Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

 

31 minutes ago, Lance said:

Also, sending the (J) to Brooklyn screws with the rush-hour skip-stop service. That is unless you extend those (Z) runs down there as well.

It wouldn't "screw" the skip stop service. (Z) trains are put-ins from ENY, if I remember correctly, and could still relay at Broad Street independent of (J) service. Skip-stop hasn't always been between two of basically the same service -- in the late 1960s and early 1970s, skip stop was comprised by the (QJ) and :KK: which were completely different services on their western ends -- the (QJ) ran to Brighton via Nassau while the :KK: ran up 6th Avenue to 57th Street.

The only real issue is that if the (J) is delayed south of Broad Street, there could be an uneven amount of northbound (J) and (Z) trains departing Broad Street.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but if a (J) is delayed somewhere in South Brooklyn while (Z) trains continue to terminate at Broad St, you will have instances where (Z) trains leave back to back, which is no good. The (W) does not have that problem, nor is a long semi-local line.

Also, just for the record, none of those examples you used lasted that long. The split-service skip-stop only lasted about five years with the :KK: and (QJ) before reverting to basically what is today's service, just labelled as (J)-As and (J)-Bs in 1973.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

The point is to give Broadway-Brooklyn riders 6th Avenue service at all times.  Since there really is no other place to turn such (if not going to 71/Continental), 96th/2nd takes care of that with the (M) and the added benefit for those on the UES of additional service on the SAS portion to 63rd with most of the stops on 6th Avenue no more than a block from the Broadway stations. 

Once again, if UES residents want 6 Ave service, they can take the blasted (Q) 3 stops and transfer.

As for sending the (J) into South Brooklyn, that also creates a bigger bottleneck at 36 St than it is now.

Edited by S78 via Hylan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading the numbers regarding how the (4) train fared with its on time performance during the weekend of this year as of February this year, and I noticed that it went down by about 44%, while the (3) train got a lot better in its on time performance by about 56%. I expected the (2) and (5) trains to do worse in that respect, but the (4) train was the unexpected one to fail completely in the Interborough Rapid Transit division.

The link to that report is found here, between pages 45 and 46: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/180423_1000_Transit.pdf

In light of this dismal report for the weekend (4) train, what ideas do you guys have to improve the weekend (4) train to make it better?

Edited by 4 via Mosholu
Link edit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

Once again, if UES residents want 6 Ave service, they can take the blasted (Q) 3 stops and transfer.

It sounds so simple, but in reality, what the passenger sees is this:

  • Lexington Avenue/63 Street
    • (F) train closes doors before anyone from the (Q) can get on.
    • (Q) train closes doors before anyone from the (F) can get on.
  • Brighton Beach
    • Manhattan-bound (B) train closes doors before anyone from the (Q) can get on.
    • Coney Island-bound (Q) train closes doors before anyone from the (B) can get on.

A one-seat ride is so appealing because you don’t have to deal with shenanigans like that. One could say that the MTA could order conductors to hold trains. But if the trains are always delayed and have to make up time, the pressure always forces trains to keep moving.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, 4 via Mosholu said:

I was reading the numbers regarding how the (4) train fared with its on time performance during the weekend of this year as of February this year, and I noticed that it went down by about 44%, while the (3) train got a lot better in its on time performance by about 56%. I expected the (2) and (5) trains to do worse in that respect, but the (4) train was the unexpected one to fail completely in the Interborough Rapid Transit division.

The link to that report is found here, between pages 45 and 46: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/180423_1000_Transit.pdf

In light of this dismal report for the weekend (4) train, what ideas do you guys have to improve the weekend (4) train to make it better?

(4) probably was sh*t due to weekend work and all those hassles. The (3) probably did the best given that it only runs to 14th, so there is little chance for error. Weekend (4) service is already screwed up as-is with the Bronx having bare-bones service and Manhattan having local service. You could suspend Bronx service and try to get the (4) express between 42nd, but I'm not sure if that will work well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CenSin said:

It sounds so simple, but in reality, what the passenger sees is this:

  • Lexington Avenue/63 Street
    • (F) train closes doors before anyone from the (Q) can get on.
    • (Q) train closes doors before anyone from the (F) can get on.
  • Brighton Beach
    • Manhattan-bound (B) train closes doors before anyone from the (Q) can get on.
    • Coney Island-bound (Q) train closes doors before anyone from the (B) can get on.

