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  
Around the Horn

Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

Recommended Posts

Ok town hall update:

First of all, Andy and the entire MTA team took the (R) from 2 Broadway to the meeting. They got stuck in the same mess that I do everyday and had to wait a while for a train which is good cause they could have just as easily driven and not experienced our commute first hand. 

To quote Byford, "I know it. I've experienced it. The (R) is not one of our best performers." [loud applause followed]

Now on to proposals that came up in the questions:

(W) to Bay Ridge 

"Anything is possible" "We will look into it since you've mentioned it so much" 

cautioned that there may not be enough rolling stock at the moment to run a supplementary service to Bay Ridge but it is something on Andy's radar and they will take a look at 4th Av operations as a whole once the express tracks reopen in July.

Splitting the (R) in Lower Manhattan

"I never say no to a suggestion" "We'll add that one to the list"

Also noted that subway lines are like the buses in that routes developed over time but may not best serve the current population. 

Said that he was willing to take a look at changing established services like the (R) due to the volume of complaints he has received.

Also specifically mentioned that interlines spread delays throughout the system and that he and his team are looking at a deinterlining plan (paging @RR503)

He specifically mentioned the (A) and (C) as the first routes being looked at.

In the meantime they will continue the Save Safe Seconds campaign on the (R) line and they will heavily monitor it's performance. 

With regard to accessibility:

Bay Ridge-95 St: design 

86 Street: construction, opening next summer

59 Street: construction, opening 2021

36 Street: Fast Forward priority station

They are in talks with developers along 4th Avenue through Park Slope about paying for ADA for other stations in exchange for height bonuses. 

 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Ok town hall update:

First of all, Andy and the entire MTA team took the (R) from 2 Broadway to the meeting. They got stuck in the same mess that I do everyday and had to wait a while for a train which is good cause they could have just as easily driven and not experienced our commute first hand. 

To quote Byford, "I know it. I've experienced it. The (R) is not one of our best performers." [loud applause followed]

Now on to proposals that came up in the questions:

(W) to Bay Ridge 

"Anything is possible" "We will look into it since you've mentioned it so much" 

cautioned that there may not be enough rolling stock at the moment to run a supplementary service to Bay Ridge but it is something on Andy's radar and they will take a look at 4th Av operations as a whole once the express tracks reopen in July.

Splitting the (R) in Lower Manhattan

"I never say no to a suggestion" "We'll add that one to the list"

Also noted that subway lines are like the buses in that routes developed over time but may not best serve the current population. 

Said that he was willing to take a look at changing established services like the (R) due to the volume of complaints he has received.

Also specifically mentioned that interlines spread delays throughout the system and that he and his team are looking at a deinterlining plan (paging @RR503)

He specifically mentioned the (A) and (C) as the first routes being looked at.

In the meantime they will continue the Save Safe Seconds campaign on the (R) line and they will heavily monitor it's performance. 

With regard to accessibility:

Bay Ridge-95 St: design 

86 Street: construction, opening next summer

59 Street: construction, opening 2021

36 Street: Fast Forward priority station

They are in talks with developers along 4th Avenue through Park Slope about paying for ADA for other stations in exchange for height bonuses. 

 

Although this impression... saying that they'll "look into it" makes it seem like they'll come to the same conclusions that we already have within our thread and realize that there might be too many downsides to each proposal... you never know, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Also specifically mentioned that interlines spread delays throughout the system and that he and his team are looking at a deinterlining plan (paging @RR503)

I've been hearing about this...it's about time. I just hope the recommendations his team makes don't get too muddied by politics. I appreciate him drawing the parallel w/ buses. 

41 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

cautioned that there may not be enough rolling stock at the moment to run a supplementary service to Bay Ridge but it is something on Andy's radar and they will take a look at 4th Av operations as a whole once the express tracks reopen in July.

This smells fishy. We have the 179 order which was supposed to replace the 32s and 42s...and the 32s and 42s. If they were to keep those cars as was planned for Canarsie, there'd be no issue. 

I'm interested to see where this all goes. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just throwing this out there:

A 6th Av Service from 145th to Bay Ridge. Runs local on CPW, express on 6th Av, then local on 4th Av Bk.

(B) goes to Fordham and Sheepshead full-time, but at reduced frequency to accommodate this new service.

Probably would’ve worked better if Franklin Shuttle was still double-tracked - then it could just be (B) to Bay Ridge, Franklin Shuttle to Coney Island and (Q) express on Brighton to Sheepshead Bay, but this idea beats a blank, right?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Just throwing this out there:

A 6th Av Service from 145th to Bay Ridge. Runs local on CPW, express on 6th Av, then local on 4th Av Bk.

