Second Avenue subway may divert Q trains out of Astoria, leaving some Queens residents worried about

[bobtehpanda]

So? Does it matter? Short turn, supplement, part-time line etc. Same thing. Big whoop. What else are those three lines that I've mention are to you then? I'm not trying to be technical at all here, but I specifically used the term "short turn" because that's what it indeed is. It's not the full version of the , is it? It's just a line anyway. So don't tell me that I should say it the way you think I should say it. The makes the same exact stops like the does anyway. As said before, they're not going to run all of those trains down the Sea Beach Line when off-peak ridership is lower. So what does that tell you? Obviously, you can certainly say that the are all supplementary, but the are more of a short turn than supplementary because they run alongside (or with) their full-time counterparts for almost or fully of their routes. But even then, they're just lines anyway. Who cares which term someone uses. Those are just minor sentences. Not really anything wrong with that.

 

Keep in mind that the only makes the stops it does today because of service cuts. It would be a nightmare to have the , the , and the or short-turn or what have you all on the local tracks of the Broadway Line. If the were to be moved to the express to make room (and also to provide Astoria with the traditional local and weekday express service), the would not be running through the tunnels to Whitehall, making it not an short turn.

[bobtehpanda]

I don't see where the Sea Beach line would be overserved by increasing peak-hour service and I can make the argument that the Astoria line in the status quo is overserved. The latest ridership numbers show us that the Astoria line pulls in 68,860 riders (I did not count QBP for an obvious reason) on an average weekday and the Sea Beach line pulls in 52,697. That's a difference of about 16,000 riders which is definitely not enough to justify one line essentially getting double the service levels of the other. It is the case that and trains come in to Manhattan very crowded during the rush hours but that actually has more to do with the than Astoria usage alone. Look at it from the perspective of a rider boarding at Queensboro Plaza seeking the Lexington Av Line. Given the very high usage of the most of those trains are coming into QBP packed. The (N)/(Q) are coming in less crowded and don't have any stops separating it from the Lex so a rider seeking that xfer will just board a (N)/(Q) by default. Once those riders board at QBP now you have packed trains heading to 59/Lex. Not to mention some of these QBP riders are also coming off of the itself. I find it very disingenuous that Astoria riders can claim they need the service they get because crowds swarm their trains at a stop not in Astoria itself. If you can't seem to believe this actually go out and fan these lines at Queensboro Plaza as I have done several times. Several of the MTA's own observations on overcrowding in our subway system support this observation. (N)/(Q) trains are shown in almost any PDF the MTA puts out on the subject of crowding as being overcrowded in between Queensboro Plaza and Lexington/59th during the peak hours. Now add in that the is shown to be overcrowded between 74th or Woodside (depending on the train being local or express) and QBP and now you see the picture i'm getting at.

 

The most logical solution in a post SAS system is to increase service (not even by that much, I would say 2-3 trains per hour at most) and short-turn any necessary southbound trains at Whitehall, Atlantic-Barclays or 59th/4th Av. Riders going northbound from Sea Beach in the morning should also get a similar service increase with trains turning at either Times Sq or 57th/7th if necessary. 

 

It doesn't really matter if service is at one stop or spread out along the Astoria Line. Either way peak headways need to accommodate all rush hour crowding, and it's not as if you can turn trains at QBP during the rush. Certainly cutting service from current levels is not the solution at all.

[RollOver]

Keep in mind that the only makes the stops it does today because of service cuts. It would be a nightmare to have the , the , and the or short-turn or what have you all on the local tracks of the Broadway Line. If the were to be moved to the express to make room (and also to provide Astoria with the traditional local and weekday express service), the would not be running through the tunnels to Whitehall, making it not an short turn.

Fair enough. I guess I should have thought about the helping the out on 53rd Street as well then. The not running through the local-only portion (below Canal) to turn at Whitehall is the only sentence that I agree with from you.

