Jump to content

Service Changes: NYC Transit Committee Notification: A-Division Subway Schedule Changes Spring 2017


Union Tpke

Recommended Posts

I ride the (1)(2)(3) and it is ridiculous.  The (1) service is a separate issue from the (2) and (3) and needed its own service improvements.  The fact that they can't add more (2)(3) service will just negate any benefits of adding more (1) service, so yes it is ridiculous because they are already at track capacity for the (2)(3). I already let several (2)(3) trains go before I can get on one as it is...

What would you suggest?  You have 4 tracks you can't run any more trains on tracks 2 and 3 so you add trains on 1 and 4 what am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Contrary to popular belief, the maximum capacity of the (2) line is NOT dictated by the 7th Avenue segment.

 

That "honor" goes to the Rogers junction.. in BROOKLYN. There's this one part of Rogers that requires the (2)(3) AND (5) to merge onto one track for a brief time in each direction.

 

This is also why there's some (5) trains that run in and out of Utica and a couple of (2) trains run to/from New Lots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riders in my area for certain are switching to the subway in some cases because the express buses are too slow in the morning.  

 

 

Well we won't get into that part of it, but the (MTA) has fabricated this headache of being overcapacity to a degree by forcing people to take the subways.  You have fewer people riding buses, so that means more people riding the subways...

 

Maybe I'm missing something, but the MTA isn't "forcing" people to take the subway by "making" the express buses too slow. Buses, by the very nature of their intrinsic properties, share roadways with general traffic. Isn't their speed dictated by the traffic? 

 

I agree long term capital construction is needed, and they haven't done a good job of managing the "megaprojects" they're doing now. I just don't agree with "there wouldn't be a problem if more people took the bus". 

 

by and large, busses will be feeders to subways. most people prefer to travel by rail. just the way it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something, but the MTA isn't "forcing" people to take the subway by "making" the express buses too slow. Buses, by the very nature of their intrinsic properties, share roadways with general traffic. Isn't their speed dictated by the traffic? 

.

 

I'll add to this the political element. For example, since Vision Zero and the goddamn bike lane on Queens Blvd was added, the express buses that use bQueens Blvd have consistently slowed down, both due to traffic and due to B/Os being concerned with getting arrested if they get into accidents (which is something a number of them have talked about while I was on the bus). I won't get into whether these changes are good or not, but the politics definitely affect how well the buses can run, which in turn affects how many people use the subway. Such a complex, interconnected city we have...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guessing they're intending on opening South Ferry III in June as well.... Otherwise they wouldn't mention running (2) trains all the way to the Ferry, would they?

Wouldn't it help if so to use BOTH the loop station AND the new station during that period with one line running the loop and the others running from the new station when all terminate at SF?

 

Also, what about running a shuttle between Chambers and Wall Street to accommodate transfers to the other lines.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it help if so to use BOTH the loop station AND the new station during that period with one line running the loop and the others running from the new station when all terminate at SF?

 

Also, what about running a shuttle between Chambers and Wall Street to accommodate transfers to the other lines.  

Chambers and Wall street on the Lexington? How would you do that without affecting the line and oncoming traffic ? Seems like a pretty labor intensive and slow operation switching Signal resets etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe I'm missing something, but the MTA isn't "forcing" people to take the subway by "making" the express buses too slow. Buses, by the very nature of their intrinsic properties, share roadways with general traffic. Isn't their speed dictated by the traffic? 

 

I agree long term capital construction is needed, and they haven't done a good job of managing the "megaprojects" they're doing now. I just don't agree with "there wouldn't be a problem if more people took the bus". 

 

by and large, busses will be feeders to subways. most people prefer to travel by rail. just the way it goes.

 

You obviously don't use buses so what do you know? They have indeed slashed bus service across the city, making frequencies less which in turn does push people onto the subway. In fact if you look at the MILLIONS of riders lost, those people obviously shifted to other modes, especially the subway. Perhaps you forgot the bus cuts from 2010? Only some routes have returned, and they run so infrequently that surely plenty of people that could use them don't even bother, so having the system flooded with people that you can barely accommodate is just stupid. Numerous city officials have noted this and the need to ensure that we're maximizing the services that we offer. Typical MTA.

lol, typical VG8. Bitching about a problem that doesn't have an effective short term solution. Want more capacity now? Feel free to personally fund the CBTC upgrades.

