwoTimer]

You may have had a better argument (with countdown clocks now activated - and as hinted in Mike's thread) with all IRT lines running full length but with 30 min headways (total amount of trains per hour unchanged, but more options). But I would sound like an elitist if I suggested such a thing, as this disproportionately affects the poorer and working class neighborhoods that typically lie at the solo branches of IRT lines and not the well to do in Manhattan.

[dman1455]

Off topic, but this is the reason why and trains run local during late nights on the Fourth Avenue Line.

 

The and run local in brooklyn because:

 

1. The Express tracks hold the trains between 59th st and 36th st

2. The train relays at 36th st on the express tracks and it sits there for a while.

3. Well there is no train running so the and run local.

[Grand Concourse]

The does it every night. A few intervals in the AM rush does it as well, and go back north in the PM rush. Won't people get off the whole OMG too many stops before a break routine that's the crew and union's problem to handle.

True.

 

We used to do just that. 241st-New Lots 24/7. 5 cars on the midnights. We called it "the Beast".

Ouch! Beast it is.

[Abba]

The and run local in brooklyn because:

 

1. The Express tracks hold the trains between 59th st and 36th st

2. The train relays at 36th st on the express tracks and it sits there for a while.

3. Well there is no train running so the and run local.

 

I was thinking maybe run the to 59th only. local to 36th b/d.And either the or goes express after that.But probobaly people would complain because no connection with at 59th.

[GreatOne2k]

How is the late night weekend service (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) doing with this GO? Are the trains just as crowded as the and ?

The is usually express weekend late nights.

[mark1447]

How is the late night weekend service (Friday, Saturday, and Sunday) doing with this GO? Are the trains just as crowded as the and ?

The is usually express weekend late nights.

 

The is not crowded with this G/O.

 

It maybe a bit crowded (Not including a bunch of standees) since people on the Lex Local track may just wanna skip waiting for a or because a train is available, even tho those who want service in the Bronx, would need to get off at 125.

 

Light amount also for those wanted to get on the West Side. Lot of them maybe referred to take the at Pacific / Borough Hall to the Ferry for service

['89 Liberty MCI]

For what it is worth and just to be clear, this is my most recent idea. This is much more similar to the old days. I know South Ferry is an issue. Aside from that, please tell me why this would be worse than the current setup, if it would be worse than the current setup. Please use logic rather than accusations and insults.

 

This applies to everybody; do not come back at me and accuse me of singling people out. I acknowledge that I was insulting and accusatory on one or two occasions in the past. I apologized for that before and I apologize for that again. I do not know whether some of you came at me the way you did within this thread because you were seeking revenge on me for some reason, and it does not matter because we are not here to insult and accuse each other. I personally did not insult or accuse anybody of anything within this thread, except perhaps to defend myself, and will not do it again, except to defend myself.

 

During the times that the currently does not serve Brooklyn, excluding overnight hours:

 

to New Lots, to South Ferry, to Utica, to Flatbush.

 

During the times that the currently does serve Brooklyn:

 

to New Lots, to Flatbush, to Utica, to Flatbush.

 

Overnight hours:

 

to New Lots and to Flatbush. Keep the from Dyre to East 180, keep the from Lenox Terminal to Times Square.

 

All northern terminals remain unchanged.

 

Why do I propose this? It saves money and the benefits outweigh the losses with respect to passengers.

[SubwayGuy]

This thread is getting out of control as it seems to be one poster going back to the drawing board each time valid points are brought up why this won't work, and conjecture and accusations from some posters that would rather bash than look at this from an operations perspective.

 

I see it this way:

 

The Brooklyn IRT is an unfinished system that has hints of what could have been all over the place. Neither Flatbush nor Utica Ave. were originally meant to be terminals and easily get backed up during peak periods, you have a sloppy junction at Rogers, and you have a lot of really crowded trains during the day, and a lot of near empty trains during overnights.

