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  
Turbo19

Lapse in R train service to intensify that annoying subway congestion

Recommended Posts

subway.jpgThe MTA apparently doesn't think subways are overcrowded as it is. The agency does not plan to add extra service to accommodate the 65,000 displaced riders.

 

If you think the subway is crowded now, just wait until the R train refugees join your commute.

Transit officials last week announced the Montague St. Tunnel, which connects Brooklyn and Manhattan, will close in August for a post-Sandy rebuilding. It will remain closed for up to 14 months.

 

About 65,000 R-train riders will be displaced, nearly 7,000 of them now take the R between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., according to a Metropolitan Transportation Authority spokesman.

 

Yet the MTA doesn’t plan to boost service on any of the other routes to which straphangers will turn when Montague is out of commission just like when it was closed after Hurricane Sandy for two months.

 

Read More: NyDailyNews

 

 

Personal Comment:

Yes I know there are many threads related to the shut down of the Montague Tunnel. I however thought it'd be interesting to discuss that the MTA doesn't have any plans to accommodate the influx of 65000 extra riders. As depicted in the article passengers are already lashing at the agency, and rightfully so.

 

Any other opinions regarding the MTA's stance on the issue.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said in the other posts, I've gotten so used to taking the (R) into Lower Manhattan and not deal with the damn Stuy kids, but I guess I have no choice here.  Obviously I'm not going to drive into Lower Manhattan, that's suicide, but I think traffic on the roads will increase because of this as well (but probably hardly noticeable.)

 

Sigh, I guess it's the (F) to the (A) for me now.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I've said in the other posts, I've gotten so used to taking the (R) into Lower Manhattan and not deal with the damn Stuy kids, but I guess I have no choice here.  Obviously I'm not going to drive into Lower Manhattan, that's suicide, but I think traffic on the roads will increase because of this as well (but probably hardly noticeable.)

 

Sigh, I guess it's the (F) to the (A) for me now.

Yeah man, this shit is truly a clusterf**k of mass proportions. The fact that the MTA isn't adding additional service just adds insult to injury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gosh. Why is it the subway line I have to use...

I can only assume the MTA is looking to purposely inconvenience you.

 

In all seriousness I can't fathom what your commute will look like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the issue here is that, If I remember correctly, Montague is probably the only river crossing from south brooklyn that has any extra capacity during rush hours. 

 

So adding trains on other lines might not really be an option from a logistical standpoint.

 

I guess one thing they could do would be to make C trains 10 instead of 8 cars. (or is it 6? I forget how many cars the C runs). It sounds trivial, but adding those cars would add another ~500 passenger capacity per train, or ~4500 passengers in capacity between Jay St and Manhattan between 8 and 9 am - more than half the number displaced from the R at present. If the cars are available it shouldn't cost more, perhaps that's an idea worth considering. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the issue here is that, If I remember correctly, Montague is probably the only river crossing from south brooklyn that has any extra capacity during rush hours. 

 

So adding trains on other lines might not really be an option from a logistical standpoint.

 

I guess one thing they could do would be to make C trains 10 instead of 8 cars. (or is it 6? I forget how many cars the C runs). It sounds trivial, but adding those cars would add another ~500 passenger capacity per train, or ~4500 passengers in capacity between Jay St and Manhattan between 8 and 9 am - more than half the number displaced from the R at present. If the cars are available it shouldn't cost more, perhaps that's an idea worth considering. 

You would think so, but the MTA continues to assure passengers that the increased loads on cars are within guidelines.

 

Yeah, they really went cheap on this one big time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adding cars to the (C) (or, replacing the (C) with the (E)) were proposals for Manhattan Bridge closures (with the rebuilt Franklin transfer), so now we're losing the tunnel, and have a connection from the (R), so you would think that would be an idea. (Though the focus there was a full bridge closure, and this is not as bad as that. Still,it could possibly help a bit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe run a supplement train between Jay st and 2nd ave on F? Only if it can terminate in that direction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least (R) Service will be more reliable in Queens now since they are short-turning at Whitehall. I've always said they should short turn every other R train coming from Queens.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You would think so, but the MTA continues to assure passengers that the increased loads on cars are within guidelines.

 

Yeah, they really went cheap on this one big time.

As per page 29 of this PDF: 

 

http://mta.info/mta/compliance/pdf/1269d.pdf

 

"Maximum Loading Guidelines" indicate that every standee should have 3 square feet to themselves. Anyone: tell me a line where that's true going through the tube at rush hour in the peak direction. I don't think it exists. Someone needs to call them out on this. 

 

 

Maybe run a supplement train between Jay st and 2nd ave on F? Only if it can terminate in that direction.

 

The Rutgers Tube does have additional capacity, as it's only got the F's 15tph to deal with, but the tracks it connects with do not. Along 6th ave the M is in the mix, and then along Queens Blvd it has to share with the E. 

