L shutdown M issues (Voice article)

[CenSin]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Furthermore, you greatly underestimate how many people will descend upon Court Square to transfer from the  to the . You will not discourage them from doing so. No amount of OOS transfers are going to discourage the vast majority of  riders from going to Court Square.

There are plenty of in-system transfers I don’t even use because of the distance—Times Square–42 Street, for example, from the to the . No amount of free can convince me to use it over the ↔ or ↔↔. An out-of-system transfer from the to Atlantic Avenue–Barclays Center will be just the same.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

22 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

If you can at least get those going to lower Manhattan to take the the opposite way to Fulton (where I would have the OOS Atlantic-Barclays transfer), Broadway (where they will be an OOS transfer to the ) or Hoyt-Schermerhorn and the  transfer there and convince them it's a less-cramped alternative than going to Court Square, you've won a good chunk of the battle right there.  The idea is to get people to actually step back and look at where they are actually going and if they can do it be avoiding what are sure to be a mess at Court Square, it's worth taking a little extra time to do that.  That's also why I run ALL service to Church even if it forces more trains to run express (and also why as part of this I would have done all necessary work to get Bergen LL reopened, even as a barebones station so it could be an express stop on the ).

The split into and keeps the as it is now and I do think that will be important.  The other thing I'd be considering there would be to do the  / split I proposed in the past where that essentially becomes a split line from 95th-Jamaica Center, with Chambers Street serving as the terminal for both half of the split line (with during peak hours a limited number of trains still operating to Broad since this version of the would be a max of 8TPH between 95th and Chambers, reviving the old  "bankers special" route with the terminating. on the "express" tracks at Chambers and the on the "local" track). That would solve the Bay Ridge issue and allow the  to be reduced to where the  can go as planned.  

 line riders who are headed for Lower Manhattan are more than likely already taking the  southbound to Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the , so why even bother steering them towards some cumbersome out-of-system transfer? The  riders bound for points north of 14th St outnumber, those headed south of 14th, so they need to be accommodated. If there are Lower Manhattan-bound riders who take the  and transfer to any of the southbound trains at 14th St, they are overwhelmingly going to choose a cross-platform transfer to the  over exiting the system at Fulton St, braving the elements on local Brooklyn streets, then re-entering the system at Atlantic-Barclays and cramming onto already overcrowded trains there. I don’t have to do a survey or a study to back this up. It’s just common sense! Why would anyone headed for Lower Manhattan ride north on the  to Court Square, then cram onto the   to head back south anyway? 

For the few  trains that are going to run express only on weekdays, it’s not worth spending hundreds of millions of dollars and potentially stopping service to reopen Bergen St Lower Level. You can’t transfer from southbound  to northbound  trains there anyway (unless you don’t mind exiting the subway, crossing the street, then re-entering subway and paying another fare). And few commuters will be willing to play a game of “guess the platform” for which platform the Manhattan-bound  train will come in on. 

And again with the  /  split? As I’ve said before, turning Chambers Street into the underground version of Chicago’s Howard Street (where Yellow Line and off-peak Purple Line trains from the north and Red Line trains from the south terminate) is ill-advised. It’s bad enough they’re proposing to cut  /  service from 12 tph down to 10, which will result in 12-minute headways during rush hour at the “skip” stations. Now you want to come in and take away most of their service to Fulton and Broad? No, thanks. I get that the  may be seeing a significant service cut during the shutdown. But that’s not a reason to tinker with  and  service even more than they’re already tinkering with. There are other, better options to address the possibility of reduced  service in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

It’s bad enough they’re proposing to cut  /  service from 12 tph down to 10, which will result in 12-minute headways during rush hour at the “skip” stations. Now you want to come in and take away most of their service to Fulton and Broad?

What about  running like the  to 2 Av, and  running like the old  between Met Av and Broad Street?

Potentially shoehorns more  on QBL, and times well, have a  shuttling between Met and Myrtle to meet  to not reduce service level on Myrtle Line.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

But then you’d have to run the  as an all-stop service between Sutphin and Myrtle-Broadway...which they might as well do anyway if the  line is getting cut down to 10 tph during “peak-of-the-peak” time. And with no direct  service via 6th Avenue from Williamsburg, you’ll have tons of displaced  riders flooding the  at Essex or the  at Canal. And the  will delay the  entering and leaving 2nd Ave like the  used to. And there’s still the issue of reduced service on the  in Manhattan and Brooklyn. 

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But then you’d have to run the  as an all-stop service between Sutphin and Myrtle-Broadway...which they might as well do anyway if the  line is getting cut down to 10 tph during “peak-of-the-peak” time. And with no direct  service via 6th Avenue from Williamsburg, you’ll have tons of displaced  riders flooding the  at Essex or the  at Canal. And the  will delay the  entering and leaving 2nd Ave like the  used to. And there’s still the issue of reduced service on the  in Manhattan and Brooklyn. 