[YankeesPwnMets]

Can the Manhattan Bridge and other parts of the line even handle an increase in trains? Remember that the shares a majority of its route with other lines ( , , ) and I would imagine those lines run at near capacity during the rush

[RollOver]

That's not the point. Midtown Manhattan, Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn are the city's CBDs where many outer borough residents work at. Southbound and are always empty between Canal Street and Coney Island except for the PM rush and maybe weekend late afternoons/early evenings.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

It doesn't really matter if service is at one stop or spread out along the Astoria Line. Either way peak headways need to accommodate all rush hour crowding, and it's not as if you can turn trains at QBP during the rush. Certainly cutting service from current levels is not the solution at all.

I'm in agreement with you on that. My point is more in reference to the riders in Astoria itself having it lucky due to the way the is used then they being the main reason it is used that well. Riders vocal about a potential loss of service there seem to make it out as if it's the latter when the data shows it's clearly not the case. Those riders should just be quiet and let things work themselves out rather then giving the MTA an excuse to accommodate the Lex demand from NW Queens without preserving current service levels for them. I'm sure if there were ever a plan where the upper WPR line in the Bronx could lose service they would need to keep quiet about the service they do have because they get 19 TPH in the peak direction factoring in the and trips from Nereid. The which is much better used in the Bronx gets 15 TPH along the entire line during the rush hour. Essentially the way our system is used in totality allows for inequities in outer borough service distribution and the areas that are on the lucky end should be keeping quiet before the MTA goes to fix that.

[RollOver]

Obviously it gets 12-15 tph along the entire line because the Brooklyn end also needs more service (and I'm taking northbound in the morning) since most New Lots branch riders work in the east side and not the west side.

[Eric B]

What about the idea of keeping the in Astoria and making the Second Ave. Not even sure if the is already more frequent than the , but I would think it would be more justified in receiving an increase, which would be useful on the other end as well, and thus possibly be more able to cover the line by itself.

[RollOver]

What about the idea of keeping the in Astoria and making the Second Ave. Not even sure if the is already more frequent than the , but I would think it would be more justified in receiving an increase, which would be useful on the other end as well, and thus possibly be more able to cover the line by itself.

The and have the same headways...

[Sparen of Iria]

Again, whatever line runs from B'way to SAS MUST use the express tracks. Otherwise either 34 or 57 will become a hideous bottleneck.

[Daniel The Cool]

What about the idea of keeping the in Astoria and making the Second Ave. Not even sure if the is already more frequent than the , but I would think it would be more justified in receiving an increase, which would be useful on the other end as well, and thus possibly be more able to cover the line by itself.

And the uses like 2-3 trains more than the

[AndrewJC]

Currently, the Astoria line enjoys around 10-12 trains per hour during on weekdays. If the service reverts back to having the N as the sole Astoria line, service will be effectively cut in half, which is obviously not an ideal solution.

 

15 tph, actually - and those trains are pretty crowded (89% of capacity). Cutting service in half would bring that up to an absolutely untenable 178% of capacity. (Even the Lex express is "only" at 104% of capacity.)

 

http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

 

I don't see where the Sea Beach line would be overserved by increasing peak-hour service and I can make the argument that the Astoria line in the status quo is overserved. The latest ridership numbers show us that the Astoria line pulls in 68,860 riders (I did not count QBP for an obvious reason) on an average weekday and the Sea Beach line pulls in 52,697. That's a difference of about 16,000 riders which is definitely not enough to justify one line essentially getting double the service levels of the other. It is the case that and trains come in to Manhattan very crowded during the rush hours but that actually has more to do with the than Astoria usage alone. Look at it from the perspective of a rider boarding at Queensboro Plaza seeking the Lexington Av Line. Given the very high usage of the most of those trains are coming into QBP packed. The (N)/(Q) are coming in less crowded and don't have any stops separating it from the Lex so a rider seeking that xfer will just board a (N)/(Q) by default. Once those riders board at QBP now you have packed trains heading to 59/Lex. Not to mention some of these QBP riders are also coming off of the itself. I find it very disingenuous that Astoria riders can claim they need the service they get because crowds swarm their trains at a stop not in Astoria itself. If you can't seem to believe this actually go out and fan these lines at Queensboro Plaza as I have done several times. Several of the MTA's own observations on overcrowding in our subway system support this observation. (N)/(Q) trains are shown in almost any PDF the MTA puts out on the subject of crowding as being overcrowded in between Queensboro Plaza and Lexington/59th during the peak hours. Now add in that the is shown to be overcrowded between 74th or Woodside (depending on the train being local or express) and QBP and now you see the picture i'm getting at.

