Jump to content

W train coming back this fall


R32 3838

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 525
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Of course people were unhappy with the Astoria express. With that service, most riders only had the (N) for peak direction service.

 

How did they get away with starting that in the first place? Public hearings that nobody knew about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did they get away with starting that in the first place? Public hearings that nobody knew about?

 

The (W) was a brand-new route at the time. Remember that the original reason it was created back in July 2001 was to replace the (B) on the West End Line while the northern half of the Manhattan Bridge was being repaired. They sent it to Astoria during rush hours to supplement the (N), so at least peak-direction riders at Astoria Blvd & Ditmars Blvd got the advantage of the express.

 

Rush hours & middays, service ran to Astoria, evening service ran to 57th Street, and weekend service terminated at Pacific Street when it first started operating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I live in Astoria, and I'm having a lot of difficulty in understanding how this could even work. Astoria needs even headways during rush hours because Ditmars Blvd. doesn't have a yard, only a two track terminal. The (N) / (Q) generally work well together in the morning rush but there are a lot of issues with trains bunching up together in the evening rush. Ditmars-bound trains start inching around 5 PM after the Broadway station because off the ridiculous terminal congestion. A major cause of this is that the (N) and (Q) both start their long routes in Coney Island, and neither line is able to run on schedule by the time they arrive in Astoria.

 

People in Astoria had better service pre-2010 with the (W), and most of us are excited to see it come back. The (W) will even out spacing and be less prone to delays because it short turns at Whitehall Street. Your plan will only exacerbate the current problem, not help it.

 

There would be even spacing between trains because you would have a (N) Local train going to Brooklyn via the Tunnel every 9 minutes, and a (W) Express train running to Brooklyn every 9 minutes.  There would be an extra (N) train in between that short turns at Whitehall every 9 minutes.  Together a train would be running every 3 minutes.  Currently if you look at the schedules on the MTA website, the combined N & Q service is every 4 - 5 minutes during peak hours, which means the N operates every 10 minutes, and the Q operates every 10 minutes peak.  In that scenario the express runs part time, and the local full time in the Astoria neighborhood.  It is something similar I would set up in this proposal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be even spacing between trains because you would have a (N) Local train going to Brooklyn via the Tunnel every 9 minutes, and a (W) Express train running to Brooklyn every 9 minutes.  There would be an extra (N) train in between that short turns at Whitehall every 9 minutes.  Together a train would be running every 3 minutes.  Currently if you look at the schedules on the MTA website, the combined N & Q service is every 4 - 5 minutes during peak hours, which means the N operates every 10 minutes, and the Q operates every 10 minutes peak.  In that scenario the express runs part time, and the local full time in the Astoria neighborhood.  It is something similar I would set up in this proposal.

No just no. You're making it more confusing and complicated. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@triple: All you're doing in your "idea" is just rerouting (or alternating, whatever) trains here and there (like the current setup on the (A) and the rush hour  (5)) as well as reducing service on the (Q) and (R) from 6 minute headways to 8 minute headways, creating more passenger overcrowding and delays at the Brighton Local stations and the amount of Local Queens Boulevard and Local 4th Avenue customers trying to change to other lines from the (R) train itself. Lastly, the "4-8 minute" or "5-10 minute" headway thingy means that if a passenger waits up to 8 or 10 minutes, the arriving train would already be full to the brim and the next train behind being less crowded. That kind of headway is not a good way to even passenger crowds. And what's up with the late evening (N) and (W) both running every 12-15 minutes or more instead of 10 minutes or shorter?

 

Anyway, I'm glad the (MTA) made the final decision in bringing back the pre-2010 setup for the Broadway Line, with the permanent (Q) reroute to and from SAS. Simple.

 

The MTA does it all the time with service, in particular with the (4) train, which runs every 4 - 8 minutes (which means 12:00, 12:04, 12:12, so forth).  In between the 4 trains is 5 service (12:08, 12:20, etc.).  In between the long waits would be another train in which people could take, and in fact between Astoria and 34th Street there is no difference between the local and express trains, so for an Astoria resident, there is even spacing of trains that a passenger could take.  The late night 12 to 15 minute headways, it is line with what the (N) and (Q) already does after 10 PM.  The (Q) stops running from Astoria after 11 PM, and there are about 15 minute headways on the (N).  Combined headways would be every 6 minutes in Astoria under my proposal. 

