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

[RollOver]

Really dude...

[MysteriousBtrain]

Right.

 

And quite frankly, ALL of the trains should operate on 2nd Avenue once that is ready.

 

One thing I'd be looking at in fact would be to consider having the also run to 96th/2nd late nights and weekends to supplement the at that time.  Given the dense population of the UES, I would consider that, especially since in the case of the it also would have it go to midtown 24/7.

NO, just no.

The only line that will be affected by SAS is the and the when the gets revived.

[Fresh Pond]

NO, just no.

The only line that will be affected by SAS is the and the when the gets revived.

We don't know for sure if the is coming back or not. You keep assuming that

[Q43LTD]

to 96 St? WTH?

[Lance]

Right.

 

And quite frankly, ALL of the trains should operate on 2nd Avenue once that is ready.

 

One thing I'd be looking at in fact would be to consider having the also run to 96th/2nd late nights and weekends to supplement the at that time.  Given the dense population of the UES, I would consider that, especially since in the case of the it also would have it go to midtown 24/7.

Why do you keep pitching this idea? First off, it makes no sense to effectively double service on the 2nd Ave branch during the off-hours. Normal hours, maybe, if the situation warrants it, but to have only the Q running to/from 96 St on weekdays and the M and Q running there other times assumes there would be more demand for service during the off-hours and that usually isn't the case.

 

Secondly, what is it with these ideas of having vastly different terminals for the same line depending on the time of day/day of the week? While this isn't entirely directed to you, it keeps coming up and you're the latest person to do so. The MTA has gotten away from the practice of having multiple, vastly different terminals. It's too confusing to riders.

[lupojohn]

This proposal will result in three things:

 

1. Confusion over what train is going where and when it's going there.

2. Delays at 57th & 7th with Q and/or W trains terminating there (Don't you know 57th will be a through station once SAS opens?)

3. Anger from passengers who get stuck waiting at 57th for a track to clear and crews who might have to work through their breaks if their trains are late due to said delays.

 

Do you really want to risk that? Just keep it simple and consistent:

to/from Astoria all times

to/from 2nd Ave all times

to/from Astoria on weekdays

 

The only thing I would consider doing differently with the from before it was discontinued is to run some sort of limited peak direction rush hour service from Bay Pkwy via the West End Line. Since those trains are coming out of Coney Island Yard in the morning and returning there in the evening anyway, better to run them in service than have them either deadhead to/from Whitehall or duplicate the on the Sea Beach Line. They wouldn't really duplicate the on the West End because those W's wouldn't be running on the same line in Manhattan as the D (unlike running via the Sea Beach Line).

 

 1. As much as I like to bash the , it's not their responsibility to tell passengers which train is which or where it's going. There are plenty of signs, posters on columns and the side of the train will tell you where to go.

 

 2. I believe you mean the middle track at 57th-7th will be extended(if my definition of a through station is correct. That the track ends there). You can figure out tph, how that's configured. trains would not terminate there the same time the does. That was noted in my post.

 

 3. See points 1 and 2. The and would stay on the local track and the and would be on the express track. Boohoo that workers work through their break. Give me their paycheck and i'll work through any break.

[Lance]

 1. As much as I like to bash the , it's not their responsibility to tell passengers which train is which or where it's going. There are plenty of signs, posters on columns and the side of the train will tell you where to go.

 

 2. I believe you mean the middle track at 57th-7th will be extended(if my definition of a through station is correct. That the track ends there). You can figure out tph, how that's configured. trains would not terminate there the same time the does. That was noted in my post.

 

 3. See posts 1 and 2. The and would stay on the local track and the and would be on the express track. Boohoo that workers work through their break. Give me their paycheck and i'll work through any break.

1) Actually, that's kind of priority one behind safely transporting riders between point A and point B. You have to assume that not everyone is as familiar with the subway as we are here. Having wildly different terminals for one line, like 96 St, Astoria-Ditmars, or 57 St/7 Av, confuses riders because the overhead signs will have to say that Q trains are going to 96 St, except when they're not and instead running to Ditmars Blvd. That also has to be conveyed on the maps, which means there will be Qs everywhere.

 

2) You can't have a line terminate at a through station. Not without backing up the trains behind it and given Broadway's track layout, that's not a hard feat with good through service, much less having trains bouncing back and forth across tracks and having one line terminating in front of a train heading for 96 St.

 

3) I though the N and Q would be the expresses while the R and W would be the locals. That's what you put in your previous post.

 

Overall, I'm not sure of the intended goal of having all these different service patterns. Rather than having the Q and W flip-flopping their services on weekends and overnight hours, it would be much better and less confusing to run one service all times to 2nd Ave (the Q) and have a part-time, 19/5, Astoria-Broadway supplemental line (the W).

