Jump to content

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas


Recommended Posts

Re: Interlining

I get where you guys are coming from. Speed up service by removing a bunch of merges. It sounds like a good idea on paper, so much so that it pops up every so often here on the forums. However, it does not take into account people's ridership patterns. When I used to take the (5) from Baychester Av on a regular basis, I noticed that many of the riders boarding along Dyre Ave would remain on the train throughout its trek through the Bronx. Using the example presented above, which institutes 7th Avenue-only service along White Plains Rd and Dyre Ave, you are forcing a lot of people to transfer at 149 St-Grand Concourse. Unless the de-interlining can support very speedy service along the affected lines, I mean pre-2017 (6) line service where trains ran at absolute minimum headways, a lot of time will be loss trying to transfer between trains at these new critical transfer points. I know that part of this idea would send (5) trains to Woodlawn/Burnside Av to run in tandem with the (4), but I cannot see Jerome Ave riders supporting that much service, even if half of it ran express. You'd also have to ensure the stations are equipped to handle the increase of transferring riders without creating chokepoints and bottlenecks. In general, a lot of these stations do not lend themselves to being good transfer points.

In general, de-interlined services work well on a system designed to be de-interlined. Unfortunately, the subway here was never really designed for that. Both the IRT and BMT started out of the gate with interlined services using the 96th Street junction and the Centre St Loop respectively. The IND attempted to de-interline its planned services, but because they went so far in the opposite direction, they went broke and a lot of that effort was undone to provide better service. After all, de-interlined services serve no purpose if nobody uses them. That's why the 11th Street cut was built to connect Queens Blvd to the 60th Street tunnel. Queens Blvd services were almost entirely disconnected from each other with the only merge being at 71 Avenue for the :E: and :F:. However, because the sole local route only ran to Brooklyn via Crosstown, riders overwhelmed the express lines to the point of capacity, thus necessitating the connection to Broadway. A lot of the interlined services are not done to simply give everyone a one-seat ride, but rather to keep the services moving by providing the best service for the bulk of the riding public. I obviously cannot say if de-interlining of this magnitude would pay dividends, but I do not see it being wildly successful, not without people dramatically changing their riding habits.

Side-note: Interlining stops looking like a real word after typing it several times, doesn't it?:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 12.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Not far off the mark @RR503  I was with afew of my guys from MTACC this afternoon. They saw the thread they send me a powerpoint from a meeting they had on ideas on how to move the MTA forward in the next 30-40 years and look what came up. Kinda what we were talking about at least on the Brooklyn side with optimizing. I can post the full PPT if you'd like. Some folks inside are thinking this way as options and it's logical.. Dynamics are dynamics.

DlxEb6U.png

Edited by RailRunRob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, RailRunRob said:

Not far off the mark @RR503  I was with afew of my guys from MTACC this afternoon. They saw the thread they send me a powerpoint from a meeting they had on ideas on how to move the MTA forward in the next 30-40 years and look what came up. Kinda what we were talking about at least on the Brooklyn side with optimizing. I can post the full PPT if you'd like. Some folks inside are thinking this way as options and it's logical.. Dynamics are dynamics.

DlxEb6U.png

Please do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

This routing would have both the (4) and (5) running along Jerome Avenue, which I don't think is necessary, as a <4> doesn't currently exist to justify that need. In addition to that, you're going to strain Woodlawn with having the (5) trains terminate there as well. The (2) and (5) use the same equipment; now you're adding R62s from the (3) in the mix if you send those (3) trains to FABC.

The extra trains that cannot be turned at Woodlawn could always be turned at Burnside Avenue or 149 Street–Grand Concourse. Those two stations with middle tracks could collectively turn all of the extra trains. Because of the way the switches are currently arranged though, the trains going towards Woodlawn would always have to switch to the express track a few stations prior to the express stop to avoid holding up following trains. Burnside Avenue-bound trains would switch at 161 Street–Yankee Stadium. 149 Street–Grand Concourse-bound trains would switch just south of 138 Street–Grand Concourse. Consequently, Manhattan-bound trains would always run local.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Lance — don’t want to quote your entire post so will just respond piecewise here. 

