Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

T to Dyre Avenue · November 23, 2016

I’ve watched the return to Broadway the last few weeks, and while it’s nice to see it back, I’m not a big fan of it’s service pattern, and it’s weird how the ’s service pattern has changes drastically, and considering the is just an extension of the internally, I think this should be the new service pattern once the Sea Beach re-construction is done.

There would be two N services. The and the express.

The would run at all times, from Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island, running local on the Astoria Line, Broadway Line, via Bridge, 4th Avenue Express, and Sea Beach Local.

The Express would run at Rush Hours and Middays from Ditmars Blvd (and current short turns to 57/7 would be from the ) to Coney Island, running local on the Astoria Line, and express on the Broadway, 4th Ave, and Sea Beach in peak-direction (stopping at stops that currently have temporary platforms.

------

I prefer this service over the current service for a few reasons:

1) service is beyond capacity, this could provide more evening and midday Astoria service, with the choice of either a local or an express in Manhattan.

2) With the growing population in Bensonhurst and Borough Park, providing a Super Express could be popular

3) Broadway Local stops receive bridge service once again.

4) Gives Astoria two downtown Brooklyn Options again. Neither the nearby , or provide service to Downtown Brooklyn, this would alleviate transfers to the at 59th and 5th.

5) Provides the extra service to Atlantic/Barclays, 36th, 59th, and popular Sea Beach stops, but doesn’t make the extra stops that reduces headways.

-------

What are your thoughts?

It would require the (N)

switching from express to local at Prince during weekdays again. We just got rid of that, service is running much better on the Broadway Line and now you want to bring that choke point back? No thank you.

And the (R) does serve downtown Brooklyn. What other service is needed? Though the (R) basically skirts Astoria, unlike the (N) and (W) , both of which directly serve Astoria.

Take a look at the MTA's station ridership stats. Population may be growing in Bensonhurst and Borough Park, but that doesn't seem to be spilling over to its subway stations, whose platforms aren't exactly overflowing with riders. And the Sea Beach Line doesn't even serve Borough Park, so a Sea Beach super express train would be useless for riders coming from Borough Park.

Edited November 23, 2016 by T to Dyre Avenue

T to Dyre Avenue · November 23, 2016

i would switch back & around in brooklyn

extend the back to brooykln

<10> bring into Manhattan and terminated at Bowling Green

What would be the purpose of switching the (B)

and

back to their pre-2001 routes in Brooklyn? Especially given that the (B)

runs only on weekdays, and that both the Brighton and West End locals need a full-time service.

The only way I could ever see a point in returning the (D) to the Brighton Local is if the (B) remains as the Brighton Express and the (Q) gets rerouted to the West End Line. This would be to minimize switching delays at Gold St Interlocking and possibly run trains more frequently on the (B) , (D) , (N) and (Q) . But then you would have swarms of people transferring at Atlantic or DeKalb (especially Atlantic), completely overwhelming those stations. That would not be acceptable. But there's really no reason to go back the pre-2001 (B) and (D) .

As for the (5) , what do you mean by "extending it back to Brooklyn?" Doesn't it already serve Brooklyn?

Edited November 23, 2016 by T to Dyre Avenue

Caelestor · November 23, 2016

Why not just run the as a Manhattan express 7 days a week?

The N is express on weekdays to add capacity and to reduce merge points from 2 to 1. On the weekends, the MTA understandably doesn't want to run 4 services on one line. With only 4 additional stops between Times Sq and Canal St, the Broadway express doesn't save that much time compared to the local anyways. Having 5 minute headways at the local stops instead of 10 on the weekends is a good tradeoff.

What would be the purpose of switching the and back to their pre-2001 routes in Brooklyn? Especially given that the runs only on weekdays, and that both the Brighton and West End locals need a full-time service.

The only way I could ever see a point in returning the to the Brighton Local is if the remains as the Brighton Express and the gets rerouted to the West End Line. This would be to minimize switching delays at Gold St Interlocking and possibly run trains more frequently on the , , and . But then you would have swarms of people transferring at Atlantic or DeKalb (especially Atlantic), completely overwhelming those stations. That would not be acceptable. But there's really no reason to go back the pre-2001 and .

As for the , what do you mean by "extending it back to Brooklyn?" Doesn't it already serve Brooklyn?

