Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Sign in to follow this  
Union Tpke

April 2019 Service Plan for Canarsie Shutdown

Recommended Posts

It’s a testament to just how poorly thought out this was that there is no increase in weekend (7) or (E) service to cover (G) riders at Court Square, along with all the folks who currently use those lines.

If you need more space on QB, cut the (R) to QP and send the (E) local. There is no good reason for those riders to have to suffer thus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what does this mean for the (R) ? Reduced service in Queens? They list every other reroute and extension but leave out how they plan to keep (R) Brooklyn service the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it just be smarter to to the following?: 

(E) 18 TPH QB express service  (3 TPH go local to 179)

(F) 15 TPH (unaltered)

(M) 14TPH. (This could cause 53rd street to go a little over capacity)

(J)(Z) 12 TPH (basically, the Williamsburg bridge would reach max capacity and you could short turn 2 trains at Broadway Junction) 

(R) 2 TPH rerouted to Astoria, bumping a few (N)'s to 96 

(7) boosted to 30-31 TPH (if possible)

 

 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

So what does this mean for the (R) ? Reduced service in Queens? They list every other reroute and extension but leave out how they plan to keep (R) Brooklyn service the same.

On the schedule, they'll probably list them as something different. They might end at 57 Street or something, and maybe go up 2nd Avenue or Astoria. If the latter occurs, IDK if signing them up as (W) trains to Astoria (NB only) will be a problem, kinda like they do with the (N) to 96/ (Q) via Sea Beach trips. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

R160s from ENY

Wouldn't that call for R32/R42/R143/R160 as well? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Wouldn't that call for R32/R42/R143/R160 as well? 

Not really. Just R160As would be needed. ENY will have enough NTT trains for the expanded (M) service. The remaining R143s not in use on the (L) can run on the (M) while the R179s hold down the (J) 

Edited by darkstar8983
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RR503 said:

It’s a testament to just how poorly thought out this was that there is no increase in weekend (7) or (E) service to cover (G) riders at Court Square, along with all the folks who currently use those lines.

If you need more space on QB, cut the (R) to QP and send the (E) local. There is no good reason for those riders to have to suffer thus. 

I suspect the CBTC work on QP may prevent this.

This is also why I would have an OOS transfer between the (G) at Fulton and the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) at Atlantic-Barclays.  I would be encouraging riders as much as possible to get people to go the other way on the (G) to Fulton or Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the  (A)(C).  Also why I do a ton of work on Bergen lower so the (F) can be a full express while ALL (G) trains go to Church Avenue (or when necessary Kings Highway).   
 

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

Wouldn't it just be smarter to to the following?: 

(E) 18 TPH QB express service  (3 TPH go local to 179)

(F) 15 TPH (unaltered)

(M) 14TPH. (This could cause 53rd street to go a little over capacity)

(J)(Z) 12 TPH (basically, the Williamsburg bridge would reach max capacity and you could short turn 2 trains at Broadway Junction) 

(R) 2 TPH rerouted to Astoria, bumping a few (N)'s to 96 

(7) boosted to 30-31 TPH (if possible)

Most of this I agree with.   Perhaps for the (N) / (Q) situation, a limited number of trains run straight through Coney Island without actually terminating there, with perhaps a different letter designation (Yellow (K)?) and such operating as a through-(sort of) loop service between Astoria and 96th via Coney Island could perhaps be done.  That could be done in place of the two (N) trains to 96th.  

Still would do the (M) / (T) split with the (M) as it is now while the (T) supplements the (M) going to 96th/2nd with 5TPH weekdays and is the main line from Metropolitan-96th Street with 3TPH late nights and 6-9TPH weekends. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, RR503 said:

It’s a testament to just how poorly thought out this was that there is no increase in weekend (7) or (E) service to cover (G) riders at Court Square, along with all the folks who currently use those lines.

If you need more space on QB, cut the (R) to QP and send the (E) local. There is no good reason for those riders to have to suffer thus. 

As alluded in Wallyhorse's post, CBTC work is probably a major restriction in increasing normal Queens Blvd service. After all, it makes very little sense to call for a service increase on paper that can never be reached in practice due to signal upgrades. However, that's no excuse for the lack of foresight in (7) service as CBTC work on that line should wrap up by the end of the year (hopefully).

