April 2019 Service Plan for Canarsie Shutdown

[Union Tpke]

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.24.57 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.25.11 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.25.20 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.26.26 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.26.33 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.26.43 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.28.00 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.29.01 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.29.30 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2018-10-19 at 4.29.38 PM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

 

[RR503]

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

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

[MysteriousBtrain]

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

[RestrictOnTheHanger]

Probably they'll send those trips to 96 st

[LGA Link N Train]

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

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

15 TPH (unaltered)

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

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

2 TPH rerouted to Astoria, bumping a few 's to 96 

boosted to 30-31 TPH (if possible)

 

 

[Lawrence St]

I wonder if the will use some of the sets from the

[BM5 via Woodhaven]

3 hours ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

So what does this mean for the ? Reduced service in Queens? They list every other reroute and extension but leave out how they plan to keep 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  trains to Astoria (NB only) will be a problem, kinda like they do with the  to 96/ via Sea Beach trips. 

[MysteriousBtrain]

1 minute ago, Lawrence St said:

I wonder if the will use some of the sets from the

R160s from ENY

[Lawrence St]

1 minute ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

R160s from ENY

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

[darkstar8983]

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  service. The remaining R143s not in use on the  can run on the  while the R179s hold down the  

[Wallyhorse]

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

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

If you need more space on QB, cut the  to QP and send the  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 at Fulton and the at Atlantic-Barclays.  I would be encouraging riders as much as possible to get people to go the other way on the to Fulton or Hoyt-Schermerhorn for the  .  Also why I do a ton of work on Bergen lower so the can be a full express while ALL 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?: 

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

15 TPH (unaltered)

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

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

2 TPH rerouted to Astoria, bumping a few 's to 96 

boosted to 30-31 TPH (if possible)

Most of this I agree with.   Perhaps for the / situation, a limited number of trains run straight through Coney Island without actually terminating there, with perhaps a different letter designation (Yellow ?) 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 trains to 96th.  

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

[Lance]

15 hours ago, RR503 said:

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

If you need more space on QB, cut the  to QP and send the  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 service as CBTC work on that line should wrap up by the end of the year (hopefully).

As for cutting the and making the 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 shuttle connector?

All this makes me wonder if it was ever considered by Transit to make the the primary Queens Blvd local for the duration of the project. In my opinion, it would make more sense as it allows the to be the second leg at all times along with the , rather than shift the job to only the during off-hours. The 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.

[RR503]

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 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 and making the 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 shuttle connector?

All this makes me wonder if it was ever considered by Transit to make the the primary Queens Blvd local for the duration of the project. In my opinion, it would make more sense as it allows the to be the second leg at all times along with the , rather than shift the job to only the during off-hours. The 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  merge during planned work). I also think that this service pattern would actually reduce crowding on s incoming to Court Square -- most pax east of Roosevelt would transfer to the , 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  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  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  to all run at 7.5tph -- we must consider the effects elsewhere, as, well, there's a reason it's called a subway system. 

[j express]

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

[Lance]

@RR503 Of course, the devil does lie in the details, doesn't it? On paper, you could say that the elimination of service in Queens and the conversion of the 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 at its paltry 5 TPH even without the in the way, thus putting an undue strain on the as the sole express, along with the 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 and 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 to 179 Street when necessary should remove that problem.

[RR503]

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 service in Queens and the conversion of the 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 at its paltry 5 TPH even without the in the way, thus putting an undue strain on the as the sole express, along with the 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 and 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 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  cut and the  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  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... 

[Lawrence St]

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 service in Queens and the conversion of the 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 at its paltry 5 TPH even without the in the way, thus putting an undue strain on the as the sole express, along with the 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 and 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 to 179 Street when necessary should remove that problem.

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

[MysteriousBtrain]

11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

The and 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 s to 179.