L shutdown M issues (Voice article)

[officiallyliam]

15 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

And this is why the extra trains I would add would be run as and run to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.  This way, the stays at normal levels while most regular riders still get what they need (with again, those on the asked to go the other way south and connect to the on the Broadway-Brooklyn side or at Fulton or Hoyt-Schermerhorn for Manhattan options as much as possible). 

Must you insist on solving this problem in the least efficient way possible? We've talked about several options:

• Changing terminating procedures at Forest Hills to allow more capacity;
• Running more trains to Brooklyn, to make up for the cut in Fourth Avenue service;
• Or extending a small handful of trains to 179th Street.

And your plan - yet again - is to add another merge to the and , during a time that the subway network will be running at near-maximum capacity, with little margin for error or delay. Why?

[CenSin]

36 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

Must you insist on solving this problem in the least efficient way possible? We've talked about several options:

• Changing terminating procedures at Forest Hills to allow more capacity;
• Running more trains to Brooklyn, to make up for the cut in Fourth Avenue service;
• Or extending a small handful of trains to 179th Street.

And your plan - yet again - is to add another merge to the and , during a time that the subway network will be running at near-maximum capacity, with little margin for error or delay. Why?

To be fair, 2 Avenue has a lot of capacity to spare. And it’s not as if the doesn’t already merge with the —the point just gets moved up 1 station. It doesn’t require more trains to be put into service to maintain frequencies unlike the extension to Jamaica–179 Street.

[Wallyhorse]

4 hours ago, CenSin said:

To be fair, 2 Avenue has a lot of capacity to spare. And it’s not as if the doesn’t already merge with the —the point just gets moved up 1 station. It doesn’t require more trains to be put into service to maintain frequencies unlike the extension to Jamaica–179 Street.

Which is why I would do it that way.  No train sets beyond what will actually be needed would be in doing it this way with the to 96th/2nd becoming the 24/7 line since while it would be the extra train on weekdays (max 5 TPH), nights (3 TPH) and weekends (6-9 TPH) it would become the main line with the current being run exactly as it is now (and if anything, you might be able to even at peak get by with 1-2 less train sets on a combined /  as opposed to what is planned).  

[RR503]

9 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Which is why I would do it that way.  No train sets beyond what will actually be needed would be in doing it this way with the to 96th/2nd becoming the 24/7 line since while it would be the extra train on weekdays (max 5 TPH), nights (3 TPH) and weekends (6-9 TPH) it would become the main line with the current being run exactly as it is now (and if anything, you might be able to even at peak get by with 1-2 less train sets on a combined /  as opposed to what is planned).  

We know exactly what you’d do Wally. And I think you know exactly what I’d say to that: you’re f*cking over Court Square transfer riders by forcing them to choose between an infrequent  and a packed . 

[Wallyhorse]

23 hours ago, RR503 said:

We know exactly what you’d do Wally. And I think you know exactly what I’d say to that: you’re f*cking over Court Square transfer riders by forcing them to choose between an infrequent  and a packed . 

And as noted you're screwing riders on Queens Boulevard and for that matter those along the Broadway Line.   There also is the  at Court Square, which does help as well, but as noted, I also have an OOS transfer between Fulton on the and Atlantic-Barclays as well as the Broadway transfer between the and  and encourage people as much as possible to use those routes, taking the the opposite direction south to cut down on those going to Court Square.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

On 5/17/2018 at 5:57 PM, officiallyliam said:

I wouldn't be surprised if the B39 is simply absorbed into the shuttle bus system; there's no need to have the bus just over the bridge, as Bridge Plaza doesn't do much to help  riders.

The fact that the  - the line perhaps most-beleaguered by its abysmal frequencies - is being dragged into the Canarsie shutdown mess shows that even a transit crisis on the scale of the shutdown isn't enough to get the MTA to think outside of the box. The reason for the cutback is that the combined  and  frequencies will overload the Forest Hills terminal; I fail to see, though, why riders on 4th Avenue, whose service is bad enough as is, need to suffer. If it weren't for the MTA's primitive fumigation rituals, Forest Hills would be more than capable of handling more than 20 tph.