 

The most logical solution in a post SAS system is to increase service (not even by that much, I would say 2-3 trains per hour at most) and short-turn any necessary southbound trains at Whitehall, Atlantic-Barclays or 59th/4th Av. Riders going northbound from Sea Beach in the morning should also get a similar service increase with trains turning at either Times Sq or 57th/7th if necessary. 

It's impossible to determine based on station entries how crowded a line is during the peak hour, since it's impossible to tell how many swipes are during the peak hour, how far any individual is traveling (if isn't past the peak load point, he doesn't contribute to the peak load), which direction any individual is traveling (if it is against the peak direction, he doesn't contribute to the peak load). And in addition to ignoring Queensboro Plaza, you're also ignoring the many Flushing line riders who transfer there to the N/Q.

 

See the link above for the numbers you want. The N and Q combined out of Queens carry 19,767 people during the peak hour, on 15 trains. The D and N combined out of Brooklyn carry 19,260 people during the peak hour, on 20 trains. Since, if I'm not mistaken, the West End is somewhat more popular than the Sea Beach, that leaves the Astoria with more than twice the ridership of the Sea Beach but with only 50% more service - and you're suggesting that the Sea Beach should have more service at the expense of the Astoria? No.

 

Keep in mind that the only makes the stops it does today because of service cuts. It would be a nightmare to have the , the , and the or short-turn or what have you all on the local tracks of the Broadway Line. If the were to be moved to the express to make room (and also to provide Astoria with the traditional local and weekday express service), the would not be running through the tunnels to Whitehall, making it not an short turn.

 

Why would it be any more of a "nightmare" than to have those same exact trains share trackage along 60th Street? I agree that the N will probably resume running express once the W (or whatever it's called) comes back, but that's a function of what's most useful for the riders, not what the tracks or signals can handle.

[darrylbaniaga38]

What about the idea of keeping the in Astoria and making the Second Ave. Not even sure if the is already more frequent than the , but I would think it would be more justified in receiving an increase, which would be useful on the other end as well, and thus possibly be more able to cover the line by itself.

 

Since Sea Beach doesn't need extra service, could Brighton use any extra trains for the rush? If it works it's not a bad idea.

[bobtehpanda]

15 tph, actually - and those trains are pretty crowded (89% of capacity). Cutting service in half would bring that up to an absolutely untenable 178% of capacity. (Even the Lex express is "only" at 104% of capacity.)

 

http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

 

It's impossible to determine based on station entries how crowded a line is during the peak hour, since it's impossible to tell how many swipes are during the peak hour, how far any individual is traveling (if isn't past the peak load point, he doesn't contribute to the peak load), which direction any individual is traveling (if it is against the peak direction, he doesn't contribute to the peak load). And in addition to ignoring Queensboro Plaza, you're also ignoring the many Flushing line riders who transfer there to the N/Q.

 

See the link above for the numbers you want. The N and Q combined out of Queens carry 19,767 people during the peak hour, on 15 trains. The D and N combined out of Brooklyn carry 19,260 people during the peak hour, on 20 trains. Since, if I'm not mistaken, the West End is somewhat more popular than the Sea Beach, that leaves the Astoria with more than twice the ridership of the Sea Beach but with only 50% more service - and you're suggesting that the Sea Beach should have more service at the expense of the Astoria? No.