 Quite frankly this problem with the (1)(2)(3) line isn't new so this is something the agency should've been examining years ago. What's the short term solution? Well their answer seems to be run a few trains where we can but what about improving other services that they currently have up and running? Do a real study about ridership patterns to understand how they can take some of the strain off of that line. Seems like a no brainer... I'm willing to bet that people from the CPW line are using the (1)(2)(3) because the (B) and (C) run like crap during the rush. 

I'll add to this the political element. For example, since Vision Zero and the goddamn bike lane on Queens Blvd was added, the express buses that use Queens Blvd have consistently slowed down, both due to traffic and due to B/Os being concerned with getting arrested if they get into accidents (which is something a number of them have talked about while I was on the bus). I won't get into whether these changes are good or not, but the politics definitely affect how well the buses can run, which in turn affects how many people use the subway. Such a complex, interconnected city we have...

 Indeed... The MTA has responded to poor bus service by simply adding more run time and telling people to expect delays. That is NOT an effective solution, which in turn tells people we don't give a damn about our bus system so take the subway. 

What would you suggest?  You have 4 tracks you can't run any more trains on tracks 2 and 3 so you add trains on 1 and 4 what am I missing?

Or you look at your alternatives and see how you can make those more attractive... How about that. They have the 6th Avenue line that they can improve as well as numerous bus lines that people have alienated to pack onto the subways. It is no secret that our subway system is maxed out, so one short term solution is to lure people to other alternatives. The trains will still be crowded to some extent but if you don't have any sound alternatives, you just exacerbate an already bad situation. They have bus lines running every 30 minutes. Who is going to use that when the subway comes every 2-3 minutes? At least make your alternatives attractive to get people to consider other means of getting around. They're making the system subway centric when they know they don't have the capacity in the first place. Makes no sense. This is why the city has been proposing alternatives to alleviate some of the overcrowding on the subways.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chambers and Wall street on the Lexington? How would you do that without affecting the line and oncoming traffic ? Seems like a pretty labor intensive and slow operation switching Signal resets etc.

NO.  Wall Street on the (2)(3).  If you can use Wall Street on the (2)(3) as a terminal, it solves a lot of issues during the time the Clark Street tunnels are shut down (especially with the transfers at Park Place and Fulton Street).  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You obviously don't use buses so what do you know? They have indeed slashed bus service across the city, making frequencies less which in turn does push people onto the subway. In fact if you look at the MILLIONS of riders lost, those people obviously shifted to other modes, especially the subway. Perhaps you forgot the bus cuts from 2010? Only some routes have returned, and they run so infrequently that surely plenty of people that could use them don't even bother, so having the system flooded with people that you can barely accommodate is just stupid. Numerous city officials have noted this and the need to ensure that we're maximizing the services that we offer. Typical MTA. Quite frankly this problem with the (1)(2)(3) line isn't new so this is something the agency should've been examining years ago. What's the short term solution? Well their answer seems to be run a few trains where we can but what about improving other services that they currently have up and running? Do a real study about ridership patterns to understand how they can take some of the strain off of that line. Seems like a no brainer... I'm willing to bet that people from the CPW line are using the (1)(2)(3) because the (B) and (C) run like crap during the rush.  Indeed... The MTA has responded to poor bus service by simply adding more run time and telling people to expect delays. That is NOT an effective solution, which in turn tells people we don't give a damn about our bus system so take the subway. Or you look at your alternatives and see how you can make those more attractive... How about that. They have the 6th Avenue line that they can improve as well as numerous bus lines that people have alienated to pack onto the subways. It is no secret that our subway system is maxed out, so one short term solution is to lure people to other alternatives. The trains will still be crowded to some extent but if you don't have any sound alternatives, you just exacerbate an already bad situation. They have bus lines running every 30 minutes. Who is going to use that when the subway comes every 2-3 minutes? At least make your alternatives attractive to get people to consider other means of getting around. They're making the system subway centric when they know they don't have the capacity in the first place. Makes no sense. This is why the city has been proposing alternatives to alleviate some of the overcrowding on the subways.