But even if Forest Hills can't handle it, what's stopping them from extending the handful of extra s to 179th? Or running more s up 4th Avenue in the morning to compensate for the loss of two trains an hour? And at the end of the day, what's really stopping them from using this as a perfect time to clean up timer restrictions on the bridge? Yes, the capacity is capped somewhat by the curvature on either end of the bridge, but making it so trains didn't have to slow down before they're even halfway across the bridge would help. And for what it's worth, the curves are sharp, but the fact that e/b trains basically come to a stop before entering Marcy at the timer there is wholly unnecessary.

Folks in Bay Ridge can always make their way over to the X27/X37 along Shore Rd if they're that pissy about the  train or take the Ferry.  When I considered moving back to Brooklyn, it was to move to Bay Ridge along Shore Rd.  At that time weekend service on the X27 was eliminated and I would've been living deep into Bay Ridge, so that pretty much sealed the deal for me not moving there.  No way would I want to deal with the  every day.

[Wallyhorse]

38 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

And as noted you're screwing riders on Queens Boulevard and for that matter those along the Broadway Line.   There also is the  at Court Square, which does help as well, but as noted, I also have an OOS transfer between Fulton on the and Atlantic-Barclays as well as the Broadway transfer between the and  and encourage people as much as possible to use those routes, taking the the opposite direction south to cut down on those going to Court Square.

Actually, you're ALSO screwing riders along Bay Ridge if you cut back the  to have extra  trains terminate at 71-Continental.  I'm sure elected officials in Bay Ridge are going to demand the keep the as is, which is why I'd be proactive and split the into and with the at all times to 96th-2nd.  

[RR503]

49 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

And as noted you're screwing riders on Queens Boulevard and for that matter those along the Broadway Line.   There also is the  at Court Square, which does help as well, but as noted, I also have an OOS transfer between Fulton on the and Atlantic-Barclays as well as the Broadway transfer between the and  and encourage people as much as possible to use those routes, taking the the opposite direction south to cut down on those going to Court Square.

No one is going for a hike through Atlantic Center for some second rate transfer options that aren't even the fastest way to Midtown. Continuing with this trope of "as noted," as noted, all these issues with the (M)(R) zero sum game at FHills can be mitigated with extensions to 179, reroutes of select (R)s to Astoria and/or 96th st, or the extension of some (W)s to 95th st -- all alternatives that preserve service to one of the most important stations to the shutdown, unlike your proposal. 

And FWIW, the (7) is not a viable alternative to the (E)(M). Unless you're in walking distance of a (7) stop, you are gonna making an extra transfer in Midtown -- usually from a station with a deep, narrow platform that already faces crowding issues. 

 

[Wallyhorse]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

No one is going for a hike through Atlantic Center for some second rate transfer options that aren't even the fastest way to Midtown. Continuing with this trope of "as noted," as noted, all these issues with the (M)(R) zero sum game at FHills can be mitigated with extensions to 179, reroutes of select (R)s to Astoria and/or 96th st, or the extension of some (W)s to 95th st -- all alternatives that preserve service to one of the most important stations to the shutdown, unlike your proposal. 

And FWIW, the is not a viable alternative to the (E)(M). Unless you're in walking distance of a stop, you are gonna making an extra transfer in Midtown -- usually from a station with a deep, narrow platform that already faces crowding issues. 

And the problem is, other than sending the and all to 179 (perhaps borrowing some trainsets from the  with a limited number of trains replacing those s to Astoria), you are going to have a disaster at Court Square.  Extending the other lines to 179 allows for better fumigation and more importantly allows the to get to Queens Plaza where people can switch to the or  there OR walk over to Queensboro Plaza for the or or even . 

The planned alternative of cutting the is NOT going to sit well with those in Bay Ridge.  I'm sure as already said elected officials will likely demand the keep the as is and that to me forces the to be split into and with the all times to 96th-2nd.  That is also why I have the OOS transfer between Fulton and Atlantic-Barclays and ask riders as much as possible to go that way OR to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the , especially if going to lower Manhattan in order to keep problems at Court Square to a minimum.  

