How will the 2nd Avenue extension affect Q service to Astoria?

[Xfer2Nowhere]

Yeah, but that would over-serve Astoria, and as Andrew stated, the Sea Beach as well.....

The increase would lead to an unneeded increase on Sea Beach, but the Astoria Line is already running at around 90% capacity with five-minute headways alternating between the and the at peak times. If their second service is taken, then load factors will likely become unsustainable.

 

The seems to be a better solution, as it could turn around at Whitehall Street or Canal Street.

 

 

That's why I believe the should keep at least select rush hour trips to Astoria. With the R179s coming soon, I don't realy see a problem with rush hour trains to Astoria (unless the R179 order delays once again).

Projected load factors for the 2nd Avenue Line already justify full-time service more than continuing the Astoria service. The great variable is we don't know what exactly they are yet.

 

The runs headways between 6-10 minutes during rush hours. Splitting it up and having some trains go to Astoria and some to 2nd Avenue would mean those headways would be doubled to 12-20 minutes minimum for trains at any station north of 57th Street. I don't think that would be as sustainable for either of those two lines as bringing back the for Astoria would be. The existing 160 fleet and the new 179 fleet could be pooled between the two routes and the , this accounting for the being a weekday-only service like it was before it was cut.

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

Maybe, if/when the 2 Avenue line starts, the  could be a split service during rush hours (and I think it's been suggested before). The headway would probably be lessened. The headways would be 5 minutes throughout, and the Astoria  would short-turn possibly at Atlantic ( on the ). The headway in the PM is roughly 4 minutes, so decreasing that to would mean there would be 2 Avenue every 10 minutes and Astoria every 10 minutes. Now, in later stages, there could be an option to revive the and allocate all 's to the 2 Avenue Line (upon an extension to 125, whenever that's suppose to happen.

[B35 via Church]

The increase would lead to an unneeded increase on Sea Beach, but the Astoria Line is already running at around 90% capacity with five-minute headways alternating between the and the at peak times. If their second service is taken, then load factors will likely become unsustainable.

 

The seems to be a better solution, as it could turn around at Whitehall Street or Canal Street.

That much I get....

 

I just don't like the idea of what a massive increase is suggestive of, as it pertains to increasing subway service.... Current service to Astoria I don't think anyone would quantify as massive, and I honestly don't think Astoria needs that much more service over what's currently provided....

 

Maybe, if/when the 2 Avenue line starts, the  could be a split service during rush hours (and I think it's been suggested before). The headway would probably be lessened. The headways would be 5 minutes throughout, and the Astoria  would short-turn possibly at Atlantic ( on the ). The headway in the PM is roughly 4 minutes, so decreasing that to would mean there would be 2 Avenue every 10 minutes and Astoria every 10 minutes.

 

Now, in later stages, there could be an option to revive the and allocate all 's to the 2 Avenue Line (upon an extension to 125, whenever that's suppose to happen.

What, like the ?

 

Can't agree with any proposal that has the Q ending anywhere else in Brooklyn.....

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

That much I get....

 

I just don't like the idea of what a massive increase is suggestive of, as it pertains to increasing subway service.... Current service to Astoria I don't think anyone would quantify as massive, and I honestly don't think Astoria needs that much more service over what's currently provided....

 

What, like the ?

 

Can't agree with any proposal that has the Q ending anywhere else in Brooklyn.....

Yes, sort of like the . I did think of having the trains from Astoria terminate at Brighton Beach, but I figured that would overserve the Brighton Line, so that's why I thought of Atlantic Avenue.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Question: What is your stance on Q's running up to 125th (when 2nd av service begins)?

 

I'm asking that because you say the Q to Astoria be maintained during the rush.... I just want to know where you'd terminate Q's during off peak hours... Would you have it assist the T on up to 125th? Stop short at 57th? Something else?

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but with me, it's not that Q's running to Astoria is problematic.... I think it's a better use of current resources if the Q were to assist the T; since the east side needs all the help it can get....

