R to 179th Street-Jamaica?

[Vistausss]

The tracks are configured so that the trains don't bump into each other but that doesn't mean they can do all the needed stuff within 57 seconds. It *may* be possible but I'm not convinced yet. So to say it the Mythbusters the way "I say it's plausible given the right circumstances".

[bobtehpanda]

It's probably feasible, but for safety reasons trains are kept at least minimum braking distance apart. Most systems set this at 90 seconds, although a new Milanese metro line is advertising 75 second headways upon opening.

[AndrewJC]

A short-lived service that was possibly axed sometime in the early '90s.

 

Hillside Av riders didn't want the since it ran local, so the TA thought it was best for the to run local at Hillside Av since it ran express between Queens Plz and Forest Hills at that time.

 

Somehow everybody forgets that running both the R and the F to 179th is significantly more expensive than only the F. They're not both needed past Continental, so why pay to run them both past Continental?

 

It got cut back because ridership demanded for a quicker one-seated ride to the CBDs. The and those limited trains via the Hillside branch are doing the job pretty well.

 

The is still heavily used in Queens and Manhattan though, even with its 10 minute headway.

 

The rush hour R is normally on a 6 minute headway, although with the Montague shutdown it's temporarily on a 7.5 minute headway.

 

I also don't know why the sign boards and FINDs list 179th St (E)'s as going express, because they've made local stops on the Hillside Ave Line every time I've been on them.

 

Because they're scheduled to go express, even if in practice they don't. (Same reason the Z doesn't show a stop at Alabama Avenue.)

 

I would like to point out that while the was rated for higher crush loading in the past than the is currently rated, keep in mind that loading guidelines have been nudged up due to budget cuts and politics, so it is no longer such an easy apples-to-apples comparison.

 

The rush hour loading guidelines have not changed since they were adopted in the late 1980's: a fully seated load plus the remaining space filled with one standee for each 3 square feet. That translates to about 110 people per 51 foot car, 145 people per 60 foot car, and 175 people per 75 foot car. Lines that are relatively infrequent provide for slightly more space per person.

 

What changed in 2010 was the off-peak loading guideline, from 100% of a seated load to 125% of a seated load. The rush hour guideline is much more crowded than either of those.

 

Well yes true I see where you got the official source, you are correct. The loading capacity guidelines has been changed, allowing for more standees, from 100% previously to 125% currently, in anticipation of more crowded trains as a result of overall reductions of service due to the budget cuts.  

 

If I may, allow me to clarify: The data I chose to follow for rough comparisons with both routes in regards to crushloading on the QBL before the 63rd Street connector was built were from sources compiled before the 2010 budget cuts and that includes the IRT Lexington line. One of the studies were cited in a NY Times article right before the cuts were to take effect.

 

Links: http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/queen.html

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/nyregion/26mta.html?_r=1&

 

However if you may provide more current sources for my knowledge by all means I encourage you to post, as that will go for good conversation in the light of the QBL CBTC project to start late into next year. I am always up learning something new.

 

The 122% E and 133% F numbers in your first link are incredible - by which I mean that I have difficulty believing them.

 

I don't doubt that the QBL is very congested (the platforms at Roosevelt during the peak are evidence enough - it's as bad, if not worse than Lexington, and unlike Lexington the surface options aren't very comprehensive), but I don't have statistics. The MTA website is seemingly designed to make getting statistics as painful as possible - for instance, the bus ridership and station ridership stats could be uploaded as spreadsheet files, which are both commonly used and easily sortable. Instead, we get static web pages that are only sorted alphanumerically, in A-Z order.

 

The MTA website is very good if you want to know how you're going to get to a place at the exact moment you go on. It's not very useful for anything else, and NYCT isn't even the most poorly designed section of the website. (That would probably go to either LIRR or MTACC.)

 

Copy and paste the tables into your spreadsheet program. Voila! (Or at least it works for me.)

 

But what we need here is peak load point line haul data, not station entries. The annual cordon count, which is second best (since the CBD cordon isn't necessarily the peak load point and the peak hour isn't necessarily a clockface hour), is on the NYMTC website. Not perfect, but it's still a lot better than trying to rely on station entry counts. (And, last I checked, the NYMTC data mis-calculates crowding levels by assuming that all cars are the same size. Ignore the crowding levels and do the division yourself.)

 

Another good question would be: would sending one of the locals to Jamaica enable higher frequencies along the local tracks? The procedures for turning local trains at Forest Hills currently causes a lot of delays. I'm not sure how much CBTC will help there since there is no computer-based making-sure-everyone-is-off-the-train system.

