NYC pols urge MTA to audit 'completely unpredictable' R train after riders’ complaints...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

I have no problem with the over the Bridge. I have a problem with it going over the Bridge and switching to the local tracks at Prince (delays Q R ).

 

His proposal had the Q local and the N R express. Now the N is straight railed but the problem is exacerbated because the and both cross from one to the other (a recipe for disaster).So I think he should swap two services. if he wants the R express on Broadway, it should come over the Bridge. If he wants the N local, it should come from Montague.

 

Remember, the reason the IRT lines work more efficiently and come more frequently is because, under normal operation the locals never share tracks with the express .

You've got the express via Bridge in Manhattan and the local via Tunnel. Which is a good proposal. It might help the R's runtime somewhat. But what do you do once trains on both lines get to Brooklyn? Do you continue the express and the local on 4th Ave? Or do the N and R flip roles after DeKalb and run as they do now between Pacific-Atlantic and 59th? A Bridge would have to stop at DeKalb in order to run on the 4th Ave local tracks. And the would have to run on the same tracks with the between DeKalb and Pacific. I presume the R would stay the same above 57th and 7th, which means a merge with the and at either 34th or 57th. It would be interesting to see how well the R would run as a Broadway Express.

You run into the same problem the had. No direct access to a yard.

 

Now, if Cuomo ever gets some sense into his head and replaces his Airtrain boondoggle and extends this to LaGuardia, we could include a new yard on ConEd land in Ravenswood, fixing the problem.

 

Then this looks like a good idea.

Totally agree with you there. Cuomo's AirTrain to LaGuardia is a boondoggle and the going to LGA via 19th Ave makes far more sense. NIMBYs and out-of-touch politicians be damned! Having a storage yard along the route would be a godsend for both the N and W.

[NewFlyer 230]

I don't even understand why they still send the down Queens Blvd on the weekends when they're doing track work and the and are going local.

 

I'd say Turn the at Queens Plaza, the does not run that frequently to cause a disturbance. The and run frequently enough combined to handle the loads, and also one less train line to exasperate the delays.

 

There are no or trains that would be disturbed with the terminating at Queens Plaza. After an passes, the can go into the layup track and pull out on the Express track. After an clears the station southbound, the can leave and cross over to the 60th street tunnel.

 

Also the and will not be delayed due to terminating trains at 71st Ave, they will be through routed and undisturbed.

 

Win Win for all

 

As for different service patterns in general, How about these service patterns to keep the Queens Blvd separate from Brooklyn?

Whitehall to Forest Hills

Astoria Ditmars to 95th Street?

The R terminating at Queens Plaza may not be a bad thing but if you have ever rode a and during the weekend GO's where they run local they are packed. The best thing the MTA did sometimes was terminate trains at Jamaica 179th and those trains were also packed.

I was suggesting the R and W switching terminals but I realized this would bring up the same issue the and had back in the 80's when they switched northern terminals. The W would not have direct yard access so to get to Coney Island it would have to reverse at some point and that will cause delays.

You can run those <R> shuttles from chambers but you would have to cut the back to Chambers so these special <R> trains can pass.

The R is just one big mess there is nothing you can do to help it unless you had more tracks.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

NO NO NO! Running the local and up 2nd Avenue is even worse than the current running over the Bridge and local. Now both 34th and Prince merges will be a mess.

 

Swap the express with the local with the on the Bridge and the via Montague and this is a much better proposal.

Wouldn't the 2nd ave line allow the to stay on the broadway express without merging back as the express after 7th ave separates and goes to the 63rd street line where there is an extension to the 2nd ave line. That would eliminate the 34th street merge completely.

[Around the Horn]

Wouldn't the 2nd ave line allow the to stay on the broadway express without merging back as the express after 7th ave separates and goes to the 63rd street line where there is an extension to the 2nd ave line. That would eliminate the 34th street merge completely.

He wanted to run the local. This requires it to switch to the local track at Prince and switch back to the express at 34th.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The ran to 95 St after 9/11 (no trains), and reliability plummeted in the line. Too long of a line.