There will definitely be a level of inconvenience for Dyre riders. While some will benefit from direct 7th Avenue service, as you say many want Lex, so there’ll be some number of folks xfering at 149. That said, with deinterlined services, pretty much the entire A division would (barring car requirement woes) be able to run like the pre-2017 (6), and do so with a much higher level of reliability than currently given that both Lex and 7th Avenue express services would only experience 1 merge across their entire routes. Additionally, the operational waste that is the (3) ending at 148 would end — finally that line would truly serve northern markets properly, and do so while relieving the perennially overcrowded (and late) (2)

You’re right about Jerome not requiring nearly as much service as we’d be providing, but again, this proposal is less about tailoring service to micro markets, and much more about trying to run the system more efficiently than present. Also keep in mind that with increased service comes increased ridership — and in many cases increased development, creating the same. 

Now, re deinterlining in general. I think first of all, there’s an important difference between the A and B divisions in this regard. The A division was built as a relatively self contained system designed with interlining in mind, but fully capable of functioning without it. It has relatively well designed transfer stations, with a maximum of cross-platform opportunities provided, and where they aren’t, adequate mezzanine space instead. Most importantly both its trunks serve dense employment districts it created — ie Midtown. 

The B division is a whole different monster. It was built by one company with a fetish for lower Manhattan, and another one built out of spite for the former — with some cockamamie assumptions about demand. Thus, the network was born out of a set of fundamental macro-scale mismatches. In our argument about which service should take Dyre, I think we can all agree that regardless of which one it is, the fact that it’ll serve some portion of Midtown Manhattan automatically gives it a level of usability. This macro scale correctness in identifying centers of demand didn’t exist on the B division — the Crosstown route and the Nassau loops being the posterchilds of these macro-scale errors in identifying demand. Not only that, but out of sheer boneheadedness, many of the B divisions core corridors were built in such a way that full service on them could not be achieved without some changes (think Broadway, 6th pre Chrystie and 57, 8th and Fulton). As such, once the network was built, some level of interlining was necessary to produce the necessary levels of train service from key corridors into the central business district.

Additionally, in many cases, the B division was designed so obtusely that deinterlining — while physically possible — would inconvenience riders more than it would help them. For example, look at Dekalb Avenue. If the BMT has built that hallowed station with platforms serving all 6 tracks, Dekalb could be deinterlined with relative ease — all 6th ave via Brighton, all 4th via Broadway. But alas, such is not the case, so unless we’re gonna force people to play mole at Atlantic Barclays — losing them more time than they will save — we are all but forced to keep Dekalb in its current, deplorable pattern. 

In short, I think interlining — much like many issues in our system, is quite nuanced. We can’t proclaim “deinterline all” or “tailor all service to micro-ridership” because doing so ignores the complexities that we’ve been discussing. I think given that my proposal preserves Midtown service for all riders, while also increasing reliability and capacity without routing people through overly-inconvenient transfer stations, it is a viable option. I can absolutely see the other side, but I think that among deinterlining projects, this one has a level of feasibility and realism — unlike all (F) via Culver Exp, or putting the (G) back on Queens Boulevard and the (M) back on Nassau. That is me speaking from my position of bias, though ;) 

Edited by RR503
Posted without finishing typing...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2018 at 9:56 PM, officiallyliam said:

Let's face it. The (M) will be staying orange - it's a hugely successful and popular service, one of Transit's best recent service decisions. The Nassau M was carrying air back and forth to Brooklyn every day. The (V) isn't coming back to 6th Avenue. And the (G) certainly won't be returning to QBL.

Not to mention, you propose this a year before a major and necessary shutdown of the (L)? Come on.

Right, and if anything, I would be splitting the (M) into (M) and (T) with the (T) becoming 24/7 to 96th/2nd (adding 5TPH to the Metropolitan to 47th-50th stretch weekdays and being the main late night and weekend service, eliminating the late night and weekend (M) shuttles.  The added bonus is giving SAS riders a 6th Avenue option.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If all local trains terminated at WTC, how much service could you run?

Proposed B-Division realignments to boost capacity (some additional switches required):

8th Av Express (all trains skip 50th St)

(A) - Express from 207 St to 145 St, CPW local, 8th Av express, normal route in Brooklyn

(C) - Local from 168 to 145 St, CPW local, 8th Av express, normal route in Brooklyn

8th Av Local

(E) - QBL local from Forest Hills via 53 St to WTC. Runs 24 TPH or whatever the maximum you can do at Forest Hills and WTC is.

