Some basic service change ideas, based on what the MTA kinda sorta currently has to work with

[Trainmaster5]

I suspect with the Casino now fully open at Aqueduct, that is going to change.

 

If I ran the Casino at Aqueduct, I would be willing to pay so that ALL service ran to the Rockaways (obviously stopping at Aqueduct and the Casino as well as JFK) with the exception of a handful of peak direction rush hour trains to/from Lefferts, with the likely then replacing the full time to Lefferts (eliminating the overnight on the Lefferts branch). Having it so Casino patrons know that outside of a handful of PM rush hour trains, the (A)'s would all stop at Aqueduct (with enough (A)'s to Rockaway Park to replace the Broad Channel full-time) to me is something I would consider important enough if I ran the casino to pay to make happen.

 

Residents along the Lefferts branch could howl all they like, but if the Casino operator were willing to pay to make the changes on the happen so all trains would service the Casino, then I don't think the residents would have a leg to stand on.

 

I was under the impression that subway and bus service is provided to serve the masses of residents in NYC. You're actually proposing that the sell extra service to a private corporation, for the corporation's benefit? Are you a stockholder ? Mass transit is for the public's benefit. You've got to be kidding. Let the casino goers use existing mass transit OR let the PRIVATE CORPORATION buy or lease a fleet of buses for their benefit. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[checkmatechamp13]

Lefferts and Ozone Park residents don't want trains, because it's a local line. The idea has been tried to death and failed multiple times, because these people want fast subway service to Manhattan.

 

That's an inconvenience to those riders, but it's not the reason it won't work.

 

The real reason it won't work is because it would reduce the frequency on the main portion of the line. You'd have to take a few trainsets away from the to extend the to Lefferts Blvd, and it would take a few more trainsets because the remaining trains would all be traveling the longer distance to Far Rockaway rather than the shorter distance to Lefferts Blvd.

 

Then you'd have more frequent service to Lefferts Blvd (because the is more frequent than the serving Lefferts Blvd) and more frequent service to Far Rockaway, but less service between Rockaway Blvd and 207th Street.

 

Now, if the Casino provided enough ridership to send more trains down to Far Rockaway (or even just to Howard Beach), then the to Lefferts Blvd would be a good idea because the service levels between Rockaway Blvd and 207th Street would remain the same.

 

I think a better idea would be to extend the to Rockaway Park Beach 116th Street at least to remove the , and to provide some direct service to Manhattan for the western section of the Rockaways.

 

Except that everybody will abandon ship at Rockaway Blvd to catch the express to Manhattan. You could accomplish the same thing (giving Rockaway Park riders more frequent service to transfer to) with my above plan, because nobody is going to stay on the all the way to Manhattan.

 

I was under the impression that subway and bus service is provided to serve the masses of residents in NYC. You're actually proposing that the sell extra service to a private corporation, for the corporation's benefit? Are you a stockholder ? Mass transit is for the public's benefit. You've got to be kidding. Let the casino goers use existing mass transit OR let the PRIVATE CORPORATION buy or lease a fleet of buses for their benefit. Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

First of all, the increased ridership should warrant increased service (unless trains have plenty of spare capacity after Rockaway Blvd), so they'd likely add some service to the casino anyway the same way they rerouted the Q37 there.

 

Second of all, if the casino has a choice between spending the same amount of money to get its own fleet of buses, or giving the MTA the same amount of money to run more service, wouldn't it be better for the latter to occur. The extra service would benefit the regular riders in addition to people going to the casino, and the MTA might even build in some profit into the price.

 

I mean, I could understand if the casino wasn't generating enough ridership to warrant additional service and they just wanted the extra service for free, but if they're going to pay for it, why not? Besides, a few members on here have advocated for private businesses to subsidze low-ridership routes that would otherwise be reduced or eliminated. They aren't serving the public (because they have so few riders), but if the businesses are willing to pay, why not?

[Kriston Lewis]

You're actually proposing that the sell extra service to a private corporation, for the corporation's benefit? Are you a stockholder ? Mass transit is for the public's benefit. You've got to be kidding.

Why the hell not? Private interests have paid for vintage runs that were open to the public in the past. If someone who isn't Jack and Jill Taxpayer wants to toss some money for subway service, by all means, GO GO GO.