There is no really good solution to this.  It's dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. 

[Lance]

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Folks in Bay Ridge can always make their way over to the X27/X37 along Shore Rd if they're that pissy about the  train or take the Ferry.  When I considered moving back to Brooklyn, it was to move to Bay Ridge along Shore Rd.  At that time weekend service on the X27 was eliminated and I would've been living deep into Bay Ridge, so that pretty much sealed the deal for me not moving there.  No way would I want to deal with the  every day.

While that may be an option for some, shelling out $13 on the daily for the express bus is likely not an option for most present riders.

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

And the problem is, other than sending the and all to 179 (perhaps borrowing some trainsets from the  with a limited number of trains replacing those s to Astoria), you are going to have a disaster at Court Square.  Extending the other lines to 179 allows for better fumigation and more importantly allows the to get to Queens Plaza where people can switch to the or  there OR walk over to Queensboro Plaza for the or or even . 

The planned alternative of cutting the is NOT going to sit well with those in Bay Ridge.  I'm sure as already said elected officials will likely demand the keep the as is and that to me forces the to be split into and with the all times to 96th-2nd.  That is also why I have the OOS transfer between Fulton and Atlantic-Barclays and ask riders as much as possible to go that way OR to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the , especially if going to lower Manhattan in order to keep problems at Court Square to a minimum.  

There is no really good solution to this.  It's dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. 

You're right in that there are no perfect solutions to this. However, I don't see how sending everything and the kitchen sink to 179 Street is a better one. Also, I don't know why you're so dead-set on this split thing. It was slightly amusing at first. Now it's just plain annoying. Nobody's going to call for this split service to stop the  service from being reduced. Not when there are perfectly better alternatives like sending a few trains to 96 Street to keep them out of the way of the Queens-bound  trains. Also, if that is not an option, they can send some trains to 95 Street. There's absolutely no reason to rearrange the entire system to fix a problem that does not exist.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 minutes ago, Lance said:

While that may be an option for some, shelling out $13 on the daily for the express bus is likely not an option for most present riders.

Hence why I mentioned the Ferry option as well, which is the same price as the subway... $2.75. Ultimately, I know it pains some folks around here to hear this, but we can't pack everyone on to the subways.  It's unsustainable with the current set up.  We have to use other means of moving people to alleviate the subways, so while the other means won't move as many people, they can certainly help. 

[itmaybeokay]

12 minutes ago, Lance said:

While that may be an option for some, shelling out $13 on the daily for the express bus is likely not an option for most present riders.

You're right in that there are no perfect solutions to this. However, I don't see how sending everything and the kitchen sink to 179 Street is a better one. Also, I don't know why you're so dead-set on this split thing. It was slightly amusing at first. Now it's just plain annoying. Nobody's going to call for this split service to stop the  service from being reduced. Not when there are perfectly better alternatives like sending a few trains to 96 Street to keep them out of the way of the Queens-bound  trains. Also, if that is not an option, they can send some trains to 95 Street. There's absolutely no reason to rearrange the entire system to fix a problem that does not exist.

Am I missing something where the just the added M trains can't run via hillside express to 179 in order to leave the R as is? Doesn't that solve the whole problem? 

On 5/19/2018 at 9:05 AM, Lance said:

Agreed. If that train is returning back to service immediately after relaying at 71 Avenue, there should not be any reason for a full fumigation process. We need to start treating these relay points less like Bowling Green where the train may idle for an indeterminate amount of time and more Brooklyn Bridge where trains are actually returning back in service.

I believe the issue here is that terminating trains relay using the yard-leads, which are "non-revenue" trackage. Pax not allowed due to regulations. Not sure how difficult it would be to have the trackage reclassified, but outside of that, the only changes would be procedural. 

[Lance]

49 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Hence why I mentioned the Ferry option as well, which is the same price as the subway... $2.75. Ultimately, I know it pains some folks around here to hear this, but we can't pack everyone on to the subways.  It's unsustainable with the current set up.  We have to use other means of moving people to alleviate the subways, so while the other means won't move as many people, they can certainly help. 