It did? I've seen people post that either that 4th Ave local service was better when the ran there or when the turned at Court St. The current has to be comparable in length to what a extended to Bay Ridge would be. I doubt the R is significantly shorter.

The R terminating at Queens Plaza may not be a bad thing but if you have ever rode a and during the weekend GO's where they run local they are packed. The best thing the MTA did sometimes was terminate trains at Jamaica 179th and those trains were also packed.

I was suggesting the R and W switching terminals but I realized this would bring up the same issue the and had back in the 80's when they switched northern terminals. The W would not have direct yard access so to get to Coney Island it would have to reverse at some point and that will cause delays.

You can run those <R> shuttles from chambers but you would have to cut the back to Chambers so these special <R> trains can pass.

The R is just one big mess there is nothing you can do to help it unless you had more tracks.

Probably so, although when the ran there, they usually held it while a or fumigated and proceeded into the relay tracks. I think they might be better off extending the J.

 

The point is, the in its current service pattern isn't working. It needs to be evaluated and something needs to be done. If I'm "stating the obvious" here, well... good! It should be obvious that the R needs to be made more reliable.

[Fresh Pond]

The is too long for its own good. All local stops, on top of the line sharing tracks with other lines will make any line problematic and delay-prone

[N6 Limited]

The R terminating at Queens Plaza may not be a bad thing but if you have ever rode a and during the weekend GO's where they run local they are packed. The best thing the MTA did sometimes was terminate trains at Jamaica 179th and those trains were also packed.

I was suggesting the R and W switching terminals but I realized this would bring up the same issue the and had back in the 80's when they switched northern terminals. The W would not have direct yard access so to get to Coney Island it would have to reverse at some point and that will cause delays.

You can run those <R> shuttles from chambers but you would have to cut the back to Chambers so these special <R> trains can pass.

The R is just one big mess there is nothing you can do to help it unless you had more tracks.

I'd prefer packed and trains as opposed to extremely delayed train's because of trackwork compounded with slow speed orders and heavy delays because there are 3 lines on one track, on top of terminating and originating trains in the middle of it all.

[NewFlyer 230]

I'd prefer packed and trains as opposed to extremely delayed train's because of trackwork compounded with slow speed orders and heavy delays because there are 3 lines on one track, on top of terminating and originating trains in the middle of it all.

Yeah but what about Broadway riders. I know these lines only run about a block or two from one another but the and are already packed as it is plus you won't be serving Broadway stations. Almost all the time when signal malfunctions or G.O's occur the is always suspended or cut back while the is usually spared. Sometimes it's suspended but they try to keep it. If there was the space for a 3rd express it would most likely be the while you may have the and serving the local stations. Unfortunately our subway wasn't expanded enough to anticipate future growth in the outer boroughs and that is why we have several problems that can't be fixed.

[N6 Limited]

Yeah but what about Broadway riders. I know these lines only run about a block or two from one another but the and are already packed as it is plus you won't be serving Broadway stations. Almost all the time when signal malfunctions or G.O's occur the is always suspended or cut back while the is usually spared. Sometimes it's suspended but they try to keep it. If there was the space for a 3rd express it would most likely be the while you may have the and serving the local stations. Unfortunately our subway wasn't expanded enough to anticipate future growth in the outer boroughs and that is why we have several problems that can't be fixed.

That's why I suggested turning Trains at Queens Plaza, cross platform transfer.

[Wallyhorse]

Wouldn't it just be easier to extend the and to 95th and 4th, as opposed to making the a completely different and complex route that relays at Chambers or Broadway Junction (and extends to Metro late nights and weekends)? People have stated on here that it would be a "ridiculously long route," but I don't think it really would be any worse than the current is. An extended J to/from 95th is 46 stops vs. 45 stops for the current R. The J line also appears to have more of a straight shot into Lower Manhattan. The J only has the merge with the M at Myrtle and at Essex, unlike the multiple merges the R currently deals with. Skip-stop J/Z service would be retained and expanded so that the J and Z can run a combined 12 tph for each full rush hour period. Yes, the J runs shorter trains than the R, but they'd be running more frequently and wouldn't be susceptible to the delays the R experiences in Manhattan and on Queens Blvd.