 

If you want to go full on fantasy map/unlimited budget, nobody minds long closures and construction (since that's where most of these ideas seem to be heading - more concerned about number designations than ridership patterns), I'll throw the following in to stir the pot up real good

 

Introducing...the way the Brooklyn IRT should have been built (with 20/20 hindsight):

 

 

Of course, that's not to say it should be done (since what's there is there, and what's not is not, and it's not feasible to do), but had that been the way things were, the would serve New Lots at all times, the would serve Flatbush at all times, and the and would cut back to their regular terminals. Additionally, you'd be following the more conventional service pattern of express trains serving the furthest reaches of the system and local trains serving closer terminals (the original goal of express service always being to distribute passengers better - NOT just be "faster"! - take note, railfans). With this sort of service pattern, there'd be no need for all the New Lots passengers to transfer to the express at Utica.

 

There'd also be minimal delays at Franklin in both directions with flying junctions to prevent delays of an east side train from affecting its corresponding west side train (and vice versa).

 

But like I said...a pipe dream...just like everything else in this thread.

[Guest lance25]

@'89 MCI Liberty: For starters, what's with all this switching around? Forget about the (2)/(5) swap for a second here. During the day, the goes to Utica Av, then overnights, goes to Flatbush to replace the . There's a reason why the goes to New Lots during the late night hours. It's the most logical extension of the line to replace the . That's the case with every line's late night routes in comparison to its daytime route. For example, the runs local on Queens Blvd late nights. It doesn't run up Central Park West.

 

Getting back to the actual service plans, your weekend/evening plan leaves only one local on Eastern Pkwy and only one line serving Park Place, Fulton and Wall Sts in Manhattan and Clark and Hoyt Sts in Brooklyn. Then there's the amount of trains needed. You'll have to add more trains to both the and lines because the former is going a further distance than before and the latter is being extended from Bowling Green. That service reduction on the won't cut it. Not by a long shot.

 

For the rush hour/midday service plan, why are you switching the and lines in Brooklyn? Not only does it make the even longer, it has absolutely no benefit. Between 135 St and Franklin Av, the and run the same route, so someone heading into Manhattan via 7th Avenue won't care if it's a or a .

 

Finally, for the late nights, I already touched on the potential confusion on having the serve two completely different lines, dependent on what time of the day it is. There's also the question of why again. Why are you switching up the and lines? So Nostrand has 24/7 Lex service and New Lots 7th Ave? It doesn't matter. While I'm not as familiar with the riders' needs during the late night hours, why can't they just transfer at one of the stations for their particular train. I wasn't aware everyone became crippled all of a sudden.

[TwoTimer]

Sometimes I wonder why people on here argue away about what riders/residents want in a neighborhood they do not live in or represent. I can only argue based on knowledge of internal MTA systems and procedures what can and cannot work. I do not base it on history or neighborhood knowledge, or even suggest things for areas I do not live in. I live near the line (with a short bus ride to the at 180th), worked on the line for years (all three tours), and only discuss things that go on with the line. I comment on any idea I hear that concerns the line (with some opinions on the rest of the IRT lines except the as I have worked them as well on all tours). I only started to make a comment or two about the IND/BMT since going to T/O, and still can't even vouch completely for them as I've never worked the lines in the AM or midnite, and have never lived in areas served by the IND/BMT, with only a seldom visit. I prefer to drive and pay tolls, as except in rush hour it beats taking the train anyway. This whole thread come up from someone who later admitted that he doesn't live in, visit or even have polled residents in the neighborhood, that it was just an idea he concocted (for reason's unknown to me), then had to study maps to make the whole thing work, including making terminals share lines overnight (which no terminal does at the moment).

And most people here only ask that people vouch for areas they live in or visit frequently at multiple times of the day and/or weekend. For instance many consider Via an elitist for his views coming from SI and express buses and such. I actually believe TA should cut the express bus that goes to Parkchester or run it during rush hours only (not weekend) if more cuts came down the road, as we do have our own subway terminal during the day. I always felt express buses should be in two-fare zones only. But, my fiance doesn't like riding the subway and has no problem taking express buses, even to Parkchester (weekday, weekend, late night, whenever), and has no problem paying the extra fare. And she by no means is economically strong, either. I make twice what she makes, and Parkchester is generally a working class diverse neighborhood.