Which is exactly why I don't do it that way.

No solution here is going to be perfect, but the fact is, the is going to be dealing with constituents in Bay Ridge and along Queens Boulevard one way or another.  That's why I would go with either:

The split of the remaining as is now while the additional trains from Metropolitan weekdays and all times late nights and weekends are labeled to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

Alternate is the split / with the Metropolitan to Chambers and 95th-Bay Ridge to Chambers running the old "banker's special"  route (with a handful of trains in rush hours running to Broad Street since the max on the  in this as noted would be 8TPH). 

Either of these either keeps the running full-tilt as is or offsets the  being cut to accommodate more trains on QB. 

[RR503]

4 hours ago, Deucey said:

What about  running like the  to 2 Av, and  running like the old  between Met Av and Broad Street?

Potentially shoehorns more  on QBL, and times well, have a  shuttling between Met and Myrtle to meet  to not reduce service level on Myrtle Line.

This eliminates your one remaining Midtown connection from north Brooklyn.

What's more, this (V) would miss the major transfer point for Canarsie riders by a stop, ensuring that the F gets positively slammed. 

50 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Which is exactly why I don't do it that way.

No solution here is going to be perfect, but the fact is, the is going to be dealing with constituents in Bay Ridge and along Queens Boulevard one way or another.  That's why I would go with either:

The split of the remaining as is now while the additional trains from Metropolitan weekdays and all times late nights and weekends are labeled to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

Alternate is the split / with the Metropolitan to Chambers and 95th-Bay Ridge to Chambers running the old "banker's special"  route (with a handful of trains in rush hours running to Broad Street since the max on the  in this as noted would be 8TPH). 

Either of these either keeps the running full-tilt as is or offsets the  being cut to accommodate more trains on QB. 

I don't understand you. I'd assume that a person, after having proposed the same things for literal years, and after having been given extremely clear arguments as to why their proposals are flawed, would either give up or change their ideas. But no. You don't. You are either too arrogant, myopic or foamy to do this. 

So explain to me. Why are your mitigations better than running R to Astoria or W to Bay Ridge or M to 179? Address the following points:

-Comnecting service at Court Square

-The fact that the vast majority of commuters wish to travel to Midtown

-Car equipment 

-Merging/terminal procedures (I'm seeing an ugly, conflict filled relay operation at Chambers St) 

-Transfers (how do you mitigate the loss of Fulton for  riders?)

And please. No "As I have noted, they can take a hike via an OOS" BS please. I want in system stuff only. 

[Deucey]

18 minutes ago, RR503 said:

This eliminates your one remaining Midtown connection from north Brooklyn.

What's more, this (V) would miss the major transfer point for Canarsie riders by a stop, ensuring that the F gets positively slammed. 

So would it make more sense to run  as the Myrtle Shuttle,  from B-way Junction over 63rd and  thru 53rd,  to 96th with  and an elongated  to 71st or 179th?

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, Deucey said:

So would it make more sense to run  as the Myrtle Shuttle,  from B-way Junction over 63rd and  thru 53rd,  to 96th with  and an elongated  to 71st or 179th?

What are you solving with this is my question I guess? 

Just leave the current pattern be for now and send a few R to Astoria and a few M to 179. Much simpler IMO. 

[AlgorithmOfTruth]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

What are you solving with this is my question I guess? 

Just leave the current pattern be for now and send a few R to Astoria and a few M to 179. Much simpler IMO. 

If the  was extended to Jamaica–179th Street during rush hours, it would alleviate that irritating fumigation nonsense that has Forest Hills–71st Avenue tied up in a knot every weekday.

[Wallyhorse]

11 hours ago, RR503 said:

I don't understand you. I'd assume that a person, after having proposed the same things for literal years, and after having been given extremely clear arguments as to why their proposals are flawed, would either give up or change their ideas. But no. You don't. You are either too arrogant, myopic or foamy to do this. So explain to me. Why are your mitigations better than running R to Astoria or W to Bay Ridge or M to 179? Address the following points:-Comnecting service at Court Square

And please. No "As I have noted, they can take a hike via an OOS" BS please. I want in system stuff only. 

The only way to me to have the go to 179 is to also send the and there while the runs express its full route.  It's been well noted there are not enough cars to do that.

Court Square is going to be a nightmare no matter what.  The idea is to spread out those customers as much as possible by asking any of them who can to go through lower Manhattan, especially if winding up in the end at 14th Street or below to do so.  The more who do that, the better, especially those who can use the transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (especially since there are transfers to the and  at Jay-Metrotech).  This is without any OOS transfers in play. 