6th Av Express

(D) - Peak Concourse Express, CPW express, 6th Av express, Brighton Express.

(B) - Peak Concourse Local, CPW express, 6th av express, Brighton Local.

6th Av Local

(F) - Normal route.

(M) - Jamaica Center QBL express, 63 St, 6th Av local, normal route to Ridgewood. Some peak trains terminate at 2nd Av due to limited capacity on the Williamsburg Bridge.

Broadway Express 

(Q) - 96 St to Coney Island via West End.

(N) - 96 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach.

SAS Phase III would have to include expanding 72 St to a two-level, four-track station.

Broadway Local

(R) - Astoria to Bay Ridge

(W) - Weekdays Astoria to Whitehall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Right, and if anything, I would be splitting the (M) into (M) and (T) with the (T) becoming 24/7 to 96th/2nd (adding 5TPH to the Metropolitan to 47th-50th stretch weekdays and being the main late night and weekend service, eliminating the late night and weekend (M) shuttles.  The added bonus is giving SAS riders a 6th Avenue option.  

It's not like that's a much better proposal, even though you act like its the cure-all for (M) riders. You've just introduced another merge to the (F), (M), and (Q), lines which have too many merges as is, and inconsistent service as a result. SAS to 6th Avenue is a cross-platform transfer already, and the two are within walking distance throughout Midtown. It's not necessary, and will only exacerbate the precarious situation regarding frequencies and merges on 6th Avenue, QBL, and Broadway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

If all local trains terminated at WTC, how much service could you run?

Proposed B-Division realignments to boost capacity (some additional switches required):

8th Av Express (all trains skip 50th St)

(A) - Express from 207 St to 145 St, CPW local, 8th Av express, normal route in Brooklyn

(C) - Local from 168 to 145 St, CPW local, 8th Av express, normal route in Brooklyn

8th Av Local

(E) - QBL local from Forest Hills via 53 St to WTC. Runs 24 TPH or whatever the maximum you can do at Forest Hills and WTC is.

6th Av Express

(D) - Peak Concourse Express, CPW express, 6th Av express, Brighton Express.

(B) - Peak Concourse Local, CPW express, 6th av express, Brighton Local.

 

What about swapping the (A)(C) and (B)(D) northern terminals? This way, Concourse riders with longer commutes can keep CPW express, while the (A)(C) never have to switch tracks in Manhattan, and we wouldn't have to construct any new switches.

My plan would be:

the (A) basically becomes the (D), the peak-direction express to Norwood;

the (C) becomes the (B) (although maybe it could be extended to 167 or something for more Bx-Mnhtn capacity);

the (B) ends at 168 and the (D) serves 207.

Inwood riders wanting 8th Avenue have a cross-platform transfer at 125, as do Concourse riders bound for CPW local stops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

What about swapping the (A)(C) and (B)(D) northern terminals? This way, Concourse riders with longer commutes can keep CPW express, while the (A)(C) never have to switch tracks in Manhattan, and we wouldn't have to construct any new switches.

My plan would be:

the (A) basically becomes the (D), the peak-direction express to Norwood;

the (C) becomes the (B) (although maybe it could be extended to 167 or something for more Bx-Mnhtn capacity);

the (B) ends at 168 and the (D) serves 207.

Inwood riders wanting 8th Avenue have a cross-platform transfer at 125, as do Concourse riders bound for CPW local stops.

Alright, not bad. Not bad at al-

What happens to the 50 St upper level under this proposal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

What about swapping the (A)(C) and (B)(D) northern terminals? This way, Concourse riders with longer commutes can keep CPW express, while the (A)(C) never have to switch tracks in Manhattan, and we wouldn't have to construct any new switches.

My plan would be:

the (A) basically becomes the (D), the peak-direction express to Norwood;

the (C) becomes the (B) (although maybe it could be extended to 167 or something for more Bx-Mnhtn capacity);

the (B) ends at 168 and the (D) serves 207.

Inwood riders wanting 8th Avenue have a cross-platform transfer at 125, as do Concourse riders bound for CPW local stops.