 

 

Why would it be any more of a "nightmare" than to have those same exact trains share trackage along 60th Street? I agree that the N will probably resume running express once the W (or whatever it's called) comes back, but that's a function of what's most useful for the riders, not what the tracks or signals can handle.

 

Can the tracks handle that kind of load well, though? As it is the is already delay prone on the Broadway local. Three services on two tracks during the peak sounds like a great way to introduce even more unreliability on the Broadway Line services.

[JubaionBx12+SBS]

15 tph, actually - and those trains are pretty crowded (89% of capacity). Cutting service in half would bring that up to an absolutely untenable 178% of capacity. (Even the Lex express is "only" at 104% of capacity.)

 

http://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/amcrowding.jpg

 

It's impossible to determine based on station entries how crowded a line is during the peak hour, since it's impossible to tell how many swipes are during the peak hour, how far any individual is traveling (if isn't past the peak load point, he doesn't contribute to the peak load), which direction any individual is traveling (if it is against the peak direction, he doesn't contribute to the peak load). And in addition to ignoring Queensboro Plaza, you're also ignoring the many Flushing line riders who transfer there to the N/Q.

 

See the link above for the numbers you want. The N and Q combined out of Queens carry 19,767 people during the peak hour, on 15 trains. The D and N combined out of Brooklyn carry 19,260 people during the peak hour, on 20 trains. Since, if I'm not mistaken, the West End is somewhat more popular than the Sea Beach, that leaves the Astoria with more than twice the ridership of the Sea Beach but with only 50% more service - and you're suggesting that the Sea Beach should have more service at the expense of the Astoria? No.

 

 

Why would it be any more of a "nightmare" than to have those same exact trains share trackage along 60th Street? I agree that the N will probably resume running express once the W (or whatever it's called) comes back, but that's a function of what's most useful for the riders, not what the tracks or signals can handle.

Bold: I was not ignoring those riders in fact I was saying they are the main source of the crowding presented in the numbers you linked. The issue is that they are not the riders pushing to keep current service levels on the line. The riders know they can take a one-seater (excluding whatever bus they got on) to Times Square or the Lex but bail for the when it shows because it saves a few minutes going straight through 60th St. Their main concern is service on the which will be getting an increase pretty likely with CBTC on the way. We can't just tell riders to stay on their packed trains through LIC just so the doesn't get crowded so we give the residents of Astoria itself a little more service then just they themselves would demand (also Ditmars is a much better terminal than QBP). I never suggested cutting service in half for these folks but it were cut by a couple of trains we can sure accommodate the Astoria ridership while lessening the number of riders making the xfer at Queensboro thus having not made the average train more crowded. Less riders will xfer if they're not seeing trains come alongside at QBP. No sense in waiting when you already have a one-seater to get where you need to go.

[RollOver]

Since Sea Beach doesn't need extra service, could Brighton use any extra trains for the rush? If it works it's not a bad idea.

 

Do you see how lightly loaded all lines are after many outer borough residents get off for work in the city during the morning rush or no?

The and roughly have the same exact headways and ridership. I'm surprised a few don't even know that.

 

I'm pretty sure that subway ridership is busier during the morning rush than all other times of the day because people have to get to work and school at about the same time. Subway ridership during the evening rush is probably the second busiest and off-peak ridership is probably the third busiest. But that's not the primary point I'm making.

 

Can the tracks handle that kind of load well, though? As it is the is already delay prone on the Broadway local. Three services on two tracks during the peak sounds like a great way to introduce even more unreliability on the Broadway Line services.

 

I've read your previous response a few more times and I've came to the conclusion that you thought I was suggesting that all , and trains should run on the same track between the 60th Street Tube and Canal Street. Of course if the returns, the goes back to express in Manhattan (and continues to use the Manhattan Bridge & run express on the Fourth Avenue Line in Brooklyn). If I mistaken your previous response, then my fault.

