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

Here's my brain fart for a Tuesday evening: 

After Manhattan Ave, have the (G) cross into Manhattan and run down 34th st to Hudson Yards, w/ stops @ Park/Madison Avs ((6)), Herald Sq((B)(D)(F)(M)(N)(Q)(R)(W)), Penn Station ( (A)(C)(E)(1)(2)(3)) and then Hudson Yards. Not only is 34th primed for a crosstown subway, but the amount of pressure this will take off the (L) is tremendous.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

What is with the hard on with returning the very inefficient Brown M service. IT WONT WORK FOR ANYONE!!!!! Its 2019 for gods sake, not 1999. What era are you all living where a one seat ride between North Brooklyn and Midtown Manhattan is not necessary?

Instead, I would have some (F) trains run express from 4th Avenue to Jay Street-MetroTech instead. To replace (F) service, I would propose bumping (G) service to every 6 minutes, and running a bus service between Crown Heights and Lower Manhattan. More specifically, a revamped B71 route. It can divert some (F) train riders from the (F) service. The B71 would start at Crown Heights, then take Union Street and Sackett Street to Van Brunt Street, passing by the busy Carrol Street (F)(G) stop. From there, the route would serve Red Hook via the B61 route to Clinton Street, then enter the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. Once on the BQE, the route would then travel into Manhattan via the Battery Tunnel, then via Broadway and Trinity Street. The route would terminate at Chambers Street where riders would then transfer to the (A)(C) and (E) trains into Midtown, or the M9 or M22 routes to serve the Lower East Side at East Broadway, Delancey Street, and Second Avenue. I am also proposing bumping up B57 bus service to replace (F) train service at Smith-9th Street, Carroll Street, and Bergen Street to Jay Street MetroTech, and those going to York Street can transfer to the (A)(C)trains to High Street instead.

 As the B71 would pass the Carrol Street stop on the culver line and would provide an attractive service to Manhattan, Red Hook and Gowanus riders would not need to rely on the (F) anymore. This would be relieve some crowding on the (F) and allow for some trains to run express since ridership at Smith-9th Street, Carrol Street, and Bergen Street could decrease due to the availability of an attractive bus route that can get them into Manhattan faster than the (F) train. This much better than the non-starter idea of bringing back the brown M service in exchange for an express service. Plus they could use some more bus line extensions anyway, given the need to shorten commute times between Red Hook and Manhattan.

Relatively few people are going to take a bus when a functional/fast subway is available. Regardless, the operating costs of any bus route frequent enough to drag any number of riders away from Culver is reason enough not to pursue such a discretionary (read: unnecessary) plan.

The (F) express plan also faces some relatively major operational issues -- this is a facet of the discussion that doesn't get enough play. Platforms on 6th Avenue (and at Jay) already get extremely crowded during the rush; having riders heading to the busier segment of Culver wait as much as 8 minutes for service is sure to pack them further, increasing dwell times. On the other end in Brooklyn, Bergen, Carroll and 4th Ave already push 40 seconds of dwell during the peak. Putting the same number of riders on fewer trains to reach them will be sure to increase them, with exit capacity issues at those stations worsening that impact. All of that is sure to up runtimes, reduce capacity, worsen merge delays, etc. Why do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Relatively few people are going to take a bus when a functional/fast subway is available. Regardless, the operating costs of any bus route frequent enough to drag any number of riders away from Culver is reason enough not to pursue such a discretionary (read: unnecessary) plan.

The (F) express plan also faces some relatively major operational issues -- this is a facet of the discussion that doesn't get enough play. Platforms on 6th Avenue (and at Jay) already get extremely crowded during the rush; having riders heading to the busier segment of Culver wait as much as 8 minutes for service is sure to pack them further, increasing dwell times. On the other end in Brooklyn, Bergen, Carroll and 4th Ave already push 40 seconds of dwell during the peak. Putting the same number of riders on fewer trains to reach them will be sure to increase them, with exit capacity issues at those stations worsening that impact. All of that is sure to up runtimes, reduce capacity, worsen merge delays, etc. Why do it?