 

Is there a need for more local service on the QBL? I don't think so.

 

Are they going to use Fastrack to install the CBTC on the QB line? It took forever on the and they had many weekends of no service. But then again it's a 4 track line so maybe they don't have to shut down whole sections at a time, (except for the 53rd st line)

 

Certainly not! Complex signal system replacement requires shutdowns of longer than 7 hours at a time. Expect many, many weekend GO's and possibly occasional longer term outages.

 

FASTRACK is used for small-scale maintenance, not for major capital jobs.

[RollOver]

@AndrewJC

 

You mean the normal runs every 6-8 minutes coming out of Brooklyn in the AM Rush and back into Brooklyn in the PM Rush (same for the and )?

[realizm]

Copy and paste the tables into your spreadsheet program. Voila! (Or at least it works for me.)

 

 

But what we need here is peak load point line haul data, not station entries. The annual cordon count, which is second best (since the CBD cordon isn't necessarily the peak load point and the peak hour isn't necessarily a clockface hour), is on the NYMTC website. Not perfect, but it's still a lot better than trying to rely on station entry counts. (And, last I checked, the NYMTC data mis-calculates crowding levels by assuming that all cars are the same size. Ignore the crowding levels and do the division yourself.)

 

Brilliant! The wonders of Microsoft Excel.

 

As for the source provided from the link, yep amazingly that's the data the NYCTA provided for that study funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The providing of possibly over-exaggerated statistics could have been a move by the NYCTA to muster up that political will within the federal and state goverment to be privy to more funding for operation costs during that time, cant rule that out.

[CenSin]

The tracks are configured so that the trains don't bump into each other but that doesn't mean they can do all the needed stuff within 57 seconds. It *may* be possible but I'm not convinced yet. So to say it the Mythbusters the way "I say it's plausible given the right circumstances".

They can't do all the needed stuff within 57 seconds. Remember that the express tracks and local tracks each have their own levels to relay with. The combined headway is 57 seconds between trains because you can send out 2 trains close together (or at the same time) from the station. A better way to look at it is this:

• local track relay speed: turn one train every 114 seconds
• express track relay speed: turn one train every 114 seconds

That's pretty realistic, I'd say.

[R32 3838]

GO: 10pm to midnight Oct 21-24 to 179th.

Looks like someone in the TA is finally making sense

[R32 3838]

They have no choice, people must have been complaining about the slow ride between 36th and van wyck Blvd all due to laying up ®'s when service is done while having the & on the same track as in going local, same case as if the is express along with the & , the delays are bad, its so bad that I take the to flushing then take any bus to Jamaica mainly the Q17

[Guest Lance]

Or they could just be doing work on the relay tracks that will begin at 10pm instead of 12 midnight.

[Vistausss]

@Rollovermyhead: Why don't you check it yourself? The website has schedules available for every line, including the .

[RollOver]

@Rollovermyhead: Why don't you check it yourself? The website has schedules available for every line, including the .

 

I was just asking only AndrewJC about the old schedule since I couldn't find it on Wikipedia now that its schedule is updated.

[bobtehpanda]

 

Brilliant! The wonders of Microsoft Excel.

 

As for the source provided from the link, yep amazingly that's the data the NYCTA provided for that study funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The providing of possibly over-exaggerated statistics could have been a move by the NYCTA to muster up that political will within the federal and state goverment to be privy to more funding for operation costs during that time, cant rule that out.

 

To be very honest, all FTA programs are inherently biased against the New York metro area - if they weren't, we'd be the only city they were funding. The entire SAS on completion is forecasted for over 500K riders a day, which is more than most subway systems in the United States.

[realizm]

To be very honest, all FTA programs are inherently biased against the New York metro area - if they weren't, we'd be the only city they were funding. The entire SAS on completion is forecasted for over 500K riders a day, which is more than most subway systems in the United States.

Apparently what the MTA did in terms of the math in the forcasting of the 560,000 riders to use the Second Avenue Subway on the weekdays was that in the figure they included an additional 11,400 riders who 'formerly' used unrealeted modes to mass transit, such as automobiles, taxi, as well as 'walking trips' that did not involve transit. I think (not sure) the reason why they came up with the figures was to account for new real estate development predicted to boom in the areas to be served by the SAS. That was what I got out of enviormental impact studies done on the SAS very recently before current on going construction started back in 2007.

 

Are the numbers accurate? Hard to tell, but I would imagine it may turn out to be higher then previously forecasted as the SAS is formally opened for revenue service in 2016. Being as that the economy continues to improve which will cause a continued surge in the use of mass transit by the public among other factors such as rising gas costs on the motorist. Things that seems to be the case despite what the residents at Yorkshire Towers would like to say about the issues.