Quote

-The fact that the vast majority of commuters wish to travel to Midtown

While that is true, I'm trying to cut that down enough by trying to get riders to go the opposite way, keeping it as much as possible to those who can take the  or actually work at 42nd and points north and need to take the or at Court Square.

Quote

-Car equipment 

This is why you can't do the to 179, again because you likely also need to send other lines as noted above.

Quote

-Merging/terminal procedures (I'm seeing an ugly, conflict filled relay operation at Chambers St) 

-Transfers (how do you mitigate the loss of Fulton for  riders?)

This would be set so (excluding the handful of trains that would still actually run to Broad in rush hours because this  would be limited to 8TPH), the would terminate on the "express" tracks at Chambers as it actually did for years on weekends before finally going back to running to Broad then and relay as it did during that time (as did the old  when it terminated there middays) while the would coming in from Brooklyn on the uptown "local" track at Chambers and terminate there.  After fumigation AND the  has come into Chambers and there is an all-clear, the would as quickly as possible cross over to the downtown track north of Chambers, usually (but only if necessary) waiting behind a train already in Chambers that is supposed to leave a minute or so after the has come into Chambers and people have had a chance to do the cross-platform transfer between the and , with the next train then coming back in on the downtown "local" track at Chambers to return to Brooklyn once the corresponding train comes in.  The idea is the second half of the split line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Parson-Archer is always supposed to be waiting for the train on the first half to come in with the  on the downtown side and  on the uptown side being the second half. 

The main purpose of this is to keep the either on its normal schedule (using the split of into and  OR to give those in Bay Ridge at least a similar amount of if not enhanced service between Bay Ridge and lower Manhattan with ample transfer points from the  to the other lines going towards Manhattan).  This is preparing for politics to come into play and that is why I would do what I would do.
 

 

 

[Lance]

Not for nothing, but the more you keep reiterating the same plan, the worse it sounds. "Well, there will still be a handful of through trains to appease those travelling between Brooklyn/Queens and Lower Manhattan." "Let's run some trains up 2nd Avenue; Court Square will be a nightmare regardless." Do you even hear yourself or do you just live in some echo chamber where everyone's telling you that you have the greatest idea since the Segway?

Do me a favor and take a step back and look at this from a practical standpoint. Ignore the so-called political will that everyone and their mother seems to have around here according to you and try to see what's going to happen when the Canarsie tunnels close next year. When those tunnels close, the will be the primary alternative for riders looking for service between Manhattan and Brooklyn. For those away from the Myrtle Ave and Jamaica lines, the will act as a bridge of sorts to ferry riders to the  either at Court Square or Broadway/Hewes St. You are absolutely right in that Court Square will be a madhouse for the closure. That's why it makes absolutely no sense to limit the number of trains serving the station. If anything, you want as many trains serving Court Square as possible, which is why there is talk of reducing service to accommodate this. This is not a bad idea in and of itself as long as equivalent service is provided, which can be done with extra trains on Broadway and 4th Avenue and obviously extra trains on Queens Blvd.

On the southern end, it's even easier as the must get priority on the Williamsburg Bridge. That will likely mean a reduction in train service to fit the increased number of trains. Whether that puts the kibosh on the Jamaica skip-stop remains to be determined, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that riders will not accept cutting service to fit in some half-baked train between Chambers St and 95 Street. This will be a painful period for all involved as various services across the board have to be altered to accommodate a service change nobody has ever seen or likely even contemplated before. Why make it more of a hassle when it doesn't need to be? There's no need to rearrange the system, as is your specialty, to appease politicians who really don't care about the granular details of subway services or riders who likely aren't making the trips you're trying to preserve and/or create.

Also, as for this out-of-system transfer you are so determined to create at Atlantic Av and Fulton St, again, I have a question you need to ask yourself: how many people are likely to use such a transfer? The and are providing a direct transfer from the at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, so what's the point other than to play another game of connect the dots?

On a side-note, why does everything have to go to 179 Street? I don't think you've ever given an answer for this one. Either that or I just tuned it out because it didn't make any sense. I can somewhat understand the and in an effort to remove the fumigation delays at 71 Avenue, but what on Earth does the , which last I checked does not even run on Queens Blvd anymore, have to do with that?

[CenSin]

I’d like to add that a productive discussion is predicated on people having some values in common. Not having any values in common and posting ideas ad nauseam is like wearing sneakers inside a Chinese home. It’s been telling (to me) that every time a rebuttal is posted in response to a @Wallyhorse idea, @Wallyhorse’s response is to reply, but ignore the substance of the rebuttal by basically saying “that’s the @Wallyhorse way of doing things.” The whole response is almost always a cop-out to weasel out of explaining anything with logic. Pols, Universities, and Malls are the holy trinity of @Wallyhorse’s arguments—things that are indispensable to his arguments, but also things that nearly nobody else on this forum believes in. I think that is the root of the disconnect.