Well there is demand for a direct bus line from Red Hook and Gowanus straight into Manhattan via the B71. Red Hook is a stones throw away from Lower Manhattan, yet getting there seems to take super long. In addition, Bergen Street, Carrol Street, and Smith-9th Streets have no elevators for disabled passengers, and not only that, the line does get crowded at Smith-9th Street. The new bus route to Lower Manhattan would be a big boon for the entire area as it would reduce their reliance on the (F) and whisks them from the crowded (F) to less crowded trains such as the (A)(C)(E) trains at Chambers Street, where more capacity exist for these customers. Alternatively, they can also walk a block east to West Broadway where they can catch the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue Line, which also has ample capacity. Spring Street on the (C) and (E) is not a far walk from Broadway Lafayette Street.

Even if people at Carroll Street may not be attracted to the new route, it can draw riders away from one subway station: Smith-9th Street. Currently, a lot or riders in Red Hook ride either to Smith-9th Street in Gowanus or to the Jay Street-MetroTech station, whose platforms are crowded as you mention. With the B71 to Lower Manhattan, and enhanced B57 bus service on Smith and Court Street, Red Hook riders would not need to crowd the (F) at Smith-9th Street, Carroll Street, Bergen Street, and Jay Street MetroTech anymore. I could see ridership go down at all of those stations, with Smith-9th Street and Carroll Street experiencing the largest decline. Also, as an FYI, the B71 would be running every 4 minutes to and from Manhattan.

The idea of a B71 route to Lower Manhattan is not new. After the route was eliminated, Councilman Brad Lander and various neighborhood groups have proposed that the route be revived with an extension via the Battery Tunnel into Manhattan, just like what I have proposed (https://council.nyc.gov/brad-lander/bring-back-the-b71/). This would connect the isolated nabe to Manhattan, which is needed in an area served by no subway line and a few routes. Seems like a great idea that could provide an alternative to the (F).

Back to subways, the problems with the (F) express plan you see do seem legit. I've been on the platform there every day during the AM rush and it gets packed. It would also add another two merges at Ditmas Avenue and at Bergen Street, where trains going southbound already go at a super slow speed. In addition, I have felt that the express service demand is a total farce. I mean its being proposed now when the (N) station renovations are still ongoing? WTF? Couldn't they just wait for the (N) renovations to end before resuming their push for the express (F)? I wonder if the people pushing for the (F) express are just (N) riders looking for the fastest way to avoid the station renovations and not ride to an alternate station on the (D) or the (B)(Q).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

What is with the hard on with returning the very inefficient Brown M service. IT WONT WORK FOR ANYONE!!!!! Its 2019 for gods sake, not 1999. What era are you all living where a one seat ride between North Brooklyn and Midtown Manhattan is not necessary?

It's about deinterlining the B Division and reducing merges not a hard on for the (brownM). Whether that's a good idea, is up to you...

4 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well there is demand for a direct bus line from Red Hook and Gowanus straight into Manhattan via the B71. Red Hook is a stones throw away from Lower Manhattan, yet getting there seems to take super long. In addition, Bergen Street, Carrol Street, and Smith-9th Streets have no elevators for disabled passengers, and not only that, the line does get crowded at Smith-9th Street. The new bus route to Lower Manhattan would be a big boon for the entire area as it would reduce their reliance on the (F) and whisks them from the crowded (F) to less crowded trains such as the (A)(C)(E) trains at Chambers Street, where more capacity exist for these customers. Alternatively, they can also walk a block east to West Broadway where they can catch the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue Line, which also has ample capacity. Spring Street on the (C) and (E) is not a far walk from Broadway Lafayette Street.