A one-seat ride is so appealing because you don’t have to deal with shenanigans like that. One could say that the MTA could order conductors to hold trains. But if the trains are always delayed and have to make up time, the pressure always forces trains to keep moving.

Right!  This is something I wasn't even factoring into why I would do what I noted. 

And I'm talking late nights and weekends, when there is less service overall, which more easily allows having the (M) go to 96th Street-2nd Avenue, which I would make permanent for reasons noted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, CenSin said:

It sounds so simple, but in reality, what the passenger sees is this:

  • Lexington Avenue/63 Street
    • (F) train closes doors before anyone from the (Q) can get on.
    • (Q) train closes doors before anyone from the (F) can get on.
  • Brighton Beach
    • Manhattan-bound (B) train closes doors before anyone from the (Q) can get on.
    • Coney Island-bound (Q) train closes doors before anyone from the (B) can get on.

A one-seat ride is so appealing because you don’t have to deal with shenanigans like that. One could say that the MTA could order conductors to hold trains. But if the trains are always delayed and have to make up time, the pressure always forces trains to keep moving.

The best one-seat ride is a taxi.

The subway should be focused on running on time. If all trains ran on time, than the cross-platform transfers would also have 0 time penalty.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Caelestor said:

The best one-seat ride is a taxi.

Yeah that's exactly the problem. If the (MTA) removed peoples one-seat rides many would switch to using taxis. People HATE transferring, and that's something that needs to be factored into route planning.

Riders are being lost to Uber pool and Lyft as is, because people love the convenience of not having to transfer.

Edited by kosciusko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Yeah that's exactly the problem. If the (MTA) removed peoples one-seat rides many would switch to using taxis. People HATE transferring, and that's something that needs to be factored into route planning.

Riders are being lost to Uber pool and Lyft as is, because people love the convenience of not having to transfer.

The subway isn't gonna save itself by playing to another mode's strengths. If it wants to beat Uber/Lyft, it has to be a fast, reliable and high-capacity mode of transportation that New Yorkers aren't wary of using. Adding more complexity to the system's service patterns where convenient transfers already exist does none of those things -- more points of failure means more delays, greater opacity, and less capacity. 

And for the love of god, 6th and Broadway are maybe a block apart in Midtown/the valley. If this was the addition of some West Side service, maybe it'd make sense, but not 6th. That's just gratuitous. 

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kosciusko said:

People HATE transferring, and that's something that needs to be factored into route planning.

People hate transferring because the absymal frequency of routes - especially off-peak - makes transferring a very annoying game of chance. For all you know, you'll walk from one platform to the one you're transferring to and make your train with perfect timing. But for everyone who has that story, there are two people who make a transfer only to just miss a train and lose 10 minutes. If service frequency was better - which we could do if we didn't have an insistence on providing a one-seat ride from anywhere to everywhere - people would actually trust transferring, and we could even move to a system of scheduled corresponding train arrivals on the most popular transfers, as they do in Japan.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

People hate transferring because the absymal frequency of routes - especially off-peak - makes transferring a very annoying game of chance. For all you know, you'll walk from one platform to the one you're transferring to and make your train with perfect timing. But for everyone who has that story, there are two people who make a transfer only to just miss a train and lose 10 minutes. If service frequency was better - which we could do if we didn't have an insistence on providing a one-seat ride from anywhere to everywhere - people would actually trust transferring, and we could even move to a system of scheduled corresponding train arrivals on the most popular transfers, as they do in Japan.

It would be nice if trains didn't bunch either. I caught a Q once at Sheepshead Bay and saw on the countdown clock that the next one was 15 minutes later. God help those who didn't make it across the platform fast enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The subway isn't gonna save itself by playing to another mode's strengths. If it wants to beat Uber/Lyft, it has to be a fast, reliable and high-capacity mode of transportation that New Yorkers aren't wary of using. Adding more complexity to the system's service patterns where convenient transfers already exist does none of those things -- more points of failure means more delays, greater opacity, and less capacity. 