 

As for the (Q) and (R) service, I had proposed that the (N) would run local in Brooklyn, in addition to the (R) service, in one scenario, combined they would give the 4th Avenue Local riders the service that it needs.  As for Queens Boulevard, the one or two trains per hour on that line can be replaced with (M) service which will be needed especially during the Sandy repairs on the (L) line.  In another scenario, I had the (R) going express, which would mean from 36th Street in Brooklyn to 34 Street in Manhattan it is evenly spaced with the (W) express.  On the Broadway Line itself combined headways would be every 3 minutes between 34th Street and Canal Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MTA does it all the time with service, in particular with the (4) train, which runs every 4 - 8 minutes (which means 12:00, 12:04, 12:12, so forth).  In between the 4 trains is 5 service (12:08, 12:20, etc.).  In between the long waits would be another train in which people could take, and in fact between Astoria and 34th Street there is no difference between the local and express trains, so for an Astoria resident, there is even spacing of trains that a passenger could take.  The late night 12 to 15 minute headways, it is line with what the (N) and (Q) already does after 10 PM.  The (Q) stops running from Astoria after 11 PM, and there are about 15 minute headways on the (N).  Combined headways would be every 6 minutes in Astoria under my proposal. 

 

As for the (Q) and (R) service, I had proposed that the (N) would run local in Brooklyn, in addition to the (R) service, in one scenario, combined they would give the 4th Avenue Local riders the service that it needs.  As for Queens Boulevard, the one or two trains per hour on that line can be replaced with (M) service which will be needed especially during the Sandy repairs on the (L) line.  In another scenario, I had the (R) going express, which would mean from 36th Street in Brooklyn to 34 Street in Manhattan it is evenly spaced with the (W) express.  On the Broadway Line itself combined headways would be every 3 minutes between 34th Street and Canal Street.

 

How many times are you going to repeat this idea despite getting the answers from everyone that it won't work, its not a good idea and it's confusing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many times are you going to repeat this idea despite getting the answers from everyone that it won't work, its not a good idea and it's confusing?

 

We are simply discussing what should happen with the line, and I have answered whatever rebuttals that the people are giving, some of them legit, and some of them not.  We have a right to disagree.  For me it makes perfect sense not to switch how the (N) operates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is why I support having the part time train, the (W) become the express train running into Brooklyn on the West End Line (short term) and on the Sea Beach Line (Long term).  The (N) should have two services both as Broadway Local: one to Coney Island via the tunnel and 4th Avenue Local, the other short turns at Whitehall Street.  All  (N) trains run through Whitehall 24/7, some continue into Brooklyn, while some terminate there during the weekdays.  The  (W)runs express from 34th Street through the Bridge into Brooklyn.

 

The full length (N) train would provide help for the 4th Avenue Line, while some trains are short turned at Whitehall Street every 9 - 12 minutes during the weekdays to provide that extra local service along Broadway and Astoria.  Combined headways at all times in Astoria would be every 3 to 5 minutes, with three services as follows:

 

(N) - Full length Broadway / Tunnel / 4th Avenue Sea Beach Local - Every 9 minutes

(N) - Broadway Local to Whitehall Street - Every 9 minutes

(W) - Broadway Express / Bridge / 4th Avenue Express / (West End (Short Term), Sea Beach (Long Term)) - Every 9 minutes.

 

And obviously each service would be every 12 to 15 minutes during periods where you would run less tph like middays or late evenings unti 11 PM.

 

On weekends, you could have two service patterns:

 

(N) - Broadway Tunnel / 4th Avenue / Sea Beach Local

(W) - Broadway Bridge / 4th Avenue Express

 

running every 10 to 12 minutes individually for a combined 5 to 6 minute headway north of 34th Street and in Queens until 10 PM.

