How Will SAS Restructure the Broadway Line

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Well Damn I Dont know when this turned to an train audit thread but here is my two cents. Just boost train service and fix the schedule for the thing that's all really need to do the or don't need to be extended you will be making them completely unreliable they should also reroute the through 63 st with the so it doesn't have to merge with the and at the 60 st tube.

That is another way to do it as well. That can help the 4th ave line as well it is simply another way of doing so. I am curious the doesn't share it's tracks with any other line except a small segment between myrtle and Essex street and the shares with other lines almost it's whole route. So how would the which has almost a whole line to itself become completely unreliable with an extension over a line that it won't be sharing with any other line?

 

Although I do like your idea though as it can help the Broadway line's reliability. I guess that would give the MTA a reason to move the to Whitehall full-time with the becoming a Broadway express via the bridge and a Broadway local but still 4th ave express and improved as 4th ave local the end result is the same which is shorter wait times and better reliability. You would still have to add service either way but your idea is a very good one.

[RollOver]

they should also reroute the through 63 st with the so it doesn't have to merge with the and at the 60 st tube.

 

I don't see what difference does that make, but that's you I guess. It would have to merge with the at 36 St, then the at Lex-63, then the and at 57 St-7 Av.

 

Once again, I don't see any difference in your proposal.

[Roadcruiser1]

 

 

As a resident of South Brooklyn a lot of people do use the to get to Midtown. They usually are the people living in Bay Ridge. Also there are a lot of people that use it to get off at the local stops rather than transfer.

 

I scoff at your idea of thinking that extending what is already said to be an extremely long line which is the , and to be a better solution. It will only slow things down even more by making the , and to be longer than the current train.

 

Even more laughable is your thought that transferring will make things better. It will just make the extremely crowded 36th Street, and Atlantic Avenue - Barclays Center stations even more crowded, and will make things worse for the , and which never had any trouble to begin with so now your will make a former issue affect the , and  making things worse.

 

 

 

I would prefer to see a new tunnel built instead. I would rather see the 63rd Street Tunnel preserved for future services on the 2nd Avenue Line.

[B46 via Utica]

That is another way to do it as well. That can help the 4th ave line as well it is simply another way of doing so. I am curious the doesn't share it's tracks with any other line except a small segment between myrtle and Essex street and the shares with other lines almost it's whole route. So how would the which has almost a whole line to itself become completely unreliable with an extension over a line that it won't be sharing with any other line?

 

Although I do like your idea though as it can help the Broadway line's reliability. I guess that would give the MTA a reason to move the to Whitehall full-time with the becoming a Broadway express via the bridge and a Broadway local but still 4th ave express and improved as 4th ave local the end result is the same which is shorter wait times and better reliability. You would still have to add service either way but your idea is a very good one.

If you extend the to 95 st like many others has said it would be slow local and very unreliable and it would be useless on top of that just like the was.

I don't see what difference does that make, but that's you I guess. It would have to merge with the at 36 St, then the at Lex-63, then the and at 57 St-7 Av.

 

Once again, I don't see any difference in your proposal.

Na, it would just merge with the and at 57 st 7 ave there is a tunnel connection between 57 st 6 ave and 57 st 7 ave and come on not all my proposals are crazy

[RollOver]

Na, it would merge with the and at 57 st 7 ave

 

That's what I just said...

 

Also, you're not understanding where I'm trying to get at in my previous post. By removing the from the 60th Street Tubes and rerouting it onto the 63rd Street Tubes, southbound trains on the would have to merge more than once (36 St, Lex Av-63 St and then 57 St-7 Av). Still don't see any difference. Also with your proposal, Queens Blvd Local customers west of Roosevelt Avenue, would now be forced to crowd onto the and then the at 51st. With the current setup, the takes Queens Blvd Local customers west of Roosevelt to not only the at Lex Av-59 St, but also the and as well. There's a reason why almost no one uses the to connect to the Lex on the 63rd Street Line. I'm not saying that everybody from Queens Blvd wants to connect to the Lex, though.

 

You may relieve the 60th Street Tubes but now you're spreading the merging (and possibly crowding) problem elsewhere according to my previous post. No matter where you send the to, there's still gonna be merging delays here and there on the line.