Fair I'll approach this Socratically. You make valid points communicating alternatives and making them more attractive could make the difference I see this on my side of the line so I get that perspective. I live between Eastern Parkway and Franklin Ave Station but I use Franklin a lot more due to the Lex I can't tell you how many times the service is so bad I have to take the  (S) to Fulton or Prospect Park alternative city.  So adding to CPW 6th/8th could help. It's hard to change people's patterns the MTA is going to be a better job and communication and PR to open people up to new routes has to be hammered in and feel just as fast a route or faster perception over reality. Conversely, where are the riders going south of 96th? 14th and north or south and the Finance district?  Many many many variables. I can think of 20-30 just off the top of my head not to mention the stuff I'm not aware of and can't see. But adding a few more (1) trains seems like a sweeper move it shares the same route as it's express counterparts from a broader planning view you're moving the people in the same direction if the bandwidth is there without slowing down to route you use it I don't see any issues with that.  The other variable that we might not be looking at is operations I don't work for the MTA who's to say people haven't started moving over the (B) or (C) already we don't have the data. Then again who's to say there are enough cars to go around to add more service to the (C). I'm just a guy that studied Civil engineering and worked design on some rolling stock I don't have MTA answers I get what the MTA guys are saying on here every agency has their own operations and limits you have to be in it to understand. I just don't understand how they wouldn't have at least thought and gone through everything that we're discussing now it's basic math and process to audit your lines and service I could algorithm that out in an hour on excel. Maybe the (1) service changes was all they could do in the short term.  But I agree on alternatives  all  should be visible and taking into consideration. 

NO.  Wall Street on the (2)(3).  If you can use Wall Street on the (2)(3) as a terminal, it solves a lot of issues during the time the Clark Street tunnels are shut down (especially with the transfers at Park Place and Fulton Street).  

Gotcha!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair I'll approach this Socratically. You make valid points communicating alternatives and making them more attractive could make the difference I see this on my side of the line so I get that perspective. I live between Eastern Parkway and Franklin Ave Station but I use Franklin a lot more due to the Lex I can't tell you how many times the service is so bad I have to take the  (S) to Fulton or Prospect Park alternative city.  So adding to CPW 6th/8th could help. It's hard to change people's patterns the MTA is going to be a better job and communication and PR to open people up to new routes has to be hammered in and feel just as fast a route or faster perception over reality. Conversely, where are the riders going south of 96th? 14th and north or south and the Finance district?  Many many many variables. I can think of 20-30 just off the top of my head not to mention the stuff I'm not aware of and can't see. But adding a few more (1) trains seems like a sweeper move it shares the same route as it's express counterparts from a broader planning view you're moving the people in the same direction if the bandwidth is there without slowing down to route you use it I don't see any issues with that.  The other variable that we might not be looking at is operations I don't work for the MTA who's to say people haven't started moving over the (B) or (C) already we don't have the data. Then again who's to say there are enough cars to go around to add more service to the (C). I'm just a guy that studied Civil engineering and worked design on some rolling stock I don't have MTA answers I get what the MTA guys are saying on here every agency has their own operations and limits you have to be in it to understand. I just don't understand how they wouldn't have at least thought and gone through everything that we're discussing now it's basic math and process to audit your lines and service I could algorithm that out in an hour on excel. Maybe the (1) service changes was all they could do in the short term.  But I agree on alternatives  all  should be visible and taking into consideration.

Adding more (1) service makes sense of course. The problem is from where I use the (2)(3), those people don't want the (1) and the (1) already has its own riders further up past Times Square that transfer or what have you, so in short I don't think it will help (2)(3) riders, which is what the (MTA) seems to think. Remember that whole campaign they did about how it was better for riders to take the (6) because the (4)(5) were so slow? Well I don't think it made a difference. Some people will ride the express simply because it makes fewer stops, even if it isn't that fast. You don't have to keep moving around at each stop esp. if the platforms are all on one side. People tend to use the (1) when they have to and for transferring from the (2)(3). This increase will benefit (1) riders and people transferring but it won't alleviate crowding on the (2)(3). That's what they are trying to address as well by adding (1) service...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical MTA. Quite frankly this problem with the (1)(2)(3) line isn't new so this is something the agency should've been examining years ago.

 

The problem is that CBTC technology wasn't (and, quite frankly, may still not be) up to snuff for multi-track lines like the (1)(2)(3), and the MTA doesn't exactly have an R&D department they can just throw money at.