That's true, but doesn't it then become a last leg issue? I mean, cool beans if the final destination is within walking distance to the ferry terminal, but I imagine there would be plenty of those who still have to hop on a bus/train to get beyond the waterfront, which doesn't really solve the problem but rather just shifts it elsewhere.

Also, on a side note, the ferry network really needs to be tied into the MetroCard system. Yeah, I don't really care that its replacement is "a couple of years away". Nobody's going to pay double for a ferry -> bus/subway ride because the city and state can't play ball together.

37 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Am I missing something where the just the added M trains can't run via hillside express to 179 in order to leave the R as is? Doesn't that solve the whole problem? 

I believe the issue here is that terminating trains relay using the yard-leads, which are "non-revenue" trackage. Pax not allowed due to regulations. Not sure how difficult it would be to have the trackage reclassified, but outside of that, the only changes would be procedural. 

That sounds good on paper. As it stands, Forest Hills is the primary limiting factor for the line here, so as long as those extras do not terminate there, it shouldn't be a problem on that front. However, the holding delays problem does rear its ugly head once again due to track layout. While Manhattan-bound locals can switch from the express track to the local one west of 71 Avenue, that is not an option for outbound service. All local service to Jamaica must arrive on the outbound local track, which runs right into the presently terminating locals there. Had there been a similar track layout to the Manhattan-bound tracks, this would be a non-issue. The problem is that the planners never envisioned a scenario where Queens Blvd locals would become Hillside expresses.

As for your other point, this all sounds like another case of "we can't change how we do things because that's how it's always been done", which is a really ignorant way to run things. As long as those train doors remain closed, it really shouldn't matter than the "out of service" trains would still use "non-revenue" track.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

7 minutes ago, Lance said:

That's true, but doesn't it then become a last leg issue? I mean, cool beans if the final destination is within walking distance to the ferry terminal, but I imagine there would be plenty of those who still have to hop on a bus/train to get beyond the waterfront, which doesn't really solve the problem but rather just shifts it elsewhere.

Yes and no.  I don't think the City has been advertising the Ferry for  riders as much as it should be.  I believe they are running some more boats, but probably not as much as they should be.  Despite your complaints about the system not taking a Metrocard, Ferry service has been a boom across the City and in fact they will have to add more ferries. 

[itmaybeokay]

39 minutes ago, Lance said:

That sounds good on paper. As it stands, Forest Hills is the primary limiting factor for the line here, so as long as those extras do not terminate there, it shouldn't be a problem on that front. However, the holding delays problem does rear its ugly head once again due to track layout. While Manhattan-bound locals can switch from the express track to the local one west of 71 Avenue, that is not an option for outbound service. All local service to Jamaica must arrive on the outbound local track, which runs right into the presently terminating locals there. Had there been a similar track layout to the Manhattan-bound tracks, this would be a non-issue. The problem is that the planners never envisioned a scenario where Queens Blvd locals would become Hillside expresses.

Fair points. I'd say switch them to D4 at Roosy, but that would mess up the E and the F far too much. I still have a hunch there is a way to send a few trains to 179 and ease the congestion, but I agree it quickly starts to become a logistical nightmare. 

Surely though they can get a stub terminal built off the rego park bellmouths in 11 months - now that'll solve your problems right there. 😂

43 minutes ago, Lance said:

As for your other point, this all sounds like another case of "we can't change how we do things because that's how it's always been done", which is a really ignorant way to run things. As long as those train doors remain closed, it really shouldn't matter than the "out of service" trains would still use "non-revenue" track.

Don't get me wrong - I agree that fumigation at Forest Hills shouldn't be such a damn albatross - I was just saying I thought there was some extant rule that would prevent the thing proposed - they'd either have to reclassify the track or change the rule. Which in many organizations shouldn't be a problem. 

