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

[Wallyhorse]

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.

 

And a lot of residents at the express stops (and politicians in all likelihood) would likely moan, demanding there be two Queens express lines and the TA find a way to have the become at least a 19/7 line if not 24/7 line.

[daniel19]

Might as well also extend late night service to 149 St GC. It will be like the to Times Sq 42 St.

 

 

 

The Astoria line as the middays, if they can run double service on that line all day weekdays, it wouldn't hurt to run double service on Concourse all day as well. In this case the would run express all day.

 

or here is a better idea

 

Bring the D,Q back to 6ave

 

The B can go to west-end

[Guest lance25]

or here is a better idea

 

Bring the D,Q back to 6ave

 

The B can go to west-end

 

That's not a good idea in the slightest.

 

Reverting back to the Manhattan Bridge south-side closure pattern, the Broadway line would lose its express service and both the Broadway and Astoria lines lose a chunk of its service. If the ( and swapped back to their old patterns, the West End loses its 24/7 service because of the nature of the (. Remember that prior to the swap, the West End was served by a shuttle during off hours, meaning one would have to take three trains for a Sixth Avenue to West End connection, two trains just to get into Manhattan. No one wants that to come back.

[Roadcruiser1]

or here is a better idea

 

Bring the D,Q back to 6ave

 

The B can go to west-end

 

No. Worse idea ever. The (Q6Av) only existed because the south side of the Manhattan Bridge closed. When it reopened the (Q6Av) went back to the , and any (Q6Av) or other service would jam the ( on Sixth Avenue, and us West End riders want direct service to Manhattan, or so said the so we don't want the ( back. Again I have to correct people with useless ideas. Can we come up with something smarter people? Thank you.

[checkmatechamp13]

1) 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?)

 

2) The 63rd Street tunnel was intended to be used by an express route - so the F-train was selected as that route in 2004.

Mike

 

1) Part of the reason could be that they want the advantages of the combined headways on the express track (because the runs more frequently than the , and is express, so riders wanting a fast ride don't have to wait the extra couple of minutes for an express). Also, a side benefit is that it reduces the amount of merging the trains have to do (because the wouldn't come into contact with the like it does now)

 

I mean, it doesn't make a huge difference because you're dealing with trains that come every 4 minutes, so waiting those extra 4 minutes isn't a huge deal, so while the current situation isn't ideal (I mean, 53rd Street is a busier corridor than 63rd Street, so the was a little more crowded for a few years), it is better than having overcrowded trains.

 

2) It was December 16th, 2001, not 2004 (that was when the Manhattan Bridge changes happened)

 

That's not a good idea in the slightest.

 

Reverting back to the Manhattan Bridge south-side closure pattern, the Broadway line would lose its express service and both the Broadway and Astoria lines lose a chunk of its service. If the ( and swapped back to their old patterns, the West End loses its 24/7 service because of the nature of the (. Remember that prior to the swap, the West End was served by a shuttle during off hours, meaning one would have to take three trains for a Sixth Avenue to West End connection, two trains just to get into Manhattan. No one wants that to come back.

 

Just to clarify for everybody, the shuttle only ran late nights. Weekends and evenings after 9PM, it replaced the Q along 63rd Street.

[Roadcruiser1]

Just to clarify for everybody, the ( shuttle only ran late nights.

 

Still no. It seems like many people that are actually foamers barely read their transit history. They come online and they think they know everything, and then they draw their fantasy maps, and their stupid ideas and then post it for the whole forum to see. That is not how it works here. It's absolutely disgraceful that some people choose not to learn (Wally), and then refuse to learn anything, and then we have people that would come up with ideas that are absolute bullc**p like pink (K)'s, and blue (M)'s, and this is what we are reverted to looking at. I am sorry, but I am stressed out by these people. I don't mean to go all out, but over time it gets to you, and you just well...

 

Oh yeah Checkmatechamp I am not referring to you. Just to people that do this.