[TwoTimer]

I went by the casino yesterday on my way home round midnight. Parking lot still full. But you guys may be missing the boat. Yes I know one would love to make everybody want to take the subway there. But people like to drive, and the casino is very convenient to the highway. People will continue to drive even if there were more trains sent out there. One has to think of every community and think of their best way to get out there.

 

For example:

 

Bronx - I'm not even going out there, I'll just drive up to Yonkers.

Queens - If I have a car, again I'll drive, as there's no easy way to get from one part of Queens to another. Even buses are insufficient as they do not go on the highway (except express buses). Those coming from Far Rock already take the train, but there are almost nobody getting on the train at Aqueduct s/b.

Brooklyn - I'll take the if I'm near it. From all points in south Brooklyn easier to drive, and no dolls either.

Long Island - Drive, period.

 

So I know you may wrack your brain trying to modify service out there, anything to bring in more ridership, but in the end, when going from place to place in this city (when Manhattan isn't involved), its easier to drive. Period. Especially when cost isn't that much an issue.

[checkmatechamp13]

For southern Brooklyn, I've always thought a route should use the Belt Parkway and go from Bay Ridge out to JFK Airport, serving the casino as well.

 

As far as the train goes, you also have to consider that workers have to get there too, and casinos generally don't pay a whole lot in the way of wages, so they'd be looking to take public transportation to save money. I'm sure you could get a lot of workers coming from northeastern Brooklyn and that general section of Queens.

[TwoTimer]

For southern Brooklyn, I've always thought a route should use the Belt Parkway and go from Bay Ridge out to JFK Airport, serving the casino as well.

 

As far as the train goes, you also have to consider that workers have to get there too, and casinos generally don't pay a whole lot in the way of wages, so they'd be looking to take public transportation to save money. I'm sure you could get a lot of workers coming from northeastern Brooklyn and that general section of Queens.

 

Which is probably true, but obviously the casino workers are not enough to warrant service changes, and if they are local, some may come by bus anyway. Even they might have cars, as ANY job is better than no job at all in this economy.

[Wallyhorse]

I was under the impression that subway and bus service is provided to serve the masses of residents in NYC. You're actually proposing that the sell extra service to a private corporation, for the corporation's benefit? Are you a stockholder ? Mass transit is for the public's benefit. You've got to be kidding. Let the casino goers use existing mass transit OR let the PRIVATE CORPORATION buy or lease a fleet of buses for their benefit. Just my opinion. Carry on.

 

It's more a case of Casino patrons not wanting to have to wait through any Lefferts (A)s to get one to Aqueduct, which is the main reason I'd be willing to pay to have all (A)s go to the Rockways. There is the added benefit in this of having all (A)s going to Howard Beach-JFK as well, which while not really the concern I would have would be important to many as well. It's also why I would have been willing to convert the existing Racetrack station into a four-track, three-platform station and rebuild the missing "express" track so that the station can be used as a terminal if there is a G.O. knocking out service to/from JFK.

 

Making it as convenient as possible for Casino patrons to get to Aqueduct is also why I would be willing to pay part of the freight to have the former LIRR Rockaway branch refurbished and connected to the Queens Blvd. Line so it can be used for trains from there, particularly from the neighborhoods that are heavily Asian (especially Flushing using a combo of the to from a branch from QB over the rebuilt Rockaway line) as those are people who LOVE to bet. That Casino already is outdoing the one at Yonkers by a ton, and if you make it more convenient for patrons to get to Aqueduct, they will remain there.

 

And yes, I do have a bit of a dog in the fight as a fan of the Sport of Kings. A good amount of the revenues the Casino generates goes to purses for racing at the NYRA tracks, which will be up substantially on January 1 in the first of three straight years of big purse increases that are coming. That helps the horsemen as it makes it more attractive to race in New York, which we are already seeing as we have about 20% more horses on the grounds than at this point last winter, meaning bigger fields and likely bigger handle. That likely will be even more the case next winter when the second increase in purses comes, so that's why I'm on this like I am.

[TriboroughBridge]

I think a better idea would be to extend the to Rockaway Park Beach 116th Street at least to remove the , and to provide some direct service to Manhattan for the western section of the Rockaways.

 

That does seem like it would be a hell of a long trip!

 

How about sending the to Lefferts Blvd & the go to both Rockaway terminals?

[TwoTimer]

Again ridership doesn't warrant it. During the summer, possibly. During the winter and other non-summer times off peak when everyone going to that side of the Rockaways can virtually fit into 2 R46 cars, no.