But as you intimated: it is a problem, and the fact that it is a problem is itself the core problem. That's really the most central problem with the system today: 

Reactions to onetime issues bringing about rules or operating practices that have long since lost the plot, often far subsequent to their usefulness; unwavering in the face of more recent developments and needs, they hang around the neck of the system - like a coleridgean albatross. 

 

[Wallyhorse]

5 hours ago, Lance said:

While that may be an option for some, shelling out $13 on the daily for the express bus is likely not an option for most present riders.

You're right in that there are no perfect solutions to this. However, I don't see how sending everything and the kitchen sink to 179 Street is a better one. Also, I don't know why you're so dead-set on this split thing. It was slightly amusing at first. Now it's just plain annoying. Nobody's going to call for this split service to stop the  service from being reduced. Not when there are perfectly better alternatives like sending a few trains to 96 Street to keep them out of the way of the Queens-bound  trains. Also, if that is not an option, they can send some trains to 95 Street. There's absolutely no reason to rearrange the entire system to fix a problem that does not exist.

If I seem dead-set on splitting the  and having would be the  running 24/7 to 96th-2nd (as the extra s on weekdays and the main line nights and weekends) while the maintains it's normal service, it's knowing what pols probably will demand, especially with the in this case.

Yes, you could send some  trains to 96th-2nd, but track-switching on Broadway was for years a major issue that I'm sure many don't want to re-visit at all PLUS I suspect there are many on QB who want or need Broadway service (or work in the area of Lex/60th) who will complain loudly on that end.  That's why I split the as that is easier in this case as that would be a max of 5TPH on weekdays (as ) to 96th/2nd as that most likely keeps everyone happy.  Plus, if the proves popular on the UES as a direct 6th Avenue Line during the shutdown, that can be made permanent after the shutdown as well. 

[CenSin]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

If I seem dead-set on splitting the  and having would be the  running 24/7 to 96th-2nd (as the extra s on weekdays and the main line nights and weekends) while the maintains it's normal service, it's knowing what pols probably will demand, especially with the in this case.

Yes, you could send some  trains to 96th-2nd, but track-switching on Broadway was for years a major issue that I'm sure many don't want to re-visit at all PLUS I suspect there are many on QB who want or need Broadway service (or work in the area of Lex/60th) who will complain loudly on that end.  That's why I split the as that is easier in this case as that would be a max of 5TPH on weekdays (as ) to 96th/2nd as that most likely keeps everyone happy.  Plus, if the proves popular on the UES as a direct 6th Avenue Line during the shutdown, that can be made permanent after the shutdown as well. 

Most of us know what pols want. Most of us also know that pols get very little of what they ask for if anything.

[MysteriousBtrain]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

If I seem dead-set on splitting the  and having would be the  running 24/7 to 96th-2nd (as the extra s on weekdays and the main line nights and weekends) while the maintains it's normal service, it's knowing what pols probably will demand, especially with the in this case.

Yes, you could send some  trains to 96th-2nd, but track-switching on Broadway was for years a major issue that I'm sure many don't want to re-visit at all PLUS I suspect there are many on QB who want or need Broadway service (or work in the area of Lex/60th) who will complain loudly on that end.  That's why I split the as that is easier in this case as that would be a max of 5TPH on weekdays (as ) to 96th/2nd as that most likely keeps everyone happy.  Plus, if the proves popular on the UES as a direct 6th Avenue Line during the shutdown, that can be made permanent after the shutdown as well. 

And you think the is any different? It was already a bitch when the made the move to 63rd St. And with the way crowds are now, you damn well can't squeeze more people on the .

Your is basically rerouted s with a different letter. And I'm 99% sure you can't fit a on the Williamsburg Bridge. 

[RR503]

9 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

And the problem is, other than sending the and all to 179 (perhaps borrowing some trainsets from the  with a limited number of trains replacing those s to Astoria), you are going to have a disaster at Court Square.  Extending the other lines to 179 allows for better fumigation and more importantly allows the to get to Queens Plaza where people can switch to the or  there OR walk over to Queensboro Plaza for the or or even . 

