Second Avenue Subway Discussion

[CenSin]

Why would you create a separate designation all for an extension of a service that is going to run a few trips?

Because it is markedly different than the normal service. Neither routes are significant subsets or supersets of each other. There are trains that fork, and I disagree with using a common designation, but they at least have one common end point and another that is not radically different.

• 
• → /
• 

Your , on the other hand will be terminating in 2 different boroughs. (I don’t agree with the via 2 Avenue designation either.)

 

What’s in a letter anyway, I ask?

Edited August 29, 2017 by CenSin

[Lance]

I know there will probably be a fairly obvious answer to this, but I’m curious:

 

Is there any reason why some supplemental SAS service can’t be provided by a 6th Avenue Line? I know some might complain that it’s merging, but I think a little extra merging in a quieter would be better running extra ’s up SAS, which stops at a lot of the same stops that the does. 

 

Maybe to add an extra TPH here or there, that’s ok, but if you wanted to add considerable extra service, couldn’t you at least consider a 6th Avenue service? 

I threw this idea out there in another post on this subject. The main issues with this are the same ones that come with another Broadway line to Second Ave: where does the line go and how does it fit with the existing lines?

 

Since your question pertains to 6th Avenue, we'll take a look at this line first. Let's take a look at Wallyhorse's often proposed idea of splitting the into two separate routes with one running to 96 Street. It seems like a good idea on paper. More service to both Second Ave and Myrtle Ave; who wouldn't want that, right? The problems that stem from such a route are the capacity of the Metropolitan Av terminal and the increased service on the Jamaica and 6th Avenue lines. Currently (before the Myrtle Ave line closure), the runs just over eight trains per hour. Unless the plan would be to run two bastardized services with subpar frequencies, the total number of trains per hour leaving Metropolitan Av would have to increase. I'm not sure if the station can turn too many more trains around beyond its current output. Also, there is the issue of interlining services. The Jamaica line is limited by the Williamsburg Bridge and 6th Avenue by the 15 trains that run per hour during the rush and the present number of trains that also run on the line. While it would not be impossible to squeeze more trains on either line, if any incident occurs, service will be immediately backed up due to tight intervals.

 

A better option would be to use the express tracks. However, that is not without its faults either, namely where would such a line terminate? While it would not run into any capacity problems on 6th Avenue because of the lower overall output on the and lines, nor would it be hindered by most of the potential terminals in Brooklyn, it would still have to run through DeKalb Av, which is a problem for the existing lines. Throw another line into that mess and you'd have a catastrophe right away. If it weren't for this junction, you could easily sell this as a boost for 4th Avenue as that line could use another local.

 

Broadway has a lot of the same issues as well. Where does it terminate and how does it get there? It also comes with a potential merging problem. As Second Ave connects directly with the express tracks, running any Second Ave route as a Broadway local would create a new problem Transit should be avoiding, especially if they've taken notice to the slowdowns around Herald Sq between 2010 and 2016. That limits this potential route to be an off-shoot of the or and where would either prospect go? Brighton is out right away, as is Sea Beach. That leaves the West End and 4th Avenue, both options of which would still be limited by the DeKalb Junction.

 

This isn't a matter of eliminating any potential idea for expanded Second Ave service. It should be used as part of the thought process behind the proposals.

[Wallyhorse]

I threw this idea out there in another post on this subject. The main issues with this are the same ones that come with another Broadway line to Second Ave: where does the line go and how does it fit with the existing lines?

 

Since your question pertains to 6th Avenue, we'll take a look at this line first. Let's take a look at Wallyhorse's often proposed idea of splitting the into two separate routes with one running to 96 Street. It seems like a good idea on paper. More service to both Second Ave and Myrtle Ave; who wouldn't want that, right? The problems that stem from such a route are the capacity of the Metropolitan Av terminal and the increased service on the Jamaica and 6th Avenue lines. Currently (before the Myrtle Ave line closure), the runs just over eight trains per hour. Unless the plan would be to run two bastardized services with subpar frequencies, the total number of trains per hour leaving Metropolitan Av would have to increase. I'm not sure if the station can turn too many more trains around beyond its current output. Also, there is the issue of interlining services. The Jamaica line is limited by the Williamsburg Bridge and 6th Avenue by the 15 trains that run per hour during the rush and the present number of trains that also run on the line. While it would not be impossible to squeeze more trains on either line, if any incident occurs, service will be immediately backed up due to tight intervals.