Just act similar to the and peak direction service. Service would act normal other times. 

 

Projected load factors for the 2nd Avenue Line already justify full-time service more than continuing the Astoria service. The great variable is we don't know what exactly they are yet.

 

The runs headways between 6-10 minutes during rush hours. Splitting it up and having some trains go to Astoria and some to 2nd Avenue would mean those headways would be doubled to 12-20 minutes minimum for trains at any station north of 57th Street. I don't think that would be as sustainable for either of those two lines as bringing back the for Astoria would be. The existing 160 fleet and the new 179 fleet could be pooled between the two routes and the , this accounting for the being a weekday-only service like it was before it was cut.

Maybe the frequency of the would increase later. And if there is not that much service needed on the , bring the route back, but turn it into short turn trains. They did a similar act to the when the took over the route, don't see how that would be a problem now.

[B35 via Church]

Question: What is your stance on Q's running up to 125th (when 2nd av service begins)?

 

I'm asking that because you say the Q to Astoria be maintained during the rush.... I just want to know where you'd terminate Q's during off peak hours... Would you have it assist the T on up to 125th? Stop short at 57th? Something else?

 

Just act similar to the and peak direction service. Service would act normal other times.

So to Harlem then?

 

Yes, sort of like the .

 

I did think of having the trains from Astoria terminate at Brighton Beach, but I figured that would overserve the Brighton Line, so that's why I thought of Atlantic Avenue.

Yes, it would over-serve the Brighton... But the problem I have with ending Q's at Pacific, is that it could possibly tie up the line....

[MysteriousBtrain]

So to Harlem then?

Yeah. Harlem service would run at all times, with few trains going to Astoria rush hours.

[Grand Concourse]

First of all, I doubt there will be a T until they build phase 3. There's no 3rd track at 72nd anymore since that was cut to stay under budget. so they can't turn the T back without affecting Q service. 96th is likely going to be just a Q extension.

 

The A and 5 examples are not the same for the Q. The A and 5 both serve the same borough where they split branches and I doubt they have the ridership numbers that will be seen along 2nd av. The Q has to serve 2nd av fully and shouldn't be split. Just bring the W back as they need to run it for the rush hours mainly. The N would be better off as an express so it doesn't have to hold up Broadway going over the slow switch at Prince st. Middays they can probably cut the W and run the N local. As said, the main need for the W is Astoria and Manhattan. The W works fine without this split Q thing, not to mention avoid confusion over 'what train is this'? Because people don't read or listen anymore. Just save the hassle of people constantly asking the c/r or t/o if the train is going to Queens or 2nd av.

[MysteriousBtrain]

First of all, I doubt there will be a T until they build phase 3. There's no 3rd track at 72nd anymore since that was cut to stay under budget. so they can't turn the T back without affecting Q service. 96th is likely going to be just a Q extension.

 

The A and 5 examples are not the same for the Q. The A and 5 both serve the same borough where they split branches and I doubt they have the ridership numbers that will be seen along 2nd av. The Q has to serve 2nd av fully and shouldn't be split. Just bring the W back as they need to run it for the rush hours mainly. The N would be better off as an express so it doesn't have to hold up Broadway going over the slow switch at Prince st. Middays they can probably cut the W and run the N local. As said, the main need for the W is Astoria and Manhattan. The W works fine without this split Q thing, not to mention avoid confusion over 'what train is this'? Because people don't read or listen anymore. Just save the hassle of people constantly asking the c/r or t/o if the train is going to Queens or 2nd av.

The problem is that the designation was killed a few years ago. When the was revived, it was almost a decade since the original was discontinued. Would they bring the back so soon just because the got moved to SAS?

Seeing the year gaps in the , I don't see the revival impossible, but rather unlikely.