 

The only other CBTC implementation with a similarly complex line was for London Underground, and even though they normally deliver on time and on budget, the budget has now doubled  since 2011 and the implementation has been pushed back from 2018 to 2023.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adding more (1) service makes sense of course. The problem is from where I use the (2)(3), those people don't want the (1) and the (1) already has its own riders further up past Times Square that transfer or what have you, so in short I don't think it will help (2)(3) riders, which is what the (MTA) seems to think. Remember that whole campaign they did about how it was better for riders to take the (6) because the (4)(5) were so slow? Well I don't think it made a difference. Some people will ride the express simply because it makes fewer stops, even if it isn't that fast. You don't have to keep moving around at each stop esp. if the platforms are all on one side. People tend to use the (1) when they have to and for transferring from the (2)(3). This increase will benefit (1) riders and people transferring but it won't alleviate crowding on the (2)(3). That's what they are trying to address as well by adding (1) service...

Should we look at it from the standpoint of (1)(2)(3) ? I was looking at it from a Broadway-7th Ave corridor perspective south of 96th, after all, there's upwards of a million riders on the line south of 96th with 350k north of 96th respectively. There are a few different archetypes of riders along the corridor.  This isn't for really for people that use (2)(3) points north of 96th and south of Chambers I don't think the MTA is thinking that. Although it would benefit the Express Local riders completing their ride on a more frequently running  (1). This more for a 14th to 72st (4-5 min difference local vs Express)  or Chambers to 34th street ride  (3min difference local vs express) there's quite a few of those riders. You can make a difference on the main line in area's where you have the most riders. All you can do is try to change people's perception and give the option. I think people are very agile on the Lex if a (6) is coming and there's no express in sight people will take whatever's moving in their direction the countdown clocks have also added to riders decision. Not a hard thing to use the subway 's information kiosk's to give riders the fastest routes to key points like Times square or Penn Station not too different from a drive on the turnpike and getting a sign that let's me know if  the Express or Local lanes are fastest for travel  or Whitestone versus Throgs neck. .A Little investment like that can make a difference MTA has the infrastructure in place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is that CBTC technology wasn't (and, quite frankly, may still not be) up to snuff for multi-track lines like the (1)(2)(3), and the MTA doesn't exactly have an R&D department they can just throw money at.

 

The only other CBTC implementation with a similarly complex line was for London Underground, and even though they normally deliver on time and on budget, the budget has now doubled  since 2011 and the implementation has been pushed back from 2018 to 2023.

Indeed the Multitrack area's that comes to mind are Wembley Pk to Baker Street (Metropolitan / Jubilee)  Ealing to Earl's court (District/Piccadilly) 4 to 6 track express local configurations almost NYC complexity. I think just the Jubilee is ATO in this case. NYC is a different monster this will be interesting to see how this'll be implemented.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol, typical VG8. Bitching about a problem that doesn't have an effective short term solution. Want more capacity now? Feel free to personally fund the CBTC upgrades.

That's his modus operandi in a nutshell. That and pointless and irrelevant anecdotes. 

 

@VG8: Rather than copy your blocks of text, I'll just take the general gist of your points. You constantly talk about advising riders to use alternate methods to get around, but what are they? Most riders of the 2 use the line for inter-borough service between Manhattan and either The Bronx or Brooklyn. Telling them to switch to express buses is a non-answer because most subway riders are not willing to shill out $7 per ride for an express bus trip.

 

That leaves the local buses or alternate subway lines. Local buses are pretty much out as too few of them run outside of their respective boroughs to be all that useful for the aforementioned inter-borough travelers. That leaves alternate subway routes. The problem with that idea is that it would likely require another bus ride since nearby subway lines aren't all that nearby in a lot of instances. Expanding my example to someone travelling from the Bronx to Manhattan via the 2, the nearest non-maxed out subway line is the D, a good mile or so away. It's a little easier for someone to switch from the 2 to any lettered line if their destination is somewhere in Downtown Brooklyn, but outside of that, you have the same results where those so-called alternatives are not all that useful for a lot of riders.

 

None of these options take into consideration the amount of time and effort these alternative would require, which is also a detriment to their usefulness.

 

Shifting focus to the bulletin itself, I'm not surprised the 2 is not being considered for any service improvements at the moment. As mentioned several times, there are three major choke points that limit the amount of trains that can run throughout the length of the line: Mott Haven Junction in The Bronx, the 142nd Street flat junction in Manhattan, and the infamous Rogers St Junction in Brooklyn. Until those issues are remedied, at the cost of many millions of dollars and a lot of disruptive construction, Transit is quite limited in what they can do when the line is already at max capacity.