I agree that no changes are needed. The (B) (D) were swapped because Brighton riders wanted full-time access to Broadway and West End riders were okay with full-time Chinatown access via Grand St. The (B) merged the two weekday CPW local and Brighton express services together to optimize service.

Running the (B) (D) down Brighton and the (N) (Q) down 4 Ave to increase capacity would actually be an interesting proposal if Brooklyn crowding was on the level of the IRT lines. If Dekalb Ave was hypothetically an express station with an appropriate cross-platform transfer, I think it could work.

The (5) used to short-turn at Bowling Green middays, but service was extended in 2008. I don't think Brooklyn service is needed on the weekends anymore since the (2) now has 50 percent more service. The (5) often also gets messed up by the weekend service changes anyways.

Porter · November 23, 2016

What are your thoughts?

If your vision of reestablishing the <N> obsolesces the (W) , then it would rob Astoria of a direct connection to an increasingly popular FiDi, which would be unacceptable. Otherwise, sure.

Armandito · November 23, 2016

If your vision of reestablishing the obsolesces the , then it would rob Astoria of a direct connection to an increasingly popular FiDi, which would be unacceptable. Otherwise, sure.

Facts. There's really no need for an <N>

express on Sea Beach.

T to Dyre Avenue · November 23, 2016

SAS should have 3 services, each running on 4 minute headways:

running the full length of the line

north of 63 St

south of 63 St

I am personally interested in a SAS Phase 3.5 that gets the running between Woodside and Houston St - 2 Av ASAP, which should solve the overcrowding on the . The will get its relief iff the reaches 179 St, allowing current riders to not transfer at Kew Gardens for Midtown East.

Terminating trains at Forest Hills, which is a bad terminal since the local tracks are split apart and no crossover exists, is not an option imo.

I fully agree that there should be three 2nd Ave services, not just the (Q) and (T) that the (MTA) has as part of the long-term plans for the line. By having just the (Q) and (T) , the SAS will be a "reverse-branched" line that will offer far more service on the Uptown section (Phases 1 and 2), than it will on the Midtown and Downtown sections (Phases 3 and 4). There should not be less-frequent service below 63rd St than above 63rd. Having only the (T) south of 63rd will be a big disincentive to East Side riders to use the SAS versus the overcrowded Lex, because Lex will still have much more frequently-running service. The would go a long way towards fixing that service deficit. The might also mitigate the need to build costly long passageways connecting the SAS to the N/R/W, E/M and 7 lines, because the will connect directly in Queens to all of those lines save the (N) and (W) . The transfers below Houston St proposed in Phase 4 will be a different story (if we ever get that far).

Just out of curiosity, how is it that we've all come to a (heretofore unspoken) consensus that the third service on the Second Avenue Line should be dubbed the and not another retired letter like H/K or unused letter like P/U/Y? I haven't heard one argument to the contrary, nor do I feel that any other letter would be appropriate (although U or Y could have a reasonable argument)?

Neither have I. I personally don't have a problem with reusing

for the third SAS service, but I also don't see any problem with using another letter other than I or O because of the similarities between them and 1 and 0. Likewise, I don't think U should be used because of you...no, not you personally, but now you can see why U may not be such a good choice for a subway line name. Same goes for Y because of "why". But I really don't see a problem with reusing K or P. I prefer P because it's also close to T (although V is closer and would be a nod to its heritage as a former Queens Blvd service), because I feel that if you keep the route letters as close together as possible, you won't have to skip all over the alphabet when you make the station signs or display the route bullets on the map. I guess it's mostly for aesthetics. I'd have no problem with using H or X either, but (H)

is currently still in use internally as the Rockaway Park Shuttle. And if I'm not mistaken, I think X is used internally for non-revenue runs. Although someone on here posted a link to a fantasy map that showed the SAS built as far as Houston St with H and T as the two services south of the 63rd St Tunnel and the H running via 63rd St, the Queens Blvd Local and the Rockaway Beach Branch to/from Rockaway Park, eliminating the Shuttle. Edited November 23, 2016 by T to Dyre Avenue

Armandito · November 24, 2016

I fully agree that there should be three 2nd Ave services, not just the and that the has as part of the long-term plans for the line. By having just the and , the SAS will be a "reverse-branched" line that will offer far more service on the Uptown section (Phases 1 and 2), than it will on the Midtown and Downtown sections (Phases 3 and 4). There should not be less-frequent service below 63rd St than above 63rd. Having only the south of 63rd will be a big disincentive to East Side riders to use the SAS versus the overcrowded Lex, because Lex will still have much more frequently-running service. The would go a long way towards fixing that service deficit. The might also mitigate the need to build costly long passageways connecting the SAS to the N/R/W, E/M and 7 lines, because the will connect directly in Queens to all of those lines save the and . The transfers below Houston St proposed in Phase 4 will be a different story (if we ever get that far).