[Grand Concourse]

Because it was a budget cut and they basically cut the extra local LM service. The Mta can always revive a letter. It isn't like once it is retired, it stays dead. The K isn't needed at the moment, so they haven't used it. Maybe they could've used an orange K for what the M is now, but there was the V and the people on the M line being vocal about keeping that letter (because they 'think' the V would've been worse even though the line would've been the same service). I mean who knows, maybe if there's a demand for Bay pkwy to Nassau st (maybe terminating at Broadway Junction on the J as a rush hour service) service again, they could make it a brown K. 

There were yellow Bs and Ds (for one of the earlier 80s? bridge work) which were replaced with the yellow Q and W (for the 2001-4 work). Letters comes and goes, and aren't always going to stay put where they are. B and D in Brooklyn were swapped once service resumed via the bridge to 6th av.

[MysteriousBtrain]

Because it was a budget cut and they basically cut the extra local LM service. The Mta can always revive a letter. It isn't like once it is retired, it stays dead. The K isn't needed at the moment, so they haven't used it. Maybe they could've used an orange K for what the M is now, but there was the V and the people on the M line being vocal about keeping that letter (because they 'think' the V would've been worse even though the line would've been the same service).

 

There were yellow Bs and Ds (for one of the earlier 80s? bridge work) which were replaced with the yellow Q and W (for the 2001-4 work). Letters comes and goes, and aren't always going to stay put where they are. B and D in Brooklyn were swapped once service resumed via the bridge to 6th av.

I always knew they could revive a letter. I'm just not sure how long the likes to keep a label in storage.

[B35 via Church]

First of all, I doubt there will be a T until they build phase 3. There's no 3rd track at 72nd anymore since that was cut to stay under budget. so they can't turn the T back without affecting Q service. 96th is likely going to be just a Q extension.

The assumption is that the T would run up to 125th...

 

But if what you're saying here will end up being the case, the OP most certainly got the answer to his question.

[Grand Concourse]

Well if 72nd st was a 3 track station, I could see the T running from 125th, but at the moment I don't see how it would be possible without obstructing Q service. So I think it is just the Q for now. I'm not saying this is definite, but imo, i don't see the T being used till phase 3 is done.

[bobtehpanda]

Even if it was a 3-track station, the MTA has never planned a service until Phase III is actually built. 72nd was configured to turn back trains coming from the south, not from the north (so that third track would've terminated a Q train)

[Grand Concourse]

I could've sworn a track map showed it being something similar to the Whitehall stop with the capability to terminate trains heading from either direction. Well any way, fine, but agreed phase 3 for the T.

[Lance]

First of all, I doubt there will be a T until they build phase 3. There's no 3rd track at 72nd anymore since that was cut to stay under budget. so they can't turn the T back without affecting Q service. 96th is likely going to be just a Q extension.

 

The A and 5 examples are not the same for the Q. The A and 5 both serve the same borough where they split branches and I doubt they have the ridership numbers that will be seen along 2nd av. The Q has to serve 2nd av fully and shouldn't be split. Just bring the W back as they need to run it for the rush hours mainly. The N would be better off as an express so it doesn't have to hold up Broadway going over the slow switch at Prince st. Middays they can probably cut the W and run the N local. As said, the main need for the W is Astoria and Manhattan. The W works fine without this split Q thing, not to mention avoid confusion over 'what train is this'? Because people don't read or listen anymore. Just save the hassle of people constantly asking the c/r or t/o if the train is going to Queens or 2nd av.

The north ends of the 5 and the south ends of the A are definitely less used than the potential branches of Q service along 2nd Ave and Astoria would be. It's the exact reason why 20 minute headways on the Lefferts and Rockaways branches of the A are tolerated. Trying that on the Q, especially on the 2nd Ave branch, would be impossible. An increase in Q service to meet demand while keeping the line branched means you've effectively doubled service on the Brighton line. Brighton riders probably won't complain about such an increase, but the likelihood of there being enough riders to justify five minute local service is slim.

 

The problem is that the designation was killed a few years ago. When the was revived, it was almost a decade since the original was discontinued. Would they bring the back so soon just because the got moved to SAS?