[Wallyhorse]

That does seem like it would be a hell of a long trip!

 

How about sending the to Lefferts Blvd & the go to both Rockaway terminals?

 

Which is exactly what I would be looking at doing.

 

The to Lefferts 24/7 would eliminate the overnight Lefferts and the two-seat ride during those hours.

 

You might have it when the is running 6tph or more do it where two of three (A)s are going to Far Rockaway and rest to Rockaway Park, given the ridership is apparently considerably higher on the Far Rockaway portion.

[Shortline Bus]

Which is exactly what I would be looking at doing.

 

The to Lefferts 24/7 would eliminate the overnight Lefferts and the two-seat ride during those hours.

 

You might have it when the is running 6tph or more do it where two of three (A)s are going to Far Rockaway and rest to Rockaway Park, given the ridership is apparently considerably higher on the Far Rockaway portion.

 

 

Wally have you ever been on the Rockaway Park branch at all? Outside of rush hours/weekdays and summers that branch has very low ridership. At late nights it could argued that bus service should replace that the between Beach 116th and Broad Channel.

 

Yet you want to run 'ghost trains' Wally on the Rockaway Park shuttle during Midnight Hours. Ok. Go figure.:eek:

[Trainmaster5]

It's more a case of Casino patrons not wanting to have to wait through any Lefferts (A)s to get one to Aqueduct, which is the main reason I'd be willing to pay to have all (A)s go to the Rockways. There is the added benefit in this of having all (A)s going to Howard Beach-JFK as well, which while not really the concern I would have would be important to many as well. It's also why I would have been willing to convert the existing Racetrack station into a four-track, three-platform station and rebuild the missing "express" track so that the station can be used as a terminal if there is a G.O. knocking out service to/from JFK.

 

Making it as convenient as possible for Casino patrons to get to Aqueduct is also why I would be willing to pay part of the freight to have the former LIRR Rockaway branch refurbished and connected to the Queens Blvd. Line so it can be used for trains from there, particularly from the neighborhoods that are heavily Asian (especially Flushing using a combo of the to from a branch from QB over the rebuilt Rockaway line) as those are people who LOVE to bet. That Casino already is outdoing the one at Yonkers by a ton, and if you make it more convenient for patrons to get to Aqueduct, they will remain there.

 

And yes, I do have a bit of a dog in the fight as a fan of the Sport of Kings. A good amount of the revenues the Casino generates goes to purses for racing at the NYRA tracks, which will be up substantially on January 1 in the first of three straight years of big purse increases that are coming. That helps the horsemen as it makes it more attractive to race in New York, which we are already seeing as we have about 20% more horses on the grounds than at this point last winter, meaning bigger fields and likely bigger handle. That likely will be even more the case next winter when the second increase in purses comes, so that's why I'm on this like I am.

I see your point a little clearer now but I should have made my point clearer. I'm coming from an operational standpoint. There is a finite amount of trainsets available in the IND-BMT division. There is also a limit to the amount of trackage in the division that could be used for any EXTRA services which is what you appear to be suggesting. I originally thought that you were advocating reducing service somewhere else in the IND if the casino operators were willing to pay for it. If the would go down that road then the less affluent areas of the city would be at the mercy of anyone with deep pockets. I do recall two special services on the IND in the past, the express and the Aqueduct Racetrack Specials. Perhaps something similar might work for you ? I should point out that the did cause operational problems with regular IND services back then because it had priority over regular trains which used the same trackage. Hope this clears up my thoughts on your idea somewhat. BTW IIRC the sold parts of the old LIRR Rockaway Branch ROW some years ago which some people wanted used as a light rail ROW between JFK and LGA. Carry on.

[Grand Concourse]

Lefferts and Ozone Park residents don't want trains, because it's a local line. The idea has been tried to death and failed multiple times, because these people want fast subway service to Manhattan.

Exactly what I keep stating, but it falls on deaf ears/blind eyes. What they fail to realize is to add more trains, they end up reducing trains. People don't want to ride a local when they already have a one seat-express to the city option. All this will do is make the remaining (A)s more crowded and the ©s more empty.

 

It's the same deal with the to 179th years ago: people wanted the express and would just take the and leave the empty.

 

I think a better idea would be to extend the to Rockaway Park Beach 116th Street at least to remove the , and to provide some direct service to Manhattan for the western section of the Rockaways.