[Wallyhorse]

Why do you keep pitching this idea? First off, it makes no sense to effectively double service on the 2nd Ave branch during the off-hours. Normal hours, maybe, if the situation warrants it, but to have only the Q running to/from 96 St on weekdays and the M and Q running there other times assumes there would be more demand for service during the off-hours and that usually isn't the case.

 

Secondly, what is it with these ideas of having vastly different terminals for the same line depending on the time of day/day of the week? While this isn't entirely directed to you, it keeps coming up and you're the latest person to do so. The MTA has gotten away from the practice of having multiple, vastly different terminals. It's too confusing to riders.

The weekend to 96th is mainly to preserve midtown service late nights and weekends. 

 

Given the unique nature of the upper east side and the densely populated area I was talking about, however, having the supplement the nights and weekends between 63rd/Lex and 96th/2nd (when crossovers are not as much of an issue) also helps take off some potential overcrowding on the on weekends and also in off-hours gives riders a 6th Avenue option.  Given a lot of those on the Upper East side go to Bloomingdales in particular, on weekends I suspect having the also stop at 63rd/Lex with the would encourage those going there to do so on the SAS if possible (especially since there also will be a 63rd/3rd entrance).

[Lance]

Here's an idea, just increase the service on the Q. If that doesn't work, then you look into adding other lines to supplement service. However, with the Q's current levels of 6 TPH on weekends, there's potential for improvement if necessary.

 

Look, I get where you're coming from with the M having weekend/late night service to midtown, but if the M was extended, it'd make more sense to send it to Forest Hills since riders are familiar with the route since it runs there on weekdays.

[MysteriousBtrain]

We don't know for sure if the is coming back or not. You keep assuming that

I'm not assuming anything. I'm just pointing out what others said.

[Caelestor]

Broadway service should be kept as simple as possible. I personally thought the pre-2010 service pattern was reasonable, and I don't see any other proposal that is significantly better. Astoria has 12-15 tph, Brighton and Sea Beach have adequate service, Lower Manhattan gets two routes, which could be important if activity picks up with the new WTC and Fulton Center.

 

Compared to pre-2010, the only change is that the doesn't terminate tin Midtown but instead proceeds upward so Q trains won't be empty at 57 St. IIRC the runs 6-10 tph, which should be enough given that the Phase 1 extension only has 3 stations. While I believe that SAS will be very popular and another service may need to be added on weekdays to handle crowding, such a scenario will occur only when Phase 2 happens.

[GreatOne2k]

The other service could be a revived to 125th to help the out after phase 2 is complete, this would allow for the restoration of the Culver Express (the , , and could fit if the runs at 10 minute headways).

[Union Tpke]

The other service could be a revived to 125th to help the out after phase 2 is complete, this would allow for the restoration of the Culver Express (the , , and could fit if the runs at 10 minute headways).

the problem is if the switch to 2 Av could be used in regular service

[Javier]

Or add more R160's to the .

 

Heres my idea:

 

Weekdays Non-Rush Hours: Runs between 96 Street and Coney Island, returns and runs as shuttle between Astoria and 57 Street - 7th Ave.

 

Weekday Rush Hours: trains run to Astoria, bring back Orange to run to 96 Street between 96 Street and 57 St / 7th Ave, is suspended.

 

Weekends: is suspended, runs between 96 Street and Lex - 63 Street, runs to Astoria.

Latenights: Same as above. 

[Sparen of Iria]

Or add more R160's to the .

 

Heres my idea:

 

Weekdays Non-Rush Hours: Runs between 96 Street and Coney Island, returns and runs as shuttle between Astoria and 57 Street - 7th Ave.

 

Weekday Rush Hours: trains run to Astoria, bring back Orange to run to 96 Street between 96 Street and 57 St / 7th Ave, is suspended.

 

Weekends: is suspended, runs between 96 Street and Lex - 63 Street, runs to Astoria.

Latenights: Same as above. 

 

Running the as a shuttle between Ditmars Blvd and 57 St-7 Avenue is a no go because 57 St-7 Avenue will be a through station. Orange Q is just going to confuse the life out of literally everyone and forces people to transfer - this tactic is only viable for places where a line is separated into two sections with different car lengths and headways - if you did this, you'd be treating the Upper East Side like some kind of suburb that only needs 4 car trains or something.

 

And finally, Astoria does not need the on weekends or late nights, and bringing in the when it is absolutely useless is, well, useless. If you really love the roll signs and different services that much, then lobby politicians to get the feds to throw money at the MTA.

[lupojohn]

3) I though the N and Q would be the expresses while the R and W would be the locals. That's what you put in your previous post.