 

It's the same reason why 3 4 and 5 service is how it is in comparison to the 1 and 6 locals and why those lines are better candidates for service improvements. There are no major merges with any other line with either route. The idea behind this service improvement on the 1 is obviously to keep the intra-borough riders on the 1 while the riders heading into and out of Manhattan stick with the 2 and 3.

 

Keeping up with some of the comments here, I noticed someone mention that one of the problems plaguing the 2 is its long length. While they are not wrong in that regard, the question comes as to where should the line be cut and how does this affect the other lines. Having the 2 terminate at South Ferry would overwhelm the 3 much as the years of the 5 turning at Bowling Green did by causing many delays on the 2 and 4 lines. Both IRT trunk lines need both of their expresses to run between Manhattan and Brooklyn to adequately serve the needs of the riders. Also, moving the 2 to South Ferry would cause a metric ton of delays due to the required track switch at Chambers St. I'm reminded of how the 7th Avenue line was prior to '59 with the 1 running to Brooklyn as an express and the 3 as a local to South Ferry. That caused a lot of delays and remember, that was when the subway was inundated with a billion timers.

 

I'm sure someone will tell me how wrong I am, and I welcome any rebuttal with one caveat. I want specifics on how to fix the problem, not generalized politicians' answers. Those are neither helpful nor all that interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Contrary to popular belief, the maximum capacity of the (2) line is NOT dictated by the 7th Avenue segment.

 

That "honor" goes to the Rogers junction.. in BROOKLYN. There's this one part of Rogers that requires the (2)(3) AND (5) to merge onto one track for a brief time in each direction.

 

This is also why there's some (5) trains that run in and out of Utica and a couple of (2) trains run to/from New Lots.

 

BINGO! Lord Knows When I'm working the (3) northbound, Thats where i get Held ALWAYS!!! They always let a (2) or (5) go ahead of me... I'll be sitting at Nostrand for 6 - 7 Minutes and they let 3 Trains cross ahead of me!

lol, typical VG8. Bitching about a problem that doesn't have an effective short term solution. Want more capacity now? Feel free to personally fund the CBTC upgrades.

 

LoL! I was just thinking that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's his modus operandi in a nutshell. That and pointless and irrelevant anecdotes.

 

@VG8: Rather than copy your blocks of text, I'll just take the general gist of your points. You constantly talk about advising riders to use alternate methods to get around, but what are they? Most riders of the 2 use the line for inter-borough service between Manhattan and either The Bronx or Brooklyn. Telling them to switch to express buses is a non-answer because most subway riders are not willing to shill out $7 per ride for an express bus trip.

 

That leaves the local buses or alternate subway lines. Local buses are pretty much out as too few of them run outside of their respective boroughs to be all that useful for the aforementioned inter-borough travelers. That leaves alternate subway routes. The problem with that idea is that it would likely require another bus ride since nearby subway lines aren't all that nearby in a lot of instances. Expanding my example to someone travelling from the Bronx to Manhattan via the 2, the nearest non-maxed out subway line is the D, a good mile or so away. It's a little easier for someone to switch from the 2 to any lettered line if their destination is somewhere in Downtown Brooklyn, but outside of that, you have the same results where those so-called alternatives are not all that useful for a lot of riders.

 

None of these options take into consideration the amount of time and effort these alternative would require, which is also a detriment to their usefulness.

 

Shifting focus to the bulletin itself, I'm not surprised the 2 is not being considered for any service improvements at the moment. As mentioned several times, there are three major choke points that limit the amount of trains that can run throughout the length of the line: Mott Haven Junction in The Bronx, the 142nd Street flat junction in Manhattan, and the infamous Rogers St Junction in Brooklyn. Until those issues are remedied, at the cost of many millions of dollars and a lot of disruptive construction, Transit is quite limited in what they can do when the line is already at max capacity.

 

It's the same reason why 3 4 and 5 service is how it is in comparison to the 1 and 6 locals and why those lines are better candidates for service improvements. There are no major merges with any other line with either route. The idea behind this service improvement on the 1 is obviously to keep the intra-borough riders on the 1 while the riders heading into and out of Manhattan stick with the 2 and 3.