The reason the is there is because that side doesn't need that much service. A 4-car R46 train is enough for service as most of the riders are headed for the eastern part of the rockaways. Those ©s would not be filled because most people would be on the train [and even if you have a bunch of Far Rock/Rock park bound riders at Rockaway Blvd, that's not enough to justify sending the all the way to Rock away park].

 

I was under the impression that subway and bus service is provided to serve the masses of residents in NYC. You're actually proposing that the sell extra service to a private corporation, for the corporation's benefit? Are you a stockholder ? Mass transit is for the public's benefit. You've got to be kidding. Let the casino goers use existing mass transit OR let the PRIVATE CORPORATION buy or lease a fleet of buses for their benefit. Just my opinion. Carry on.

Exactly. Unless people are piling onto those trains, I kinda doubt a person wanting to gamble is going to take a chance on the train and get robbed [ala Seinfeld's subway episode]. They'd be better off driving or taking some taxi/bus service there.

 

I see your point a little clearer now but I should have made my point clearer. I'm coming from an operational standpoint. There is a finite amount of trainsets available in the IND-BMT division. There is also a limit to the amount of trackage in the division that could be used for any EXTRA services which is what you appear to be suggesting. I originally thought that you were advocating reducing service somewhere else in the IND if the casino operators were willing to pay for it. If the would go down that road then the less affluent areas of the city would be at the mercy of anyone with deep pockets. I do recall two special services on the IND in the past, the express and the Aqueduct Racetrack Specials. Perhaps something similar might work for you ? I should point out that the did cause operational problems with regular IND services back then because it had priority over regular trains which used the same trackage. Hope this clears up my thoughts on your idea somewhat. BTW IIRC the sold parts of the old LIRR Rockaway Branch ROW some years ago which some people wanted used as a light rail ROW between JFK and LGA. Carry on.

 

I still think he's been on the 'fantasy juice' for far too long.

[GreatOne2k]

The Rockaways get more crowded during the summer, plus more people are currently using the now for the casino, so summer service at least should be increased.

 

MTA should have a separate summer schedule for the

 

From 10am-8pm The train during summer should be split into 3 branches (the cheapest way to add service).

The combined will run about 6-7 minutes off peak and in the non peak rush hour direction. Each branch will get around 18-21 minute headways. Service to the casino, Howard Beach(JFK Airtrain), and Rockaway Park will increase. Lefferts will get to keep their train, the will get summer relief. The will stay at Euclid, Rockaway Park will continue to run as extra service to meet the Far Rockaway . The train service overall would get a slight boost. The can be cut back from Astoria to 57 St during middays if additional funding is needed.

 

The casino and Rockaway Park will have much better combined daytime headways (including existing service).

 

This past summer there was crowding at Broad Channel and MTA had to divert some trains to Rockaway Park Beach 116th Street.

 

 

Gamblers don't mind using the W20 bus and the train to/from Yonkers Raceway.

[Grand Concourse]

Summer times are not the same as the other 3 seasons. When it is the summer time, that's when they run a full 600' long train. You can only have the split so much till all 3 ends gets subpar service. At least with the shuttle, it has 3 trains which runs at least every 20 min and doesn't need to be suspended [as long as it doesn't mean the power is cut off that is] if something goes wrong somewhere on the line.

[GreatOne2k]

Summer times are not the same as the other 3 seasons. When it is the summer time, that's when they run a full 600' long train. You can only have the split so much till all 3 ends gets subpar service. At least with the shuttle, it has 3 trains which runs at least every 20 min and doesn't need to be suspended [as long as it doesn't mean the power is cut off that is] if something goes wrong somewhere on the line.

 

My proposed three way split would only be for the summer ( would still run), other times of the year the schedule would be the same as now. Like the Bx5 and Bx12 have different summer schedules. The wasn't even enough last summer at times. FArk Rockaway also needs help since next year the casino would add to the crowding.

If only the is running people will still be stranded at Broad Channel if there is no service for some reason.

[Shortline Bus]

My proposed three way split would only be for the summer ( would still run), other times of the year the schedule would be the same as now. Like the Bx5 and Bx12 have different summer schedules. The wasn't even enough last summer at times. FArk Rockaway also needs help since next year the casino would add to the crowding.

If only the is running people will still be stranded at Broad Channel if there is no service for some reason.