[RailRunRob]

Ok but based on experience the waits easily go beyond 10 minutes. The infrequent service is made worse by the horrid reliability of the . It is high time the got the boot from brooklyn it is an abomination it makes the look awesome that is hard to do. The is the worst line in brooklyn the would liberate those poor saps from the 20 to 30 minute circus show waits on the . That line has failed brooklynites. Almost anybody who rides it will tell you how bad it is. The only problem with the is frequency it's reliability is nowhere near as bad as the . Basically in bay ridge gives riders something less awful more frequent service means the express trains won't have to hold as often which means delays made worse by the length of those lines.

Gotcha. I was going by the scheduling solely. It's a lengthy line I see what you mean.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

As a resident of South Brooklyn a lot of people do use the R to get to Midtown. They usually are the people living in Bay Ridge. Also there are a lot of people that use it to get off at the local stops rather than transfer.

 

I scoff at your idea of thinking that extending what is already said to be an extremely long line which is the J and Z to be a better solution. It will only slow things down even more by making the J and Z to be longer than the current R train.

 

Even more laughable is your thought that transferring will make things better. It will just make the extremely crowded 36th Street, and Atlantic Avenue - Barclays Center stations even more crowded, and will make things worse for the D, and N which never had any trouble to begin with so now your will make a former issue affect the D and N making things worse.

 

 

 

I would prefer to see a new tunnel built instead. I would rather see the 63rd Street Tunnel preserved for future services on the 2nd Avenue Line.

  

No, what's making 36th and Pacific crowded are the people who are already transferring to the , and the Atlantic Ave trains in search of a "faster ride" to Midtown. These are line riders who already have a direct ride to Midtown, but don't wish to use it. If you'll just take a look at train audit thread, you'll see post after post about Bay Ridge riders either ditching the R at the first chance or ditching the subway completely in favor of the express buses. Why? Because the current long, local R service has such a bad reputation service-wise.

 

And I think you ought to take a good look the and timetables before you assume that a J extended to 95th would be longer (and more unreliable) than the current R is. The J gets to Broad St from JC faster than than the R gets to Whitehall from 71st Ave. Factor in the runtime from Lower Manhattan to Bay Ridge and the J would likely still be faster overall.

If you extend the to 95 st like many others has said it would be slow local and very unreliable and it would be useless on top of that just like the was. Na, it would just merge with the and at 57 st 7 ave there is a tunnel connection between 57 st 6 ave and 57 st 7 ave and come on not all my proposals are crazy

But why even have the merge at 57th & 7th with the and ? Why not just have the R stay on the express tracks and run over the Manhattan Bridge? Then there wouldn't be any merging on the Broadway Line at all. The N and W would be the only Broadway Locals with the N running via Montague and the W short-turning at Whitehall. But you'd still have the merging with the and in Queens and at 63rd St and the and at DeKalb. And by removing the R from the 60th St Tunnel, you cut off access to the Queens Blvd Line from the and trains at 59th St.

[Caelestor]

  

No, what's making 36th and Pacific crowded are the people who are already transferring to the , and the Atlantic Ave trains in search of a "faster ride" to Midtown. These are line riders who already have a direct ride to Midtown, but don't wish to use it. If you'll just take a look at train audit thread, you'll see post after post about Bay Ridge riders either ditching the R at the first chance or ditching the subway completely in favor of the express buses. Why? Because the current long, local R service has such a bad reputation service-wise.

 

The has a very poor route, mainly because the / are in its way in Lower Manhattan. As such, the has to make sharp turns, and subsequently it has a longer route with more stops compared to the direct route over the Manhattan Bridge: 18 minutes from Atlantic Ave to Canal St via Lower Manhattan, versus 10 minutes over the Bridge. Only Lower Manhattan riders would ever take the in Brooklyn, and it's questionable that riders from other lines will transfer when the / offer superior service. It's quite telling that shutting down the Montague St Tunnel for over a year had little to no impact on ridership patterns. (The SAS should take advantage of this spare capacity and should be connected to the tunnel, but that's a topic for another thread.)

 

Interestingly enough, extending the to Bay Ridge in lieu of the , which terminates at Whitehall St, probably offers superior service. The offers transfers to 6 lines at Fulton St, while the only has the at Whitehall St. Terminating the at South Ferry would probably also increase reliability as well. The question becomes how needed is the connection between South Ferry and Downtown Brooklyn? I wouldn't value it too much, personally, given the presence of the and .