The problem as noted in subsequent posts is it makes the lines too long.  

 

That's why I have the southbound and northbound in this BOTH terminate at Chambers, with the only track-sharing AT ALL coming from where the crosses to the "express" track(s) at Chambers to terminate while the crosses over from the northbound "local" to the southbound "local" track at Chambers.  The is only extended late nights and weekends to Metropolitan Avenue like I have it doing specifically to absorb the current weekend (to/from Chambers or Essex) and late-night (Myrtle-to-Essex) shuttles that would be replaced by the extended (that also replaces the late-night shuttle along 4th Avenue).  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Wait, so you want to cut the off at Chambers, just one stop short of Fulton St, a major transfer station. And require those riders to transfer to this just to get there? That sounds like more of an inconvenience than an improvement. And you're creating a merge at Chambers where there is currently none.

[Fresh Pond]

The problem as noted in subsequent posts is it makes the lines too long.

 

That's why I have the southbound and northbound in this BOTH terminate at Chambers, with the only track-sharing AT ALL coming from where the crosses to the "express" track(s) at Chambers to terminate while the crosses over from the northbound "local" to the southbound "local" track at Chambers. The is only extended late nights and weekends to Metropolitan Avenue like I have it doing specifically to absorb the current weekend (to/from Chambers or Essex) and late-night (Myrtle-to-Essex) shuttles that would be replaced by the extended (that also replaces the late-night shuttle along 4th Avenue).

You really have a hard-on for this plan...

[itmaybeokay]

Yeah but what about Broadway riders. I know these lines only run about a block or two from one another but the and are already packed as it is plus you won't be serving Broadway stations. Almost all the time when signal malfunctions or G.O's occur the is always suspended or cut back while the is usually spared. Sometimes it's suspended but they try to keep it. If there was the space for a 3rd express it would most likely be the while you may have the and serving the local stations. Unfortunately our subway wasn't expanded enough to anticipate future growth in the outer boroughs and that is why we have several problems that can't be fixed.

 

A bad idea. 

 

Problem is, rush hours, nobody's going to take the . Everyone on the local stops is going to wait for the . Allllll those local stops served by one 8-car train running every 10 minutes? And then a 4 car train that's convenient for maybe 25% of the passengers every 10 minutes or so? Trust me, recipe for a nightmare. 

 

I'm all in favor of the being extended, in addition to the current service level, because I think there is a fair bit of demand for it. It would reduce crowding on the M and R and it would make it way easier to get from queens to brooklyn. 

 

There's plenty of room on the local tracks, but there's not nearly enough room at the forest hills terminal. To make this plan work, you'd need a new terminal on a stub somewhere off the line. (the stub already built comes to mind....)

[Wallyhorse]

Wait, so you want to cut the off at Chambers, just one stop short of Fulton St, a major transfer station. And require those riders to transfer to this just to get there? That sounds like more of an inconvenience than an improvement. And you're creating a merge at Chambers where there is currently none.

The idea is the would be right across for an arriving train during the week in all instances and not leave until AFTER that has pulled into Chambers.  This would be coordinated so the is not interfering with a pulling into Chambers.  

 

Late nights and weekends, since the would be terminating at Metropolitan in this scenario, you could have the also go to Broad as it does now since fewer trains are operated then and it would make sense to do that as well.

 

The main purpose is to take care of the the situation on 4th Avenue, which is what this supplemental would do.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It will put a limit on how many trains can operate on both the separate and lines, and that limit on each line will very likely be less than the current 12 tph operated on the J and Z during the height of rush hour. All that relaying and waiting for one train to clear out so the other can pull in isn't going to work and isn't going to take care of the situation on 4th Ave. If anything, it will likely make it worse, because you have the as a "supplemental" service, so one would presume that the stays as is in your scenario (except for the elimination of the overnight R shuttle). And what about the existing J/Z skip-stop service?