 

 

I think Great (1)idea is much more realsitic than Wally's or Roadcrusier's. On summer weekends have a few Rockaway bound (A)'s extended to Rockaway Park running every 30 minutes. For instance say Beach 116th-bound trains leaving 59th-Columbus Circle between 8am-11am and Manhattan Bound leaving Rockaway Park around 5-8pm in addition to Rock Park service.

 

Good thinking Greatone2k.:tup: Summer holidays is the only time for now the Rockaways needs expanded service outside of the rush hours.

[GreatOne2k]

I think Great (1)idea is much more realsitic than Wally's or Roadcrusier's. On summer weekends have a few Rockaway bound (A)'s extended to Rockaway Park running every 30 minutes. For instance say Beach 116th-bound trains leaving 59th-Columbus Circle between 8am-11am and Manhattan Bound leaving Rockaway Park around 5-8pm in addition to Rock Park service.

 

Good thinking Greatone2k.:tup: Summer holidays is the only time for now the Rockaways needs expanded service outside of the rush hours.

 

I wanted the three way service every day during the summer (late June/early July-early September). The crowding did happen on a weekday at Broad Channel.

[ACEVE14]

My plan has the actually going local with the to Brooklyn Bridge late nights, allowing the to go express in both directions then. At the very least, I would do that late on Friday and Saturday nights when you have more people riding at those hours.

 

(laugh) No!:mad:

[Wallyhorse]

I wanted the three way service every day during the summer (late June/early July-early September). The crowding did happen on a weekday at Broad Channel.

 

During the summer, if warranted, the split between Far Rockaway and Rockaway Park could be 3-2 or 4-3 as opposed to the 2-1 split between the two lines (as I would do it, the would be the Lefferts line).

[N6 Limited]

Most IND Queens Boulevard Line residents don't want service. They also want direct service mostly to Manhattan and wouldn't really use the unless if they needed a fast way to get to Brooklyn. An example is the 63rd Street Tunnel which is recent infrastructure. It was built to bring the to the IND Queens Boulevard Line in another way while allowing the now the to use the Queens Boulevard Line without congesting the tracks. This is an example.

 

I beg to differ, most riders just want to get to the E, F or 7 anyway. The R goes to Manhattan, the G would serve its purpose on the weekends. It sucks going to the mall watching several E and F's zoom by while waiting for a crappy R train.

 

The shopping near Grand Ave, Woodhaven Blvd and 63rd Drive stations generate a lot of trips from both ends of the line, many of them transferring at Roosevelt Ave and CTL.

 

Other than the to 71st on weekends [because the just sucks so much and QB should have a 2nd local line], I don't see the point of those other ideas. .

 

From my observations, the line needs 2 locals 1 express. They should send the E local on weekends. If they want to keep E and F as express, then I suggest sending the G to CTL. If they want to save money, send the E local.

[Urbanfortitude]

 

From my observations, the line needs 2 locals 1 express. They should send the E local on weekends. If they want to keep E and F as express, then I suggest sending the G to CTL. If they want to save money, send the E local.

 

If I was gonna send anything to Forest Hills to supplement that it'd be the . It already runs the route during the week. People are used to it by now. It would be far more useful than having the , which doesn't touch manhattan btw, going back up there. I think that was one of the reasons they cut it back (plenty of the room for correction via people in the know). Just saying if I lived in that neighborhood, I think I'd be far happier having the running through QB on weekends than the .

[Roadcruiser1]

You know that is the reason why I pointed out that the should run during the weekends. At least have it run to Myrtle during late nights to save costs, but during the weekdays and weekends it should run between Forest Hill-71st Avenue and Middle Village-Metropolitan Avenue. It's like the East River Ferry since it's new, and it's so popular that people want more of it.

[MikeGerald]

The 63rd Street tunnel, and the Archer Avenue segments along with the Second Avenue subway were planned circa 1968 as a way to improve transit in Manhattan and Queens. Coming out of the 63rd Street tunnel was to be a "Queens Super-Express" that would ferry riders quickly to/from southeastern sections of Queens and the Archer Avenue segments to/from Manhattan. The Second Avenue subway would connect with the BMT subway, for speedier travel to/from the Bronx, and offering some relief for the Lexington Avenue subway in Manhattan. This was outlined in the city's first Master Plan - and other planning document of that era. There were other changes and improvements envisioned at the time. What was the problem with any of this? The 1970's fiscal crisis.