 

The (N) would make all local stops at all stations 24/7.

Based on what you say here, you seem to be proposing that the MTA do this within a short timeframe (2 years) since you take the Sea Beach rehabilitation into consideration. I assume it is not a fantasy proposal, so I ask you this: where will the MTA find enough resources to support this? Where’s the money, equipment, and yard space?

 

If it were a fantasy proposal, then we could assume unlimited resources, but this here takes on a serious stance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on what you say here, you seem to be proposing that the MTA do this within a short timeframe (2 years) since you take the Sea Beach rehabilitation into consideration. I assume it is not a fantasy proposal, so I ask you this: where will the MTA find enough resources to support this? Where’s the money, equipment, and yard space?

 

If it were a fantasy proposal, then we could assume unlimited resources, but this here takes on a serious stance.

 

 

No it is not a fantasy proposal at all, nor would it be much in terms of expanding the service at the headways proposed.   (W) service running express every 12 minutes on weekends to provide Sea Beach residents a quicker rider would not be so much of an issue.  As far as weekday service is concerned, what was proposed would give Astoria residents headways of 3, 4, or 5 minutes during virtually any part of the day, which would not be too far off from what the current (N)/(Q) tandem gives now.  The combined headways of the (N) and (Q) are 4 or 5 minutes during the peak hours (8 or 10 minutes for a particular train).

 

Look at the schedules of the trains and you will see the proposal is not far off from what current service patterns are.

 

Even if it was two services, one full length local, and one full length express, I would still suggest that the 24/7 route remain local at all times and run through the tunnel.  That is something that you may disagree with, but that is your opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it is not a fantasy proposal at all, nor would it be much in terms of expanding the service at the headways proposed. (W) service running express every 12 minutes on weekends to provide Sea Beach residents a quicker rider would not be so much of an issue. As far as weekday service is concerned, what was proposed would give Astoria residents headways of 3, 4, or 5 minutes during virtually any part of the day, which would not be too far off from what the current (N)/(Q) tandem gives now. The combined headways of the (N) and (Q) are 4 or 5 minutes during the peak hours (8 or 10 minutes for a particular train).

 

Look at the schedules of the trains and you will see the proposal is not far off from what current service patterns are.

 

Even if it was two services, one full length local, and one full length express, I would still suggest that the 24/7 route remain local at all times and run through the tunnel. That is something that you may disagree with, but that is your opinion.

Which is why most of us can agree that "your proposal" wouldn't really make a difference due to the fact that it seems to be the means to popularize the returns of a cut service which was really needed from the jump but the (W) is by propose to provide one seat ride to Lower Manhattan from North West Queens instead of transferring to the (R). In my opinion, it's not gonna make a difference to switch the service patterns of the (N) and (W), bridge and tunnel services, because if the (N) service was broken, it would been proposed BY THE (MTA) ITSELF. Whether the (MTA) extends the (W) into Brooklyn via the Whitehall depends on them, for all we know but I won't pretend to say that it's not needed. We'll have to see if future cars orders and some "improvements" can accommodate this extension fully to meet that demand. I mean who needs?

 

What's not gonna change is that it's only gonna be weekdays only! So that's that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which is why most of us can agree that "your proposal" wouldn't really make a difference due to the fact that it seems to be the means to popularize the returns of a cut service which was really needed from the jump but the (W) is by propose to provide one seat ride to Lower Manhattan from North West Queens instead of transferring to the (R). In my opinion, it's not gonna make a difference to switch the service patterns of the (N) and (W), bridge and tunnel services, because if the (N) service was broken, it would been proposed BY THE (MTA) ITSELF. Whether the (MTA) extends the (W) into Brooklyn via the Whitehall depends on them, for all we know but I won't pretend to say that it's not needed. We'll have to see if future cars orders and some "improvements" can accommodate this extension fully to meet that demand. I mean who needs?

 

What's not gonna change is that it's only gonna be weekdays only! So that's that.