[Wallyhorse]

It will put a limit on how many trains can operate on both the separate and lines, and that limit on each line will very likely be less than the current 12 tph operated on the J and Z during the height of rush hour. All that relaying and waiting for one train to clear out so the other can pull in isn't going to work and isn't going to take care of the situation on 4th Ave. If anything, it will likely make it worse, because you have the as a "supplemental" service, so one would presume that the stays as is in your scenario (except for the elimination of the overnight R shuttle). And what about the existing J/Z skip-stop service?

I never envisioned this as being more than 8-12 TPH anyway, even in rush hours.  It's main purpose would be to supplement the  along 4th Avenue and provide those along 4th Avenue with additional transfer points to other lines.

 

What you could do if it got to that point would be to send 2-4 trains per hour at peak times (height of rush hour) to Broad as is the case with all such now.  Any such would be specifically scheduled NOT to meet a at Chambers (usually these would come in between trains at that times and likewise would be immediately following a train northbound at Broad).

[NewFlyer 230]

I never envisioned this as being more than 8-12 TPH anyway, even in rush hours. It's main purpose would be to supplement the along 4th Avenue and provide those along 4th Avenue with additional transfer points to other lines.

 

What you could do if it got to that point would be to send 2-4 trains per hour at peak times (height of rush hour) to Broad as is the case with all such now. Any such would be specifically scheduled NOT to meet a at Chambers (usually these would come in between trains at that times and likewise would be immediately following a train northbound at Broad).

You are just stuck on this to Bay Ridge thing. I would favor a Chambers to Bay Ridge line before I would consider this that is suppose to replace the and at night or a the that runs from Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge.

We have to focus on improving service itself and it is too long and prone to delay switches.

[checkmatechamp13]

@Checkmatechamp13

 

When the runs to 96th it will go full time which will eliminate layups at 49-57th st. Once this is done the N/Q will remain express and not infring on the by stopping at 49th.

 

It is my understanding that the N/Q get priority there, which doesn't quite add up to me. If anything the should be given priority to so it can make an on time merge with the (which is holding up the .

 

The N still needs to merge with the R at 57th Street, so while it would eliminate the Prince Street merge (which would help greatly), it would only shift the 34th Street merge to 57th Street (which may help a little, since it gives the N one extra stop to get ahead of the R). 

 

I never understood why they were so insistent on making sure Astoria maintained its direct ride to the Broadway local stations. At the very least, they should've either had both of them run local or both of them run express.

 

I don't even understand why they still send the down Queens Blvd on the weekends when they're doing track work and the and are going local.

 

I'd say Turn the at Queens Plaza, the does not run that frequently to cause a disturbance. The and run frequently enough combined to handle the loads, and also one less train line to exasperate the delays.

 

There are no or trains that would be disturbed with the terminating at Queens Plaza. After an passes, the can go into the layup track and pull out on the Express track. After an clears the station southbound, the can leave and cross over to the 60th street tunnel.

 

Also the and will not be delayed due to terminating trains at 71st Ave, they will be through routed and undisturbed.

 

Win Win for all

 

As for different service patterns in general, How about these service patterns to keep the Queens Blvd separate from Brooklyn?

Whitehall to Forest Hills

Astoria Ditmars to 95th Street?

 

Agreed with the first proposal.

 

For the second proposal, as others said, there's the issue of the lack of a yard for (what you're proposing to be) the .

 

There's plenty of room on the local tracks, but there's not nearly enough room at the forest hills terminal. To make this plan work, you'd need a new terminal on a stub somewhere off the line. (the stub already built comes to mind....)

 

Which is where the reactivation of the Rockaway Beach ROW would come into play (I know, I know, pipe dream).

[Wallyhorse]

You are just stuck on this to Bay Ridge thing. I would favor a Chambers to Bay Ridge line before I would consider this that is suppose to replace the and at night or a the that runs from Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge.

We have to focus on improving service itself and it is too long and prone to delay switches.

How I would do it is just the lesser evil as there really are no great options, just the one that is likely the least disruptive short of sending such a to Broadway Junction on weekdays.  The late-night/weekend extension of this to absorb the is simply for now that the terminates at Chambers on weekends while late nights it would eliminate for Broadway-Brooklyn riders having to switch to the at Myrtle.  

 

Is it the perfect setup?  No, but short of reconnecting the Nassau Street line to the Brooklyn-bound track of the Manhattan Bridge that is for now the best option with what we have.  