 

The planners of the project split the project into four parts. The 63rd Street tunnel segment (built), and the first part of the Archer Avenue segment (built). They reasoned that the federal government after funding half of the project would provide the funds for the other half - the Queens Super-Express portion, and the further extensions of the Archer Avenue segments into South eastern Queens. The 63rd Street tunnel project ended just 1,500 feet from the Queens Plaza station. In Manhattan the built tunnel segments of the Second Avenue subway in East Harlem and Chinatown remain to be connected to the rest of the subway system - they have sat idle for decades - un-used. The Archer Avenue segments connected to the Queens Blvd line, and to the J-train with the removal of some J-train elevated stations. Those parts of the plans were built.

 

So what happened? Simple the 1970's city's fiscal crisis. The NIMBY actions of Queens and Long Island politicians killing the funding for the Queens Super-Express route. President Ford basically saying to New York City - DROP DEAD! The 1970's were also a period where the subways fell into great levels of dis-repair with grafitti just the visible evidence of the decline of the subways.

 

The 1980-90's were the beginning of the improvements in the subways, and to make use of the new segments that were built. Along the Archer Avenue segments E-trains and J-trains served the newly opened stations, the first new stations in opened in decades. The 63rd Street tunnel connected to the 57th Street stations at Sixth Avenue and at Seventh Avenue often derided as the "tunnels to nowhere". Plans were under way to connect the 63rd Street tunnel to a junction just north of the Queens Plaza station - to make some use of the tunnel now that federal money was available. The 63rd Street tunnel was not built or designed for this connection (it was planned for the Queens Super Express), this connection came about more as an effort "to do something" with was had been built. It was a compromise of aims. The original intention was to build more trackage in Queens - something that was put a stop to by Queens NIMBY folk and polticians in Queens and Long Island.

 

The original basic problem to be solved was the nature of passenger travel between Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. In the 1920-30's when the IND system was planned and built - Brooklyn, especially downtown Brooklyn was a popular business district destination as well as the Brooklyn Navy Yard. Brooklyn as a business destination declined over the years. However by the 1970-80-90's - mid-town Manhattan became the popular business district destination - a consequence of city planning and zoning changes among other changes in the nature of the business world. There's a whole history behind the building of Rockefeller Plaza, the skyscrapers of Sixth Avenue, and the routing of transit via the IND Sixth Avenue line and the connections to/from former BMT lines - that is really interesting. In any case - mid-town Manhattan become the business center, while downtown Manhattan and Wall Street were still important.

 

Half of the designed track capacity of the IND Queens Blvd line west of the Queens Plaza station is split between Manhattan and Brooklyn when most of the rider traffic wants to head to Manhattan. The TA attempted to remedy this with the building of the 11th Street Cut connecting the IND Queens Blvd line with the BMT's 60th Street tunnel (originally used by RR, EE, N and now R trains) in the mid-late 1950's. The E and F express trains and tracks were filled beyond their designed capacity so additional means to Manhattan were needed.

 

The maximum amount of trains that can be handled by the signal system is 30 trains per hours on a single track, where during the rush hours there are about 15 E-trains and 15 F-trains per hour. There's no room to add additional trains to the express tracks with train frequencies of 90-seconds to 2 minutes between trains during the rush hours. That capacity was reached by the 1950's - so by the 1970's and later - any transit fan statements about adding more E and F trains were beyond silly. There was no more room on the tracks. An additional tunnel to/from Manhattan was needed - it is as simple as that. Thus the 63rd Street tunnel was seen as the solution for getting more trains to/from Queens and Manhattan.

 

During the 1980's and 1990's - some stations along 53rd Street had to be closed during the rush hours in one direction or another because the crowding reached dangerous levels. There were several cases where riders fell to the tracks to their deaths due to the over-crowding along 53rd Street, and at Roosevelt Avenue were the crowds were huge. (So just why some transit fans still propose that crowded F trains should still travel along crowded 53rd Street is beyond me. The logic of sending crowded trains to crowded stations as an effort to REDUCE crowding escapes me. Was it hatred of the "V-local route", etc?)

 

(Even the transit planners of the proposed IND Second System in the 1930's wanted extensive IND transit lines in the southeastern portion of Queens, but neglected to add more tunnel capacity to Manhattan on the western end of Queens. The designing of a single two track tunnel to/from Manhattan/Queens was not a good idea by the first set of IND planners. Of course the Great Depression put an end to all of the glorious plans of the IND Second System. The transit authority has had to live with, and work around, and come up with the money to rectify those decisions for the past several decades.)