I should've specified more. The is the local, but uses the express tracks to terminate. Despite it being a through station, I am making this clarification for the purpose of the point.

[Javier]

Running the as a shuttle between Ditmars Blvd and 57 St-7 Avenue is a no go because 57 St-7 Avenue will be a through station. Orange Q is just going to confuse the life out of literally everyone and forces people to transfer - this tactic is only viable for places where a line is separated into two sections with different car lengths and headways - if you did this, you'd be treating the Upper East Side like some kind of suburb that only needs 4 car trains or something.

 

And finally, Astoria does not need the on weekends or late nights, and bringing in the when it is absolutely useless is, well, useless. If you really love the roll signs and different services that much, then lobby politicians to get the feds to throw money at the MTA.

Techincally, your half right-half wrong. The will only be using the Express tracks and and is 5 TPH, so it dosent cause delays for the since the needs to be used as a shuttle so Lex 63 Street - to 96 Street so that it docent need the . I agree, the Orange would cause havoc for people, so just rename it the Orange .

[CenSin]

the problem is if the switch to 2 Av could be used in regular service

Obviously, that's not the case, because the post mentions a Culver express:

 

The other service could be a revived to 125th to help the out after phase 2 is complete, this would allow for the restoration of the Culver Express (the , , and could fit if the runs at 10 minute headways).

 

1. As much as I like to bash the , it's not their responsibility to tell passengers which train is which or where it's going. There are plenty of signs, posters on columns and the side of the train will tell you where to go.

I hate idiocy as much as the next guy, but there's beauty in simplicity.

 

 

2. I believe you mean the middle track at 57th-7th will be extended(if my definition of a through station is correct. That the track ends there). You can figure out tph, how that's configured. trains would not terminate there the same time the does. That was noted in my post.

In order for trains to get from 57 Street–7 Avenue to the Upper East Side, the must use the express tracks. This goes for both directions. The local tracks have no connection to 2 Avenue north of the station. That means that every train that is in the station prevents trains from getting through to where it needs to go. The will be serving the Upper East Side around the clock; 57 Street–7 Avenue as a terminal is a terrible idea any time of day.

 

 

Or add more R160's to the .

 

Heres my idea:

 

Weekdays Non-Rush Hours: Runs between 96 Street and Coney Island, returns and runs as shuttle between Astoria and 57 Street - 7th Ave.

 

Weekday Rush Hours: trains run to Astoria, bring back Orange to run to 96 Street between 96 Street and 57 St / 7th Ave, is suspended.

 

Weekends: is suspended, runs between 96 Street and Lex - 63 Street, runs to Astoria.

Latenights: Same as above.

Explain this service to someone new to the city. Summarize it into a daytime and a nighttime subway map. Imagine yourself using this awful mess.

[Javier]

I revised my plan, its to elimanate the Orange all together and have the run part time.

[Wallyhorse]

Here's an idea, just increase the service on the Q. If that doesn't work, then you look into adding other lines to supplement service. However, with the Q's current levels of 6 TPH on weekends, there's potential for improvement if necessary.

 

Look, I get where you're coming from with the M having weekend/late night service to midtown, but if the M was extended, it'd make more sense to send it to Forest Hills since riders are familiar with the route since it runs there on weekdays.

I agree ideally the SHOULD (and it likely needs to happen anyway) run to Forest Hills 24/7, however if not, then 96th/2nd during off hours would make sense.  The UES is unique in how much of a 24/7 area it is because of its dense population, so once the does run via the SAS, it would not be a bad idea to have a second service run there during late nights/weekends.

 

Same idea could be done with the to make that a 24/7 line, with the on late nights and weekends operating to 96th/2nd (since the can run its normal route to 47th-50th and access the track after there from the express track).  That would give Brighton riders a full-time 6th Avenue option and also give UES riders a supplemental line during late nights and weekends.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The doesn't need to be a 24/7 line because Brighton Line express service is not needed during late nights or weekends.

 

And 2nd Ave is more likely to warrant a supplemental service on weekdays, not nights and weekends.

[Javier]

Revised plan - have select trains run part time between 57 Street - 7th Ave and 96 Street on Weekdays, during late nights runs to Astoria with a colored yello bullet.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Javier, it was already explained to you why having an orange and yellow Q would confuse subway riders. What makes you think having both an orange and yellow B would be any less confusing?

[Javier]

No i mean recolor the all together.

[lupojohn]

Javier, it was already explained to you why having an orange and yellow Q would confuse subway riders. What makes you think having both an orange and yellow B would be any less confusing?

I'm not advocating Javier's plan, but in his defense of this particular point, there used to be both orange and yellow trains and yellow and brown <R> trains. It's not unprecedented.