 

A revival of the Nassau Loop is something I have suggested before and perhaps one that begins and ends at 95th-Bay Ridge going to Manhattan via the tunnel and returning to Brooklyn via the Bridge (stopping at Jay-Metrotech, Court Street, Broad Street, Fulton Street and Chambers Street on the northbound side ONLY) while running local on 4th Avenue could be an option for a new as well IF they were to reconnect the Nassau line with the Manny B even if ONLY on the Brooklyn-bound track.  . 

[Trainmaster5]

You are just stuck on this to Bay Ridge thing. I would favor a Chambers to Bay Ridge line before I would consider this that is suppose to replace the and at night or a the that runs from Jamaica Center to Bay Ridge.

We have to focus on improving service itself and it is too long and prone to delay switches.

Your Chambers St to Bay Ridge line is the only idea that even remotely makes sense, IMO. I'm not up to date on the track and switch setup at Chambers St in the Nassau Loop so maybe someone can bring me up to speed. The reason I ignore most of the other proposals for Fourth Avenue local/ Bay Ridge increases is because they involve the or line. Back in 1967 when the service changes came into being there was a service called the RJ which ran from Bay Ridge to 168th St on the Jamaica Line. It ran rush hour service in conjunction with the QJ Brighton-Jamaica service. The RJ was dumped, along with my beloved NX, because no one on the Bay Ridge end wanted Nassau loop service to Manhattan. Those riders ditched the RJ and RR service for Broadway service as soon as those trains hit the 59th St express connection. Even before the 1967 changes the TT West End service had low ridership between Chambers St and that end of Brooklyn. I've noticed that many posters have proposed some variation of the or to run via the loop out to Bay Ridge. This appears, at least to me, as a knee-jerk let's screw up another lines reliability to appease those complaining riders on the south end of the line. I suggest those posters look at the ridership and demographics of the northern end of the line. Those first two stops alone should tell you whom the will cater to before any changes are made to the route. I seriously doubt the   would do anything to negatively impact those that enter the system at Parsons-Archer, Sutphin Blvd-LIRR, or the Woodhaven neighborhood itself for the four stations below 59th St and Fourth Avenue. It's my guess that the would re-introduce full express service between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue if there are to be any changes to the or line. The longer the line the more prone it is to delays in Operations and Planning land. There's also the matter of the bottleneck at DeKalb Avenue to consider. I'd like to hear from regular riders who use those stations on the southern end of the line. Is there an obvious increase in ridership down there that exceed the loading guidelines or do these stations become crowded because of the delays elsewhere on the line. I'm only asking because I remember when the line ran to Astoria and I don't recall this many complaints from my friends and co-workers back then. The line didn't even have dedicated yard access back then. If what you posters are saying is that big of a problem then the must do something. I just think that anything concerning the or is unlikely and a waste of resources. Just my opinion. Carry on.

[Wallyhorse]

That's why for now Chambers-to-Bay Ridge is probably the best of a bunch of bad options:

Mine (new full-time train) is as noted a SUPPLEMENT to the that would likely be at peak times 6-8 TPH.  It would be set up so all trains on weekdays would meet trains directly across the platform at Chambers, with during peak hours having that are not scheduled to meet a at Chambers continuing to Broad and turning around there (the otherwise would also terminate at Chambers).  

The 24/7 benefits of my version of the are they eliminate the need for the shuttle overnights while overnights and weekends by being extended to Metropolitan also eliminates the need for the shuttles during those hours.  