1. Nobody thinks pols have the influence that @Wallyhorse claims they have.
2. Nobody thinks that universities, malls, hospitals, and food centers are the drivers of ridership that he does.
3. Most folks prioritize a sort of mathematical beauty in service patterns (one bullet = one route) that @Wallyhorse’s thinking is the complete antithesis to.

In short, @Wallyhorse happens to be in his own retrograde orbit. Once in a while, we all line up and agree, but that’s only about as likely as the planets lining up to tug on the Sun in one direction.

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, Lance said:

Not for nothing, but the more you keep reiterating the same plan, the worse it sounds. "Well, there will still be a handful of through trains to appease those travelling between Brooklyn/Queens and Lower Manhattan." "Let's run some trains up 2nd Avenue; Court Square will be a nightmare regardless." Do you even hear yourself or do you just live in some echo chamber where everyone's telling you that you have the greatest idea since the Segway?

Do me a favor and take a step back and look at this from a practical standpoint. Ignore the so-called political will that everyone and their mother seems to have around here according to you and try to see what's going to happen when the Canarsie tunnels close next year. When those tunnels close, the will be the primary alternative for riders looking for service between Manhattan and Brooklyn. For those away from the Myrtle Ave and Jamaica lines, the will act as a bridge of sorts to ferry riders to the  either at Court Square or Broadway/Hewes St. You are absolutely right in that Court Square will be a madhouse for the closure. That's why it makes absolutely no sense to limit the number of trains serving the station. If anything, you want as many trains serving Court Square as possible, which is why there is talk of reducing service to accommodate this. This is not a bad idea in and of itself as long as equivalent service is provided, which can be done with extra trains on Broadway and 4th Avenue and obviously extra trains on Queens Blvd.

On the southern end, it's even easier as the must get priority on the Williamsburg Bridge. That will likely mean a reduction in train service to fit the increased number of trains. Whether that puts the kibosh on the Jamaica skip-stop remains to be determined, but I can tell you with absolute certainty that riders will not accept cutting service to fit in some half-baked train between Chambers St and 95 Street. This will be a painful period for all involved as various services across the board have to be altered to accommodate a service change nobody has ever seen or likely even contemplated before. Why make it more of a hassle when it doesn't need to be? There's no need to rearrange the system, as is your specialty, to appease politicians who really don't care about the granular details of subway services or riders who likely aren't making the trips you're trying to preserve and/or create.

Also, as for this out-of-system transfer you are so determined to create at Atlantic Av and Fulton St, again, I have a question you need to ask yourself: how many people are likely to use such a transfer? The and are providing a direct transfer from the at Hoyt-Schermerhorn, so what's the point other than to play another game of connect the dots?

On a side-note, why does everything have to go to 179 Street? I don't think you've ever given an answer for this one. Either that or I just tuned it out because it didn't make any sense. I can somewhat understand the and in an effort to remove the fumigation delays at 71 Avenue, but what on Earth does the , which last I checked does not even run on Queens Blvd anymore, have to do with that?

I mentioned the one numerous times before:  So that those on the can also cross over and transfer at Queens Plaza, taking pressure off Court Square as the ALSO would be an option at QP (not to mention the OOS transfer to Queenboro Plaza).  At least 179 is better set up for fumigation and you could as needed switch a local to the express after Parsons Boulevard if there is too big of a backlog since only one stop (169th) would be skipped and that's why to me sending everything to 179 (including the ) helps because not everyone has to use Court Square that way.  

The reduction in service is factored into my plan for a split / that essentially is a split line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center with Chambers Street the transfer point between the two sections.  As the I would be doing would be limited to 8 TPH, even if the is cut you'd still at peak hours have 1-2 trains run to Broad Street while Bay Ridge riders keep their or actually get a boost in service this way (as well as on the 4th Avenue local).  This however to me is the alternate plan to splitting the . 

The idea here is to keep the  if possible at full scale, however, because there are still those who either work in the area of 60th Street/Lex or have to take the IRT because they work on the East Side.  While SOME of these riders can be accommodated by switching to the or staying on the and taking the  at 51st, a lot of them likely will be upset if the  is reduced on QB.   

As for the OOS between the and the Atlantic-Barclays complex, I do believe quite a few people would take advantage of that, especially those again who work at 14th or points south.  There also are numerous alternate routes there should a line go down (another factor in encouraging people to go there) and then there is of course the transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. This also allows for a split of the  where it stays as is while the offshoot runs the extra trains from Metropolitan to 96th-2nd, also giving those on Broadway-Brooklyn going to the Upper East Side (likely including some who work at the hospitals and high-rises on the UES) a one-seat ride.  It also again allows the to remain as is and keeps those likely to be upset if that is cut at bay (yes, you in theory could run the in place of some trains but then I'm sure you'd have people in Astoria upset if their service got screwed).  I also do think there will be those on the UES once they see the running on weekends to 96/2 they will want that on weekdays as well, hence why I'm so hell-bent on splitting the as I do. 