[Guest lance25]

@Roadcruiser1: You know kid, you're really starting to annoy me (among others) with this holier than thou attitude of yours. It's also quite funny coming from someone whom I recall having similarly ludicrous ideas. I don't know where you think you're coming from with your criticisms, calling it bullcrap when I can dig through your posts and find similar bullcrap. Also, I don't know what you're talking about when you say you have to correct people's bad ideas. YOU ARE NOT THE FORUM POLICE. If someone has what you call a stupid idea, it's not your job to verbally assault them for it. You don't own the Internet.

 

Once again, if you have something to say about someone's idea or something, be respectful. If you can't do so, please refrain from commenting. Your constant berating of other members around here will not be tolerated.

 

I'm going to leave this open. Can we please try to keep it civil?

[IRT Bronx Express]

Again I have to correct people with useless ideas. Can we come up with something smarter people? Thank you.

Still no. It seems like many people that are actually foamers barely read their transit history. They come online and they think they know everything, and then they draw their fantasy maps, and their stupid ideas and then post it for the whole forum to see. That is not how it works here. It's absolutely disgraceful that some people choose not to learn (Wally), and then refuse to learn anything, and then we have people that would come up with ideas that are absolute bullc**p like pink (K)'s, and blue (M)'s, and this is what we are reverted to looking at. I am sorry, but I am stressed out by these people. I don't mean to go all out, but over time it gets to you, and you just well...

Rant time. Well, almost...

 

I've been on and off for some time now, but it looks like I'm not the only one that noticed how negative you are. I will say this: take a break from this forum before it's too late because you need one. I see nothing wrong with discussing extensions for existing services, as long as it makes sense.

 

I also want to point out that I know nothing about the MTA's transit history (at least, not 100%) and I don't intend to act like a smart-ass either way. Am I going to be labeled as a foamer, even though I have nothing to foam about now? I joined here to learn about former and existing service patterns (which I consider very interesting), and even though I learned some interesting facts in 2 years, I still have a long way to go. I do whatever I can to learn about what services existed in the past, such as scanned maps, brochures, pictures, etc. Who knows. Maybe I'll discover another interesting fact tomorrow, the following week, or maybe in a few months... all it takes is more research.

 

As for the pink K, it's old news, and it shouldn't be discussed again since the creator never mentioned it for many months now.

[GreatOne2k]

1) Part of the reason could be that they want the advantages of the combined headways on the express track (because the runs more frequently than the , and is express, so riders wanting a fast ride don't have to wait the extra couple of minutes for an express). Also, a side benefit is that it reduces the amount of merging the trains have to do (because the wouldn't come into contact with the like it does now)

 

I mean, it doesn't make a huge difference because you're dealing with trains that come every 4 minutes, so waiting those extra 4 minutes isn't a huge deal, so while the current situation isn't ideal (I mean, 53rd Street is a busier corridor than 63rd Street, so the was a little more crowded for a few years), it is better than having overcrowded trains.

 

2) It was December 16th, 2001, not 2004 (that was when the Manhattan Bridge changes happened)

 

 

 

Just to clarify for everybody, the shuttle only ran late nights. Weekends and evenings after 9PM, it replaced the Q along 63rd Street.

 

In 2000-2001 for several months the ran to/from 145 St evenings and weekends (and even early late night). The was on CPW until after midnight, the wasn't a shuttle in both directions until after 2am. Now if only the could run like that overnight.

[Wallyhorse]

In 2000-2001 for several months the ran to/from 145 St evenings and weekends (and even early late night). The was on CPW until after midnight, the wasn't a shuttle in both directions until after 2am. Now if only the could run like that overnight.

 

And I do like the idea of the going back to at least running to 145 or 168 on weekends and later into the evening, even continuing it on a shortened route to 2nd Avenue (or better yet, Essex Street if it ran short trains or exclusively ran 60' car trains) overnights (which is why I'd be looking to extend at least the Essex Street platforms to handle 10 cars/600 feet so you can have a 6th Avenue service terminate there if the is not running outside of the shuttle).

 

If you did have the operate via CPW overnights, you could have the actually go express in Manhattan then since those specifically looking for 50th, 23rd and Spring Streets could stay on the to 7th Avenue to get the there OR switch to the and take that to the express stop closest to the respective stop and switch there to the .