And for the love of god, 6th and Broadway are maybe a block apart in Midtown/the valley. If this was the addition of some West Side service, maybe it'd make sense, but not 6th. That's just gratuitous. 

 

2 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

People hate transferring because the absymal frequency of routes - especially off-peak - makes transferring a very annoying game of chance. For all you know, you'll walk from one platform to the one you're transferring to and make your train with perfect timing. But for everyone who has that story, there are two people who make a transfer only to just miss a train and lose 10 minutes. If service frequency was better - which we could do if we didn't have an insistence on providing a one-seat ride from anywhere to everywhere - people would actually trust transferring, and we could even move to a system of scheduled corresponding train arrivals on the most popular transfers, as they do in Japan.

 

1 hour ago, CenSin said:

It would be nice if trains didn't bunch either. I caught a Q once at Sheepshead Bay and saw on the countdown clock that the next one was 15 minutes later. God help those who didn't make it across the platform fast enough.

To all 3 of these quotes, I'm only going to say one word.

 

DEINTERLINING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

To all 3 of these quotes, I'm only going to say one word.

DEINTERLINING

Deinterlining isn't a cure-all though. For the most part, I'm in favor of it - but it's not going to do much if the tracks are still full of unnecessary timers and speed restrictions. And while deinterlining gives you potential for capacity increases and more service, that's contingent upon the MTA being willing to actually provide that extra service. Looking at the way service frequency has degraded across the board in the last several years, that seems unlikely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Yeah that's exactly the problem. If the (MTA) removed peoples one-seat rides many would switch to using taxis. People HATE transferring, and that's something that needs to be factored into route planning.

Riders are being lost to Uber pool and Lyft as is, because people love the convenience of not having to transfer.

That’s not why riders are being lost to taxis, Uber and Lyft. They’re being lost to taxis, Uber and Lyft because of the endless delays/reroutes/service suspensions, excessive overcrowding, not to mention the continuously worsening experience of riding the trains in general - thanks to the ever-present homeless folks who treat the subway cars like their own personal mobile homes on rails, the garbage everywhere except the garbage cans, the mentally unstable loudmouths who feel they need to share the misery they call their lives with everybody else and of course, the self-centered morons who bring their non-service dogs onto the crowded trains during rush hour and risk injuring their fellow riders, as well as their own dogs (yes I’m referencing the thread about the pit bull who bit the woman on the (4) train last Friday!) Thats why people would ditch the subway in favor or taxis, Uber or Lyft. Not because Transit is going to take people’s one-seat rides. 

On 4/23/2018 at 9:26 AM, P3F said:

Which line is a better candidate for a weekday extension to Brooklyn? The (J) or the (W) ?

For the longest time I was in favor of the (J) , because like many on here, I felt always having a choice was the best way to make the subway more convenient for riders. But with the incessant signal, switch and mechanical problems that cause so many ripple effects systemwide, I’ve reconsidered that. And that’s why I favor the (W)

On 4/23/2018 at 9:17 AM, Wallyhorse said:

The point is to give Broadway-Brooklyn riders 6th Avenue service at all times.  Since there really is no other place to turn such (if not going to 71/Continental), 96th/2nd takes care of that with the (M) and the added benefit for those on the UES of additional service on the SAS portion to 63rd with most of the stops on 6th Avenue no more than a block from the Broadway stations. 

Why is it so necessary to give Broadway-Brooklyn riders 6th Avenue service at all times? And please bear in mind I’m talking about after the (L) train tunnel work is finished.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Why is it so necessary to give Broadway-Brooklyn riders 6th Avenue service at all times? And please bear in mind I’m talking about after the (L) train tunnel work is finished.

The (J)(M) lines through Brooklyn - which were once basically ghost trains on the weekends - have ridership that is growing rapidly today. That isn't going to change after the (L) shutdown - if anything, it'll continue at an even higher pace, since real estate near the (M) line will have been growing in value faster than places closest to the (L). Anything to provide riders an alternative to the L - which is often crowded on weekends - will be welcome.