Seeing the year gaps in the , I don't see the revival impossible, but rather unlikely.

When the K was revived for the primary 8th Ave local service to replace the AA, it had nothing to do with age or how long it had been since the letter was retired. It was simply the first letter that was free for use. If and when the MTA decides they need another Broadway service, they'll likely go back with the W for the simple fact that the letter is already on the rollsigns. Sure, they can use any other unused letter, but then they'd have to go through the trouble of printing new signs for the older trains. In fact, that's why V and W were chosen for the new 6th Ave and Broadway routes respectively. They were already considered to be extra routes as early as 1981 and '87.

[CenSin]

First of all, I doubt there will be a T until they build phase 3. There's no 3rd track at 72nd anymore since that was cut to stay under budget. so they can't turn the T back without affecting Q service. 96th is likely going to be just a Q extension.

 

The A and 5 examples are not the same for the Q. The A and 5 both serve the same borough where they split branches and I doubt they have the ridership numbers that will be seen along 2nd av. The Q has to serve 2nd av fully and shouldn't be split. Just bring the W back as they need to run it for the rush hours mainly. The N would be better off as an express so it doesn't have to hold up Broadway going over the slow switch at Prince st. Middays they can probably cut the W and run the N local. As said, the main need for the W is Astoria and Manhattan. The W works fine without this split Q thing, not to mention avoid confusion over 'what train is this'? Because people don't read or listen anymore. Just save the hassle of people constantly asking the c/r or t/o if the train is going to Queens or 2nd av.

Even if the 72 Street could hypothetically turn trains, there would never be a from only 96 Street/125 Street to 72 Street. Think about the the utility of such a line. During the first phase, you'll have a train that stops at 96 Street, 86 Street, and 72 Street and turns back. There are no transfers to any other train at any of the stations. That's just a glorified shuttle, and a pretty useless one at that. (Every other shuttle connects to something not running parallel to itself.) Even extended to 125 Street, do you think anyone would take the train uptown to connect with the , , or to go back downtown? Useless! And the real reason why there will be no until phase 3: the would just be an extremely shortened with a different letter.

 

There's no logistical challenge in bringing back the W, unless the R179 order runs even later than SAS.

 

 

A massive increase in N service would pump massively more southbound trains in the AM rush over the Manhattan Bridge and down the Sea Beach line. Are southbound N trains over the Manhattan Bridge overcrowded in the AM rush? (Answer: No, they are in fact quite lightly loaded.)

 

The MTA is not going to waste money by running 15 tph on the southbound Sea Beach line in the morning rush. It would be a massive waste of operating dollars and there won't be enough cars.

 

 

 

 

Fantasize all you like, but aside from a small number of trains that need to reach Coney Island Yard, the extra Astoria service won't run anywhere south of Whitehall Street.

One can dream.

[FlushingExpress]

Can someone please shut this thread? There is always foaming when people ask "What will happen to Astoria after the 2nd Avenue Subway opens?" Everyone needs to just sit back and wait because the MTA makes the decisions, not you.

[Union Tpke]

IT IS A FACT! The W is going to come back. I just spoke to 

• Peter Cafiero
• Chief, Operations Planning.  
• I got his phone number because my dad was at a breakfast with Pendergast. He asked him if I could call. He called, He was busy, so I asked if the W will be brought back, he wasn't sure, so he said he would tell Peter Cafiero. He just called and said that it wasn't their intention to take away the W and that it would be brought back. He also said it was likely that the service to 96th would be the Q.
•  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

But things are always subject to change. He said it was "likely" the Q will be going to 96th & 2nd. I'm sure he's right and it almost certainly is, especially because the MTA has repeatedly said so in its official SAS-related documents. And almost certainly we will see the return of the W once SAS opens. This is nothing new. I figured the 2010 elimination of the W was temporary and that they were going to reinstate it upon the opening of SAS. But the MTA brain trust can always change their minds at the last minute. But you can count on the N train not being the only train running to/from Ditmars Blvd after SAS opens.