 

A better option would be to use the express tracks. However, that is not without its faults either, namely where would such a line terminate? While it would not run into any capacity problems on 6th Avenue because of the lower overall output on the and lines, nor would it be hindered by most of the potential terminals in Brooklyn, it would still have to run through DeKalb Av, which is a problem for the existing lines. Throw another line into that mess and you'd have a catastrophe right away. If it weren't for this junction, you could easily sell this as a boost for 4th Avenue as that line could use another local.

 

Broadway has a lot of the same issues as well. Where does it terminate and how does it get there? It also comes with a potential merging problem. As Second Ave connects directly with the express tracks, running any Second Ave route as a Broadway local would create a new problem Transit should be avoiding, especially if they've taken notice to the slowdowns around Herald Sq between 2010 and 2016. That limits this potential route to be an off-shoot of the or and where would either prospect go? Brighton is out right away, as is Sea Beach. That leaves the West End and 4th Avenue, both options of which would still be limited by the DeKalb Junction.

 

This isn't a matter of eliminating any potential idea for expanded Second Ave service. It should be used as part of the thought process behind the proposals.

My plan as noted many times calls for the current to remain as is on weekdays (8 TPH) and the (the additional trains) to be on weekdays at 5 TPH as a supplement to the and as has been suggested would be the increase in trains during the upcoming shutdown (total of 13 TPH),  The in this would become the 24/7 line out of Metropolitan (to 96th/2nd) since it would run 3 TPH late nights (4 TPH late Friday and Saturday) and 6 TPH Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays,  

[R42N]

Because it is markedly different than the normal service. Neither routes are significant subsets or supersets of each other. There are trains that fork, and I disagree with using a common designation, but they at least have one common end point and another that is not radically different.

• 
• → /
• 

Your , on the other hand will be terminating in 2 different boroughs. (I don’t agree with the via 2 Avenue designation either.)

 

What’s in a letter anyway, I ask?

Ok, that's a fair an accurate point. I mostly live in Astoria, and as someone who commutes from Union Square, I agree that signing those rush (N)'s as (Q)'s works well (heck, the is internally just a local ).

 

Either way, my thought was to do something within the relm of possiblity, where there enough cars to operate such extra service, and adding so many extra TPH seems a little tough for the stop-gap measure that's needed for Fall.

[CenSin]

My plan as noted many times calls for the current to remain as is on weekdays (8 TPH) and the (the additional trains) to be on weekdays at 5 TPH as a supplement to the and as has been suggested would be the increase in trains during the upcoming shutdown (total of 13 TPH),  The in this would become the 24/7 line out of Metropolitan (to 96th/2nd) since it would run 3 TPH late nights (4 TPH late Friday and Saturday) and 6 TPH Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays,  

You missed the part about the  possibly not being able to run more than 8 TPH. If the is essentially an at the Brooklyn end of the route,  how is Metropolitan Avenue supposed to handle an additional 4 TPH?

Edited August 29, 2017 by CenSin

[R42N]

You missed the part about the  possibly not being able to run more than 8 TPH. If the is essentially an at the Brooklyn end of the route,  how is Metropolitan Avenue supposed to handle an additional 4 TPH?

 

 

I think Metropolitan Avenue could do 10 TPH, then you could short-turn one southbound at 2nd Ave/Houston or Broadway Junction. 