 

In proposing the building of the Queens Super-Express and the 63rd Street tunnel connecting the Archer Avenue segments in Southeastern Queens, the transit planners hoped to reduce or divert rider traffic away from the 53rd Street tunnel. The "super-express" part of line was to by-pass most of western Queens for a speedy ride to/from Manhattan. The Queens Super-Express route was planned to connect with the Queens Blvd line near Forest Hills at a transfer station, with connecting and through trains. This would "free-up" space on those express trains reducing the crowded nature at the other express stations. However with the missing "middle" due to the NIMBY actions of Queens and Long Island politicians and their efforts to remove all funding for the Queens Super-Express, and the city's fiscal crisis - more stress was placed on the only IND subway tunnel between Queens and Manhattan - the 53rd Street tunnel. So the effort was on to connect the 63rd Street tunnel to the IND Queens Blvd subway.

 

The 63rd Street tunnel was intended to be used by an express route - so the F-train was selected as that route in 2004. In connecting the tunnel to the Queens Blvd line - a bell-mouth was created so that if in the future the Queens Super Express route was ever built it could be connected to the 63rd Street as originally planned. In order to divert rider traffic to/from Manhattan, via the local tracks - reducing the need to transfer at local/express stations in Queens, the V-train was created. The TA realized that most G-train riders along Queens Blvd transferred off the G-train (decades of watching riders do this is the evidence) as soon as possible for the E and F trains - hence the crowing at those express stations. The V-train was intended to keep those riders on those trains for the rides to/from Manhattan. Since the majority of the ridership along Queens Blvd line was headed to/from Manhattan - the G-train with its mission to serve Brooklyn and a small section of Queens was seen as "not helpful" to most riders. Thus the effort to remove the G-train from the Queens Blvd line - was by a by-product of the effort to connect to the 63rd Street tunnel. In the original 1970's plans of the Second Avenue/63rd Street/Queens Super-Express planning - the G-train would likely have remained as it was originally built and operated.

 

Yes, some folks still to this day bemoan the reduction of the G-train to its current status and operation. The MTA has played fast and loose with its efforts to "ween" folks from the G-train over the past decade with reasonings that seemed to defy logic - even if the larger goals made sense. Making effective alternative connections to/from the G-train for a time was problematic. Fiscal issues, the usual year to year budget process among other issues by the MTA contribute to the reaction by many for a wish for simpler times among some transit fans - who want the G-train to return to its full-long time operation - even if just for the weekends.

 

Of course, these days - transit fans and others complain about the R-train serving Queens Blvd on the weekends being the only local route to do so. They neglect to mention that until recently, for decades (starting in the 1930's) the G-train was the only local route serving Queens Blvd local stations on weekends, and the 24/7/365 local route of the line. Now the situation is different, with the R-train serving as a local 19/7/365. So what is different? The complaints seem to want something "better" - proposing several remedies, without ever wondering just what is the problem. Past suggestions included extending the V-train, now the M-train to service the local stations - all in an era of fiscal problems. As I said before - money or the lack of it - is often the basis for many transit issues.

 

In any case, I have provided the condensed history of the 63rd Street tunnel, the Second Avenue subway, and the changes in NYC and Queens -- that have brought about some of circumstances of today. I have said it before - a major part of transit history is about money, and the lack of money - that have influenced or produced what we have or don't have today. Have a Happy Holiday.

 

Mike

[N6 Limited]

Of course, these days - transit fans and others complain about the R-train serving Queens Blvd on the weekends being the only local route to do so. They neglect to mention that until recently, for decades (starting in the 1930's) the G-train was the only local route serving Queens Blvd local stations on weekends, and the 24/7/365 local route of the line. Now the situation is different, with the R-train serving as a local 19/7/365. So what is different? The complaints seem to want something "better" - proposing several remedies, without ever wondering just what is the problem. Past suggestions included extending the V-train, now the M-train to service the local stations - all in an era of fiscal problems. As I said before - money or the lack of it - is often the basis for many transit issues.

 

Thank you for that informative post!

 

I believe the issue isn't so much that there is one line servicing the local stations on weekends, it's that the R train sucks.

 

They could probably get away with 2 lines on weekends. E local; F Express The E is frequent.