[Caelestor]

I know I'm late to this discussion, but I second returning to the pre-2010 service pattern.

 

Once SAS opens, as much service should be diverted to serve the pent-up demand. I'm actually concerned that the Q may not be sufficient once the line runs to 125 St, but for Phase 1 it should be acceptable. Sending the Q will eliminate a switching point between the express and local tracks, which will ease congestion.

 

Diverting the Q takes 6-7 tph away from Astoria. Adding more N service overserves Sea Beach and can create a lot of congestion at Dekalb Avenue. Reinstating the W seems like the most reasonable option, even though Lower Manhattan does not really need the extra service.

[2Line1291]

I never rode the Brighton Line before, but what about the serving Astoria with the Brighton Exp replacing the so Brighton wouldn't be overflowed balancing out the service on both ends. Now what happens to the is a different topic

[Sparen of Iria]

The local along Brighton is quite fine - the only annoyance is around Beverly/Cortelyou Rds where the stations are quite close by (then again, I have never taken Brighton during rush hour).

 

It would be feasible to double the TPH of the by splitting it into the and along Brighton. However, that would most likely cause the to be rerouted towards Church Av (there Culver Express people. You can have a partial Culver Express now. ) since in all honesty, is there any place to turn the B train (2nd Avenue will just cause problems - just like it did when the was turning there and trains were being backed up) other than by sending it down Culver? Unless you plan to send it as a local to 9 Av (West End) or something...

 

Then again, if the ever goes into service, then we'll have to hope that the SAS can handle both the Q and T at a relatively high TPH under this double-Q-service scenario - needs to be 30 or better given that the will be the sole service serving 2nd Av unless they decide to build something else like a S4 St subway or Forest Hills Superexpress, neither of which are happening anytime in the next 50 years unless someone wants to donate a couple billion to the MTA.

[Xfer2Nowhere]

The local along Brighton is quite fine - the only annoyance is around Beverly/Cortelyou Rds where the stations are quite close by (then again, I have never taken Brighton during rush hour).

 

It would be feasible to double the TPH of the by splitting it into the and along Brighton. However, that would most likely cause the to be rerouted towards Church Av (there Culver Express people. You can have a partial Culver Express now. ) since in all honesty, is there any place to turn the B train (2nd Avenue will just cause problems - just like it did when the was turning there and trains were being backed up) other than by sending it down Culver? Unless you plan to send it as a local to 9 Av (West End) or something...

 

Then again, if the ever goes into service, then we'll have to hope that the SAS can handle both the Q and T at a relatively high TPH under this double-Q-service scenario - needs to be 30 or better given that the will be the sole service serving 2nd Av unless they decide to build something else like a S4 St subway or Forest Hills Superexpress, neither of which are happening anytime in the next 50 years unless someone wants to donate a couple billion to the MTA.

The plan of sending the to the Culver Exp and the to Astoria sounds good. It addresses both the Astoria concern and the Culver Exp concern at the same time.

 

Under this alignment, it would make more sense to terminate the at Kings Highway or Avenue X during rush hour express service. It would likely be a service alignment similar to the on the Concourse Line during rush hours; local in one direction, express in the other.

 

However, I think the will find the option of re-implementing the more efficient.

[Fresh Pond]

You now being up another problem sending the down there...

 

If the is the 6 Av express, the only way it's getting down to Culver is merging north of W 4 St, which is gonna clog up both and along the way. You'll have 3 lines all scraping the wall at W 4 and Bway-Lafayette and dealing with the merging/splitting .

 

Go further down the line to Bergen, it now has to deal with the merging and splitting off. trains now already hold up southbound trains at Church Av with the fumigatons, throw the in the mix and its gonna be worse.

 

Culver express isn't gonna solve much, if anything it'll make it worse. You'll have the and going through the Bergen interlockings.