How Will SAS Restructure the Broadway Line

[CenSin]

Keep in mind the as I understand it by itself is supposed to provide 14TPH at 96th.

 

12TPH is not even even off-peak for Astoria, which along with Brighton and Sea Beach BOTH get short-changed by your proposal.

 

The real problem as noted is the lack of a yard or you could simply go back to running the between 95th and Astoria like it was from 1967-'87.   Maybe the solution is to just deal with lack of a yard and return the to that routing as that might be the least of all evils.

 

With that, this is how I now would do it:

 

as noted returns to its pre-1987 routing of 95th-Astoria and returns to being a 24/7 line.  Trains that do go to Coney Island Yard run normal route to 59th/4th and then run via Sea Beach to Kings Highway while trains put in from CIY run via Sea Beach from 86th-59th/4th before running on their regular route.

 

sort of returns to its pre-1987 routing, now running Sea Beach to 71st-Continental, however, the is express all the way and unlike the pre-1987 routing runs with the to 63rd/Lex before then going via the 63rd Street tunnel, stopping on Roosevelt Island and at 21st-Queensbridge and then running local on QB starting with 36th Street.  This also would be 24/7.

 

runs as it's scheduled to once the SAS opens to 96th/2nd.

 

returns and supplements the to Astoria from 5:30 AM-11:30 PM weekdays, 7:00 AM-9:00 PM Saturdays (later if warranted) and 8:30 AM-7:30 PM Sundays (again, later if warranted).  

 

Because in this there would be no Broadway train stopping at Queens Plaza, there would be two new OOS transfer spots between Queensboro and Queens Plaza and 39th Avenue on the and 36th Street on the .  In addition, because of this the becomes at least a 19/7 line to 71st-Continental OR late nights and weekends the is extended to 71st-Continental OR the runs local on QB on weekends.

You’ve basically undone some common sense changes and now you want to terminate trains at Forest Hills on the express track. And that’s despite the fact that you know how bad the Forest Hills terminal sucks. It’s the same at Church Avenue for the when the has to clear out.

[Lordsaitamaboss]

You’ve basically undone some common sense changes and now you want to terminate trains at Forest Hills on the express track. And that’s despite the fact that you know how bad the Forest Hills terminal sucks. It’s the same at Church Avenue for the when the has to clear out.

Can't they boost service and have the go express  to jay street except rush hour kings hwy trips to eliminate the unneeded delays? 

[Wallyhorse]

You’ve basically undone some common sense changes and now you want to terminate trains at Forest Hills on the express track. And that’s despite the fact that you know how bad the Forest Hills terminal sucks. It’s the same at Church Avenue for the when the has to clear out.

Read again:

 

 

 

 sort of returns to its pre-1987 routing, now running Sea Beach to 71st-Continental, however, the   is express all the way and unlike the pre-1987 routing runs with the   to 63rd/Lex before then going via the 63rd Street tunnel, stopping on Roosevelt Island and at 21st-Queensbridge and then running local on QB starting with 36th Street.  This also would be 24/7.

Where did I say the would terminate on the express track?

 

The problem is this is a game of "pick your poison:"

 

Keep the lines as it's expected to be (with the to 71-Continental and the joining the to Astoria) and you would have the having to either merge as the does now UNLESS you add a Punch Box at 59th/5th going south and other changes that would allow the to merge/unmerge north of 57th Street.

 

Switch around the lines as I have noted previously, though that would likely have the on the Bay Ridge line (since that has Concourse Yard) and either that would run local to DeKalb before going over the bridge OR would have to cross tracks with most likely the at 59th/4th.  (With most likely the winding up on Brighton and on the West End).

 

Not a lot of good options here.

[richardye1]

Read again:

 

Where did I say the would terminate on the express track?

 

The problem is this is a game of "pick your poison:"

 

Keep the lines as it's expected to be (with the to 71-Continental and the joining the to Astoria) and you would have the having to either merge as the does now UNLESS you add a Punch Box at 59th/5th going south and other changes that would allow the to merge/unmerge north of 57th Street.

 

Switch around the lines as I have noted previously, though that would likely have the on the Bay Ridge line (since that has Concourse Yard) and either that would run local to DeKalb before going over the bridge OR would have to cross tracks with most likely the at 59th/4th.  (With most likely the winding up on Brighton and on the West End).

 

Not a lot of good options here.

but your proposal asks for a lot of change? It will be confusing to the thousands of riders who have taken these lines for years to adapt to such a change. 

[Daniel The Cool]

Read again:

 

Where did I say the would terminate on the express track?

 

The problem is this is a game of "pick your poison:"

 

Keep the lines as it's expected to be (with the to 71-Continental and the joining the to Astoria) and you would have the having to either merge as the does now UNLESS you add a Punch Box at 59th/5th going south and other changes that would allow the to merge/unmerge north of 57th Street.