The B71 to Manhattan is a good move and it will get ridership but it's not going to make a dent in the (F) ... Two different clienteles going to two different destinations.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well there is demand for a direct bus line from Red Hook and Gowanus straight into Manhattan via the B71. Red Hook is a stones throw away from Lower Manhattan, yet getting there seems to take super long. In addition, Bergen Street, Carrol Street, and Smith-9th Streets have no elevators for disabled passengers, and not only that, the line does get crowded at Smith-9th Street. The new bus route to Lower Manhattan would be a big boon for the entire area as it would reduce their reliance on the (F) and whisks them from the crowded (F) to less crowded trains such as the (A)(C)(E) trains at Chambers Street, where more capacity exist for these customers. Alternatively, they can also walk a block east to West Broadway where they can catch the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue Line, which also has ample capacity. Spring Street on the (C) and (E) is not a far walk from Broadway Lafayette Street.

 Even if people at Carroll Street may not be attracted to the new route, it can draw riders away from one subway station: Smith-9th Street. Currently, a lot or riders in Red Hook ride either to Smith-9th Street in Gowanus or to the Jay Street-MetroTech station, whose platforms are crowded as you mention. With the B71 to Lower Manhattan, and enhanced B57 bus service on Smith and Court Street, Red Hook riders would not need to crowd the (F) at Smith-9th Street, Carroll Street, Bergen Street, and Jay Street MetroTech anymore. I could see ridership go down at all of those stations, with Smith-9th Street and Carroll Street experiencing the largest decline. Also, as an FYI, the B71 would be running every 4 minutes to and from Manhattan.

 The idea of a B71 route to Lower Manhattan is not new. After the route was eliminated, Councilman Brad Lander and various neighborhood groups have proposed that the route be revived with an extension via the Battery Tunnel into Manhattan, just like what I have proposed (https://council.nyc.gov/brad-lander/bring-back-the-b71/). This would connect the isolated nabe to Manhattan, which is needed in an area served by no subway line and a few routes. Seems like a great idea that could provide an alternative to the (F).

What ATH said. Aside from using the B71 to the (A)(C)(E) being infinitely less convenient than doing (F)-Jay-(A)(C), the area that'd benefit most from its service already is relatively divorced from Culver. B61 ridership is double that of Smith/9th; many if not the majority of Manhattan-bound commuters on its route are doing bus to Downtown rather than Smith-9th (the crowding on the rush hour B61 along Atlantic and Columbia reinforces this assessment). Revived B71 is a great idea (though I'd do it as 2 separate routes, not one) -- just not something that'll have all that much of an impact on Culver. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

If anything, they should have the three mentioned services in question go to Bay Ridge-95th Street instead of the West End Line so that the merging won't be a problem there. As West End customers, as they prefer to get to Chinatown faster, I would suggest that instead of sending the (J) / (Z) or (W) on the line, increase (D) service on the West End Line instead. The (D) does provide an express service straight up the bridge, bypassing Lower Manhattan, and landing at Grand Street, a station so popular to those going to Chinatown that another entrance was added there in 1999. It would be much faster than having a second service needlessly going local on 4th Avenue, travelling via the Montague Street Tunnel, and giving a nice tour of Lower Manhattan just to get to the center of town.

On that note, for now, the only logical line to send down 4th Avenue would be the (J) / (Z) since they will maintain direct access to a yard while running to 95th Street. Yes the (W) should come down here to 95th Street, but I would wait until they have the 36th-38th Street Yard ready for passenger service, which would be god knows when, all to avoid the problems of the pre-1987 (R), which the extended (W) would be replicating. However, for now, they should send more (W) trains into Brooklyn on the Sea Beach (N) line. 

 

This has long been my preference for additional service on the 4th Ave Line, especially if they decide to restructure (R) local service. Though I prefer the Nassau-4th Ave local train to be a separate service from the (J)(Z). It could be called the R, but in a brown circle instead of the current yellow. I also favor extending the (W), perhaps as the new primary 4th Ave local train. 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

If I may, the issue with a 4th local-West End service is that it misses the highest ridership bits of 4th local. Bay Ridge, 53 and 45 have been clamoring for more service, and have the stats to support it. Send local trains there, incrementally increase (D) service (you could even, if you really wanted to, run 10 Sea Beach/10 West End Local/10 West End Express with capacity improvements at Dekalb), and work with that: you're saving yourself a crappy merge, too. 

