Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
alekr

How to improve the Queens Blvd Line On The Weekends?

Recommended Posts

Since a thread about how to improve the Central Park West service was set up. This time let discuss how to improve the service on the Queens Blvd Line.

 

I think the (R) running on the Queens Blvd line on the weekends frequencies is a joke. It takes forever to wait for another (R) train to finally arrive. Especially people wanting to shop at Queens Center Mall

 

Any suggestions to improve the weekend service on Queens Blvd Line?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would recommend the (M) seeing how those communities want weekend service aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the (M) can't run to Forest Hills on the Weekends, I say let the (E) run local on the corridor on Weekends. It's annoying when I see 6 Expresses pass, then the (R) crawls in.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the (M) can't run to Forest Hills on the Weekends, I say let the (E) run local on the corridor on Weekends. It's annoying when I see 6 Expresses pass, then the (R) crawls in.

 

That's no solution.

 

If you say you see 6 expresses pass by, that's 30 minutes, in which time three (R) trains are supposed to arrive. If reliability is the issue, adding (M) or (E) trains is not going to solve it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the (M) can't run to Forest Hills on the Weekends, I say let the (E) run local on the corridor on Weekends. It's annoying when I see 6 Expresses pass, then the (R) crawls in.

 

 

A lot of those (E) riders already got to take a lengthy bus ride just to get to the (E) train.... let it stay express.

 

A lot of (E) riders already have nearly hour long commutes with the (E) train express.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the issue is (R) reliability. If you mean lower headways (aka more frequent service), then that may even make service less reliable by increasing train traffic.

 

The question is why reliability is so low. After all, the (R) only shares tracks with the (N) on weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about higher headways on (R) trains! Isn't that good.

 

 

I agree. For a train that runs by itself through busy corridors like Queens Blvd and Lower Manhattan the headways are quite dreadful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Lance

Part of the reason the R is terrible is because of its abysmal intervals. On the weekends, it's scheduled to run every ten minutes. You knock that down to seven or eight minutes and service will be a whole lot better. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than bringing the M to Continental all the way from Myrtle Av or even the G from Court Sq.

  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason the R is terrible is because of its abysmal intervals. On the weekends, it's scheduled to run every ten minutes. You knock that down to seven or eight minutes and service will be a whole lot better. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than bringing the M to Continental all the way from Myrtle Av or even the G from Court Sq.

 

 

Good points. Please realize that the MTA is on a budget! They don't have the money to infinitely expand service on weekends to QBL, CPW, and anywhere they may please!

Edited by Q10 Airport

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO the issue is (R) reliability. If you mean lower headways (aka more frequent service), then that may even make service less reliable by increasing train traffic.

 

The question is why reliability is so low. After all, the (R) only shares tracks with the (N) on weekends.

 

Reliability isn't a big issue for the (R), despite what a lot of people believe. The MTA's data shows this, and I'm pretty sure that TwoTimer (a T/O of course) agrees.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the data, but the (R) seems to have a much higher frequency of "I waited for 30 minutes when there's supposed to be a train every 10" stories than other services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the data, but the (R) seems to have a much higher frequency of "I waited for 30 minutes when there's supposed to be a train every 10" stories than other services.

 

That might be because the (R) runs by itself for a long, highly used part of its route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Increased headways on the R. That's for sure, without question. Increased headways on the E and F on weekends. I swear it looks like a riot may occur on Roosevelt on the weekends.

 

A Queens super express via the 63rd street tunnel through the LIRR ROW is nothing but pipe dreams at this point in life so I think the added service will do the trick provided that extra money for added manpower can be accommodated for.

 

A G to 71st not sure as the G train is not a Manhattan-centric line and it's clear everyone riding the QBL has Manhattan as their destination.

 

Queens Bvld - That's a tough one. Even on weekdays the line can get seriously bottlenecked between 71st and Roosevelt on the rush on weekdays.

 

Edit: Yeah now that I think about it, if the MTA can improve on the R service with more trains that may solve the overcrowding problem at Roosevelt Avenue. the R train does provide quick access to the city evan as it is a local. We already know the weekend M is'nt on the table as of yet, it would be a great enhancement though. If only the MTA can somehow allocate funds to finance an weekend M extension...