Edited August 29, 2017 by R42N

[R42N]

So, here is my Peak TPH Proposal if they want to add the second service up Second Avenue:

 

Second Avenue:

 

Currently -  ’s to Coney Island via Brighton [10 TPH]  ’s to Coney Island [1 TPH] ~ Total: 11 TPH

Proposal -  ’s to Coney Island via Brighton [9 TPH], / / ’s to Downtown/Bklyn/Qns [5 TPH] ~ Total: 14 TPH 

 

Metropolitan Avenue: 

 

Currently - ’s to Forest Hills via 6th Ave [8 TPH] 

Proposal - ’s to Forest Hills via 6th Ave [6 TPH],   , , / ’s to 96st via 6th Ave [4 TPH] ~ Total: 10 TPH

Edited August 29, 2017 by R42N

[RR503]

So, here is my Peak TPH Proposal if they want to add the second service up Second Avenue:

 

Second Avenue:

Currently - ’s to Coney Island via Brighton [10 TPH] ’s to Coney Island [1 TPH] ~ Total: 11 TPH

Proposal - ’s to Coney Island via Brighton [9 TPH], / / ’s to Downtown/Bklyn/Qns [5 TPH] ~ Total: 14 TPH

Metropolitan Avenue:

Currently - ’s to Forest Hills via 6th Ave [8 TPH]

Proposal - ’s to Forest Hills via 6th Ave [6 TPH], , , / ’s to 96st via 6th Ave [4 TPH] ~ Total: 10 TPH

Oh hell no. You're cutting service on Queens Boulevard and Brighton, adding merges to the and , and giving commuters a service that only comes once every 15 minutes. People like to be able to predict their commutes. Such frequencies preclude that, and will both confuse and frustrate people as their commutes will change with each day.

 

Just do what literally everyone else suggested. Send the other Broadway Express service up there and leave the poor alone.

 

PS the can handle more -- they've already said they'd be adding tph for the shutdown.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

You missed the part about the  possibly not being able to run more than 8 TPH. If the is essentially an at the Brooklyn end of the route,  how is Metropolitan Avenue supposed to handle an additional 4 TPH?

I really hope that's not the case here. Because if it is, then Brooklyn, we have a problem! Except it shouldn't be. If World Trade Center can turn 15 trains per hour - with no tail tracks - then, there should be no reason why the can't turn at least 12 tph. The difference between Metro and WTC is that Metro has its crew facilities at the subway-bound end of the station, so the crossover switch is somewhat further away from the platform. So maybe not 15 tph. But there's no excuse for Metro being unable to handle more than 12 tph because that's what Jamaica Center currently handles at the other end of the line. And that's with a crossover switch located almost midway between JC and Sutphin/Archer.

[CenSin]

I really hope that's not the case here. Because if it is, then Brooklyn, we have a problem! Except it shouldn't be. If World Trade Center can turn 15 trains per hour - with no tail tracks - then, there should be no reason why the can't turn at least 12 tph. The difference between Metro and WTC is that Metro has its crew facilities at the subway-bound end of the station, so the crossover switch is somewhat further away from the platform. So maybe not 15 tph. But there's no excuse for Metro being unable to handle more than 12 tph because that's what Jamaica Center currently handles at the other end of the line. And that's with a crossover switch located almost midway between JC and Sutphin/Archer.

It’s not just the switches at Metropolitan Avenue, but the switches at the junction joining the Middle Village branch to the Jamaica Line. The runs a combined 12 train per hour (TPH). During PM rush, an has to not only has squeeze into 12 TPH traffic, but it has to cross another 12 TPH traffic going towards Manhattan. I’m not sure how the math works out in calculating the maximum practical capacity for a flat junction, but the should not be able to run as frequently as the owing to this limitation.

 

A related arrangement, however, exists for the , and each of them run 9~10 TPH. Of course, the junction is fairly straightforward for the 7 Avenue expresses. The has to snake through its junction and curve slowly, limiting capacity more severely.

[R42N]

Oh hell no. You're cutting service on Queens Boulevard and Brighton, adding merges to the and , and giving commuters a service that only comes once every 15 minutes. People like to be able to predict their commutes. Such frequencies preclude that, and will both confuse and frustrate people as their commutes will change with each day.

 

Just do what literally everyone else suggested. Send the other Broadway Express service up there and leave the poor alone.

 

PS the can handle more -- they've already said they'd be adding tph for the shutdown.