Point is, not everyone is going to midtown as some seem to think. 

[Around the Horn]

On 5/21/2018 at 10:24 AM, 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.

I know I'm a bit late to this portion of the conversation here, but you cannot honestly expect people to switch from the to the X27/X37, if it can't even handle the amount of people waiting along Shore Road every morning. People regularly get passed up at the Bay Ridge Av and Colonial Road stops, which is why I prefer the B9 to the in the morning, and I'll consider the express bus in the evening. 

Not to mention that most ridership is four/five avenues away from an express bus stop...

[T to Dyre Avenue]

11 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I The only way to me to have the go to 179 is to also send the and there while the runs express its full route.  It's been well noted there are not enough cars to do that.

Court Square is going to be a nightmare no matter what.  The idea is to spread out those customers as much as possible by asking any of them who can to go through lower Manhattan, especially if winding up in the end at 14th Street or below to do so.  The more who do that, the better, especially those who can use the transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (especially since there are transfers to the and  at Jay-Metrotech).  This is without any OOS transfers in play. 

While that is true, I'm trying to cut that down enough by trying to get riders to go the opposite way, keeping it as much as possible to those who can take the  or actually work at 42nd and points north and need to take the or at Court Square.

This is why you can't do the to 179, again because you likely also need to send other lines as noted above.

...

 This is preparing for politics to come into play and that is why I would do what I would do.

Baloney! The  ran local to 179th St while the  terminated at 71st-Continental from 1988-93. The reason they trimmed the service hours, then stopped running the  to 179 altogether is because no one on Hillside wanted to ride it because it was local all the way through Queens, unlike the , which wasn’t available at all Hillside Ave stations during rush hours. That would likely not be the case here, as the  would continue to be the full time local after 71st, with the extra  trains supplementing it, so as not to have too many delays with northbound expresses merging with locals at 71st, while the  would continue to  terminate at 71st. If they could do that with the  and  in 1988-93, then they can do it for 15 months in 2019 and 2020 with the  and . Without sending everything plus the  to 179th St.

And you will not get riders to take the  all the way to Hoyt-Schermerhorn or Fulton (and brave the elements and narrow streets in the process) only to go all the way back north to 14th, 23rd and certainly not 34th. They just aren’t going to do it. You know full well they won’t.

And you’re not preparing for politics to come into play with your half-baked  thing. You’re just inconveniencing  line riders even more than they already will be.  You know it. 

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

I mentioned the one numerous times before:  So that those on the can also cross over and transfer at Queens Plaza, taking pressure off Court Square as the ALSO would be an option at QP (not to mention the OOS transfer to Queenboro Plaza

...

The idea here is to keep the  if possible at full scale, however, because there are still those who either work in the area of 60th Street/Lex or have to take the IRT because they work on the East Side.  While SOME of these riders can be accommodated by switching to the or staying on the and taking the  at 51st, a lot of them likely will be upset if the  is reduced on QB.   

As for the OOS between the and the Atlantic-Barclays complex, I do believe quite a few people would take advantage of that, especially those again who work at 14th or points south.  There also are numerous alternate routes there should a line go down (another factor in encouraging people to go there) and then there is of course the transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. This also allows for a split of the  where it stays as is while the offshoot runs the extra trains from Metropolitan to 96th-2nd, also giving those on Broadway-Brooklyn going to the Upper East Side (likely including some who work at the hospitals and high-rises on the UES) a one-seat ride.  It also again allows the to remain as is and keeps those likely to be upset if that is cut at bay (yes, you in theory could run the in place of some trains but then I'm sure you'd have people in Astoria upset if their service got screwed).  I also do think there will be those on the UES once they see the running on weekends to 96/2 they will want that on weekdays as well, hence why I'm so hell-bent on splitting the as I do. 

Point is, not everyone is going to midtown as some seem to think. 

Again with pushing more OOS transfers and one-seat riders? One is completely overrated and the other only works if we transform the subway into a glorified AirTrain. 

Additional  service would run to/from Astoria, so their service won’t be screwed and they won’t have any reason to be upset.

[Via Garibaldi 8]

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I know I'm a bit late to this portion of the conversation here, but you cannot honestly expect people to switch from the to the X27/X37, if it can't even handle the amount of people waiting along Shore Road every morning. People regularly get passed up at the Bay Ridge Av and Colonial Road stops, which is why I prefer the B9 to the in the morning, and I'll consider the express bus in the evening. 

Not to mention that most ridership is four/five avenues away from an express bus stop...