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Your Chambers St to Bay Ridge line is the only idea that even remotely makes sense, IMO. I'm not up to date on the track and switch setup at Chambers St in the Nassau Loop so maybe someone can bring me up to speed. The reason I ignore most of the other proposals for Fourth Avenue local/ Bay Ridge increases is because they involve the or line. Back in 1967 when the service changes came into being there was a service called the RJ which ran from Bay Ridge to 168th St on the Jamaica Line. It ran rush hour service in conjunction with the QJ Brighton-Jamaica service. The RJ was dumped, along with my beloved NX, because no one on the Bay Ridge end wanted Nassau loop service to Manhattan. Those riders ditched the RJ and RR service for Broadway service as soon as those trains hit the 59th St express connection. Even before the 1967 changes the TT West End service had low ridership between Chambers St and that end of Brooklyn. I've noticed that many posters have proposed some variation of the or to run via the loop out to Bay Ridge. This appears, at least to me, as a knee-jerk let's screw up another lines reliability to appease those complaining riders on the south end of the line. I suggest those posters look at the ridership and demographics of the northern end of the line. Those first two stops alone should tell you whom the will cater to before any changes are made to the route. I seriously doubt the   would do anything to negatively impact those that enter the system at Parsons-Archer, Sutphin Blvd-LIRR, or the Woodhaven neighborhood itself for the four stations below 59th St and Fourth Avenue. It's my guess that the would re-introduce full express service between Broadway Junction and Marcy Avenue if there are to be any changes to the or line. The longer the line the more prone it is to delays in Operations and Planning land. There's also the matter of the bottleneck at DeKalb Avenue to consider. I'd like to hear from regular riders who use those stations on the southern end of the line. Is there an obvious increase in ridership down there that exceed the loading guidelines or do these stations become crowded because of the delays elsewhere on the line. I'm only asking because I remember when the line ran to Astoria and I don't recall this many complaints from my friends and co-workers back then. The line didn't even have dedicated yard access back then. If what you posters are saying is that big of a problem then the must do something. I just think that anything concerning the or is unlikely and a waste of resources. Just my opinion. Carry on.

How can the broadway line handle express between broadway jct and myrtle? 

[Lordsaitamaboss]

The problem as noted in subsequent posts is it makes the lines too long.  

 

That's why I have the southbound and northbound in this BOTH terminate at Chambers, with the only track-sharing AT ALL coming from where the crosses to the "express" track(s) at Chambers to terminate while the crosses over from the northbound "local" to the southbound "local" track at Chambers.  The is only extended late nights and weekends to Metropolitan Avenue like I have it doing specifically to absorb the current weekend (to/from Chambers or Essex) and late-night (Myrtle-to-Essex) shuttles that would be replaced by the extended (that also replaces the late-night shuttle along 4th Avenue).  

Nonsense the may be long BUT it would be reliable and that is all that matters. only shares with the and that is for a very short segment. A chambers to bay ridge LOL maybe with G.O.s but otherwise nope. Yeah long as in 1 station longer than the minus the crap. Still comparable to many other lines your argument falls very flat.

 

It will put a limit on how many trains can operate on both the separate and lines, and that limit on each line will very likely be less than the current 12 tph operated on the J and Z during the height of rush hour. All that relaying and waiting for one train to clear out so the other can pull in isn't going to work and isn't going to take care of the situation on 4th Ave. If anything, it will likely make it worse, because you have the as a "supplemental" service, so one would presume that the stays as is in your scenario (except for the elimination of the overnight R shuttle). And what about the existing J/Z skip-stop service?

J/Z is something that should never be tampered with.

[N6 Limited]

J/Z is something that should never be tampered with.

People said the same thing about the

[Wallyhorse]

Nonsense the may be long BUT it would be reliable and that is all that matters. only shares with the and that is for a very short segment. A chambers to bay ridge LOL maybe with G.O.s but otherwise nope. Yeah long as in 1 station longer than the minus the crap. Still comparable to many other lines your argument falls very flat.

 

J/Z is something that should never be tampered with.

As said before, my idea is simply a lesser evil.  

 

Having the and both terminate (on weekdays) at Chambers with it set up where  trains during those hours always meet a train to continue to lower Manhattan and Bay Ridge (excluding a handful of trains during rush hour that would continue to Broad where they would NOT meet a at Chambers because of more than trains running) to me is the best way to supplement the enough so people (and the pols) in Brooklyn stop complaining.  Extending the late nights and weekends to Metropolitan allows for the late-night and weekend shuttles to be eliminated in addition to the shuttle since this also absorbs that.

 

As for skip-stop on the , during peak hours you could have such marked where the during those times stops where they do now and a <J> stops where the does now.