 

Keeping up with some of the comments here, I noticed someone mention that one of the problems plaguing the 2 is its long length. While they are not wrong in that regard, the question comes as to where should the line be cut and how does this affect the other lines. Having the 2 terminate at South Ferry would overwhelm the 3 much as the years of the 5 turning at Bowling Green did by causing many delays on the 2 and 4 lines. Both IRT trunk lines need both of their expresses to run between Manhattan and Brooklyn to adequately serve the needs of the riders. Also, moving the 2 to South Ferry would cause a metric ton of delays due to the required track switch at Chambers St. I'm reminded of how the 7th Avenue line was prior to '59 with the 1 running to Brooklyn as an express and the 3 as a local to South Ferry. That caused a lot of delays and remember, that was when the subway was inundated with a billion timers.

 

I'm sure someone will tell me how wrong I am, and I welcome any rebuttal with one caveat. I want specifics on how to fix the problem, not generalized politicians' answers. Those are neither helpful nor all that interesting.

There's quite a few. We're talking about people who have ditched their old modes for the subway AND people who can take say the local bus. Do we really want those people packing onto overcrowded subways? The people that have options and have moved to the subways are the ones the (MTA) should be trying to get away from overcrowded lines. Even looking at the Lex line... The X90 riders were pushed to the subway...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite frankly this problem with the (1)(2)(3) line isn't new so this is something the agency should've been examining years ago. What's the short term solution? Well their answer seems to be run a few trains where we can but what about improving other services that they currently have up and running? Do a real study about ridership patterns to understand how they can take some of the strain off of that line. Seems like a no brainer... I'm willing to bet that people from the CPW line are using the (1)(2)(3) because the (B) and (C) run like crap during the rush.  Indeed... The MTA has responded to poor bus service by simply adding more run time and telling people to expect delays. 

Yeah, they did. But at the end of the day, it came down to funding. Which was nonexistent due to this city's near bankruptcy in the 70s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess if we are looking at short term solutions, is there enough capacity and rolling stock to run more (B) and (C) trains as VG8 suggests? I could see additional service on the (C) on weekends (the frequency is atrocious) and maybe a short turn weekend (B) service, but weekdays I'm not sure...

This might be one. Another may be to reconfigure service to optimize and reduce switching. Maybe in the short term removing Lexington Ave service from Nostrand and the sending the (4)(5) to Utica and beyond with the (2) and (3) going to Flatbush. might allow a few more trains to fit in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What happened to the 90s??  There was a period when the (MTA) had a surplus... Should've been taking that money and putting it to use.

 

It's not like the MTA was resting on their laurels in the 1990s... they were working on projects. Some examples being building the connection between the 63rd St Line and the the Queens Blvd Line used by the (F) train, and beginning studies to restart work on the Second Avenue Subway.

 

This might be one. Another may be to reconfigure service to optimize and reduce switching. Maybe in the short term removing Lexington Ave service from Nostrand and the sending the (4)(5) to Utica and beyond with the (2) and (3) going to Flatbush. might allow a few more trains to fit in. 

 

Won't work. Due to the way Nostrand Junction is set up, whatever service(s) you have going to Flatbush Av and whatever service(s) you have running local between Franklin and Utica will always always always have to merge at-grade. Let's say hypothetically we decided to have the (3) go to Flatbush Av and the (4) run to New Lots Av, running local between Franklin Av and New Lots Av...   (2) and (3) trains to Flatbush and (4) trains to New Lots would merge together. There's really no way to alleviate this bottleneck without doing some construction. The IRT unfortunately has multiple poorly-built junctions. Knowing that, the current service pattern is making the best of a bad situation, since it allows Nostrand Av line stations and Utica Av station to have both East Side and West Side service. If you swapped the (3) and the (5), passengers would have less options and you would still have the same amount of delays.

 

5o3zcpc.png

 

One wacky idea I had was to extend the platforms at Nostrand Av and Kingston Av to reach the express tracks, covering the local tracks and taking them out of service in the process. That way (4) and (5) trains could stay on the express tracks and still serve those 2 stations, (2) and (3) trains could run to Flatbush and all merging would be eliminated. I figure that might be simpler than rebuilding Nostrand Junction. But it's just that, a wacky idea.

 

gK1PjAT.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not like the MTA was resting on their laurels in the 1990s... they were working on projects. Some examples being building the connection between the 63rd St Line and the the Queens Blvd Line used by the (F) train, and beginning studies to restart work on the Second Avenue Subway.

I don't doubt it. I just recall them being flush with cash and wondering what to do with the extra money... 

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.