That's only a problem because they don't provide enough service.

[B35 via Church]

10 hours ago, CenSin said:

I’d like to add that a productive discussion is predicated on people having some values in common. Not having any values in common and posting ideas ad nauseam is like wearing sneakers inside a Chinese home. It’s been telling (to me) that every time a rebuttal is posted in response to a @Wallyhorse idea, @Wallyhorse’s response is to reply, but ignore the substance of the rebuttal by basically saying “that’s the @Wallyhorse way of doing things.” The whole response is almost always a cop-out to weasel out of explaining anything with logic. Pols, Universities, and Malls are the holy trinity of @Wallyhorse’s arguments—things that are indispensable to his arguments, but also things that nearly nobody else on this forum believes in. I think that is the root of the disconnect.

1. Nobody thinks pols have the influence that @Wallyhorse claims they have.
2. Nobody thinks that universities, malls, hospitals, and food centers are the drivers of ridership that he does.
3. Most folks prioritize a sort of mathematical beauty in service patterns (one bullet = one route) that @Wallyhorse’s thinking is the complete antithesis to.

In short, @Wallyhorse happens to be in his own retrograde orbit. Once in a while, we all line up and agree, but that’s only about as likely as the planets lining up to tug on the Sun in one direction.

Yep, been came to that conclusion & it is the exact reason I've developed the habit of glossing straight over his posts & commence reading subsequent posts of which aren't authored by him.... Everybody's not going to agree, but I tend to find it offensive when I pose a counter-argument to someone & they either regurgitate their stance, or continue adding points to their original stance without even addressing the counter-argument.... That's pretty much saying "f*** you", or as our good friend Eric Cartman said - Whatever, I do what I want.....

I know of someone personally that goes about life like this & I don't bother entertaining her nonsense at all..... Who needs logic, when you encapsulate yourself inside a bubble in a place called la-la land....

 

[RR503]

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I mentioned the one numerous times before:  So that those on the can also cross over and transfer at Queens Plaza, taking pressure off Court Square as the ALSO would be an option at QP (not to mention the OOS transfer to Queenboro Plaza).  At least 179 is better set up for fumigation and you could as needed switch a local to the express after Parsons Boulevard if there is too big of a backlog since only one stop (169th) would be skipped and that's why to me sending everything to 179 (including the ) helps because not everyone has to use Court Square that way.  

You're proving everything people are saying about you here -- we had this exact same discussion literally a few days ago. Consequently, I'm not gonna waste my time rewriting what I said and instead just paste my earlier response below. 

Quote

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 179. Yes, you can use both relays -- there actually are switches entering 179 allowing no stops to be missed. That said, if QB local is running more than 25tph total, those trains, combined with the , will create the exact same fumigation problems as currently exist at Forest Hills, as their combined total will be 40tph/2 tracks = 20tph, or FHills max cap. This is to say nothing of the merge delays that all the musical chairs with tracks will cause, of course. 

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The reduction in service is factored into my plan for a split / that essentially is a split line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center with Chambers Street the transfer point between the two sections.  As the I would be doing would be limited to 8 TPH, even if the is cut you'd still at peak hours have 1-2 trains run to Broad Street while Bay Ridge riders keep their or actually get a boost in service this way (as well as on the 4th Avenue local).  This however to me is the alternate plan to splitting the . 

You're literally just repeating yourself without addressing any of people's concerns. As you very well know, an hourly or half-hourly train to Broad Street simply does not cut it in terms of preserving  line flexibility. And while running a service to Chambers for Bay Ridge riders would be a service increase, it would not take said riders where they want to do (Midtown), and kills service for riders captive to the  for seemingly no reason given that the  could be extended down to 95. And please don't tell me that Lower Manhattan is 'more popular than you think.' You sound like a second rate real estate broker trying to sell something in Camden. 10-15% of NYC commuters go to that area, vs 40-45% to Midtown. You're simply wrong. 

So, I ask. Present a logical, ops and demand based argument for your  train nonsense, and explain using the same reasoning why it's better than sending the  trips cut from QBL to Astoria, or some  to Bay Ridge. 

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The idea here is to keep the  if possible at full scale, however, because there are still those who either work in the area of 60th Street/Lex or have to take the IRT because they work on the East Side.  While SOME of these riders can be accommodated by switching to the or staying on the and taking the  at 51st, a lot of them likely will be upset if the  is reduced on QB.   

Here's the one part of your argument that I don't find upsettingly ignorant. The loss of that Lex express connection will pose an issue for those who take the  to Lower Manhattan. That said,  riders have other options. They can take the  to WTC (and maybe get the  there), they can xfer to the  along 8th Avenue for Fulton Center, etc etc etc. May add a minute or two to commutes, but may also be a net positive for the system as the crowding at Lex-59 is ameliorated, and the  get a little of their load shifted elsewhere. 