[GreatOne2k]

Sometimes I wonder why people on here argue away about what riders/residents want in a neighborhood they do not live in or represent. I can only argue based on knowledge of internal MTA systems and procedures what can and cannot work. I do not base it on history or neighborhood knowledge, or even suggest things for areas I do not live in. I live near the line (with a short bus ride to the at 180th), worked on the line for years (all three tours), and only discuss things that go on with the line. I comment on any idea I hear that concerns the line (with some opinions on the rest of the IRT lines except the as I have worked them as well on all tours). I only started to make a comment or two about the IND/BMT since going to T/O, and still can't even vouch completely for them as I've never worked the lines in the AM or midnite, and have never lived in areas served by the IND/BMT, with only a seldom visit. I prefer to drive and pay tolls, as except in rush hour it beats taking the train anyway. This whole thread come up from someone who later admitted that he doesn't live in, visit or even have polled residents in the neighborhood, that it was just an idea he concocted (for reason's unknown to me), then had to study maps to make the whole thing work, including making terminals share lines overnight (which no terminal does at the moment).

And most people here only ask that people vouch for areas they live in or visit frequently at multiple times of the day and/or weekend. For instance many consider Via an elitist for his views coming from SI and express buses and such. I actually believe TA should cut the express bus that goes to Parkchester or run it during rush hours only (not weekend) if more cuts came down the road, as we do have our own subway terminal during the day. I always felt express buses should be in two-fare zones only. But, my fiance doesn't like riding the subway and has no problem taking express buses, even to Parkchester (weekday, weekend, late night, whenever), and has no problem paying the extra fare. And she by no means is economically strong, either. I make twice what she makes, and Parkchester is generally a working class diverse neighborhood.

 

MTA gets reimbursed for all MTA Bus Express Buses, it is cost neutral (and in some cases may end up cheaper) for MTA to keep all of the non NYCT express buses. The train isn't exactly great on the weekend and can easily get bunched up. Also the Bx4A isn't frequent, taking the Bx22 to Castle Hill isn't great either, and walking from Metropolitan Oval isn't for everyone, especially in bad weather.

There is also the Rosedale Avenue stop on the BxM6, which only really has the Q44 (and to a lesser extent Bx36) as an alternative.

[MikeGerald]

I've thought of a way to rebuilding the Rogers Avenue junction that would be "simple" but at the same minimizes the construction work and uses as much of the current tunnels as possible. I dont' have a track map or diagram, so I'll use English to explain what could happen.

 

On the Flatbush-New Lots bound side of the Franklin Avenue station at the north end of the platforms, I'd start building a side track to the #2/#3 local track. Just like the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station, both the express and local track would each issue a switch to form a middle track. This middle track would form the currently existing #2/#3 track. The side track mentioned above would become the new #3 track to New Lots Avenue. The new middle track (for #2/#5 trains) would start to "quickly duck down" since there's nothing under any of the tracks at that point, and would run under the new side track until the turn off for President Street. Since both #2 and #5 trains would be using this new middle track, there would no longer be any other interference on the #4 and #3 tracks to Utica or New Lots Avenue. The #3 and #4 tracks headed to Utica or New Lots Avenue - just before the Nostrand Avenue local stop/platforms could have a diamond track switch cross-over for added flexibility of train movement. The Brooklyn bound side of the Rogers Junction is complete and simple.

 