 

Also, you can't short turn a northbound train at 2nd Av without reversing into the station. 

 

The only service that would be practical to add at Rutgers would be a 6av - Queens Blvd Local via 63rd street, and It would have to go all the way to Jamaica 179 to turn, because that's the only terminal along QBL with capacity to spare. There would only be room for maybe 5tph. I'm not making a foam-laden suggestion here, merely noting that the extra capacity at Rutgers would be difficult to use. 

 

Adding cars to the (C) requires no additional crew, minimal equipment, no new signage - Seems like a no brainer to me....

 

At least (R) Service will be more reliable in Queens now since they are short-turning at Whitehall. I've always said they should short turn every other R train coming from Queens.

 

I disagree.

 

Rush Hour headways are increased - (meaning Trains Per Hour are decreased) , which will cause crowding and delayed trains along the whole corridor. If the southbound R is late going into Queens Plaza, an E might have to wait for a delayed M stuck behind that first R to pull into the station, unload, switch over to D3 and clear Court Square before it can proceed. Those delays can, and will, stack up for sure. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the other lines are at capacity and can't add extra trains, though the idea to make the C a full 600' length seems like a good idea. With the R split in 2, perhaps the R could send a few trains over to the C so the C has enouth trains to run and make all the other trains 10 cars. I doubt this would be done, but I don't think it is fair to expect the 4/5 to take the major brunt of the impact because those 2 mirrors the R line and are already crush loaded as is.

Edited by Grand Concourse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't really see why should the (C) become full length. Here are reasons:

 

1. The (R) is only going to be split for a year and two months.

 

2. Many R179s (which will retire the leftover R32s and R42s) are going to be eight-cars in sets of four. It is much more clear that the (C) and (J) will get them as they are two-car shorter routes.

 

3. It makes no sense whatsoever to make the R32s full length just to shorten them again after the Montague Street tube is fully repaired.

 

As for the (4) and (5), please no beef up service. Those Lexington Avenue/Eastern Parkway Expresses are prone to delays, gabs and bunching as it is, not only that they are crush-loaded with passengers.

Edited by RollOverMyHead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gosh. Why is it the subway line I have to use...

 

The MTA is deliberately out to make your commute as stressful and hectic as possible. Be weary... :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't really see why should the (C) become full length. Here are reasons:

 

1. The (R) is only going to be split for a year and two months.

 

2. Many R179s (which will retire the leftover R32s and R42s) are going to be eight-cars in sets of four. It is much more clear that the (C) and (J) will get them as they are two-car shorter routes.

 

3. It makes no sense whatsoever to make the R32s full length just to shorten them again after the Montague Street tube is fully repaired.

 

As for the (4) and (5), please no beef up service. Those Lexington Avenue/Eastern Parkway Expresses are prone to delays, gabs and bunching as it is, not only that they are crush-loaded with passengers.

You can't even use that reason. The summer swaps are (or should I say were) a whole lot shorter yet they made the R32s run in full length sets

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2. Many R179s (which will retire the leftover R32s and R42s) are going to be eight-cars in sets of four. It is much more clear that the (C) and (J) will get them as they are two-car shorter routes.

 

This makes no sense. How do future cars affect the current operation of the line in any way, shape or form?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I don't really see why should the (C) become full length. Here are reasons:

 

1. The (R) is only going to be split for a year and two months.

 

2. Many R179s (which will retire the leftover R32s and R42s) are going to be eight-cars in sets of four. It is much more clear that the (C) and (J) will get them as they are two-car shorter routes.

 

3. It makes no sense whatsoever to make the R32s full length just to shorten them again after the Montague Street tube is fully repaired.

 

As for the (4) and (5), please no beef up service. Those Lexington Avenue/Eastern Parkway Expresses are prone to delays, gabs and bunching as it is, not only that they are crush-loaded with passengers.

 

A more apt reason is that the (C) does not closely parallel the (R). Lengthening the trains would essentially mean an extra two cars of capacity east of Metrotech and north of Fulton. Even if it was used like that (you could take the (4) or (5) and it would be much faster), most people would take the (A) instead, since it would be more frequent.

 

AFAIK you can't expand the Brooklyn IRT services due to Nostrand Junction's capacity, unless you send all the 7th Avenue services to one terminal and all the Lexington Avenue services to the other.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, the transfer at Canal is going to be crowded (not like it already isn't). Extra service will be needed on 6th Ave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more apt reason is that the (C) does not closely parallel the (R). Lengthening the trains would essentially mean an extra two cars of capacity east of Metrotech and north of Fulton. Even if it was used like that (you could take the (4) or (5) and it would be much faster), most people would take the (A) instead, since it would be more frequent.

 

AFAIK you can't expand the Brooklyn IRT services due to Nostrand Junction's capacity, unless you send all the 7th Avenue services to one terminal and all the Lexington Avenue services to the other.