 

Switch around the lines as I have noted previously, though that would likely have the on the Bay Ridge line (since that has Concourse Yard) and either that would run local to DeKalb before going over the bridge OR would have to cross tracks with most likely the at 59th/4th.  (With most likely the winding up on Brighton and on the West End).

 

Not a lot of good options here.

 

Idk which idea of yours is worse. This, your to Broadway Junction via the Cut or your to 145th Street on weekends (West 4th Street during the overnights)?

[CenSin]

Read again:

 

Where did I say the would terminate on the express track?

My mistake. But glossing over the text, the use of "(N) is express all the way" is patently misleading. It should've probably read "(N) is express in Manhattan" which would have left opened the possibility of a local run in Queens for the reader.

 

 

The problem is this is a game of "pick your poison:"

There is no poison worse than this:

 

would have to cross tracks with most likely the at 59th/4th.

Crisscrossing is a no-no!

[LOQV]

What I think the mta should do is have the D train run from 205 street to 95 street bay ridge to help out the R train and have the W train run from Astoria Ditmars Blvd to Coney Island via the west end line. This accomplishes two things. 1) bay ridge riders will now have better service due to the fact that the R train and the D train will both run to 95 street. 2) The W train will have direct access to a yard.

[Lance]

What's with this hard-on for having the go to Bay Ridge? I don't get it. As for having the serve the West End, it will force what is essentially the Broadway extra to become a full-time line or reinstate the late-night West End shuttle. Neither of those options are ideal or necessary.

 

On the subject of fixing Broadway, I'm not against having the or some other Jamaica line serving 4th Avenue. However, I am against having said Jamaica line be the sole 4th Ave local in lieu of the . They're both slow locals and adding more stops will not improve the line. The would be marginally better since it has fewer merges to contend with than the does, but it's not a faster trip. Then there's the question of transfers. Having the or any other Jamaica line be the sole 4th Ave local will force riders to transfer to other lines for Manhattan-bound service outside of the Financial District, rather than the option it is now with the . Yes, with the Fulton St complex, there are plenty of transfer options, but do you want more people crowding into the already overcrowded trains? With the , most smart riders will just stay on that train rather than give it up to wait for the unless it's already in the station.

 

To make a long story short, bring the , but keep the as an option as well.

 

On a side note, Wallyhorse, stop with the insane ideas. Repeating them at every opportunity won't make them come to be, nor will they become good ideas. They are tantamount to spamming and will be treated as such.

[Wallyhorse]

What's with this hard-on for having the go to Bay Ridge? I don't get it. As for having the serve the West End, it will force what is essentially the Broadway extra to become a full-time line or reinstate the late-night West End shuttle. Neither of those options are ideal or necessary.

 

On the subject of fixing Broadway, I'm not against having the or some other Jamaica line serving 4th Avenue. However, I am against having said Jamaica line be the sole 4th Ave local in lieu of the . They're both slow locals and adding more stops will not improve the line. The would be marginally better since it has fewer merges to contend with than the does, but it's not a faster trip. Then there's the question of transfers. Having the or any other Jamaica line be the sole 4th Ave local will force riders to transfer to other lines for Manhattan-bound service outside of the Financial District, rather than the option it is now with the . Yes, with the Fulton St complex, there are plenty of transfer options, but do you want more people crowding into the already overcrowded trains? With the , most smart riders will just stay on that train rather than give it up to wait for the unless it's already in the station.

 

To make a long story short, bring the , but keep the as an option as well.

 

On a side note, Wallyhorse, stop with the insane ideas. Repeating them at every opportunity won't make them come to be, nor will they become good ideas. They are tantamount to spamming and will be treated as such.

It's not any hard-ons:

 

In many cases it illustrates the sometimes poor planning-out that was done years ago OR what may have in those days been right at that time, but planners failed to take into account many changes in demos, population and other things that could happen in ensuing years and the needs that have changed since.  I also made clear my things were not perfect but a case of working with what is (for now) realistically available.  Back when the 4th avenue and Broadway lines were built, I doubt the planners ever thought for example midtown would become as big a business district as it is now nor did they likely think lower Manhattan would transform from being mostly the financial district and industrial to being actually more residential for example.

 

I also in many cases take into account what makes the pols happy.  Like it or not, they sometimes have to be (at least in my opinion). 

 

Oh, and in the case of the to Bay Ridge, that is SOLELY because the has Concourse Yard and no other reason. If the didn't have a hard-on for trains having a yard on at least one end, then this would NOT have been an issue. 