[Lordsaitamaboss]

The has a very poor route, mainly because the / are in its way in Lower Manhattan. As such, the has to make sharp turns, and subsequently it has a longer route with more stops compared to the direct route over the Manhattan Bridge: 18 minutes from Atlantic Ave to Canal St via Lower Manhattan, versus 10 minutes over the Bridge. Only Lower Manhattan riders would ever take the in Brooklyn, and it's questionable that riders from other lines will transfer when the / offer superior service. It's quite telling that shutting down the Montague St Tunnel for over a year had little to no impact on ridership patterns. (The SAS should take advantage of this spare capacity and should be connected to the tunnel, but that's a topic for another thread.)

 

Interestingly enough, extending the to Bay Ridge in lieu of the , which terminates at Whitehall St, probably offers superior service. The offers transfers to 6 lines at Fulton St, while the only has the at Whitehall St. Terminating the at South Ferry would probably also increase reliability as well. The question becomes how needed is the connection between South Ferry and Downtown Brooklyn? I wouldn't value it too much, personally, given the presence of the and .

That can work too with how bad the service in Brooklyn is I doubt anybody in Brooklyn would miss it if eliminated from Brooklyn. The funny thing is that they say the would be super long well it would be 1 station longer than the        . Funny thing is you took my argument and made it much better than I would be able to present.  I didn't even think about the connections the offered.

[R10 2952]

[Lordsaitamaboss]

Moving on but there are other dead horses out there.

[Wallyhorse]

Which is why I would NEVER send the there.  I did (as noted on this post) have the idea of a new train serving 95th, but that was to supplement the in Brooklyn, NOT replace it.

As already said, my far-from-perfect solution on this end would be a multi-way swap of Brooklyn terminals to make sure lines have yards on at least one end like this:

would move to 95th-Bay Ridge on the southern end and runs to 205 as it does now (skipping DeKalb except late nights).

remains on Sea Beach, but becomes the 4th Avenue local (also stopping at DeKalb and running over the bridge) and runs as follows:

Weekdays (5:30 AM-11:30 PM): To Astoria as it does now, except it would be express to 57th and merge north of 57th (as opposed to how the merges now).

Late nights (11:30 PM-5:30 AM) and weekends (11:30 PM Friday-5:30 AM Monday): To 71-Continental.  This allows the to return to being an express on QB 24/7 OR give QB two locals late nights.

This obviously requires the and to switch tracks at 59th Street-4th Avenue unless somehow new connections could be built that allow the respective lines to come in on the track opposite the current setup.  This is simply a lesser evil in this case.

moves to the West End Line and runs Coney Island to 96th/2nd that way, express on 4th Avenue and skipping DeKalb Avenue (except late nights)

moves to the Brighton Line and runs 24/7 between Coney Island and Astoria (this gives it CI yard and yes is the current route on weekdays).  

runs Whitehall Street to 71st-Continental weekdays (5:30 AM-11:30 PM). Late nights and weekends as noted, the replaces the this way, giving QB 24/7 service from Broadway.

Just to me the lesser evil in trying to untangle the current mess in Brooklyn once the SAS opens.  

[chenvinny54]

Waaaaaaaaaaait a minute everyone.The pre-2010 used to have select put-in's from Coney Island and Gravesend - 86 St when the gets rerouted via Bridge in the morning am I correct? Instead of all this chaos, have some trains drop out at City Hall, have some be extended via Sea Beach to 86 St, and have the rest terminate at Whitehall. This way you don't interfere with normal service.

Wait that might be little more work for the operators in to do. Any trains of the broadway line should not terminate at city halls, because it might cause delays to the heading southbound in manhattan. Only rush hours, you extend the to the sea beach line at 86 St as you proposed, and rest of times, will terminate at whitehall.

[chenvinny54]

Wait that might be little more work for the operators in to do. Any trains of the broadway line should not terminate at city halls, because it might cause delays to the heading southbound in manhattan. Only rush hours, you extend the to the sea beach line at 86 St as you proposed, and rest of times, will terminate at whitehall.

What i meant, while the had being extended to 86 St via Sea Beach line, will operate one way express, express northbound in the morning, southbound in the pm rush hour. That is like extending the to Bedford Park Blvd for service there meanwhile runs express in that borough.

[mediccjh]

and cannot go into Brooklyn via the Montague. R32s and R42s cannot go through the Montague Tube.

The will be coming back and going to Astoria. As for the southern end, that is unknown yet. 

[RailRunRob]

and cannot go into Brooklyn via the Montague. R32s and R42s cannot go through the Montague Tube.

 

The will be coming back and going to Astoria. As for the southern end, that is unknown yet. 