Neither have I. I personally don't have a problem with reusing for the third SAS service, but I also don't see any problem with using another letter other than I or O because of the similarities between them and 1 and 0. Likewise, I don't think U should be used because of you...no, not you personally, but now you can see why U may not be such a good choice for a subway line name. Same goes for Y because of "why". But I really don't see a problem with reusing K or P. I prefer P because it's also close to T (although V is closer and would be a nod to its heritage as a former Queens Blvd service), because I feel that if you keep the route letters as close together as possible, you won't have to skip all over the alphabet when you make the station signs or display the route bullets on the map. I guess it's mostly for aesthetics. I'd have no problem with using H or X either, but is currently still in use internally as the Rockaway Park Shuttle. And if I'm not mistaken, I think X is used internally for non-revenue runs. Although someone on here posted a link to a fantasy map that showed the SAS built as far as Houston St with H and T as the two services south of the 63rd St Tunnel and the H running via 63rd St, the Queens Blvd Local and the Rockaway Beach Branch to/from Rockaway Park, eliminating the Shuttle.

For your information, I was the pioneer in the forum who (first) envisioned a Second Avenue (V)

service to Queens as a super-express route between Jamaica and Hanover Square. I purposely chose (V)

as the designation primarily because it is the closest letter to (T)

in the English alphabet, and just like all original IND services go from (A)

to

in alphabetical order, (T)

and

are a perfect match (since you can't use the letter U due to its confusion with the word <<you>>). Edited November 24, 2016 by Q44SBS

Caelestor · November 24, 2016

For your information, I was the pioneer in the forum who (first) envisioned a Second Avenue service to Queens as a super-express route between Jamaica and Hanover Square. I purposely chose as the designation primarily because it is the closest letter to in the English alphabet, and just like all original IND services go from to in alphabetical order, and are a perfect match (since you can't use the letter U due to its confusion with the word <<you>>).

Lots of people have proposed the via 2 Ave and 63 St in this forum. People differ on the eastern end though. I personally wish for the (F) to be the superexpress to Forest Hills and the full-time Northern Blvd local, but the general consensus is that Forest Hills and eastern Queens needs all the service it can get.

Too bad there's not enough political will to get all these extensions built...

Neither have I. I personally don't have a problem with reusing for the third SAS service, but I also don't see any problem with using another letter other than I or O because of the similarities between them and 1 and 0. Likewise, I don't think U should be used because of you...no, not you personally, but now you can see why U may not be such a good choice for a subway line name. Same goes for Y because of "why". But I really don't see a problem with reusing K or P. I prefer P because it's also close to T (although V is closer and would be a nod to its heritage as a former Queens Blvd service), because I feel that if you keep the route letters as close together as possible, you won't have to skip all over the alphabet when you make the station signs or display the route bullets on the map. I guess it's mostly for aesthetics. I'd have no problem with using H or X either, but is currently still in use internally as the Rockaway Park Shuttle. And if I'm not mistaken, I think X is used internally for non-revenue runs. Although someone on here posted a link to a fantasy map that showed the SAS built as far as Houston St with H and T as the two services south of the 63rd St Tunnel and the H running via 63rd St, the Queens Blvd Local and the Rockaway Beach Branch to/from Rockaway Park, eliminating the Shuttle.

Someone here commented that the (P) is reserved for an emergency service to Penn Station during an LIRR strike. I think bringing back the feels the nicest since the (W) has recently been restored. I'd imagine the new will be much more favorably looked upon than its old incarnation. (T) aligns with (A) (C) (E) and (B) (D) (F) as well.

Along that reasoning, I think the (K) should be reserved for a BMT-type service.

CenSin · November 24, 2016

since you can't use the letter U due to its confusion with the word <<you>>

(1) (won) is a word.

(2) (to/too) is a word.

(4) (for) is a word.

(A) is a word.

(B) (bee/be) is a word.

(C) (see) is a word.

(G) (gee) is a word.

(J) (jay) is a word.

(R) (are) is a word.