 

The very purpose though of switching them was to help both Astoria and 4th Avenue Line residents, as well as keeping one train consistently local through the tunnel on the Broadway Line.  By having the proposal the way how most people are suggesting (N) switching between express and local and Broadway, and (W) running local weekdays to Whitehall Street, does not address the issue of 4th Avenue, in particular.   (R) service cannot be increased as is right now, because Queens Blvd.  In addition (M) service will need to run 24/7 very soon because of the repairs to the Canarsie Line, and weekday service will need to heavily increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

keeping one train consistently local through the tunnel on the Broadway Line.

As much as I like consistency (take note of past responses to WallyHorse’s more colorful proposals), the chief issues are:

  1. A 12-minute headway for express service on Sea Beach would not be very popular on the weekends; only a handful of people there actually need to access te local stations along 4 Avenue.
  2. It is not doable without taking trains from another route…

No it is not a fantasy proposal at all, nor would it be much in terms of expanding the service at the headways proposed.   (W) service running express every 12 minutes on weekends to provide Sea Beach residents a quicker rider would not be so much of an issue.  As far as weekday service is concerned, what was proposed would give Astoria residents headways of 3, 4, or 5 minutes during virtually any part of the day, which would not be too far off from what the current (N)/(Q) tandem gives now.  The combined headways of the (N) and (Q) are 4 or 5 minutes during the peak hours (8 or 10 minutes for a particular train).

 

Look at the schedules of the trains and you will see the proposal is not far off from what current service patterns are.

 

Even if it was two services, one full length local, and one full length express, I would still suggest that the 24/7 route remain local at all times and run through the tunnel.

With a shortage of cars, you will definitely have to plan for a decrease in service on some other route. You’re going to have to quantify the difference between the current schedule and your schedule, then figure out how much more resources the MTA would have to expend to do it your way. You’d be surprised.

 

That is something that you may disagree with, but that is your opinion.

It’s not just an opinion; you will find that it’s rather strongly grounded in facts. it’s just my hunch for now though, but my hunches are never far too off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As much as I like consistency (take note of past responses to WallyHorse’s more colorful proposals), the chief issues are:

  1. A 12-minute headway for express service on Sea Beach would not be very popular on the weekends; only a handful of people there actually need to access te local stations along 4 Avenue.
  2. It is not doable without taking trains from another route…

With a shortage of cars, you will definitely have to plan for a decrease in service on some other route. You’re going to have to quantify the difference between the current schedule and your schedule, then figure out how much more resources the MTA would have to expend to do it your way. You’d be surprised.

 

It’s not just an opinion; you will find that it’s rather strongly grounded in facts. it’s just my hunch for now though, but my hunches are never far too off.

 

As far as having more resources in my proposal, I believe the costs would be similar, especially if the headways in Astoria combined would be every 4 or 5 minutes, and a little more if combined 3 minutes.  The (N) Local and (Q) Express as how they are setup now combined runs every 5 minutes.  In my proposal for service, combined headways would be every 6 minutes at highest ridership times with each train ((N) Local and (W) express) running every 12 minutes.  

 

Also in discussing the headways with you, I know what I am talking about, and it has been researched before even being proposed.  We agree to disagree on this issue, CenSin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as having more resources in my proposal, I believe the costs would be similar, especially if the headways in Astoria combined would be every 4 or 5 minutes, and a little more if combined 3 minutes.  The (N) Local and (Q) Express as how they are setup now combined runs every 5 minutes.  In my proposal for service, combined headways would be every 6 minutes at highest ridership times with each train ( (N) Local and (W) express) running every 12 minutes.  

 

Also in discussing the headways with you, I know what I am talking about, and it has been researched before even being proposed.  We agree to disagree on this issue, CenSin

We can agree to disagree, but look at what proposals have more backing and support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

You mean Eastern Division limits.

 

None of the stations along the Canarsie, Jamaica and Myrtle Ave lines can platform a full ten-car/600-foot train. That rules out the (M). As for the (C), there are two reasons why it will continue to use eight-car trains. The main reason is that there aren't enough cars to run full-length trains and have a comfortable spare factor. The secondary reason is that the (C) is currently sharing cars with the (J) and (M) lines, which cannot run longer trains for the aforementioned reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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