Why is that? Gear ratio?? Grade issues ? I saw a R32 on the about a year ago..maybe it ran via the Bridge?

[T to Dyre Avenue]

and cannot go into Brooklyn via the Montague. R32s and R42s cannot go through the Montague Tube.

The will be coming back and going to Astoria. As for the southern end, that is unknown yet.

 

They can if they don't run R32s or 42s. R32s and 42s won't be running on the J and Z forever, even though it may seem like they will, given the R179 issues.

What i meant, while the had being extended to 86 St via Sea Beach line, will operate one way express, express northbound in the morning, southbound in the pm rush hour. That is like extending the to Bedford Park Blvd for service there meanwhile runs express in that borough.

So what's going to run local if the runs peak-direction express?

Which is why I would NEVER send the there.

...

moves to the Brighton Line and runs 24/7 between Coney Island and Astoria (this gives it CI yard and yes is the current route on weekdays

...

Just to me the lesser evil in trying to untangle the current mess in Brooklyn once the SAS opens.

 

Your solution to untangling the current mess is to make it into an even bigger mess? Make it an even longer, local route with additional merges with the at DeKalb and Prospect Park? Really?

 

You still haven't explained how your incredibly ridiculous, complex plan is so much better than extending the / to 95th.

[nu1116]

It has more to do with relieving crowding on the South Brooklyn Lines, and to increase service, but even then the B.M.T. West End Line would win, because it has a higher ridership number than the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line. .

 

Ridership for the B.M.T. West End Line : 18,624,302. (2015.). .

 

Ridership for the B.M.T. Sea Beach Line : 16,000,000. (2015.). . 

I can't find the official 2015 subway ridership statistics, but assuming the numbers are accurate (apparently 16,000,000 is an estimate), the West End does have a higher ridership than the Sea Beach itself.

But, I just want to point out that the will most likely be local if it is extended to Southern Brooklyn.Then when calculating the potentially benefited riders, you should take 45th St, 53rd St, and 59th St into consideration.

All 3 stations are busy, and the combination of ridership from those 3 stations and the Sea Beach stations will definitely more than West End itself.

[Wallyhorse]

They can if they don't run R32s or 42s. R32s and 42s won't be running on the J and Z forever, even though it may seem like they will, given the R179 issues.

So what's going to run local if the runs peak-direction express?

Your solution to untangling the current mess is to make it into an even bigger mess? Make it an even longer, local route with additional merges with the at DeKalb and Prospect Park? Really?

 

You still haven't explained how your incredibly ridiculous, complex plan is so much better than extending the / to 95th.

See this post on how I would handle the 4th Avenue Brooklyn situation via the / .  

 

The as I would do it in this setup is as noted the current weekday EXCEPT this would go via the tunnel at all times to Astoria 24/7.  That line would be unaffected in Brooklyn.

 

Bay Ridge riders in this would get express service via 6th Avenue.  Those who want Broadway service can simply transfer at Atlantic Avenue and if they are looking for lower Manhattan can there either walk to the Brighton platform OR take the or that stop at stations in most cases one block east of where the Montauge tunnel trains do (or switch to the at Pacific and make another transfer at DeKalb).  

 

If there were not a yard issue, I would have simply returned the to it's pre-1987 routing of 95th Street-Astoria. 

 

It's been noted the main problem of WHY for now you can't have the / go to 95th the way some have suggested: The ban on R32 and R42 cars in the Montauge Tunnel.  

[RailRunRob]

See this post on how I would handle the 4th Avenue Brooklyn situation via the / .  

 

The as I would do it in this setup is as noted the current weekday EXCEPT this would go via the tunnel at all times to Astoria 24/7.  That line would be unaffected in Brooklyn.

 

Bay Ridge riders in this would get express service via 6th Avenue.  Those who want Broadway service can simply transfer at Atlantic Avenue and if they are looking for lower Manhattan can there either walk to the Brighton platform OR take the or that stop at stations in most cases one block east of where the Montauge tunnel trains do (or switch to the at Pacific and make another transfer at DeKalb).  

 

If there were not a yard issue, I would have simply returned the to it's pre-1987 routing of 95th Street-Astoria. 

 

It's been noted the main problem of WHY for now you can't have the / go to 95th the way some have suggested: The ban on R32 and R42 cars in the Montauge Tunnel.  

Was the ban put in place after the Sandy work? And for what reasons?

 

 

[Fresh Pond]

Why is that? Gear ratio?? Grade issues ? I saw a R32 on the about a year ago..maybe it ran via the Bridge?