(T) (tee/tea) is a word.

Edited November 24, 2016 by CenSin

Around the Horn · November 24, 2016

(won) is a word.

(to/too) is a word.

(for) is a word.

is a word.

(bee/be) is a word.

(see) is a word.

(gee) is a word.

(jay) is a word.

(are) is a word.

(tee/tea) is a word.

I think U is a special case because it refers to another person.

"You need to get the U" would be pretty confusing for a tourist.

T to Dyre Avenue · November 24, 2016

So is Y, because people might think you're asking them "why?" if they ask you for directions that may involve a hypothetical Y train.

Armandito · November 24, 2016

Lots of people have proposed the via 2 Ave and 63 St in this forum. People differ on the eastern end though. I personally wish for the to be the superexpress to Forest Hills and the full-time Northern Blvd local, but the general consensus is that Forest Hills and eastern Queens needs all the service it can get.

Too bad there's not enough political will to get all these extensions built...

Someone here commented that the (P) is reserved for an emergency service to Penn Station during an LIRR strike. I think bringing back the feels the nicest since the has recently been restored. I'd imagine the new will be much more favorably looked upon than its old incarnation. aligns with and as well.

Along that reasoning, I think the should be reserved for a BMT-type service.

was once considered as a designation for a proposed skip-stop variant of the (L)

in the early 1990s, but for unknown reasons, it was scrapped. (Does anyone have an idea why it never materialized?) Edited November 24, 2016 by Q44SBS

Porter · November 24, 2016

is currently still in use internally as the Rockaway Park Shuttle.

The (MTA) should just revive that designation permanently if they still use it internally; they had no trouble doing so following Sandy, after all.

I think bringing back the feels the nicest since the has recently been restored. I'd imagine the new will be much more favorably looked upon than its old incarnation.

I agree; if the (brownM) could be re-skinned as the (M) overnight, then the (V) can be re-skinned as the after a decade. Speaking of which...

Along that reasoning, I think the should be reserved for a BMT-type service.

Doesn't the (J) (Z) have a nice ring to it?

I think U is a special case because it refers to another person.

"You need to get the U" would be pretty confusing for a tourist.

So is Y, because people might think you're asking them "why?" if they ask you for directions that may involve a hypothetical Y train.

Sounds like people who might not have the best English oral comprehension...

was once considered as a designation for a proposed skip-stop variant of the in the early 1990s, but for unknown reasons, it was scrapped. (Does anyone have an idea why it never materialized?)

That proposal seems less likely than ever now. Maybe some year as an apology for the tunnel shutdown?

P3F · November 24, 2016

An I train could be made. Nobody's going to confuse this for a 1:

T to Dyre Avenue · November 24, 2016

An I train could be made. Nobody's going to confuse this for a 1:

Actually, they still could because most fonts with a serif (the lines at the top and bottom of the I) capital I also have a serif number 1. Now if you imported a serif I and kept the other letters in their Standard form, then it might work. But then you'd always have to use that type of I. In DC, they actually tried that with the street signs, which are normally displayed in Helvetica (the same type face as the NYC subway). But it must have still caused some confusion, because I've seen street signs in the District with an "Eye St" parallel to H and K streets (for some reason, they skip J). Edited November 24, 2016 by T to Dyre Avenue

T to Dyre Avenue · November 24, 2016

was once considered as a designation for a proposed skip-stop variant of the in the early 1990s, but for unknown reasons, it was scrapped. (Does anyone have an idea why it never materialized?)

The (L) train's ridership began to increase by leaps and bounds not too long after Transit proposed the K/L skip-stop service. Had they gone through with it, it would have lead to severely overcrowded trains that would take forever to load up because there would be multiple stations with only half the trains stopping there. It's not like the (J) line whose ridership, while increasing, is not increasing at the huge clip the (L) has done over the past 15-20 years. And the (J) is a much longer route through South Queens and Eastern Brooklyn, so having (J) / (Z) service there is actually effective.

T to Dyre Avenue · November 24, 2016

For your information, I was the pioneer in the forum who (first) envisioned a Second Avenue service to Queens as a super-express route between Jamaica and Hanover Square. I purposely chose as the designation primarily because it is the closest letter to in the English alphabet, and just like all original IND services go from to in alphabetical order, and are a perfect match (since you can't use the letter U due to its confusion with the word <<you>>).