 

My response to the other poster is whatever terms that someone uses for the , and doesn't even matter. And I don't consider the Manhattan Bridge south tracks and the Montague Street Tunnel as "separate" lines, but more like express and local tracks on the BMT Broadway/Fourth Avenue Line, because obviously, the does indeed consider all the stations between Canal and Atlantic as local-only stops anyway. That's pretty much the only reason why I consider the as a short-turn .

[LTA1992]

But they ARE separate lines. Lines, by definition relating to this subway, are physical structures that routes travel over. So the Broadway Line continues south as the express tracks curve east onto the Bridge Line. They would be taking two completely separate, two track, routes and thus there is no way the can just be a simple "short turn" of the because the two go to two completely different locations. The MTA doesn't have to list it as express (even if it technically is) because the two lines take wildly different paths. Unlike the Queens Boulevard where the design takes the express tracks on a different path, but it was specifically to cut down travel time. In the case for the Bridge Line, original plans called for the line to continue west to the river. This is why they are two separate lines. Both lines then converge onto the Fourth Avenue Line. In the case of DeKalb Avenue it's listed as a local because that's exactly what it is. A station where not all routes stop at all times and express tracks bypass it. Every route that stops there are currently on the Local portion of their journey. The Brighton Express has no choice but to stop there as it runs local through downtown. Late Night Locals also stop there. There is absolutely no reason to label that station as an express.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And yes terms do matter because each term has a defined definition and thus you cannot just slap them onto anything.

 

EDIT: My glob, semantics. So much semantics. I've lost interest.

[R3216068E]

Unless I'm mistaken, I'm pretty sure that the N is bottlenecked by Dekalb Interlocking.

Hence why I doubt the will come back. Don't think Coney Island has enough R160s for the entire . The MTA suffered a major car shortage when the R44s retired. It was pretty much a (W)orthless train anyway. All it accomplished was congestion at Whitehall and 34th Streets. Broadway does not need four services. Just run more trains and it can handle Astoria alone. In fact, all lettered trains except the need more service!

The doesn't have enough trains to handle Astoria alone hence why the was created and also why the was extended to Astoria Ditmars in the first place The is experiencing car shortage since the R44s retired Im just wondering what they are going to do about the situation are they going to put R179s on the , remember the was the worst subway line 10 years ago because it needed a service increase

[Eric B]

 In the case for the Bridge Line, original plans called for the line to continue west to the river. This is why they are two separate lines. Both lines then converge onto the Fourth Avenue Line. In the case of DeKalb Avenue it's listed as a local because that's exactly what it is. A station where not all routes stop at all times and express tracks bypass it. Every route that stops there are currently on the Local portion of their journey. The Brighton Express has no choice but to stop there as it runs local through downtown. Late Night Locals also stop there. There is absolutely no reason to label that station as an express.

It's basically the reverse of 49th St.; a local stop that one of the expresses crosses over to stop at; only they built a separate track where the wall was for the crossing over service, and afterward, it can either merge with the local, or go on its own route. 

IIRC, I think DeKalb originally had the wall (just like Myrtle and the rest of the 4th ave. local stations), and the outside track was added when the Ashland Pl. proposal, and final connection to the Brighton was constructed.

[RollOver]

The doesn't have enough trains to handle Astoria alone hence why the was created and also why the was extended to Astoria Ditmars in the first place The is experiencing car shortage since the R44s retired Im just wondering what they are going to do about the situation are they going to put R179s on the , remember the was the worst subway line 10 years ago because it needed a service increase

 

It's not because there aren't enough trains for more service. It's common knowledge that Midtown Manhattan, Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn are the city's CBDs where many outer borough residents work at. Of course every Monday through Friday morning, everybody has to get to work and school at about the same time.