 

 

[richardye1]

What's with this hard-on for having the go to Bay Ridge? I don't get it. As for having the serve the West End, it will force what is essentially the Broadway extra to become a full-time line or reinstate the late-night West End shuttle. Neither of those options are ideal or necessary.

 

On the subject of fixing Broadway, I'm not against having the or some other Jamaica line serving 4th Avenue. However, I am against having said Jamaica line be the sole 4th Ave local in lieu of the . They're both slow locals and adding more stops will not improve the line. The would be marginally better since it has fewer merges to contend with than the does, but it's not a faster trip. Then there's the question of transfers. Having the or any other Jamaica line be the sole 4th Ave local will force riders to transfer to other lines for Manhattan-bound service outside of the Financial District, rather than the option it is now with the . Yes, with the Fulton St complex, there are plenty of transfer options, but do you want more people crowding into the already overcrowded trains? With the , most smart riders will just stay on that train rather than give it up to wait for the unless it's already in the station.

 

To make a long story short, bring the , but keep the as an option as well.

 

On a side note, Wallyhorse, stop with the insane ideas. Repeating them at every opportunity won't make them come to be, nor will they become good ideas. They are tantamount to spamming and will be treated as such.

In spite of the to Bay Ridge talks, why can't they have a Bay Ridge-Astoria instead of a Whitehall-Astoria ? The and access to midtown is crucial, and the can't achieve such. This will give your 4th avenue more service (Does it really need it lol?)

 

Hail no, the is not going to Bay Ridge. Not in my eyes

Also, as an amateur to the whole subway, does yard access really matter? (I don't live in the city, or even close to the city)

 

Also I agree with you on the fact that some people like Wallyhorse are adding unnecessary spam to the forum. I appreciate your ability to think of a multitude of plans that could work (or work better) but they are not realistic to the current political state that we are in right now. I prefer to see posts on realistic ideas that could actually take place.

[RTS9000]

I wonder if Astoria could go with a single line; during the Manhattan Bridge renovations, there was only the , and I don't think there was much negative feedback on that. Correct me if I am wrong - my post is full of speculation (besides the fact that the was the only Astoria train at one time).

 

I personally would add service to the Second Avenue subway to further ease crowding on Lexington (long run) rather than adding supplementary trains to the Astoria Line.

[GojiMet86]

The bottom line is that you would need to keep the same number of trains per hour that the line currently has to provide adequate service for Astoria.

[RTS9000]

The bottom line is that you would need to keep the same number of trains per hour that the line currently has to provide adequate service for Astoria.

Gotcha.

 

With the quote in mind (excuse me if I sound like Wallyhorse, but yeah it seems that lots of proposal posts have been appearing on this topic), I was thinking that all express trains (the  and perhaps the  should it become an express) could be routed to 96th St. - this will reduce delays due to track switching near the 57th St. station, and along the line at 59th/60th St.

 

As a result, there could be extra local trains that could be split between the Queens Blvd. Line ( trains) and Astoria Line (potential trains). To reduce delays along the , the could terminate at Bay Pkwy on the  during morning times (just as the old  did) - this will prevent delays on the , as there would be no switching and junction hassles involved near Whitehall St. Additionally, with freed space, there could be a sufficient amount of Astoria trains.

 

At nights, when headways are much greater (thus, junction problems would be less of an issue), the could stop operating for the day, and the and could operate as follows: via Astoria/Broadway local/Lower Manhattan, via 2nd Avenue/Broadway local/bridge.

 

Again, I do not mean to annoy anyone with a list of seemingly ridiculous proposals. Do give constructive feedback if you have any (or just divert this subtopic to another subtopic). I really do hope that the MTA looks into improving the functioning of the many junctions along the Broadway Line (especially Prince St, 57th, and west of Queens/Queensboro Plaza).

 

To be relevant to the original topic, all I can say is that the MTA has been looking to bring the train back, so there will most likely be extra service to Astoria to compensate for the 's diversion.

[Javier]

Here's the problem to that.

 

When they first thought about diverging the to 96 St, they thought it would be ok to have split service between 96 St and Astoria, just like the . However, when Astoria residents started complaining, they instead now want to have the go full time to 96 St and bring back Astoria's beloved train.

 

RTS, I like your idea because it doesn't interfere with the more than it needs to, but we also need to make use of every possible terminal along the Broadway Line.

[RollOver]

When they first thought about diverging the to 96 St, they thought it would be ok to have split service between 96 St and Astoria, just like the . However, when Astoria residents started complaining, they instead now want to have the go full time to 96 St and bring back Astoria's beloved train.

 

Nonsense. The 's plan has always been to reroute the to and from SAS once it opens. They never thought of alternating the between SAS and Astoria like you just claimed. The is not very frequent anyway (6 minute headways rush hour and 10 minute headways off-peak). Waiting time for the would just double additionally north of 57th Street-7th Avenue and it'll also just create confusion. NTTs or not.