Someone here commented that the (P) is reserved for an emergency service to Penn Station during an LIRR strike. I think bringing back the feels the nicest since the has recently been restored. I'd imagine the new will be much more favorably looked upon than its old incarnation. aligns with and as well.

Along that reasoning, I think the should be reserved for a BMT-type service.

Both of you make excellent points for why

would be best as the letter for the Queens-SAS service, a service that will certainly be needed if we ever get even a part of Phase 3 constructed. And by having the

service, the SAS will be able to better live up to its potential because it will then have two services both north and south of the 63rd St Tunnel.

Armandito · November 24, 2016

The train's ridership began to increase by leaps and bounds not too long after Transit proposed the K/L skip-stop service. Had they gone through with it, it would have lead to severely overcrowded trains that would take forever to load up because there would be multiple stations with only half the trains stopping there. It's not like the line whose ridership, while increasing, is not increasing at the huge clip the has done over the past 15-20 years. And the is a much longer route through South Queens and Eastern Brooklyn, so having / service there is actually effective.

To be honest, I really HATE the (Z)

train. When I used to live in Woodhaven by the Elderts Lane station in high school, I always wished for the MTA to eliminate it some day... Edited November 24, 2016 by Q44SBS

Porter · November 24, 2016

To be honest, I really HATE the train. When I used to live in Woodhaven by the Elderts Lane station in high school, I always wished for the MTA to eliminate it some day...

If increasing population inherently conflicts with the effectiveness of skip-stop service, then the (9) and (Z) were already destined to die from the start, and no other skip-stop services will be needed in the more populous future by definition. They'll live on in my avatar, though.

S78 via Hylan · November 24, 2016

To be honest, I really HATE the train. When I used to live in Woodhaven by the Elderts Lane station in high school, I always wished for the MTA to eliminate it some day...

What makes you dislike it so much?

Around the Horn · November 24, 2016

The (Z) isn't going anywhere anytime soon. While overall ridership on the (J) (Z) is increasing, the ridership at (J) only or (Z) only stations are still relatively the same. Also if a station does have a sudden increase in ridership, the (MTA) has shown that they are willing to turn stations into an all trains stop. A couple years ago, Alabama Avenue was changed from (J) only to both (J) and (Z) to accommodate ENY bus operators.

If anything, there should be an expansion of skip stop from just 7-8 AM and 5-6 PM to 6-9 AM and 3-8 PM...

Armandito · November 24, 2016

What makes you dislike it so much?

If you live near any of the skip-stop stations along the line, you'll either have to take a (J)

or

train (depending on the station you board at) all the way to an all-trains station and wait for another train to reach your stop, or wait forever for a Q56 bus to get you there. Trust me, I think the (J)

is capable of running on its own without the (Z)

train so customers wouldn't have to bear with longer wait times or unnecessary transfers between trains during rush hours. Edited November 24, 2016 by Q44SBS

S78 via Hylan · November 24, 2016

If you live near any of the skip-stop stations along the line, you'll either have to take a or train (depending on the station you board at) all the way to an all-trains station and wait for another train to reach your stop, or wait forever for a Q56 bus to get you there. Trust me, I think the is capable of running on its own without the train so customers wouldn't have to bear with longer wait times or unnecessary transfers between trains during rush hours.

As a matter of fact, I do live off of a skip-stop station: Norwood Ave. The set up works fine as riders are evenly spread out during the rush which is better than having to sit through every single stop. When going out or coming home, I make sure to time it so that I catch a (Z)

and not miss one. Edited November 24, 2016 by S78 via Hylan

Armandito · November 24, 2016

As a matter of fact, I do live off of a skip-stop station: Norwood Ave. The set up works fine as riders are evenly spread out during the rush which is better than having to sit through every single stop. When going out or coming home, I make sure to time it so that I catch a and not miss one.

And yet I would always picture rush hour without the (Z)

train as a high school student...more frequent service and no more cumbersome transfers. What's your thought on service without the (Z)

? How would rush hour (J)

service be like by itself? Edited November 24, 2016 by Q44SBS

Around the Horn · November 24, 2016

And yet I would always picture rush hour without the train as a high school student...more frequent service and no more cumbersome transfers. What's your thought on service without the ? How would rush hour service be like by itself?

More crowding and you'd probably have to let one or two trains go by, before you could squeeze on.

You may not like the (Z) but skip stop is a great form of crowd control.

Sign In

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Important Information