Until Queens Blvd CBTC is completed, though, I think the best solution may be simply running the (M) as a full-length train to either Essex or Chambers, and increasing service on intersecting lines, mainly the (F). After CBTC, though, I'd prefer Queens Plaza as the destination for the weekend (M), to better serve riders on 6th Avenue (which most centrally serves Midtown) as well as on the 53rd Street line and in Long Island City.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

The (J)(M) lines through Brooklyn - which were once basically ghost trains on the weekends - have ridership that is growing rapidly today. That isn't going to change after the (L) shutdown - if anything, it'll continue at an even higher pace, since real estate near the (M) line will have been growing in value faster than places closest to the (L). Anything to provide riders an alternative to the L - which is often crowded on weekends - will be welcome.

Until Queens Blvd CBTC is completed, though, I think the best solution may be simply running the (M) as a full-length train to either Essex or Chambers, and increasing service on intersecting lines, mainly the (F). After CBTC, though, I'd prefer Queens Plaza as the destination for the weekend (M), to better serve riders on 6th Avenue (which most centrally serves Midtown) as well as on the 53rd Street line and in Long Island City.

What is so wrong with 96th/2nd for the (M) on weekends/late nights?  I think it's something people on the UES are going to want to see made permanent, and even expanded to weekdays if possible.  

After CBTC is finished on QBL, then I would look at having the (M) going all times to 71st-Continental.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

What is so wrong with 96th/2nd for the (M) on weekends/late nights?  I think it's something people on the UES are going to want to see made permanent, and even expanded to weekdays if possible.  

After CBTC is finished on QBL, then I would look at having the (M) going all times to 71st-Continental.  

Must we rehash this every day? The added transportation value of sending (M)s up 2nd Avenue during off-peak hours is basically nil. The (Q) should have added service, and to facilitate better transfers to 6th Avenue - for all those on the east side who so desperately need to be at 57th and 6th instead of 57th and 7th - (F) service should get a boost too.

Sending (M) trains to Forest Hills is certainly a possibility, though. The (R) is pretty sad.

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1
  • Thumbs Up 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of an idea for modifying service through Dekalb Avenue. This would make it so that only one case of interlining happens.

(B) from CPW to Brighton Beach (express)

(D) from CPW to Bay Ridge / 95 Street

(N) from Second Avenue Subway to Coney Island via the Sea Beach Line

(Q) from Second Avenue Subway to Coney Island via the West End Line

(R) from Astoria to Coney Island via the Brighton Line (Local in Brooklyn)

 

(Q)(R) service would be increased. The (W) could be used if necessary.

An idea like this may have been posted before, if so I support it.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Queens Blvd?

10 hours ago, W4ST said:

I thought of an idea for modifying service through Dekalb Avenue. This would make it so that only one case of interlining happens.

(B) from CPW to Brighton Beach (express)

(D) from CPW to Bay Ridge / 95 Street

(N) from Second Avenue Subway to Coney Island via the Sea Beach Line

(Q) from Second Avenue Subway to Coney Island via the West End Line

(R) from Astoria to Coney Island via the Brighton Line (Local in Brooklyn)

 

(Q)(R) service would be increased. The (W) could be used if necessary.

An idea like this may have been posted before, if so I support it.

What do you think?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Sending (M) trains to Forest Hills is certainly a possibility, though. The (R) is pretty sad.

Long-term, that IS what should happen with the (M) running 24/7.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, BDNQ2345 said:

What about Queens Blvd?

 

My full plan for the B division would be this, after Phase 2 SAS is built. I would wait until then because this plan involves more subway cars, and those will need to be added in. Some lines could have less service though if cars are not available.