 

More E and F trains would be a plus but I doubt the Queens Bvld structure can handle it. It's maxed out as it is. We're talking about three lines here on the weekend.

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotcha. The answer then is either increased service on the R, weekend M service to 71st or both. Total win. The problem is that the MTA will have a fit over the added costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason the R is terrible is because of its abysmal intervals. On the weekends, it's scheduled to run every ten minutes. You knock that down to seven or eight minutes and service will be a whole lot better. And it's a hell of a lot cheaper than bringing the M to Continental all the way from Myrtle Av or even the G from Court Sq.

 

 

In next service expansion you can maybe run the (M) full route or the (G) return on weekends. In meantime besides increased headways, what would help the (R)is just send an (E) or (F) to the local tracks when the (R) is more than 15 minutes late in that direction either Forest Hills or Manhattan-Bound PERIOD. It would tick off and confuse those riding that express but it could added as a footnote in (E)(F) schedules. That IMO the cheapest immediate solution without the MTA breaking the bank.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In next service expansion you can maybe run the (M) full route or the (G) return on weekends. In meantime besides increased headways, what would help the (R)is just send an (E) or (F) to the local tracks when the (R) is more than 15 minutes late in that direction either Forest Hills or Manhattan-Bound PERIOD. It would tick off and confuse those riding that express but it could added as a footnote in (E)(F) schedules. That IMO the cheapest immediate solution without the MTA breaking the bank.

 

I'm guessing that you meant to say more than 5 minutes late (10 minute scheduled wait + 5 = 15). I highly doubt that an actual 15 minute delay in (R) train service is very common. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

No need to put the local (E)(F) in the schedules because:

1. It's an unplanned, unscheduled service change

2. Any local train could get delayed, so according to your logic you might as well add a footnote to the schedules of every express train in the system.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the 60th - 59th Street Tube be four tracked like the rest of the Broadway Line above Canal Street then things would therefore supposedly be different for the (R) and (N)....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about the data, but the (R) seems to have a much higher frequency of "I waited for 30 minutes when there's supposed to be a train every 10" stories than other services.

 

 

That happens with a long, slow, crowded route that runs with older trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the 60th - 59th Street Tube be four tracked like the rest of the Broadway Line above Canal Street then things would therefore supposedly be different for the (R) and (N)....

 

You can't 4-track everything. It doesn't make sense to. Track capacity is supposed to be divided or reshuffled after leaving the central business district. In the case of the Broadway line, 2 tracks via 59 Street and 2 tracks via 63 Street. Extra tracks are going to be underutilized since the trunk line's capacity will be constraining how many trains can go in and out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the 60th - 59th Street Tube be four tracked like the rest of the Broadway Line above Canal Street then things would therefore supposedly be different for the (R) and (N)....

 

 

Who's going to pay the bill? You? What, you got millions of dollars in the bank to fund this proposal?

 

Psst, hey BTW can I borrow a couple of million dollars plz? I'll pay you back I promise..... :D

Edited by realizm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who's going to pay the bill? You? What, you got millions of dollars in the bank to fund this proposal?

 

Psst, hey BTW can I borrow a couple of million dollars plz? I'll pay you back I promise..... :D

 

 

When I said that had the 60th Street Tube be 4-tracked I might that it should have been when they started constructing the Broadway Line in the past....Learn to ask proper questions before you insult me you damn bastard! :angry::angry::angry:

Edited by RollOverMyHead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't 4-track everything. It doesn't make sense to. Track capacity is supposed to be divided or reshuffled after leaving the central business district. In the case of the Broadway line, 2 tracks via 59 Street and 2 tracks via 60 Street. Extra tracks are going to be underutilized since the trunk line's capacity will be constraining how many trains can go in and out.

 

 

Four tracks via 60th Street and passing under the Central Park pond will ease this had them thought of this before when they started constructed the subway in the past. That's what I meant....I didn't mean had them started now.

 

Anyways, if you have an answer or refute to this, feel free but if not then end this because I am not going to get attacked by any user (even that member JoeUpFront)...

Edited by RollOverMyHead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.