On the Manhattan bound side - I would add a diamond switch between the local and express tracks for flexibility. I would again create a side track just a bit south of the Nostrand Avenue local station. This side track would be used by Manhattan bound #4 trains, and would rise up but remain "on the side" until coming down just before the Franklin Avenue station. Again at the Franklin Avenue station north end (meaning last cars of the Manhattan bound trains) I'd have a similar setup like the 59th Street-Columbus Circle station - where there would be three tracks that merge to two tracks. Now the #4 express track from Utica passes/crosses over the local track - the new side #4 track would do the same except it would pass/cross over TWO tracks - landing to fit in place as the usual express track. Just before entering the Franklin Avenue station, the middle track would issue a switch to both the local and express tracks. Leaving the Nostrand Avenue local station the Manhattan bound #3 local track would move into the space that was vacated by the #4 express track (that's now in a new side track tunnel). This #3 Manhattan bound track would stay "at the side" all of the way into the Franklin Avenue station. The Manhattan-bound #2/#5 train tracks leaving President's Street would travel on their own current track path to Franklin Avenue becoming the "middle" track of the Manhattan-bound tracks. (For a bit traveling alongside the Manhattan bound #3 local track) Again this middle track would split issuing a switch to the Manhattan-bound local track to form the Manhattan-bound #2/#3 local track, and a switch to the Manhattan-bound express track to become the #4/#5 express track. Only two side tracks had to be added, minimal complex junctions and the Flatbush line does not get a preference for either local or express trains.

 

Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

Mike

['89 Liberty MCI]

Thank you, SubwayGuy, for re-infusing this thread with rationality and civility.

 

Note: "Busy hours" mean hours during which the currently serves Brooklyn. "Non-busy hours" mean hours during which the currently does not serve Brooklyn, excluding overnight hours.

 

I do not refer to "rush hours" or "middays and rush hours" since the serves Brooklyn for short periods outside the middays and rush hours; and it is faster to type "busy hours" or "non-busy hours." Now then.

 

Lance, I thought the and swap would minimize confusion. If the and did not swap, we would see this:

 

241 to Flatbush during busy hours, 241 to South Ferry during non-busy hours, 241 to Flatbush overnight.

 

148 to New Lots all times except overnights, 148 to Times Square overnight.

 

Woodlawn to Utica all times, Woodlawn to New Lots overnight.

 

Dyre (Dyre/Nereid rush hours) to Flatbush all times except overnights, Dyre to 180 overnight.

 

I thought this might be awkward since you would have the go from serving Flatbush during busy hours, to having it cut short during non-busy hours, to serving Flatbush again during overnight hours. Same thing on the weekend with the to Flatbush all day, then end at 180 overnight, while the stops serving South Ferry and goes to Flatbush overnight.

 

Then Sunday comes and the has to stop serving Flatbush (the last uptown leaves Brooklyn), start serving South Ferry (the first downtown serves South Ferry), and the has to start serving Flatbush.

 

The awkwardness that I perceived was the switching from Flatbush to South Ferry to Flatbush. I was thinking more awkward operations-wise than PR-wise. But you know something, this is subjective and is sort of an 'anything goes' thing. My latest plan (posts #37 and 60) may be just as confusing to the public. Most people would probably agree.

 

So with that said, it should be this, as described above:

 

241 to Flatbush during busy hours, 241 to South Ferry during non-busy hours, 241 to Flatbush overnight.

 

148 to New Lots all times except overnights, 148 to Times Square overnight.

 

Woodlawn to Utica all times, Woodlawn to New Lots overnight.

 

Dyre (Dyre/Nereid rush hours) to Flatbush all times except overnights, Dyre to 180 overnight.

 

TwoTimer: The fact that I do not live in a particular area means that I cannot present proposals relating to it, when I believe that such proposals would save money and benefit more people than it would hurt? I know and visit all of the areas discussed in this thread and I asked questions when I was uncertain about certain things.

 

In this entire thread I have been making arguable claims and reasoning (or trying to reason) with people that disagree with me. This does not equate to aggression or inflammatory remarks unless provoked. Even then I attempted to keep my cool, and I think I have been successful. Did I call anybody out or try to paint anybody as a malevolent character in this thread?

 

I mean, personally if I only stuck to my neighborhood and kept my thoughts about other neighborhoods to myself (and I have been living in the same neighborhood my entire life), then I might as well shut off my internet permanently and never leave my neighborhood again in order to prevent myself from being curious about these things and thus prevent myself from making these claims. Or I could keep my thoughts to myself and never find any answers to anything and never see the logic in anything and be thinking about this stuff aimlessly and forever.

 

If people want to turn a debate, that was sparked by a claim that was sparked by curiosity, into something ugly, that is their business. That will not cause me to keep this stuff bottled up at all times. I do not think that anybody would have had such negative reactions to threads that propose changes like this if it had not been for all the nonsense that came with it, which was not my responsibility.