 

Neither Brooklyn branches of the and need more service in the reverse peak direction. If all southbound trains end up empty after Canal Street in the morning rush, should they send all those "frequent" trains down to the other end of either line? No. If all northbound trains are empty until Canal Street in the evening rush, should they send all those "frequent" trains all the way up from Brooklyn? No. That's why you send some of those trains to Whitehall and designated them as 's instead of 's.

 

And what service increase? The and both run 9-10 trains per hour out of Brooklyn in the morning rush and back to Brooklyn in the evening rush. The opposite direction on both lines is less frequent, however, because the combined headways for the Astoria Line is frequent enough. If people are off from work and school, then obviously subway ridership is lower, especially at night. I doubt they're going to increase off-peak service on any non-isolated lines primarily because of track/signal work, flagging, and most importantly, complexity and ridership.

[R3216068E]

 

It's not because there aren't enough trains for more service. It's common knowledge that Midtown Manhattan, Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn are the city's CBDs where many outer borough residents work at. Of course every Monday through Friday morning, everybody has to get to work and school at about the same time.

 

Neither Brooklyn branches of the and need more service in the reverse peak direction. If all southbound trains end up empty after Canal Street in the morning rush, should they send all those "frequent" trains down to the other end of either line? No. If all northbound trains are empty until Canal Street in the evening rush, should they send all those "frequent" trains all the way up from Brooklyn? No. That's why you send some of those trains to Whitehall and designated them as 's instead of 's.

 

And what service increase? The and both run 9-10 trains per hour out of Brooklyn in the morning rush and back to Brooklyn in the evening rush. The opposite direction on both lines is less frequent, however, because the combined headways for the Astoria Line is frequent enough. If people are off from work and school, then obviously subway ridership is lower, especially at night. I doubt they're going to increase off-peak service on any non-isolated lines primarily because of track/signal work, flagging, and most importantly, complexity and ridership.[/quote,]

 

I'm talking about 10 years ago when the was the worst subway line that's what I meant about the service increase and I agree with you during rush hour one direction is more frequent than the other but when you take the out of the equation will service be just as frequent as before? That's what makes me wonder if the will return

[P3F]

Maybe every other could use the Brighton line? It would bring its riders lower Manhattan service while not overserving it. The trains that don't continue just end at Whitehall Street.

[RollOver]

What do you mean by "every other" ? It ran 10 trainsets in its entire fleet between 2004 and 2010. Whenever it started service, it began from 86th Street on the Sea Beach Line. Whenever it ended service, it continued straight down and ended at Kings Highway on the Sea Beach Line.

[traingoat]

Look over the years the Astoria line and the Broadway line of the BMT has been degraded from what it once was to further expand the IND division.  Being of some years and having a long memory  I can remember the original names of the routes  and when the BMT used numbers for the lines.  Astoria was serviced by the Brighton line and the 4th Avenue line. The Brighton Beach express went to Astoria not to the Bronx as was express in Manhattan with the Sea Beach Express and the West End Express.terminated at 57th Street  Now the Sea Beach goes to Astoria and is local in Manhattan The West End now goes to the Bronx not setting a wheel on BMT tracks til Brooklyn. Look the trains are going where the money is and Astoria doesn't have the cash.  The big station is Queens Plaza where 7 Flushing line interchange with the BMT line and people do move.  The MTA isn't worrying about the donkeys in Astoria as the State heavyweights could care less about them. Bringing back the W is a stopgap measure at best. What is happening is you are taking an express-local setup and making it totally local.  I expect you will have a SAS extension coming out of Queens on the 63rd tunnel to tie in IND lines in Queens because that is the MTA maximum use thinking.

[Sparen of Iria]

It would be wonderful if SAS came out of 63 St.

 

Now how much money are you going to spend finding a place for it to terminate. You're not possibly thinking about running it as a QBL Local, are you?

 

And that's besides the point here...