[RTS9000]

Take it easy ^

 

 

When they first thought about diverging the to 96 St, they thought it would be ok to have split service between 96 St and Astoria, just like the . However, when Astoria residents started complaining, they instead now want to have the go full time to 96 St and bring back Astoria's beloved train.

 

I heard something like that too, but it looks like that plan was dropped a long time ago, so it's best to not consider that for now.

[RollOver]

Take it easy ^

 

I heard something like that too, but it looks like that plan was dropped a long time ago, so it's best to not consider that for now.

 

I think it's because of what they see on the future subway map in one of the SAS Construction videos on the 's YouTube I suppose, so they concluded that the agency will (or was) going to make the do what the and the rush hour currently does. *rolls eyes*

[Wallyhorse]

The bottom line is that you would need to keep the same number of trains per hour that the line currently has to provide adequate service for Astoria.

Exactly!  Astoria (and that whole area's) population has exploded since the days of the Manhattan Bridge work.

[Lance]

It was like that for some time before the south track closure. When the north tracks were closed off in 1985 and again a year later, Astoria was served by the and (until 1987 when the was switched with the ). A lack of available options forced the to be the sole Astoria line for well over a decade.

 

And to respond to your previous comment, you do realize the via West End is not that old of a route, right? The entire point of having the on the West End is to give each of the South Brooklyn lines 24/7 service. Pulling the to the lower portion of the 4th Ave line negates that and forces the establishment of the West End shuttle during the off-hours or having another full-length line, neither of which are ideal solutions.

 

None of that takes into account the other problem with this idea, something that has been mentioned several times in this thread alone, which is switch usage. Running the to Bay Ridge will force the to either run local through the entirety of 4th Ave or switch to the local track at 36 Street or 59 Street, crossing in front of at least the and whatever line that runs through Montague St. Again, you haven't actually solved the problem, but rather moved it from the Herald Sq switches to the ones along 4th Avenue.

 

Another thing that's getting really old is your insistence that politicians must be pleased above all else. Spoiler alert, most politicians don't give a damn about the minutiae of service routes. Making sure riders aren't waiting the better part of an hour for a train? Yes, that's something they're interested in. Running trains to Bay Ridge, trains to Washington Sq, trains to East New York via Jamaica or whatever idea flies into your head? Not so much. Stop over-estimating the effects certain government officials have on transit operations.

[Union Tpke]

I also posted this on subchat, but here it is.

Disclaimer: I do not advocate this proposal. It is meant to show how hard it would be to reduce switching and delays.

C Bedford Park Boulevard or 145th Street to Ozone Park

B 168th Street to Bay Ridge – 95th Street via Sixth Avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge and Fourth Avenue Local

Late Nights Atlantic Avenue to Bay Ridge – 95th Street Shuttle

D Norwood – 205th Street to Coney Island via Sixth Avenue Express, the Manhattan Bridge and Brighton Local

N 96th Street to Coney Island via Broadway Express, the Manhattan Bridge, Fourth Avenue Express, and the Sea Beach Line 

Q 96th Street to Coney Island via Broadway Express, the Manhattan Bridge, Fourth Avenue Express, and West End Line

W Astoria – Ditmars Boulevard to Brighton Beach via Broadway Local, the Montague Tunnel, and Broadway Express

Astoria–Ditmars Boulevard to Coney Island via Broadway Local and Sea Beach.

Things in Bold are part time routes

Late Night Services are underlined

[Around the Horn]

Nonsense. The 's plan has always been to reroute the to and from SAS once it opens. They never thought of alternating the between SAS and Astoria like you just claimed. The is not very frequent anyway (6 minute headways rush hour and 10 minute headways off-peak). Waiting time for the would just double additionally north of 57th Street-7th Avenue and it'll also just create confusion. NTTs or not.

You sure about that?

 

@Lance While many of his proposals are ridiculous, he hits the nail on the head about politicians and their minutia particularly Cuomo's shutdown last year...

[RollOver]

Okay? The agency has made all sorts of different possible re-routing options on the NTTs.

[Lance]

@Lance While many of his proposals are ridiculous, he hits the nail on the head about politicians and their minutia particularly Cuomo's shutdown last year...

Cuomo's shutdown of the subways was an overreaction, which is why the underground-only service plan was enacted during last month's blizzard. Besides, Cuomo was applying railroad operations to the subway. Completely different to what Wallyhorse claims every other post.

[Around the Horn]

Okay? The agency has made all sorts of different possible re-routing options on the NTTs.

I'm just saying that they have announcements that claim a transfer to a to Astoria which you denied.

[RollOver]

Fine. Fair enough.