Agreed that a hypothetical West End express train should follow the present West End local train onto the 4th Ave express tracks (i.e., (D) West End local/ <D> West End express). But in the case of the (D)<D>, they’d have to merge with the (N) at 36th, the (B) after DeKalb, and finally the (A) at Columbus Circle. The (A) merge is probably the one that would limit the implementation of a <D> service, given how frequently the (A) runs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed that a hypothetical West End express train should follow the present West End local train onto the 4th Ave express tracks (i.e., (D) West End local/ <D> West End express). But in the case of the (D)<D>, they’d have to merge with the (N) at 36th, the (B) after DeKalb, and finally the (A) at Columbus Circle. The (A) merge is probably the one that would limit the implementation of a <D> service, given how frequently the (A) runs.

Yes, (D)<D> would have to interact with 18tph of (A) service...but that's assuming we don't make any other routing changes, which I'd contest. Any CPW deinterlining and/or Dekalb deinterlining would have an impact on the ability to increase West End service. 

Edited by RR503

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yes, (D)<D> would have to interact with 18tph of (A) service...but that's assuming we don't make any other routing changes, which I'd contest. Any CPW deinterlining and/or Dekalb deinterlining would have an impact on the ability to increase West End service. 

I think if you do DeKalb de-interlining with (B)(D) via 4th Ave express, plus CPW de-interlining, then having (D)<D> on frequent headways would be feasible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I think if you do DeKalb de-interlining with (B)(D) via 4th Ave express, plus CPW de-interlining, then having (D)<D> on frequent headways would be feasible. 

You know my take on Dekalb so I’ll leave that unsaid, but yes, CPW changes needed for (D) frequency to be upped significantly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

This has long been my preference for additional service on the 4th Ave Line, especially if they decide to restructure (R) local service. Though I prefer the Nassau-4th Ave local train to be a separate service from the (J)(Z). It could be called the R, but in a brown circle instead of the current yellow. I also favor extending the (W), perhaps as the new primary 4th Ave local train. 

Agreed that a hypothetical West End express train should follow the present West End local train onto the 4th Ave express tracks (i.e., (D) West End local/ <D> West End express). But in the case of the (D)<D>, they’d have to merge with the (N) at 36th, the (B) after DeKalb, and finally the (A) at Columbus Circle. The (A) merge is probably the one that would limit the implementation of a <D> service, given how frequently the (A) runs.

1. We don't need a Brown (R) because it would operate like the (brownM). The Brown (R) used to run from Metropolitan Av-Bay Ridge during Rush Hours using East New York equipment. So technically it is the (brownM). Also it was discontinued because it was empty when it operated. If anything, extend the (J) to 9 Av during Rush Hours because it has more ridership and the line is longer.

2. (W) can't operate in Brooklyn as weekday service. It is leeching off the extra rolling stock from (N)(Q)

3. (D)<D> can work. It just means more (D) service from 36 St on to The Bronx. Don't worry about the (A). It gets held up by the (C)(E) and passengers delaying it during Rush Hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Subway fanatic said:

 We don't need a Brown (R) because it would operate like the (brownM). The Brown (R) used to run from Metropolitan Av-Bay Ridge during Rush Hours using East New York equipment. So technically it is the (brownM). Also it was discontinued because it was empty when it operated. If anything, extend the (J) to 9 Av during Rush Hours because it has more ridership and the line is longer.

1. That was in the last months of it's operation. At all other times in it's history, it terminated at Chambers Street. We've proposed Essex Street as the last stop in this thread numerous times and Councilman Brannon was open to that idea when they first sent the letter asking for a split.

2. That was 1987. Lower Manhattan along the (J)(Z) has seen tremendous growth in the last few years (and there's more in the pipeline). Current service levels is not enough.