I brought up legnthening the (C) not per se because it was the end-all be-all solution - but instead because it is a feasible, inexpensive solution that would at least add some extra capacity between Jay St and manhattan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This makes no sense. How do future cars affect the current operation of the line in any way, shape or form?

 

Yes it does make sense. The (C) is two-cars shorter. There's no need for the R32s to be full length for a year and two months. When the (R) runs in two sections come later in July, there's no need to give the (C) some of its R46s just to make it 10 cars. It will still be two-cars shorter of 60 footers, even with NTT.

 

It's not like the (R) is super crowded between Canal and Atlantic on weekends nor on middays and evenings that many here (and the other thread) suggest such as bringing the (5) to Brooklyn on weekends, increase (4)(5) service or give some R46s from the (R) to the (C) so it can be temporary full length for the third time.

Edited by RollOverMyHead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more apt reason is that the (C) does not closely parallel the (R). Lengthening the trains would essentially mean an extra two cars of capacity east of Metrotech and north of Fulton. Even if it was used like that (you could take the (4) or (5) and it would be much faster), most people would take the (A) instead, since it would be more frequent.

 

AFAIK you can't expand the Brooklyn IRT services due to Nostrand Junction's capacity, unless you send all the 7th Avenue services to one terminal and all the Lexington Avenue services to the other.

 

^^^ This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it does make sense. The (C) is two-cars shorter. There's no need for the R32s to be full length for a year and two months. When the (R) runs in two sections come later in July, there's no need to give the (C) some of its R46s just to make it 10 cars. It will still be two-cars shorter of 60 footers, even with NTT.

 

It's not like the (R) is super crowded between Canal and Atlantic on weekends nor on middays and evenings that many here (and the other thread) suggest such as bringing the (5) to Brooklyn on weekends, increase (4)(5) service or give some R46s from the (R) to the (C) so it can be temporary full length for the third time.

I think you completely missed his point...the R179s aren't due here for another few years, the tunnel rehab will be finished way before the first cars start to arrive...

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A more apt reason is that the (C) does not closely parallel the (R). Lengthening the trains would essentially mean an extra two cars of capacity east of Metrotech and north of Fulton. Even if it was used like that (you could take the (4) or (5) and it would be much faster), most people would take the (A) instead, since it would be more frequent.

 

AFAIK you can't expand the Brooklyn IRT services due to Nostrand Junction's capacity, unless you send all the 7th Avenue services to one terminal and all the Lexington Avenue services to the other.

 

Actually upon reconsidering this, the (C) really doesn't get that far away from the (R) in lower Manhattan. 

 

In fact, it's a half-mile, 10 minute walk from the Fulton St A/C to the Whitehall St R

 

Observe: http://bit.ly/173bCst For reference, that's the same distance I have to walk to my home subway station. It's not a tiresome walk for most. 

 

I think there are plenty of people who would end up transferring to the C at Jay St who would appreciate the extra cars and extra capacity. And yes - there are people for whom, for whatever reason, that a half-mile walk is not a feasible option. And those people can still take the 2/3/4/5, for which adding capacity isn't an option. Perhaps even, the extra capacity on the Fulton/8av line will pick up a few displaced riders who otherwise would have taken spots on the IRT. 

 

I just don't see any reason why lengthening the (C), maybe even just rush hours, is in any way a bad idea to help pick up slack from the (R)

Edited by itmaybeokay
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually upon reconsidering this, the (C) really doesn't get that far away from the (R) in lower Manhattan. 

 

In fact, it's a half-mile, 10 minute walk from the Fulton St A/C to the Whitehall St R

 

Observe: http://bit.ly/173bCst For reference, that's the same distance I have to walk to my home subway station. It's not a tiresome walk for most. 

 

I think there are plenty of people who would end up transferring to the C at Jay St who would appreciate the extra cars and extra capacity. And yes - there are people for whom, for whatever reason, that a half-mile walk is not a feasible option. And those people can still take the 2/3/4/5, for which adding capacity isn't an option. Perhaps even, the extra capacity on the Fulton/8av line will pick up a few displaced riders who otherwise would have taken spots on the IRT. 

 

I just don't see any reason why lengthening the (C), maybe even just rush hours, is in any way a bad idea to help pick up slack from the (R)

 

While this is true, nearly every route in Lower Manhattan fits in the ten-minute circle around Fulton, so this point is sort of moot.

 

My point is that the (4) and (5) are more convenient in almost every case imagineable - Bowling Green is a hell lot closer to Whitehall and Wall St is closer to Cortlandt and Rector. The elderly will most likely try and take the (4) and (5) due to the more convenient walk, while the wheelchair passengers wouldn't be affected since none of the (R) stations are currently ADA-accessible post-Sandy.

 

Since the majority of people aren't heading to the Financial District anyways, they're better off changing to the (N), (4), or (5).

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.