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

As for the OOS between the and the Atlantic-Barclays complex, I do believe quite a few people would take advantage of that, especially those again who work at 14th or points south.  There also are numerous alternate routes there should a line go down (another factor in encouraging people to go there) and then there is of course the transfer at Hoyt-Schermerhorn. This also allows for a split of the  where it stays as is while the offshoot runs the extra trains from Metropolitan to 96th-2nd, also giving those on Broadway-Brooklyn going to the Upper East Side (likely including some who work at the hospitals and high-rises on the UES) a one-seat ride.  It also again allows the to remain as is and keeps those likely to be upset if that is cut at bay (yes, you in theory could run the in place of some trains but then I'm sure you'd have people in Astoria upset if their service got screwed).  I also do think there will be those on the UES once they see the running on weekends to 96/2 they will want that on weekdays as well, hence why I'm so hell-bent on splitting the as I do. 

I'm glad you think things about OOSes -- it means you're not in a vegetative state. That said, I'm not in any way interested in your thoughts on the matter until you come with evidence. 

Now as for this bloody split proposal.

As you have admitted before, the key to the  line during the shutdown (aside from Wyckoff) is Court Square. Explain to me rationally, and without using some f*cking deus ex machina of UES politics (see bold), why you should enact a service CUT there during the shutdown. People in the markets you describe are both few in number and blessed with multiple transfer options for getting to their destinations. The last thing they need is a one seat ride, especially not at expense of those whose options have been restricted. 

Wally, I enjoy your contributions at times. Posts like these, which flagrantly and rudely ignore the arguments of others while resting on some contrived set of conditions caused by politics and human psychology make me crazy. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. If you wish to participate, you have to engage with other members, or you might as well be writing a blog. 

[CenSin]

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I mentioned the one numerous times before:  So that those on the can also cross over and transfer at Queens Plaza, taking pressure off Court Square as the ALSO would be an option at QP (not to mention the OOS transfer to Queenboro Plaza).

This just moves the problem to another station. And the switching will reduce the frequency of all routes that cross paths making a new problem even worse than the problem you’re trying to solve.

 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

At least 179 is better set up for fumigation and you could as needed switch a local to the express after Parsons Boulevard if there is too big of a backlog since only one stop (169th) would be skipped and that's why to me sending everything to 179 (including the ) helps because not everyone has to use Court Square that way.

No station is better set up for fumigation. Fumigation is essentially the same at all stations. You’ve increased the fleet requirements and/or lowered the frequencies of all the extended routes. Either it will be impossible because there aren’t enough train sets (which is the case) or the decrease in frequency will cause problems at the transfer points that the displaced riders will be using.

 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The reduction in service is factored into my plan for a split / that essentially is a split line between 95th-Bay Ridge and Jamaica Center with Chambers Street the transfer point between the two sections.  As the I would be doing would be limited to 8 TPH, even if the is cut you'd still at peak hours have 1-2 trains run to Broad Street while Bay Ridge riders keep their or actually get a boost in service this way (as well as on the 4th Avenue local).  This however to me is the alternate plan to splitting the .

If the timer slowdown fiasco is any indicator, plans go awry even with the best of intentions. Do you honestly think that saying trains will get out of the way immediately will make the congestion problem go away with all this switching on a completely flat junction? What about the pols along the Jamaica Line who will complain about the loss of skip-stop service?

 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The idea here is to keep the  if possible at full scale, however, because there are still those who either work in the area of 60th Street/Lex or have to take the IRT because they work on the East Side.  While SOME of these riders can be accommodated by switching to the or staying on the and taking the  at 51st, a lot of them likely will be upset if the  is reduced on QB.

This is vague. How many people are “some?” Planning should be done to maximize the success of the intended goal, not to cater to each and every person. Because chances are, when you try to serve everyone, you serve no one.

Quote

The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey

Aesop

A man and his son were once going with their donkey to market. As they were walking along by his side a countryman passed them and said, "You fools, what is a donkey for but to ride upon?" So the man put the boy on the donkey, and they went on their way.

But soon they passed a group of men, one of whom said, "See that lazy youngster, he lets his father walk while he rides."

So the man ordered his boy to get off, and got on himself. But they hadn't gone far when they passed two women, one of whom said to the other, "Shame on that lazy lout to let his poor little son trudge along."

Well, the man didn't know what to do, but at last he took his boy up before him on the donkey. By this time they had come to the town, and the passersby began to jeer and point at them. The man stopped and asked what they were scoffing at.

The men said, "Aren't you ashamed of yourself for overloading that poor donkey of yours -- you and your hulking son?"