(A) - unchanged - 15 tph

(B) - unchanged - 7.5 tph 

(C) - Norwood/205-Euclid Ave - 15 tph 

(D) - 168 st - Bay Ridge 95 St - 15 tph 

(E) - forest hills - WTC - 15 tph (possibly 20) 

(F) - unchanged - 15 tph 

(G) - unchanged - 7.5 tph 

(J) - unchanged- 6 tph

(L) - unchanged - 20 tph 

(M) - Jamaica Center - Metropolitan Ave - 15 tph (3 tph goes from Jamaica/179 to 2 Ave) 

(N) - 125/Lex - Coney Island via Sea Beach - 7.5 tph 

(Q) - 125/Lex - Coney Island via West End - 15 tph 

(R) - Ditmars Blvd - Coney Island via Brighton - 15 tph 

(W) - Not used currently, maybe will change 

(Z)  - unchanged - 6 tph

More lines would be broken up under this system, so the whole system wouldn't crash down every time a train got stuck, but trains could use alternate routes if necessary.

Edited by W4ST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, W4ST said:

My full plan for the B division would be this, after Phase 2 SAS is built. I would wait until then because this plan involves more subway cars, and those will need to be added in. Some lines could have less service though if cars are not available.

(A) - unchanged - 15 tph

(B) - unchanged - 7.5 tph 

(C) - Norwood/205-Euclid Ave - 15 tph 

(D) - 168 st - Bay Ridge 95 St - 15 tph 

(E) - forest hills - WTC - 15 tph (possibly 20) 

(F) - unchanged - 15 tph 

(G) - unchanged - 7.5 tph 

(J) - unchanged- 6 tph

(L) - unchanged - 20 tph 

(M) - Jamaica Center - Metropolitan Ave - 15 tph (3 tph goes from Jamaica/179 to 2 Ave) 

(N) - 125/Lex - Coney Island via Sea Beach - 7.5 tph 

(Q) - 125/Lex - Coney Island via West End - 15 tph 

(R) - Ditmars Blvd - Coney Island via Brighton - 15 tph 

(W) - Not used currently, maybe will change 

(Z)  - unchanged - 6 tph

More lines would be broken up under this system, so the whole system wouldn't crash down every time a train got stuck, but trains could use alternate routes if necessary.

Okay, but I don't get why you switched the (D) and (R) southern terminals. That would only add an additional merge. And if you're going to refer to the yard problem the (R) could have, then I'd say, send 3TPH to/from Queens Plaza or Coney Island, like how the (W) does today with it's first and last 3 trains of the day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Okay, but I don't get why you switched the (D) and (R) southern terminals. That would only add an additional merge. And if you're going to refer to the yard problem the (R) could have, then I'd say, send 3TPH to/from Queens Plaza or Coney Island, like how the (W) does today with it's first and last 3 trains of the day

It was partially due to the yard problem, but I also wanted to give 4 Avenue riders direct access to 6 Avenue. On weekends, the (B) likely wouldn't run and there would be no merges. That was my reasoning behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/25/2018 at 10:49 PM, W4ST said:

I thought of an idea for modifying service through Dekalb Avenue. This would make it so that only one case of interlining happens.

(B) from CPW to Brighton Beach (express)

(D) from CPW to Bay Ridge / 95 Street

(N) from Second Avenue Subway to Coney Island via the Sea Beach Line

(Q) from Second Avenue Subway to Coney Island via the West End Line

(R) from Astoria to Coney Island via the Brighton Line (Local in Brooklyn)

 

(Q)(R) service would be increased. The (W) could be used if necessary.

An idea like this may have been posted before, if so I support it.

What do you think?

I seem to recall @Wallyhorse posting the part about running the (R) via Brighton Local and the (D) local to Bay Ridge before, though not coupled with running both (N) and (Q) to 96th-2nd. 

While I do like the idea of the (R) line not being entirely underground, I do feel that by doing a three-way switch between the (D), (Q) and (R) trains in Brooklyn, you’ll be creating two merges in close proximity for the (B) - one at Prospect Park with the (R) and the next with the (D) before entering DeKalb, which likely would cancel out any time savings gained by eliminating the big merge at DeKalb Junction (Gold St). 

On 4/26/2018 at 9:02 AM, BDNQ2345 said:

What about Queens Blvd?

 

Perhaps the (W) can take over the Queens Blvd-Broadway service if the (R) returns to Astoria after a 30-plus year absence, especially if the (M) is expanded to 24/7 service between Essex and Queens Blvd, as @W4ST suggested up thread.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
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.