The planned alternative of cutting the is NOT going to sit well with those in Bay Ridge.  I'm sure as already said elected officials will likely demand the keep the as is and that to me forces the to be split into and with the all times to 96th-2nd.  That is also why I have the OOS transfer between Fulton and Atlantic-Barclays and ask riders as much as possible to go that way OR to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the , especially if going to lower Manhattan in order to keep problems at Court Square to a minimum.  

There is no really good solution to this.  It's dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. 

Some comments:

If you run the  to FHills and/or 179, you're cutting Manhattan/Queens capacity. Period.

The 15tph for the  is non-negotiable, so either you'd have to deal with FHills fumigation and run 5tph of the other two lines, or do 7.5tph of the other two if you can somehow balance trains out between those two terminals so 30tph on QB local is workable. Even in that latter best case scenario, the net change is zero.  to FHills riders would, instead of having 30tph of connection options at Court Square (15tph , 15tph ), have 30tph of options at Queens Plaza (15tph  7.5tph  7.5tph )-- 30tph that comes at a cost of 15tph of Manhattan-Queens capacity for the rest of the system, as the  would be taking up what once were Manhattan-bound service slots along QB Local.

Now, you'll argue that you have the OOS from QP to QBP. Bring me ten people that have ever used OOSes in their life, and I'll give you my 1995 Metrocard. No matter what the cost, that miniburst/heatwave/windstorm/construction noise aboveground will always make it so that such an option is unattractive. 

Now, about this cut to the . As we've discussed ad nauseum, there are a zillion simpler ways of mitigating that then playing alphabet soup and merge madness. A few examples:  to Astoria (I thought you would have liked that one),  to 96,  to Bay Ridge -- you name it, we got it. And for whatever it's worth, if we're playing the political game here, I think a service cut to a line whose riders' mantra is "dump the  ASAP" is worlds less impactful than complicating the service pattern of and reducing frequencies on what is unequivocally the most central line to the Canarsie shutdown -- the . 

As a postscript, I'd also like to add that, having worked for a city councilmember, I think you're vastly overestimating the awareness, understanding and level of attention paid towards technical issues like a 2tph reduction in  service. As long as the constituents don't notice (which, trust me, they won't, the  runs what feels like 5tph during peak), they couldn't give two sh*ts. 

[darkstar8983]

14 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Some comments:

If you run the  to FHills and/or 179, you're cutting Manhattan/Queens capacity. Period.

The 15tph for the  is non-negotiable, so either you'd have to deal with FHills fumigation and run 5tph of the other two lines, or do 7.5tph of the other two if you can somehow balance trains out between those two terminals so 30tph on QB local is workable. Even in that latter best case scenario, the net change is zero.  to FHills riders would, instead of having 30tph of connection options at Court Square (15tph , 15tph ), have 30tph of options at Queens Plaza (15tph  7.5tph  7.5tph )-- 30tph that comes at a cost of 15tph of Manhattan-Queens capacity for the rest of the system, as the  would be taking up what once were Manhattan-bound service slots along QB Local.

Now, you'll argue that you have the OOS from QP to QBP. Bring me ten people that have ever used OOSes in their life, and I'll give you my 1995 Metrocard. No matter what the cost, that miniburst/heatwave/windstorm/construction noise aboveground will always make it so that such an option is unattractive. 

Now, about this cut to the . As we've discussed ad nauseum, there are a zillion simpler ways of mitigating that then playing alphabet soup and merge madness. A few examples:  to Astoria (I thought you would have liked that one),  to 96,  to Bay Ridge -- you name it, we got it. And for whatever it's worth, if we're playing the political game here, I think a service cut to a line whose riders' mantra is "dump the  ASAP" is worlds less impactful than complicating the service pattern of and reducing frequencies on what is unequivocally the most central line to the Canarsie shutdown -- the . 

As a postscript, I'd also like to add that, having worked for a city councilmember, I think you're vastly overestimating the awareness, understanding and level of attention paid towards technical issues like a 2tph reduction in  service. As long as the constituents don't notice (which, trust me, they won't, the  runs what feels like 5tph during peak), they couldn't give two sh*ts. 