The man and boy got off and tried to think what to do. They thought and they thought, until at last they cut down a pole, tied the donkey's feet to it, and raised the pole and the donkey to their shoulders. They went along amid the laughter of all who met them until they came to a bridge, when the donkey, getting one of his feet loose, kicked out and caused the boy to drop his end of the pole. In the struggle the donkey fell over the bridge, and his forefeet being tied together, he was drowned.

Try to please everyone, and you will please no one.

 

21 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Point is, not everyone is going to midtown as some seem to think. 

Again, this is vague. How many people are “not everyone?” Data is king, and all you’ve done is rely on conjecture.

 

On 5/23/2018 at 10:36 PM, Wallyhorse said:

No solution here is going to be perfect, but the fact is, the is going to be dealing with constituents in Bay Ridge and along Queens Boulevard one way or another.

Some solutions are worse than others. Better to pull a Byford and say “go f**k yourself” to unreasonable demands.

[Wallyhorse]

7 hours ago, CenSin said:

Some solutions are worse than others. Better to pull a Byford and say “go f**k yourself” to unreasonable demands.

That I agree with.  If Byford can pull it off, then more power to him. 

[Wallyhorse]

17 hours ago, RR503 said:

Now as for this bloody split proposal.

As you have admitted before, the key to the  line during the shutdown (aside from Wyckoff) is Court Square. Explain to me rationally, and without using some f*cking deus ex machina of UES politics (see bold), why you should enact a service CUT there during the shutdown. People in the markets you describe are both few in number and blessed with multiple transfer options for getting to their destinations. The last thing they need is a one seat ride, especially not at expense of those whose options have been restricted. 

Wally, I enjoy your contributions at times. Posts like these, which flagrantly and rudely ignore the arguments of others while resting on some contrived set of conditions caused by politics and human psychology make me crazy. This is a forum, not an echo chamber. If you wish to participate, you have to engage with other members, or you might as well be writing a blog. 

The would NOT be cut to 71-Continental.  Exactly the same number of trains currently running there would continue to during peak hours, which as I would here do would be extended to have peak hours include all of middays.  It would only be the ADDITIONAL trains (signed as ) that would be running to 96/2 during the week (and all such trains late nights and weekends).  The one difference is here is both portions of the split line would be running peak levels at all hours on weekdays between 5:30 AM and 8:00 PM, and after 8:00 PM until end of service on the an actual increase in service on the Broadway-Brooklyn end since you would have two lines out of Metropolitan running to Manhattan between 8:00 PM and Midnight with the running as it does now during those hours on weekdays and the on top of that still running 5 TPH (which would be max for that line on weekdays).  It also likely as I've noted before likely would need 1-2 LESS total trainsets at peak hours to accomplish this since 96-2 I believe is not as far as 71-Continental, and with car equipment a potential issue that could be important. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

12 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

The would NOT be cut to 71-Continental.  Exactly the same number of trains currently running there would continue to during peak hours, which as I would here do would be extended to have peak hours...

It also likely as I've noted before likely would need 1-2 LESS total trainsets at peak hours to accomplish this since 96-2 I believe is not as far as 71-Continental, and with car equipment a potential issue that could be important. 

How do you know how many trains would be needed for your completely counterproductive split-  service idea? What actual professional experience do you have with knowing how many vehicles to assign to a transit route at any given to? Feel free to answer; it’s not a rhetorical question.

And @RR503 didn’t say anything about cutting the  to 71st-Continental. But not providing additional train service at Court Square, which will arguably be the busiest transfer point during the shutdown is not productive. Neither is sending extra weekday 6th Ave service to 2nd Ave. Extra weekday Broadway service (i.e., a few more  trains) would be a different story...

[Wallyhorse]

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

How do you know how many trains would be needed for your completely counterproductive split-  service idea? What actual professional experience do you have with knowing how many vehicles to assign to a transit route at any given to? Feel free to answer; it’s not a rhetorical question.

And @RR503 didn’t say anything about cutting the  to 71st-Continental. But not providing additional train service at Court Square, which will arguably be the busiest transfer point during the shutdown is not productive. Neither is sending extra weekday 6th Ave service to 2nd Ave. Extra weekday Broadway service (i.e., a few more  trains) would be a different story...

I never said to be an expert, I was simply using common sense. 

[CenSin]

1 minute ago, Wallyhorse said:

I never said to be an expert, I was simply using common sense. 

You try to apply common sense to a system of this level of complexity, and you get nonsense. Some rigor is needed.

[Kanarsie Guy]

Only line that can help the is the  and not by much either. The problems lies with the not having many transfer points to uptown trains. I don't know why the is being look at as such a help nobody wants to go to Manhattan via 42, 53 OR 63 and I need to be on 14th st. You have the infrastructure to handle this situation there not using it correct or give service were it's really need. Even to Broadway junction is better then a beefed up  nobody really wants or will try to avoid anyway.