I'm not cutting any Queens Blvd service, the extra TPH would come from Broadway Junction like I said upthread. Additionally, I believe you'd be unable to add more than 14 TPH at 96st, and there aren't that many spare train cars to use.

[R42N]

Curious: Could this or whatever you want to call it, run from Canarise-Rockaway Pkwy?

 

It could run weekdays only from 96/2nd Ave, via 6th Ave through the Williamsburg bridge all the way to Canarsie?

 

No reason to turn 'em at Broadway Junction if you can extend them to Canarsie and provide a one seat ride to Manhthan from 6 effected Train stops.

[RR503]

I'm not cutting any Queens Blvd service, the extra TPH would come from Broadway Junction like I said upthread. Additionally, I believe you'd be unable to add more than 14 TPH at 96st, and there aren't that many spare train cars to use.

That's not how math works. Williamsburg Bridge is capped at 24, and with 12 from / along from 8+4 from and whatever the line is called you're finished. And you can't really run rush hour trains from 2nd ave. You'll have 2 merges in ~800 feet of track that handle a combined 29 tph. 

 

You can turn much more than 14 there. Look at other 2 track terminals in the system: 8th ave, 34th st, Rockaway Parkway. All of them turn 20+. And 8th ave does it without tail tracks. 

 

Curious: Could this or whatever you want to call it, run from Canarise-Rockaway Pkwy?

 

It could run weekdays only from 96/2nd Ave, via 6th Ave through the Williamsburg bridge all the way to Canarsie?

 

No reason to turn 'em at Broadway Junction if you can extend them to Canarsie and provide a one seat ride to Manhthan from 6 effected Train stops.

 

I mean in theory yes, but you start playing a zero-sum game with williamsburg bridge access. 

Edited August 30, 2017 by RR503

[Wallyhorse]

You missed the part about the  possibly not being able to run more than 8 TPH. If the is essentially an at the Brooklyn end of the route,  how is Metropolitan Avenue supposed to handle an additional 4 TPH?

From what I remember reading when the shutdown happens in 2019, the plan is for the to be 13 TPH.  That's specifically where I get the 5 TPH (weekdays) for the in this split from as by doing that split, it likely cuts the number of trainsets needed for 13 TPH on a combined / by one and possibly two, which with the car shortage that has been well noted could be important even with the extra cars available from the during the shutdown.  

[R42N]

I was looking at this image of the 1987 Service Changes, and after reviewing them, I’ve come to the conclusion that after the construction is over and when the R211’s enter service, there will have to be a similar structure to what we see on the diagram: 

 

 

 

 

- Astoria Ditmars Blvd - Coney Island (ALL TIMES) via Montague during Rush Hours Middays and Late Nights, and via Bridge on Weekdays. At Peak, 11-12 TPH out of Ditmars, 4-5 of them would short turn at Whitehall. 

 

- 96st 2nd Ave - Coney Island (ALL TIMES) Broadway Express all times except nights, via Bridge 24/7

 

- Forest Hills (or Whitehall nights) to Bay Ridge (ALL TIMES) Broadway Local via Montague. 

 

- 96st/2nd Ave - Kings Highway or Coney Island (RUSH) 9th Avenue or Kings Highway (Middays) Broadway Express. 20 Minute Headways during Middays like today’s GO’s. No Weekend or Rush Hours. An extra TPH is operated at Rush to run up Astoria to keep Astoria at 12-13 TPH

 

Here are the advantages: 

 

- Astoria maintains 12-13 TPH with 11-12 ’s and the extra which could be signed as an to Bay Ridge.

- 2nd Avenue gets increased service of about 6 TPH with service every 10 minutes. 

- Sea Beach gets increased from 9 TPH to 12 TPH, with alternating and service, perfect for commuters that want either an express up to midtown or service to the Financial District. 

- Broadway Line merges are eliminated, and the extra Montague service alleviates the strain of the DeKalb bottleneck. 

- 4th Avenue Local TPH increases. 

- Less confusion, as Astoria/Sea Beach wouldn’t have a different primary line on Weekdays, nights and Weekends

 

 

Here are the disadvantages: 

 

- Astoria (and Lex/59, 5/59) losses the express service

- This couldn’t be permanent, as the supplemental service will have to go back to Astoria when the enters service

- Second Avenue still doesn’t have 4 tracks, sorry Mr.X.....