(Also the (R) gets A LOT of Lower Manhattan ridership during peak periods and would continue to do so along Nassau Street).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Someone is circulating a petition for a west end (D) Express feasible or nah 

Give me a break, these (D) riders already have direct express service to Barclays and Manhattan without having to make any transfers. Not to mention the core ridership is in between the individual express stops, and the (D) doesn't even run frequent as is (10tph? Who is going to wait 12 minutes for that?) Focus on fixing the (R) first and then maybe we'll talk.

On second thought, if implementing a <D> can lead to (D) frequency increases, I'm all for it.

Edited by Bay Ridge Express
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

1. We don't need a Brown (R) because it would operate like the (brownM). The Brown (R) used to run from Metropolitan Av-Bay Ridge during Rush Hours using East New York equipment. So technically it is the (brownM). Also it was discontinued because it was empty when it operated. If anything, extend the (J) to 9 Av during Rush Hours because it has more ridership and the line is longer.

2. (W) can't operate in Brooklyn as weekday service. It is leeching off the extra rolling stock from (N)(Q)

3. (D)<D> can work. It just means more (D) service from 36 St on to The Bronx. Don't worry about the (A). It gets held up by the (C)(E) and passengers delaying it during Rush Hours.

1. 1987 =/= today, and ridership dynamics on a rush hour only service and on an all day service are wildly different — one can be relied on whereas the other cannot. Also, a general note: can we stop suggesting running trains to 9th Avenue? It’s a convenient terminal, sure, but if you’re gonna suffer the merge at 36 you may as well run further down West End (or better yet, just don’t merge at 36...)

2. (N)(W) share stock, yes, but that’s...quite changeable. As long as some sort of CI access is avail, you’re good. 

3. Ah yes, don’t worry about the 18tph service that the (D) shares tracks with — some A+ transit planning we’ve got here. Even if we were to take your suggestion, you do see how the “don’t worry about the (A) it’s garbage — we can increase (D)” sentiment and the “(A) is garbage” sentiment are self-fulfilling, right?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

These proposals just help me to prove how crappy South Brooklyn's routing system is... First off, I don't think the demand is there in the first place (at least compared to Queens with QBL and Flushing) but there must be frequency increases. Deinterline DeKalb, deinterline Broadway, and a few solid tph will be saved. We can extend other routes (J) , (K) , (W) , (Z) (you name it) but extending a route to one line leads to less service on another and also is less useful compared to the main route (e.g. being able to traverse in Midtown, providing express service, etc., in which case I think the idea of extending a route would only apply well to the (R) ). In general this proposal (and any other similar future proposals, say we also want <N> in the future) kind of lead to the same idea of capacity restrictions.

Edited by Bay Ridge Express

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

1. 1987 =/= today, and ridership dynamics on a rush hour only service and on an all day service are wildly different — one can be relied on whereas the other cannot. Also, a general note: can we stop suggesting running trains to 9th Avenue? It’s a convenient terminal, sure, but if you’re gonna suffer the merge at 36 you may as well run further down West End (or better yet, just don’t merge at 36...)

2. (N)(W) share stock, yes, but that’s...quite changeable. As long as some sort of CI access is avail, you’re good. 

3. Ah yes, don’t worry about the 18tph service that the (D) shares tracks with — some A+ transit planning we’ve got here. Even if we were to take your suggestion, you do see how the “don’t worry about the (A) it’s garbage — we can increase (D)” sentiment and the “(A) is garbage” sentiment are self-fulfilling, right?

1. I still wouldn't waste my money on a service that will get minimal ridership. Remember the (brownM) final days on West End 2008-2010? It ran empty. Riders on Chinatown preferred the one way (D) instead.

2. Besides the shared R160/R68, what other rolling stock can the (W) utilize? This ain't 2006 where we had large amount of R40s, 42, and 32s.

3. I was saying frequent (A) service should not stop the Brooklyn (D)<D> service. After all (A)(D) are both essential services in the IND. I was not implying that we should reduce (A) service. In fact the (A) is my favorite B division line. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

1. That was in the last months of it's operation. At all other times in it's history, it terminated at Chambers Street. We've proposed Essex Street as the last stop in this thread numerous times and Councilman Brannon was open to that idea when they first sent the letter asking for a split.