This seems like a reasonable proposal, I like it. An alternative to this would be to keep (D) trains on the Grand Concourse to Norwood–205th Street and reroute (C) trains to Bedford Park Boulevard during rush hours in the peak direction. At all other times, (C) trains would terminate at 167th Street to enhance service for passengers that reside in The Bronx. This way, now you have direct access without transfers to both 6th and 8th Avenues, in addition to both local and express service along Central Park West.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

If all local trains terminated at WTC, how much service could you run?

Proposed B-Division realignments to boost capacity (some additional switches required):

8th Av Express (all trains skip 50th St)

(A) - Express from 207 St to 145 St, CPW local, 8th Av express, normal route in Brooklyn

(C) - Local from 168 to 145 St, CPW local, 8th Av express, normal route in Brooklyn

8th Av Local

(E) - QBL local from Forest Hills via 53 St to WTC. Runs 24 TPH or whatever the maximum you can do at Forest Hills and WTC is.

6th Av Express

(D) - Peak Concourse Express, CPW express, 6th Av express, Brighton Express.

(B) - Peak Concourse Local, CPW express, 6th av express, Brighton Local.

6th Av Local

(F) - Normal route.

(M) - Jamaica Center QBL express, 63 St, 6th Av local, normal route to Ridgewood. Some peak trains terminate at 2nd Av due to limited capacity on the Williamsburg Bridge.

Broadway Express 

(Q) - 96 St to Coney Island via West End.

(N) - 96 St to Coney Island via Sea Beach.

SAS Phase III would have to include expanding 72 St to a two-level, four-track station.

Broadway Local

(R) - Astoria to Bay Ridge

(W) - Weekdays Astoria to Whitehall.

 

1 hour ago, officiallyliam said:

What about swapping the (A)(C) and (B)(D) northern terminals? This way, Concourse riders with longer commutes can keep CPW express, while the (A)(C) never have to switch tracks in Manhattan, and we wouldn't have to construct any new switches.

My plan would be:

the (A) basically becomes the (D), the peak-direction express to Norwood;

the (C) becomes the (B) (although maybe it could be extended to 167 or something for more Bx-Mnhtn capacity);

the (B) ends at 168 and the (D) serves 207.

Inwood riders wanting 8th Avenue have a cross-platform transfer at 125, as do Concourse riders bound for CPW local stops.

Ok. I personally disagree with these types of proposals. Here's why:

The reason that the (A)(D) and (B)(C), or the (E)(F) and (M)(R), share tracks, is to provide additional options, whether it's express or local, regardless of merging. If you place every line running on the same track all from the same trunk, you're going to have immense transferring crowds at express stops. But there's is already a cross-platform transfer to begin with, so why even consider this in the first place? And no, the (A)(C) DO have to switch in Manhattan. Once at Canal St, and the other at 145 St. I use the (A) regularly on my commute, so I'm guaranteed to be familiar with the layout. 

I would rather have the (A) to 207, (B) to 168, (C) to Bedford, and (D) to 205 St, but I am not advocating for this. Leave the (A)(B)(C)(D) alone.

Now, as for @bobtehpanda's proposal: Firstly, the (R) won't have yard access if it goes to Astoria. Please don't say, let's do OOS yard moves, because that will delay (D) and (N)trains. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the whole reason why the (B)(Q), (B)(C), (A)(D), (E)(F), (M)(R) all share tracks is to provide additional options. Atlantic will become a madhouse if Broadway and 6 Av were completely segregated. Finally, WTC won't be able to handle your proposed "24 TPH," and since that's the case, 53rd will become overloaded at the loss of (M) service. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

Now, as for @bobtehpanda's proposal: Firstly, the (R) won't have yard access if it goes to Astoria. Please don't say, let's do OOS yard moves, because that will delay (D) and (N)trains. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the whole reason why the (B)(Q), (B)(C), (A)(D), (E)(F), (M)(R) all share tracks is to provide additional options. Atlantic will become a madhouse if Broadway and 6 Av were completely segregated. Finally, WTC won't be able to handle your proposed "24 TPH," and since that's the case, 53rd will become overloaded at the loss of (M) service. 