As for cutting the (R) and making the (E) line the main Queens Blvd local, all that does is piss off Jamaica riders. While unavoidable during maintenance and other construction work, I don't feel it's fair to subject Jamaica riders with the local. Also, wouldn't that create an overcrowding situation on the line as it would be the only local on Queens Blvd along with being the second leg of the (L) shuttle connector?

All this makes me wonder if it was ever considered by Transit to make the (M) the primary Queens Blvd local for the duration of the project. In my opinion, it would make more sense as it allows the (M) to be the second leg at all times along with the (E), rather than shift the job to only the (E) during off-hours. The (R) would run to 96 Street during off-hours, preserving service on the Manhattan and Brooklyn portions without getting too much in the way of other lines. It would also be a more consistent service pattern than what's being put out by Transit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Lance said:

As alluded in Wallyhorse's post, CBTC work is probably a major restriction in increasing normal Queens Blvd service. After all, it makes very little sense to call for a service increase on paper that can never be reached in practice due to signal upgrades. However, that's no excuse for the lack of foresight in (7) service as CBTC work on that line should wrap up by the end of the year (hopefully).

I am well aware of the CBTC work restrictions. What I'm objecting to is not their inability to increase total service, but their refusal to see ways to increase individual line service to fix frequencies. 

55 minutes ago, Lance said:

 As for cutting the (R) and making the (E) line the main Queens Blvd local, all that does is piss off Jamaica riders. While unavoidable during maintenance and other construction work, I don't feel it's fair to subject Jamaica riders with the local. Also, wouldn't that create an overcrowding situation on the line as it would be the only local on Queens Blvd along with being the second leg of the (L) shuttle connector?

All this makes me wonder if it was ever considered by Transit to make the (M) the primary Queens Blvd local for the duration of the project. In my opinion, it would make more sense as it allows the (M) to be the second leg at all times along with the (E), rather than shift the job to only the (E) during off-hours. The (R) would run to 96 Street during off-hours, preserving service on the Manhattan and Brooklyn portions without getting too much in the way of other lines. It would also be a more consistent service pattern than what's being put out by Transit.

First of all, the whole premise for this set of frequency cuts was that there would be work on QB every weekend. Methinks that in light of that, 'express' and 'local' must be seen as they are -- as fluid designations. But even if there wasn't work, though, and we still could only run 15tph through the corridor, I'd still advocate for this. Jamaica riders lose time on the local, sure, but they gain in markedly shortened wait times and better line reliability (no more (R) merge during planned work). I also think that this service pattern would actually reduce crowding on (E)s incoming to Court Square -- most pax east of Roosevelt would transfer to the (F), and the stops east of there are in no way capable of even filling the seats on a train -- especially not at 7.5tph. 

I think the biggest mistake in the way this is being looked at is the fact that we're considering the line in isolation. The (E)(F)(R) are crucial to weekend movement in the city, and their dismemberment to 5tph is basically the agency handing cars massive markets. Forget QB and the (L) train: East Side riders can't reliably reach 8th via 53 anymore, 8th can't get to Rock Center, Park Slope might as well walk to Barclays, the Lower East Side can cry a river, and Bay Ridge might as well take a bus to bloody Stillwell. I think that when debating a change like this -- one which could allow the (E)(F)(R) to all run at 7.5tph -- we must consider the effects elsewhere, as, well, there's a reason it's called a subway system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't they send a few (M) trains to 96 St during rush hours also? I see they can only run 12 tph of (M) service in Queens while14 tph in Manhattan and Brooklyn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@RR503 Of course, the devil does lie in the details, doesn't it? On paper, you could say that the elimination of (R) service in Queens and the conversion of the (E) to the main local would equate to shorter wait times across the line, but would that really be the case? You and I both know that if they could, Transit would continue to leave the (E) at its paltry 5 TPH even without the (R) in the way, thus putting an undue strain on the (F) as the sole express, along with the (E) that would be doing double duty as one of the Jamaica - Manhattan thoroughfares and the Queens Blvd local. That's on top of the increased riders changing between the (E) and (G) at Court Square. If Transit can guarantee your proposed 7.5 TPH, it might be doable for this project, though I wouldn't consider it beyond that for the reasons I mentioned previously. It's too bad they cannot push Queens Blvd CBTC conversion to after Canarsie is finished, but I imagine we're too far along to stop now. That and it would probably cost more in the long-term anyhow. It would solve a lot of problems, especially as you mentioned, those downstream away from Queens Blvd.