2. That was 1987. Lower Manhattan along the (J)(Z) has seen tremendous growth in the last few years (and there's more in the pipeline). Current service levels is not enough.

(Also the (R) gets A LOT of Lower Manhattan ridership during peak periods and would continue to do so along Nassau Street).

1. I had no idea that you been talking about this subject, my bad. 

2. We should consider eliminating the (Z) or continue the Skip-Stop past Essex St into Court St. If we going to complain (not literally) about the (R) running solo on 4 Av, then we will have to run the (N) local from Dekalb Av to 59 St, and I don't think Sea Beach riders want to deal with that after a long decade of freedom (having express service) from complete local (N) service during the 90s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one advocates a (brownM) along West End; the preference is for (W) trains to be extended to Bay Ridge.

Seeing as the conversation has shifted over to capacity on the B Division. I'm just going to say that the most realistic steps the MTA can take is to deinterline all express trains and local trains along the 4 track trunks in Manhattan. In practice this means

  • Send the (N) to 96 St and allow for more (W) trains to run to Whitehall St / Bay Ridge
  • Run the (C) express to add more capacity through Cranberry and allow for a future (K) local train to Queens

With just these two changes, B Division can be broken up into "sectors" that can further increase reliability without any additional construction:

  • Manhattan Bridge sector: (B)(D) Concourse / CPW local / 6 Ave express + (N)(Q) SAS / Broadway express feeding into Brighton, West End, and Sea Beach. Further deinterlining can't be implemented because neither DeKalb nor Atlantic Ave have cross-platform transfers. Each service can run on today's 6 minute headways or possibly 5 minutes, 4 minutes after CBTC is installed.
  • Cranberry tunnel sector: (A)(C) 8 Ave express / Fulton. With no upgrades, 24 tph with a 2:1 express:local split in Brooklyn should be doable.
  • Queens sector: (R)(W) Astoria - QBL local / Broadway local / Bay Ridge + (E) QBL express / 8 ave local + (F) (M) QBL / 6 Ave local + (J) Nassau St / Jamaica + (G) Crosstown / Culver. Every service here should be running on 4/8 minute headways so that they sync up. More aggressive deinterlining can further split this into Astoria + QBL sectors.

Increasing frequency across all lines should be prioritized over local service reductions on outer branches.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

No one advocates a (brownM) along West End; the preference is for (W) trains to be extended to Bay Ridge.

Seeing as the conversation has shifted over to capacity on the B Division. I'm just going to say that the most realistic steps the MTA can take is to deinterline all express trains and local trains along the 4 track trunks in Manhattan. In practice this means

  • Send the (N) to 96 St and allow for more (W) trains to run to Whitehall St / Bay Ridge
  • Run the (C) express to add more capacity through Cranberry and allow for a future (K) local train to Queens

With just these two changes, B Division can be broken up into "sectors" that can further increase reliability without any additional construction:

  • Manhattan Bridge sector: (B)(D) Concourse / CPW local / 6 Ave express + (N)(Q) SAS / Broadway express feeding into Brighton, West End, and Sea Beach. Further deinterlining can't be implemented because neither DeKalb nor Atlantic Ave have cross-platform transfers. Each service can run on today's 6 minute headways or possibly 5 minutes, 4 minutes after CBTC is installed.
  • Cranberry tunnel sector: (A)(C) 8 Ave express / Fulton. With no upgrades, 24 tph with a 2:1 express:local split in Brooklyn should be doable.
  • Queens sector: (R)(W) Astoria - QBL local / Broadway local / Bay Ridge + (E) QBL express / 8 ave local + (F) (M) QBL / 6 Ave local + (J) Nassau St / Jamaica + (G) Crosstown / Culver. Every service here should be running on 4/8 minute headways so that they sync up. More aggressive deinterlining can further split this into Astoria + QBL sectors.