 

Thoughts?

[Lance]

Are you trying to piss off all of Broadway and South Brooklyn in one fell swoop? Because if you are, congratulations, you succeeded bigly. You've got the taking the slow lane from Astoria to Coney Island and the existing as a paper route with abysmal headways outside of the rush, all combined with a severe reduction in Broadway and 4th Avenue express service. Just out of curiosity, how do you think riders will respond to what amounts to draconian cuts for everyone with the exception of Second Ave?

 

Sometimes I wonder what flows through your minds here when you come up with these ideas. This isn't directed to a specific comment, but it is a concern I've had. Based on my observations, it seems like a lot of you don't take into account ridership patterns and needs. Using the example above, riders do want more 4th Avenue local service. They also want to retain the current levels of express service as well. Forcing the to run local via Whitehall St will just shift riders to the at 36 Street and Atlantic Av. I've also noticed there's also a distinct lack of logistical planning involved here at times. Scheduling the to run at 20 minute intervals will just put the trains in the way of more frequent lines. It's also a useless line if nobody's willing to wait for a train. As has been mentioned many times here, the subway is not a railroad. People are generally not going to schedule their commutes around a specific train as they would with Metro-North or the LIRR. They'll take the first thing to arrive, which in this case will be the in Manhattan and the / in Brooklyn, resulting in uneven loading levels on these lines with trains running empty. 

 

Some of these ideas really come off as either this "track is free therefore something must run on it" or "this line must run despite all of the information that says otherwise". It's a shame because I actually enjoy the ideas you guys come up with. I just wish you'd put a little more thought into them.

 

Also, on a side note, the only ran through Whitehall St in the '80s because of Manhattan Bridge work, first to allow the Broadway and to run between Manhattan and Brooklyn, and second, because the south tracks were closed from December of '88.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Lance

[Around the Horn]

To add on to what Lance said, "the extra   which could be signed as an   to Bay Ridge" would be an absolute disaster...

 

No one at 36th or 59th is going to expect an to Bay Ridge or an via Sea Beach and you're gonna have an outrageous number of lost riders at Bay Ridge Avenue if you ever go through with it...

[Union Tpke]

That R train will be signed as an R. It will be diverted from Queens Blvd, as it is heading to Q. Blvd in the opposite of the peak. It runs 10 TPH, it can spare one. After going up SAS, it will go back in the PM as a . They won't be making sure that it is an R160, meaning that a train of R46s could be on the . This is confirmed.

[CenSin]

Here are the disadvantages: 

 

- Astoria (and Lex/59, 5/59) losses the express service

- This couldn’t be permanent, as the supplemental service will have to go back to Astoria when the enters service

- Second Avenue still doesn’t have 4 tracks, sorry Mr.X.....

 

Thoughts?

I’ll tack on to the list of disadvantages:

• Coney Island, 86 Street, and Avenue U loses frequent express service. A good rule of thumb to apply to transit service patterns is that express service extend further beyond local service to provide some equity for those who live further out. Of all the options available at Coney Island, the is currently the fastest to Manhattan, taking 6 minutes less than the and 5 minutes less than the .
• 20 minute headway means you essentially cut 4 Avenue express service by a third. The demand for express service is greater than the demand for local service, so you have a misallocation of resources there. You budget far more for services that people are going to use less of, and not enough for services that people are going to use more of.
• Broadway gets a similar cut in express service by the same token.

- Astoria maintains 12-13 TPH with 11-12 ’s and the extra which could be signed as an to Bay Ridge.

You wanted to talk about confusion?

 

- Sea Beach gets increased from 9 TPH to 12 TPH, with alternating and service, perfect for commuters that want either an express up to midtown or service to the Financial District.

Reality: Sea Beach gets decreased express service from 9 TPH to 3 TPH. Coney Island is unlikely to be able to turn 12 TPH given the congestion with the current level of service during rush hours, so service will suck for those who need it most—those who live at the very end of the line.