The main issue I am now seeing with the  being cut is the fact that you are going to pile the local riders on the , and the plan should be to have the  trains out of 71 Av as empty as possible so they can arrive at Court Square and receive the passenger influx. For the AM Rush, wouldn't it be beneficial to have some trains positioned east of 71 Av so that they could enter service, running via the local track when they are scheduled to run, so they don't have to go thru the fumigation process at 71 Av northbound? This way, you can keep the 10  trains and run the 15  trains into Manhattan. The increased rolling stock should help, especially if you do not retire any subway cars.

[officiallyliam]

8 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Hence why I mentioned the Ferry option as well, which is the same price as the subway... $2.75. Ultimately, I know it pains some folks around here to hear this, but we can't pack everyone on to the subways.  It's unsustainable with the current set up.  We have to use other means of moving people to alleviate the subways, so while the other means won't move as many people, they can certainly help. 

You're right about subway capacity - a transit network needs to be planned in a multimodal, holistic way - but we must draw the line somewhere when it comes to both the quality of subway service and the way in which it is operated. For me, that line is 8 tph rush-hour service; there are very few lines in the system where a train every 7.5 minutes cuts it, and 4th Avenue isn't one of those lines. My problem with this is mainly the precedent that it set by this: when the subway network is faced with logistical challenges such as the shutdown, the MTA can just cut service across the city from the affected area to avoid having to break outside of their narrow and outdated operational box.

As for ferries, I think they can have a place in the transit network, but it'll mostly be a minor place. The majority of 4th Avenue riders are not within walking distance of a ferry stop, and unless you're working within walking distance of Pier 11, the ferries won't do much for you on the Manhattan end either. The same goes for the ferries - which include more East River service and a new route from N 7th to E 20th - they'll help some, but will never be able to absorb a significant amount of capacity. Ferries will always be a niche transit mode, especially so when there's no available transfers from ferry to subway or bus.

Finally, the round-trip price for express bus commutes is too high a price to pay for the MTA's unwillingness to adequately serve those who rely on it.

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If I seem dead-set on splitting the  and having would be the  running 24/7 to 96th-2nd (as the extra s on weekdays and the main line nights and weekends) while the maintains it's normal service, it's knowing what pols probably will demand, especially with the in this case.

Politicians want all sorts of things. One of the problems with the MTA's service planning is that it's too often dictated by political pressure rather than what makes the most operational sense.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

10 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

You're right about subway capacity - a transit network needs to be planned in a multimodal, holistic way - but we must draw the line somewhere when it comes to both the quality of subway service and the way in which it is operated. For me, that line is 8 tph rush-hour service; there are very few lines in the system where a train every 7.5 minutes cuts it, and 4th Avenue isn't one of those lines. My problem with this is mainly the precedent that it set by this: when the subway network is faced with logistical challenges such as the shutdown, the MTA can just cut service across the city from the affected area to avoid having to break outside of their narrow and outdated operational box.

As for ferries, I think they can have a place in the transit network, but it'll mostly be a minor place. The majority of 4th Avenue riders are not within walking distance of a ferry stop, and unless you're working within walking distance of Pier 11, the ferries won't do much for you on the Manhattan end either. The same goes for the ferries - which include more East River service and a new route from N 7th to E 20th - they'll help some, but will never be able to absorb a significant amount of capacity. Ferries will always be a niche transit mode, especially so when there's no available transfers from ferry to subway or bus.

Finally, the round-trip price for express bus commutes is too high a price to pay for the MTA's unwillingness to adequately serve those who rely on it.

Oh please.  Thousands of riders use the express buses every day.  If people really wanted to sacrifice they'd find the money for it.  You could probably have some buses start down at 99th street and run along 3rd to make them more accessible.  Granted, I'm aware of the fact that west of 4th Avenue up to Shore Road is the affluent part of Bay Ridge, but still. As for the ferry, I don't think Bay Ridge has any shuttle bus service.  That should be something that should be considered.