[R32 3838]

I was just asking only AndrewJC about the old schedule since I couldn't find it on Wikipedia now that its schedule is updated.

You should go on the MTA website for schedules they have em on there

[bobtehpanda]

Apparently what the MTA did in terms of the math in the forcasting of the 560,000 riders to use the Second Avenue Subway on the weekdays was that in the figure they included an additional 11,400 riders who 'formerly' used unrealeted modes to mass transit, such as automobiles, taxi, as well as 'walking trips' that did not involve transit. I think (not sure) the reason why they came up with the figures was to account for new real estate development predicted to boom in the areas to be served by the SAS. That was what I got out of enviormental impact studies done on the SAS very recently before current on going construction started back in 2007.

 

Are the numbers accurate? Hard to tell, but I would imagine it may turn out to be higher then previously forecasted as the SAS is formally opened for revenue service in 2016. Being as that the economy continues to improve which will cause a continued surge in the use of mass transit by the public among other factors such as rising gas costs on the motorist. Things that seems to be the case despite what the residents at Yorkshire Towers would like to say about the issues.

 

The short stubway has a forecast of about 200K riders a day.

 

It's not completely ridiculous, seeing as how the Lex has more riders than the entire Washington Metro, and rail usually increases ridership by several times. For instance, the 98 B-Line BRT in Vancouver carried 18,000 passengers daily at its height. The Canada Line that replaced it now carries 136,000 passengers daily (forecasts called for 100,000 daily riders by 2013). This is obviously an extreme example, but the fact of the matter is that no matter what, ridership on SAS is going to be high, and it may even pass our expectations.

[Vistausss]

One question though: those 200-500k riders on SAS, is that with or without the projected 10th Ave station? Because it could well be that they counted 10th Ave in since there was supposed to be a station there.

[RollOver]

You should go on the MTA website for schedules they have em on there

 

They don't even have the old schedules there but forget it.

[Guest Lance]

Use the Internet Archive. The MTA's schedules always use the same URL, so getting older schedules should be a little easier.

[CenSin]

One question though: those 200-500k riders on SAS, is that with or without the projected 10th Ave station? Because it could well be that they counted 10th Ave in since there was supposed to be a station there.

Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step out and breath into this device.

[bobtehpanda]

One question though: those 200-500k riders on SAS, is that with or without the projected 10th Ave station? Because it could well be that they counted 10th Ave in since there was supposed to be a station there.

 

Wrong extension.

[Vistausss]

Sorry, you guys are right. I mixed up SAS and the extension. Man, sometimes I'm stupid.

[RollOver]

Man, sometimes I'm stupid.

 

Everyone makes mistakes.

[AndrewJC]

@AndrewJC

 

You mean the normal runs every 6-8 minutes coming out of Brooklyn in the AM Rush and back into Brooklyn in the PM Rush (same for the and )?

 

The normal AM rush headway on the R (when Montague is open) is 6 minutes, in both directions. (The N and Q are also 6 minutes from Brooklyn but slightly less frequently from Queens.)

 

With Montague closed, the R runs every 7.5 minutes during the AM rush.

 

PM rush frequencies may be a bit less - I'm not certain off the top of my head.

 

As for the source provided from the link, yep amazingly that's the data the NYCTA provided for that study funded by the U.S. Department of Transportation. The providing of possibly over-exaggerated statistics could have been a move by the NYCTA to muster up that political will within the federal and state goverment to be privy to more funding for operation costs during that time, cant rule that out.

 

Or it could just be that they hadn't yet developed accurate counting techniques.

 

Use the Internet Archive. The MTA's schedules always use the same URL, so getting older schedules should be a little easier.

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20130403055607/http://www.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/trcur.pdf

[RollOver]

Man, they should always have southbound , and trains at 10 minute headways coming out of Queens in the AM Rush and reverse in the PM Rush...Astoria and Queens Boulevard, at those times, would still get service every 5 minutes anyway...

[AndrewJC]

Man, they should always have southbound , and trains at 10 minute headways coming out of Queens in the AM Rush and reverse in the PM Rush...Astoria and Queens Boulevard, at those times, would still get service every 5 minutes anyway...

 

That would overload the N and Q, which are already close to guideline. It probably wouldn't overload the R, but it would make the local a less attractive alternative to the E/F, so cutting R service might overload the E.

 

I'm not sure what the problem is with today's service that you want it to be less frequent.