[MikeGerald]

1) Part of the reason could be that they want the advantages of the combined headways on the express track (because the runs more frequently than the , and is express, so riders wanting a fast ride don't have to wait the extra couple of minutes for an express). Also, a side benefit is that it reduces the amount of merging the trains have to do (because the wouldn't come into contact with the like it does now)

 

I mean, it doesn't make a huge difference because you're dealing with trains that come every 4 minutes, so waiting those extra 4 minutes isn't a huge deal, so while the current situation isn't ideal (I mean, 53rd Street is a busier corridor than 63rd Street, so the was a little more crowded for a few years), it is better than having overcrowded trains.

 

2) It was December 16th, 2001, not 2004 (that was when the Manhattan Bridge changes happened)

 

Just to clarify for everybody, the shuttle only ran late nights. Weekends and evenings after 9PM, it replaced the Q along 63rd Street.

 

------

 

Thanks for the correction. Even I have to look things up, and fact check. I like to not make really big "boo-boos". Have to lay off the egg-nog. Have a Happy Holiday.

 

Mike

[Eric B]

And I do like the idea of the going back to at least running to 145 or 168 on weekends and later into the evening, even continuing it on a shortened route to 2nd Avenue (or better yet, Essex Street if it ran short trains or exclusively ran 60' car trains) overnights (which is why I'd be looking to extend at least the Essex Street platforms to handle 10 cars/600 feet so you can have a 6th Avenue service terminate there if the is not running outside of the shuttle).

 

If you did have the operate via CPW overnights, you could have the actually go express in Manhattan then since those specifically looking for 50th, 23rd and Spring Streets could stay on the to 7th Avenue to get the there OR switch to the and take that to the express stop closest to the respective stop and switch there to the .

Essex can't be used as a terminal for 6th Ave. because only the middle track could be used as the terminus, but that only has access to the BJ connectors in the northbound direction. Southbound, it has to come out on the outside track.

[Wallyhorse]

Essex can't be used as a terminal for 6th Ave. because only the middle track could be used as the terminus, but that only has access to the BJ connectors in the northbound direction. Southbound, it has to come out on the outside track.

 

And if possible, I'd be looking to remedy that by building connections that would allow 6th Avenue trains to access the middle track coming from Broadway-Lafayette so it could be used as a terminal as needed.

[Eric B]

I pass by there every day in operating, and looked at that idea, but I don't think it's possible, because of where the southbound BJ connector merges with the J tracks. It is right before the marker beyond the station, so if they did extend it for 10 cars, in which the platform would end right by the signal (think of 36th St. southbound where you're right up on the home signal). In order to connect it to the middle track, would have to demolish the platform and even the stairways to the southbound , and then rather than extending the station, you would be cutting almost into the middle of it.

 

One assumes the connection is far back, way beyond the station; like near being opposite of where the northbound connection branches off (which is why that can be accessed by the middle track); but it's not; it's right there, just past the end, and you would have to completely rebuild the station, and move it eastward, but then you're misaligning it from the ramp to the bridge. So that is totally out.

 

What I wanted to see done is to reverse signal J1, replace the marker with a regular home signal, so that a train could come in and platform on J1, and then reverse and head toward Canal, and cross over into the southbound at Chambers, without having to go out on the bridge (Which is currently the only way anything coming southbound from 6th Ave. can reverse instead of continuing out onto the bridge). Bt there's no way that could ever be a terminal for 6th, without the relay onto the bridge.

[CenSin]

It seems like many people that are actually foamers barely read their transit history.

History exists as a clue, not a example of how to do things. If we did everything by historical examples, we'd be in the stone age.

 

1. A service that is unprecedented does not mean it don't work. ()
2. A service pattern that set a negative precedent in the past does not mean it won't work in the future or that people will still complain about it. ( express)
3. A service that's been around for decades might not be that useful anymore. ( via Queens Boulevard)

 

[TwoTimer]

It's all about projections and pilots now. I'm sure there will be some sort of express pilot in 2013 when everything is wrapped up. They're not even sure if they will put the back to Smith-9 when work is done (they are leaning toward keeping it at Church as it has been well received, but does delay the northbound from time to time). The two basic problems with any express trackwise still exist, however (no express stop at 4Av, no way to access both express and local stops at Jay without splitting up the service, and of course ridership too heavy to split up service anyway).