Increasing frequency across all lines should be prioritized over local service reductions on outer branches.

1. Why should we operate the (N) to 96 St to accommodate Brooklyn (W)?

2. There is no point in running a empty (C) express. What about the riders along 8 Av from Canal St to 50 St? The (E) can't do it alone.

3.(K) is never going to operate in Queens. It has never went past WTC when it existed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

If they were to do this: (D)<D>(D)<D>

(A)(D)(A)<D>(A)(D)(A)<D>(A) -Via CPW, this service pattern could happen only during AM and PM rush hours. <D> Via West End Peak Direction Express could start and terminate at Bay Parkway and could come and go straight from the Coney Island Yard, (D) remains Local to and from Coney Island. (D) between 205 St and Coney Island, <D> between 205 St and Bay Parkway. 

(D)(B)<D>(B)(D)(B)<D> via 6Av Rush Hour only.

(D)(N)<D>(N)(D)(N)<D> - Via 4Av in Brooklyn Rush Hour only.

(D)<D> both could still operate Peak Exp in Bronx AM/PM Rush.

Edited by bwwnyc123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bwwnyc123 said:

(D)(B)<D>(B)(D)(B)<D> via 6Av Rush Hour only.

(D)(N)<D>(N)(D)(N)<D> - Via 4Av in Brooklyn Rush Hour only.

I understand the preference, but DeKalb interlining sort of makes this impossible. If (D)(B)<D>(B)(D)(B)<D> on 6 Av were to be implemented, then it kind of has to be implemented on 4 Av as well.

Share this post


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

(K) is never going to operate in Queens. It has never went past WTC when it existed.

You do know we can reuse letters for different services right? 

If the (C) were to be pushed to the express and the (R) taken off QBL and (M) moved to 63rd, then the (K) would serve the role of a secondary local on 8th Avenue starting at WTC, secondary tunnel service via 53rd and primary local service on QBL to 71st Av. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just curious and because I don't feel like sifting through dozens of pages to find the answer: what is the exact proposal for Queens Blvd streamlined services?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Lance said:

Just curious and because I don't feel like sifting through dozens of pages to find the answer: what is the exact proposal for Queens Blvd streamlined services?

There are many. I see three schools of thought:

- Deinterline 34 St and leave it (so (N) to 96, more (W)

- Deinterline 34 St, the 11th St Cut, and (potentially) 36 St (so (N) via 63 to Queens Boulevard, either via local to Forest Hills or via express to Jamaica Center with (E) via local; (R) to Astoria)

- Deinterline it all ((N)(Q) 96, (R)(W) Astoria, (E)(K) via 8th/53/QB local, (F)(M) via 6th/63/QB express) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To respond to the new development over the Court Square station, I'm not surprised Court Square City View isn't building a new transfer connection between the Queens Blvd and Flushing platforms. There's a big difference between replacing one subway entrance and connecting an aboveground set of platforms with an underground set. In order for such a transfer to be done like that, a new mezzanine would have to be constructed on the north end of the Flushing platforms, both of which would have to be extended as they just barely cross over 44th Drive. Then there's the matter of the connection. Valuable real estate would have to be sacrificed on the southwest corner of the lower floors of CSCV to connect the northern Flushing mezzanine to the Queens Blvd platforms.

I think some of you are expecting way too much from real estate interests here. It's nice they are contributing to the effort to make the subway more accessible, which should continue and be expanded since the subway is the biggest draw to a lot of these projects. However, to expect them to go above and beyond the scope of their own projects is a bit excessive. If anything, the MTA should've built that connection between Flushing and Queens Blvd themselves instead of the one that was built between Flushing and the Crosstown lines.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lance said:

Just curious and because I don't feel like sifting through dozens of pages to find the answer: what is the exact proposal for Queens Blvd streamlined services?

I would say (E)(F)(K)(M) on QBL( (E)(F) same, (M) via 63rd, and (K) 179-WTC via QBL/8th local and 53rd), (N)(Q) to 96, (R)(W) to Astoria).

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.