 

I apologize if any dignified persons got impatient with me for starting with something so complicated and ending with something simpler. This is largely a learning experience amongst other things, and this is the internet. It is not life or death or a war room or a high-stress, high pressure situation or something. It is a learning experience.

[TwoTimer]

I also said "visit regularly". One does not have to only live in an area for years to suggest different service patterns, visiting is fine enough.

['89 Liberty MCI]

Lance, I did not address your point about Park Place, Fulton, Wall, Clark, Hoyt, Bergen, Grand Army, and Brooklyn Museum. I did address the overnight question by changing it back as described above. At these stations from Park Place to the Brooklyn Museum the service would be halved with the plan in this post.

 

The only thing I can say is that the west side trains serve Fulton/William and Wall/William while the east side trains serve Fulton/Broadway and Wall/Broadway. William Street and Broadway are very close to each other, so those traveling between these areas and the express stations in Brooklyn or the Nostrand Avenue corridor can switch to the east side trains.

 

But then there is no solution for those traveling between the west side and this Lower Manahattan area, or those who want local stations along Eastern Parkway and are coming from either the Nostrand corridor or Manhattan. Or those who want to go from one EP local station to another EP local station. Both groups would have their service halved.

 

It would work if more people benefited from the change than not (which I still feel would happen) and if those who lost out either did not complain too much and/or eventually came to terms with the change. Yes, this is not a perfect world and it is quite possible that they would raise hell and would not have this change, but I do not know which would be more likely to happen or how many people would raise hell.

 

From an economical/quantitative standpoint, it is a good plan if the number of people gaining is higher than the number of people losing.

 

If, as I described, the goes to South Ferry while the goes to Flatbush during the non-busy hours, do I still end up increasing the overall number of trains? The and both have 12-minute headways on the weekend and probably have 10- to 12-minute headways during non-busy hours (hours during which the does not currently serve Brooklyn, excluding overnight hours).

 

So I keep the headways the same after changing the service pattern as I described. Now the is cut back from Flatbush to Chambers, so all of those trains go away. Now maybe a train or two is added back to connect Chambers to South Ferry. Now the is extended from Bowling Green to Flatbush. So a bunch of trains go there. But the headway is still the same as that of the current and during non-busy hours. And the trains make fewer stops in Brooklyn, saving around four minutes per replaced with . Did I increase the number of trains, decrease them or keep them the same with this latest plan?

 

I also said "visit regularly". One does not have to only live in an area for years to suggest different service patterns, visiting is fine enough.

 

Depends on what you mean by regularly. I do go to Brooklyn quite a bit. Of course not while school is going on, but when the semester is out I go to Brooklyn and use the Brooklyn IRT almost every week at different times--weekends, rush hours, and middays. Also my friend who lives by the Nostrand line and uses it every day said he prefers the over the . Funny thing is, he has told me on numerous occasions that whenever the serves Brooklyn he tries to avoid the at all costs.

 

I know that is the opinion of just one local resident, but if he thinks that then other local residents could think the same thing. Or not. It was just one of the factors that provoked my curiosity.

[GreatOne2k]

There is a way for the to run to Flatbush on the weekends with the , it would involve cutting the service back to 12 minute headways. Similar to what the MTA did to midday service by cutting it back to 8 minutes. It would make the and service have even headways, but it would also hurt the Jerome line (would be less frequent than the Concourse line) and wouldn't be a recommended idea.

[TwoTimer]

Jerome is packed enough as is with the headways as is. The neighborhood was just not supposed to get as densely packed as it did.

[SubwayGuy]

There is a way for the to run to Flatbush on the weekends with the , it would involve cutting the service back to 12 minute headways. Similar to what the MTA did to midday service by cutting it back to 8 minutes. It would make the and service have even headways, but it would also hurt the Jerome line (would be less frequent than the Concourse line) and wouldn't be a recommended idea.

 

Agreed with TwoTimer. The Jerome line can't really see any further cuts. Trains can be packed even well into the evening hours leaving Mott, and often stay crowded as far north as Fordham/Kingsbridge Rds.