 

- 4th Avenue Local TPH increases.

At the expense of 4 Avenue express service

 

- Less confusion, as Astoria/Sea Beach wouldn’t have a different primary line on Weekdays, nights and Weekends

Confusion is less of a problem than not giving the service people want. You think it’s perfectly fine to send an train signed as Bay Ridge-bound. Then, it follows that you don’t think letters are that big of an issue (except when it doesn’t fit your agenda)..

[Around the Horn]

That R train will be signed as an R. It will be diverted from Queens Blvd, as it is heading to Q. Blvd in the opposite of the peak. It runs 10 TPH, it can spare one. After going up SAS, it will go back in the PM as a . They won't be making sure that it is an R160, meaning that a train of R46s could be on the . This is confirmed.

 

What times of the day? Is there an R46 program for 96 St? Also, no from 96th to Bay Ridge? BOOOO

Edited August 31, 2017 by Around the Horn

[CenSin]

Based on my observations, it seems like a lot of you don't take into account ridership patterns and needs.

In related news, more data generally makes people double down on erroneous beliefs: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/08/how-objectively-do-you-suppose-politicians-evaluate-data/

[R42N]

Are you trying to piss off all of Broadway and South Brooklyn in one fell swoop? Because if you are, congratulations, you succeeded bigly. You've got the taking the slow lane from Astoria to Coney Island and the existing as a paper route with abysmal headways outside of the rush, all combined with a severe reduction in Broadway and 4th Avenue express service. Just out of curiosity, how do you think riders will respond to what amounts to draconian cuts for everyone with the exception of Second Ave?

 

Sometimes I wonder what flows through your minds here when you come up with these ideas. This isn't directed to a specific comment, but it is a concern I've had. Based on my observations, it seems like a lot of you don't take into account ridership patterns and needs. Using the example above, riders do want more 4th Avenue local service. They also want to retain the current levels of express service as well. Forcing the to run local via Whitehall St will just shift riders to the at 36 Street and Atlantic Av. I've also noticed there's also a distinct lack of logistical planning involved here at times. Scheduling the to run at 20 minute intervals will just put the trains in the way of more frequent lines. It's also a useless line if nobody's willing to wait for a train. As has been mentioned many times here, the subway is not a railroad. People are generally not going to schedule their commutes around a specific train as they would with Metro-North or the LIRR. They'll take the first thing to arrive, which in this case will be the in Manhattan and the / in Brooklyn, resulting in uneven loading levels on these lines with trains running empty. 

 

Some of these ideas really come off as either this "track is free therefore something must run on it" or "this line must run despite all of the information that says otherwise". It's a shame because I actually enjoy the ideas you guys come up with. I just wish you'd put a little more thought into them.

 

Also, on a side note, the only ran through Whitehall St in the '80s because of Manhattan Bridge work, first to allow the Broadway and to run between Manhattan and Brooklyn, and second, because the south tracks were closed from December of '88.

 

 

Look, I’m just trying to come up with ideas. 

 

Do you have a suggestion of what to do when Second Ave needs additional service? 

 

I don’t know who made you a senior moderator, but any moderator on a civil forum wouldn’t rant on a contributor trying to express his/her ideas. 

 

Real shame there isn’t a complaint box around here.....

[Around the Horn]

Look, I’m just trying to come up with ideas. 

 

Do you have a suggestion of what to do when Second Ave needs additional service? 

 

I don’t know who made you a senior moderator, but any moderator on a civil forum wouldn’t rant on a contributor trying to express his/her ideas. 

 

Real shame there isn’t a complaint box around here.....

 

I don't see whats wrong with a heavy dose of reality.

[Union Tpke]

What times of the day? Is there an R46 program for 96 St? Also, no from 96th to Bay Ridge? BOOOO

 

The programs are being added right now.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

I don't see whats wrong with a heavy dose of reality.

Agreed.  It's one thing to look at a map, and another to use the routes on a daily basis.  Besides, there's nothing wrong with challenging proposals to make them better. I assume some of these "contributors" may want to become planners one day.  These are the sorts of things that have to be thought about when one is a planner.