As opposed to the current status quo, where due to the reverse branching the entire B-Division shits itself every time a delay happens somewhere? If you asked riders if they could pick between transfers and a 20% chance of twenty minute plus delays, they'd probably pick transfers. And the (R) managed to have this service pattern for nearly four decades before someone decided lack of yard access was an issue, including 12 years where a connection to Jamaica Yard didn't even exist.

Atlantic being a shitshow is just hyperbole; all Brighton riders will be able to get to Broadway by changing at DeKalb Av, and 4th Av local riders will all be able to get to 6th Av by changing at DeKalb Av. It's not really any different from the transfer situation at Queensboro Plaza. The only problem is 4th Av express to 6th Av express, but Broadway and 6th Av are never that far from each other, and riders heading to Midtown can just change at Herald Square.

24 TPH is not some number I pulled out of my ass, it's the capacity of New South Ferry and Forest Hills. Given that WTC is set up pretty much exactly the same as New South Ferry and there won't be merging with the (C) , it's very doable. Plus, now that there is no QBL express available at 53rd, this would probably reduce crowds.

 

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

As opposed to the current status quo, where due to the reverse branching the entire B-Division shits itself every time a delay happens somewhere? If you asked riders if they could pick between transfers and a 20% chance of twenty minute plus delays, they'd probably pick transfers. And the (R) managed to have this service pattern for nearly four decades before someone decided lack of yard access was an issue, including 12 years where a connection to Jamaica Yard didn't even exist.

Atlantic being a shitshow is just hyperbole; all Brighton riders will be able to get to Broadway by changing at DeKalb Av, and 4th Av local riders will all be able to get to 6th Av by changing at DeKalb Av. It's not really any different from the transfer situation at Queensboro Plaza. The only problem is 4th Av express to 6th Av express, but Broadway and 6th Av are never that far from each other, and riders heading to Midtown can just change at Herald Square.

24 TPH is not some number I pulled out of my ass, it's the capacity of New South Ferry and Forest Hills. Given that WTC is set up pretty much exactly the same as New South Ferry and there won't be merging with the (C) , it's very doable. Plus, now that there is no QBL express available at 53rd, this would probably reduce crowds.

 

An express station should be built at 36th and the E should be the express, not the F. 53rd Street needs express service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

An express station should be built at 36th and the E should be the express, not the F. 53rd Street needs express service.

According to what, exactly?

What makes there a need for QBL express at 53rd St? We don't have Lexington express service at 51st St, or (7) express service at 74th St, or 7th Av express service at Columbus Circle, or 4th Av express service at 4th Av-9th St, or Concourse express service at Yankee Stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

According to what, exactly?

What makes there a need for QBL express at 53rd St? We don't have Lexington express service at 51st St, or (7) express service at 74th St, or 7th Av express service at Columbus Circle, or 4th Av express service at 4th Av-9th St, or Concourse express service at Yankee Stadium.

You're forgetting that 53rd has an in-system connection to Mr. Lexington Peartree.

Edit: @bobtehpanda 63rd does not have a connection to the Lex, but the real reason why express service is on 53rd currently (the (E)(M)) is because you at least have ONE local, and ONE express. 

Edited by Coney Island Av
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Coney Island Av said:

You're forgetting that 53rd has an in-system connection to Mr. Lexington Peartree.

That by itself means nothing. So? All those other stations I listed have connections as well. Did something change in the water and now every transfer stop has to have express service?

Edited by bobtehpanda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Ok. I personally disagree with these types of proposals. Here's why:

The reason that the (A)(D) and (B)(C), or the (E)(F) and (M)(R), share tracks, is to provide additional options, whether it's express or local, regardless of merging. If you place every line running on the same track all from the same trunk, you're going to have immense transferring crowds at express stops. But there's is already a cross-platform transfer to begin with, so why even consider this in the first place? And no, the (A)(C) DO have to switch in Manhattan. Once at Canal St, and the other at 145 St. I use the (A) regularly on my commute, so I'm guaranteed to be familiar with the layout. 

I would rather have the (A) to 207, (B) to 168, (C) to Bedford, and (D) to 205 St, but I am not advocating for this. Leave the (A)(B)(C)(D) alone.