[GreatOne2k]

Agreed with TwoTimer. The Jerome line can't really see any further cuts. Trains can be packed even well into the evening hours leaving Mott, and often stay crowded as far north as Fordham/Kingsbridge Rds.

 

I already said this wouldn't be a recommended idea. MTA already did something like this during middays, so it's not like it would be unusual if they did it again.

 

The , , and were cut from 10 to 12 minutes on weekends several years ago.

[TwoTimer]

The should have remained at 10 min headways on weekends. If it ran more often, it wouldn't be as delayed and packed as is. Of course during weekends, 141st junction sees less traffic and always thought service can be beefed up a bit, even at the expense of service. The with the 8 min headways on weekends can be packed in the Bronx, and with any delay, in Manhattan as well. In fact, holiday supplements run that reduce headways to 6 mins for holiday season, that should get back up and running after Thanksgiving.

 

The thing is, people complain when service is dramatically less than service, even though total ridership demand warrants it. As is, many people get off a at 125th to wait for a there. One can make an argument that the can maintain 6 min headways on weekends, the 6 min headways on weekends, and the cut back to shuttle service only. Even on weekends its hard to find a seat on a at E180th. crews love when the doesn't run or runs split service, Lex moves much better.

[MikeGerald]

What is being talked about is a pattern that the MTA had for decades, where trains like the B (now D) and N-train would stop non-rush hours at the DeKalb Avenue station. This is not a new pattern of train movements but a pattern that was stopped when the B and D trains switched their Brooklyn routes in say 2001, when the Manhattan Bridge fully re-opened.

 

That is whatever trains were the 4th Avenue express trains crossed paths with the 4th Avenue local routes, and all of the Brighton Beach routes in both directions to stop at DeKalb Avenue.

 

Then as now, transit fans debated - talked - fussed - fumed - argued about this issue. The MTA's argument was that such switching operations tied up the DeKalb Avenue station with B (now D) and N trains crossing the paths of B (previously D) R and Q in both directions - creating conga lines of trains.

 

The bottom line is simple. The MTA "can" return to the previous pattern. They just DON'T want to return to that pattern. It is the MTA's railroad. They get to decide when, where, and how THEY will run THEIR trains and systems.

 

The MTA with the building or renovation of the Atlantic Avenue / Pacific Street train complex - essentially said that riders who want Sixth Avenue service will just have to transfer. Then the MTA reported that their surveys showed that the majority of Brighton Beach line riders preferred to travel along the Broadway Q line anyway.

 

It is the MTA's railroad - they can do what they want - it's their trains.

Mike

[GreatOne2k]

The should have remained at 10 min headways on weekends. If it ran more often, it wouldn't be as delayed and packed as is. Of course during weekends, 141st junction sees less traffic and always thought service can be beefed up a bit, even at the expense of service. The with the 8 min headways on weekends can be packed in the Bronx, and with any delay, in Manhattan as well. In fact, holiday supplements run that reduce headways to 6 mins for holiday season, that should get back up and running after Thanksgiving.

 

The thing is, people complain when service is dramatically less than service, even though total ridership demand warrants it. As is, many people get off a at 125th to wait for a there. One can make an argument that the can maintain 6 min headways on weekends, the 6 min headways on weekends, and the cut back to shuttle service only. Even on weekends its hard to find a seat on a at E180th. crews love when the doesn't run or runs split service, Lex moves much better.

 

The should not be a shuttle on weekends. The at 6 minute headways, what about the ? Another uneven headway situation here. MTA seems to like running the and at even headways.

 

Why would anyone get off the at 125 St for a ? Unless the is running local, or they are going to Brooklyn late evenings or weekends.

 

The at 6 minute headways is a slight decrease in weekend Lexington Avenue Express service, remember many riders will be piling onto these trains.

 

Sometimes the runs at 20 minute headways squeezed in between , , and trains.

 

The Holiday supplements will be going on the same time as this (2)/(5) GO is still going on? The GO continues until the Monday after Thanksgiving.