[itmaybeokay]

4 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If I seem dead-set on splitting the  and having would be the  running 24/7 to 96th-2nd (as the extra s on weekdays and the main line nights and weekends) while the maintains it's normal service, it's knowing what pols probably will demand, especially with the in this case.

Yes, you could send some  trains to 96th-2nd, but track-switching on Broadway was for years a major issue that I'm sure many don't want to re-visit at all PLUS I suspect there are many on QB who want or need Broadway service (or work in the area of Lex/60th) who will complain loudly on that end.  That's why I split the as that is easier in this case as that would be a max of 5TPH on weekdays (as ) to 96th/2nd as that most likely keeps everyone happy.  Plus, if the proves popular on the UES as a direct 6th Avenue Line during the shutdown, that can be made permanent after the shutdown as well. 

The additional M trains are also in place to handle additional riders from Court Sq, so, sending them anywhere but QB is really counterproductive. 

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

And for whatever it's worth, if we're playing the political game here, I think a service cut to a line whose riders' mantra is "dump the  ASAP" is worlds less impactful than complicating the service pattern of and reducing frequencies on what is unequivocally the most central line to the Canarsie shutdown -- the . 

Who's mantra is dump the R asap? As an QBL R train user, my mantra is mostly "replace the r46"

16 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Oh please.  Thousands of riders use the express buses every day.  If people really wanted to sacrifice they'd find the money for it.  

You are so out of touch with most people's financial realities it's astounding. You're lucky. I'm lucky. There are tons of people who aren't. 

They raise the cost of the monthly by less than $10 and even I'm, in my mind, like "what's the big deal?". For some people, it is a big deal. Saying "Hey, deal with the crappier train or pony up for the express bus" is flatly wrong, no other way to put it. 

[RR503]

4 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Who's mantra is dump the R asap? As an QBL R train user, my mantra is mostly "replace the r46"

My bad -- meant transfer off of it by "dump."

4 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

You are so out of touch with most people's financial realities it's astounding. You're lucky. I'm lucky. There are tons of people who aren't. 

They raise the cost of the monthly by less than $10 and even I'm, in my mind, like "what's the big deal?". For some people, it is a big deal. Saying "Hey, deal with the crappier train or pony up for the express bus" is flatly wrong, no other way to put it. 

Thank you. If this was a for profit service -- some sort of corporation -- VG8 would be right. But the MTA is not. It's a public benefit corporation, meant to provide, well, a public benefit. Tiering that benefit with increasing income defeats that purpose -- and indeed, that of government services in general. 

And FWIW, one express bus carries about 1/4 of a subway car. You'd need forty for a train, and 400 to fill an hour of  service. Express buses, while useful for those of means looking to avoid crowds, simply don't exist on the right capacity scale to be a viable alternative to a functioning subway. 

Same goes for ferries. They're cute and bloody fun to ride, but given New York's inland bent, and the fact that a single ferry carries about a subway car worth of passengers, they too will remain nothing but a trinket useful for developers selling waterfront condos. 

[Via Garibaldi 8]

18 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

The additional M trains are also in place to handle additional riders from Court Sq, so, sending them anywhere but QB is really counterproductive. 

Who's mantra is dump the R asap? As an QBL R train user, my mantra is mostly "replace the r46"

You are so out of touch with most people's financial realities it's astounding. You're lucky. I'm lucky. There are tons of people who aren't. 

They raise the cost of the monthly by less than $10 and even I'm, in my mind, like "what's the big deal?". For some people, it is a big deal. Saying "Hey, deal with the crappier train or pony up for the express bus" is flatly wrong, no other way to put it. 

I'm not out of touch at all. We all have options right? You can ride the subway for a good price, or if you have more expensive options you can use those. Don't tell I'm out of touch of reality. You've got a lot of nerve. The question is what people prioritize. Now when I moved to where I live now I knew that my transportation expenses would go up OR I'd deal with a BRUTAL commute taking the bus and then taking several subways to reach my final destination after working 10-12 hours. I ultimately budgeted the extra expenses into my budget, so we all sacrifice. That's my point.