In terms of merging delays, aren't most of those on Queens Blvd caused by piss-poor fumigation procedures at Forest Hills, rather than the 36 St/Northern Blvd switch tracks? Extending the (R) to 179 Street when necessary should remove that problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Lance said:

@RR503 Of course, the devil does lie in the details, doesn't it? On paper, you could say that the elimination of (R) service in Queens and the conversion of the (E) to the main local would equate to shorter wait times across the line, but would that really be the case? You and I both know that if they could, Transit would continue to leave the (E) at its paltry 5 TPH even without the (R) in the way, thus putting an undue strain on the (F) as the sole express, along with the (E) that would be doing double duty as one of the Jamaica - Manhattan thoroughfares and the Queens Blvd local. That's on top of the increased riders changing between the (E) and (G) at Court Square. If Transit can guarantee your proposed 7.5 TPH, it might be doable for this project, though I wouldn't consider it beyond that for the reasons I mentioned previously. It's too bad they cannot push Queens Blvd CBTC conversion to after Canarsie is finished, but I imagine we're too far along to stop now. That and it would probably cost more in the long-term anyhow. It would solve a lot of problems, especially as you mentioned, those downstream away from Queens Blvd.

In terms of merging delays, aren't most of those on Queens Blvd caused by piss-poor fumigation procedures at Forest Hills, rather than the 36 St/Northern Blvd switch tracks? Extending the (R) to 179 Street when necessary should remove that problem.

Well, I think this is where loading guidelines come in. In the original board document laying out these changes, you’ll notice that even OP concedes that the frequency reductions send most of these trains’ routes well over guideline. Especially given all the focus on off peak/Canarsie mitigation service lately, I’d doubt that they’d be able to make such a change without increasing frequencies to compensate (hell, Queens politicians would make sure they couldn’t). They’d be violating their own policies without defensible cause, and implementing a service cut on one of the most important lines in the system — a bridge too far given the above scrutiny. I think it’s, too, worth noting that the agency has actually put in the effort to supplement these lines up to 6-7.5 tph on the rare weekend without work — certainly indicative of at least an awareness of the issue.

Regardless, the proposal would be posed as I did: a package of changes, including both the (R) cut and the (E)(F)(R) increases. Rendering it into an a la carte proposition would thus be difficult. 

Re delays, the fumigation just causes delays, not merge (read: gappy) delays. When there’s flagging anywhere near the QP area, that whole merge goes to shit, leading to situations where you’ll have some unholy series of (E)(R)(E)(R)(F)(F)(F) careening down the corridor, and then ricocheting back into southbound service (#wherearemahgaptrains). 

Now of course, this entire conversation neglects the basic issue here — flagging, and the structure of planned work — but that’s another topic altogether... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lance said:

@RR503 Of course, the devil does lie in the details, doesn't it? On paper, you could say that the elimination of (R) service in Queens and the conversion of the (E) to the main local would equate to shorter wait times across the line, but would that really be the case? You and I both know that if they could, Transit would continue to leave the (E) at its paltry 5 TPH even without the (R) in the way, thus putting an undue strain on the (F) as the sole express, along with the (E) that would be doing double duty as one of the Jamaica - Manhattan thoroughfares and the Queens Blvd local. That's on top of the increased riders changing between the (E) and (G) at Court Square. If Transit can guarantee your proposed 7.5 TPH, it might be doable for this project, though I wouldn't consider it beyond that for the reasons I mentioned previously. It's too bad they cannot push Queens Blvd CBTC conversion to after Canarsie is finished, but I imagine we're too far along to stop now. That and it would probably cost more in the long-term anyhow. It would solve a lot of problems, especially as you mentioned, those downstream away from Queens Blvd.

In terms of merging delays, aren't most of those on Queens Blvd caused by piss-poor fumigation procedures at Forest Hills, rather than the 36 St/Northern Blvd switch tracks? Extending the (R) to 179 Street when necessary should remove that problem.

The (M) and (R) should always operate to 179th St during rush hours to alleviate some of that conga line at 71st Av.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The (M) and (R) should always operate to 179th St during rush hours to alleviate some of that conga line at 71st Av.

Just send every other local to 179 St. Or if feasible also send some locals to Jamaica Center with more (E) s to 179.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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