Clearance issues within the tunnel with the cables.

 

The bodies of the R46s & 160s are up to a foot narrower at the top than the bottom, compared to the R32s & 42s being a flat 10' wide top & bottom.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

The has a very poor route, mainly because the / are in its way in Lower Manhattan. As such, the has to make sharp turns, and subsequently it has a longer route with more stops compared to the direct route over the Manhattan Bridge: 18 minutes from Atlantic Ave to Canal St via Lower Manhattan, versus 10 minutes over the Bridge. Only Lower Manhattan riders would ever take the in Brooklyn, and it's questionable that riders from other lines will transfer when the / offer superior service. It's quite telling that shutting down the Montague St Tunnel for over a year had little to no impact on ridership patterns. (The SAS should take advantage of this spare capacity and should be connected to the tunnel, but that's a topic for another thread.)

 

Interestingly enough, extending the J to Bay Ridge in lieu of the R, which terminates at Whitehall St, probably offers superior service. The offers transfers to 6 lines at Fulton St, while the R only has the 1 at Whitehall St. Terminating the at South Ferry would probably also increase reliability as well. The question becomes how needed is the connection between South Ferry and Downtown Brooklyn? I wouldn't value it too much, personally, given the presence of the 4 and 5.

That's what I've been trying to say! Although I was surprised to read that the Montague St tunnel shutdown had "little to no impact."

Sending the J down to Bay Ridge isn't gonna solve anything. All you're doing is moving one problem to another line. The J already went to 95 St after 9/11, and that made it the longest local line running, longer than the already unreliable R.

Plus, I'm pretty sure people along 4 Av is not gonna be okay with a shortened train running along their line.

 

Fair enough. Having the shorter-length and trains in place of the full-length trains is a valid concern, especially if ridership continues to climb. But it's not an insurmountable issue. The J and Z combined run more frequently than the R. You expand the Z to run for the entire length of rush hour to keep a consistent 12 tph during the rush. If that's still not enough, then perhaps an extended with full-length trains can supplement the J and Z during the rush (especially if it's difficult to turn both the R and W at Whitehall). And per the J and R timetables, the J gets from JC to Broad faster than the R gets from 71st Ave to Whitehall (not factoring in skip-stop service).

 

I wouldn't use a 9/11-related service change as a major reason not to extend the to 95th. There were factors in play then, that don't exist today and probably won't in the near future. For one, skip-stop and peak direction express service were suspended while the J replaced the R. Late night service ran in two sections - one was the same as the R shuttle and the other was from Jamaica Center to Myrtle-Broadway. Also, every line that went through Lower Manhattan in those first few weeks after 9/11 had unreliable service. And understandably so. Security was extremely tight, there were clean-up efforts everywhere and people who were there were genuinely nervous about being there, personnel or not. It's a different time now than it was in 2001. Yes, today there are cables that are limit clearance in the Montague Tunnel, but once the R32s and R42s are withdrawn and replaced with newer cars, that will no longer be an issue.

 

But if the extended length and the shorter trains of the are really going to work against it, then I suggest the idea of running the express in Manhattan (but still local in Brooklyn from 59th to DeKalb) via the Manhattan Bridge and running the local via Montague Tunnel 24/7 (but still express in Brooklyn from 59th to DeKalb). By putting the R on the faster, more direct bridge route and the express tracks in Manhattan, the R would be able to shave off a significant amount of runtime (it's 8 minutes faster from DeKalb to Canal via the Bridge and 3-4 minutes faster on the Broadway express tracks between Canal and 57th). There would be merging issues in Brooklyn, Queens and at Lexington/63rd, which will eat into some of those time savings. You'd need some creative scheduling to minimize any delays. But what other options are there? Leaving the R "just the way it is" is just not working out.

[chenvinny54]

So what's going to run local if the runs peak-direction express?

 

Like i said, the will provide the local service via the Sea Beach line from 86 St to Atlantic Barclay.

[RailRunRob]

Clearance issues within the tunnel with the cables.

 

The bodies of the R46s & 160s are up to a foot narrower at the top than the bottom, compared to the R32s & 42s being a flat 10' wide top & bottom.

Gotcha! Thx

[IAlam]

Like i said, the will provide the local service via the Sea Beach line from 86 St to Atlantic Barclay.

I think it should be a because of the fact the way schedules are already set it wouldn't be to hard to have an even headway.