Now, as for @bobtehpanda's proposal: Firstly, the (R) won't have yard access if it goes to Astoria. Please don't say, let's do OOS yard moves, because that will delay (D) and (N)trains. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, the whole reason why the (B)(Q), (B)(C), (A)(D), (E)(F), (M)(R) all share tracks is to provide additional options. Atlantic will become a madhouse if Broadway and 6 Av were completely segregated. Finally, WTC won't be able to handle your proposed "24 TPH," and since that's the case, 53rd will become overloaded at the loss of (M) service. 

Additional options? Why do we insist on providing service to 8th and 6th - trunk lines parallel through Harlem and UWS and just two blocks apart through Midtown - when we could boost whole system capacity and massively increase reliability by de-interlining? Thus, your argument about cross-platform transfers has no point. The goal of the subway should be to provide the most reliable and frequent service to the most people, not the most number of one-seat ride combinations - especially when that sacrifices capacity.

This plan would reduce the number of (A)(C) merges to one - just before/after Hoyt - which ideally could be eliminated in the future by a Fulton local SAS extension.

The (R) can run out of 36th St Yard. If I'm correct, when the (T) opens it will do just that as the (T) will displace the (R) from Jamaica.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I'm glad that most of the people proposing things here don't work for the (MTA). It's amazing how many people hate the idea of convenience.

Why don't y'all move to Toronto? Their subway is doing excellently without that pesky interlining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading some of the proposals I have to question whether or not customer preference is even considered at all.  The Bronx White Plains Road and Dyre service patterns exist because of customer preference.  The (2) and (5) lines swapped terminals because the Dyre line ridership wanted Lexington service overwhelming and not 7th Avenue service. The upper WPR service was strictly East Side service via Lexington or Third Avenue originally. 7th Avenue service started at the old Bronx Park station and later ran out of the Dyre line after the connection was built at East 180th Street. On the Brooklyn end of the line Flatbush Ave and New Lots swapped late night primary terminals for flexibility and customer preference. I'm sure that there are posters out here who actually remember the uproar after the Chrystie connection when the Broadway service was removed from the Brighton line and 6th Avenue service replaced it. It just seems to me that in this quest to streamline service the customer isn't taken into consideration. Two Lexington services on the Woodlawn line and two 7th Avenue services out of Flatbush.  That's really going to be in the rider's wish list? While the theory may make sense to some extent  in some cases I'm betting that NO ONE from Operations and Planning would come out to the communities affected and propose this in a public forum. I recall a proposal where the (2) would replace the (5) as the Bronx express.  Operationally it would speed trains through the East 180th Street area.  The communities who would be most affected told the (MTA) to  stick the proposal where the sun don't shine.The theoretical may make sense but the customer must be satisfied first and foremost.  Just my opinion. Your opinion is worth as much as mine.  Carry on. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

After reading some of the proposals I have to question whether or not customer preference is even considered at all.  The Bronx White Plains Road and Dyre service patterns exist because of customer preference.  The (2) and (5) lines swapped terminals because the Dyre line ridership wanted Lexington service overwhelming and not 7th Avenue service. The upper WPR service was strictly East Side service via Lexington or Third Avenue originally. 7th Avenue service started at the old Bronx Park station and later ran out of the Dyre line after the connection was built at East 180th Street. On the Brooklyn end of the line Flatbush Ave and New Lots swapped late night primary terminals for flexibility and customer preference. I'm sure that there are posters out here who actually remember the uproar after the Chrystie connection when the Broadway service was removed from the Brighton line and 6th Avenue service replaced it. It just seems to me that in this quest to streamline service the customer isn't taken into consideration. Two Lexington services on the Woodlawn line and two 7th Avenue services out of Flatbush.  That's really going to be in the rider's wish list? While the theory may make sense to some extent  in some cases I'm betting that NO ONE from Operations and Planning would come out to the communities affected and propose this in a public forum. I recall a proposal where the (2) would replace the (5) as the Bronx express.  Operationally it would speed trains through the East 180th Street area.  The communities who would be most affected told the (MTA) to  stick the proposal where the sun don't shine.The theoretical may make sense but the customer must be satisfied first and foremost.  Just my opinion. Your opinion is worth as much as mine.  Carry on. 

Using customer preference as a yardstick only works if you assume the customer is fully educated on the consequences of their decision. Customers don't know that all these one-seat rides are causing reliability and capacity to tank. The case is particularly compelling for at least removing the (R) from the Queens Boulevard Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.