(B) goes to Fordham and Sheepshead full-time, but at reduced frequency to accommodate this new service.

Probably would’ve worked better if Franklin Shuttle was still double-tracked - then it could just be (B) to Bay Ridge, Franklin Shuttle to Coney Island and (Q) express on Brighton to Sheepshead Bay, but this idea beats a blank, right?

How about a (J) / (Z) and (M) supplement that could operate between either Broadway Junction or Metropolitan Avenue to 95th Street? That can speed up some trips.

 

Another idea I had was operating free overlay shuttle buses along the (R) route from 95th Street to DeKalb Avenue. This could allow for (R) riders to make an informed choice on what route to take (I.e should I wait 10 minutes for the (R) or take the free shuttle bus instead?). Those could be some great ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Just throwing this out there:

A 6th Av Service from 145th to Bay Ridge. Runs local on CPW, express on 6th Av, then local on 4th Av Bk.

(B) goes to Fordham and Sheepshead full-time, but at reduced frequency to accommodate this new service.

Probably would’ve worked better if Franklin Shuttle was still double-tracked - then it could just be (B) to Bay Ridge, Franklin Shuttle to Coney Island and (Q) express on Brighton to Sheepshead Bay, but this idea beats a blank, right?

This was actually one of the originally proposed Dekalb service patterns in the 60s -- the general idea was that you'd have 2 services coming from the tunnel and 2 from the bridge into Dekalb itself, where one of each would go to 4th local and one of each would go to Brighton. Alas, I doubt Brighton would accept loss of Bridge service today, and I think we're better of without more interlining ((B) and (R) would have to merge in one direction, and (B) and (Q) in the other -- add another pair if you plan to run a service from the tunnel to Brighton). 

4 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

How about a (J) / (Z) and (M) supplement that could operate between either Broadway Junction or Metropolitan Avenue to 95th Street? That can speed up some trips.

  

 Another idea I had was operating free overlay shuttle buses along the (R) route from 95th Street to DeKalb Avenue. This could allow for (R) riders to make an informed choice on what route to take (I.e should I wait 10 minutes for the (R) or take the free shuttle bus instead?). Those could be some great ideas.

No capacity on Willy B for a new route, and that throughput should really go to existing lines anyway. 

You'd get maybe a few bus riders; the vast majority of those would carry air. Remember, once you're off the (R) it's a relatively quick ride up 4th express -- contrast that with a bus in mixed traffic that goes the same places as the subway, just slower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

How about a (J) / (Z) and (M) supplement that could operate between either Broadway Junction or Metropolitan Avenue to 95th Street? That can speed up some trips

I had the thought of a 96th run mirroring the rush hour (N)(R) but on 6th Av, but then it delays (Q) and (F) because of the merging at 2 Av, then it delays (B)(D)(M)(F) merging on 6 Av, while the 145th idea doesn’t change delays uptown, and since (R) is so infrequent anyway, DeKalb or Barclays wouldn’t be affected any worse than it is already.

Dunno if (brownM) coming back does anything meaningful since Nassau St isn’t a destination for most (since they ran empty and got cut), so I doubt (J)(Z) would be as much a benefit as a 6 Av service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Alas, I doubt Brighton would accept loss of Bridge service today, and I think we're better of without more interlining ((B) and (R) would have to merge in one direction, and (B) and (Q) in the other -- add another pair if you plan to run a service from the tunnel to Brighton).

That’s where the Shuttle reconstruction was shortsighted, since (Q) could’ve been express and shuttle could’ve been the local feeder. 

But you could take runs from (M) or (F) to accommodate a bridge route along Brighton to 96th/2nd, but that causes another inconvenience.

You are right though - because there aren’t any Manhattan turn backs oriented for Brooklyn, you can’t really fix 4th Av without pain somewhere unless you redo the entire B Division.

Share this post


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

You are right though - because there aren’t any Manhattan turn backs oriented for Brooklyn, you can’t really fix 4th Av without pain somewhere unless you redo the entire B Division.

That's not entirely true...

The middle track at Essex Street exists but everyone swears up and down that Nassau Street is a ghost town. Having taken both the (J) and (Z) in rush hour, I don't agree.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deucey said:

That’s where the Shuttle reconstruction was shortsighted, since (Q) could’ve been express and shuttle could’ve been the local feeder.

The result? Pretty much where we are now, as far as Brighton is concerned. Think about what happened when the (R) ran to Jamaica. (I'm aware that it's not quite the same, but there's a reason why routes end where they currently do.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Deucey said:

That’s where the Shuttle reconstruction was shortsighted, since (Q) could’ve been express and shuttle could’ve been the local feeder. 

But you could take runs from (M) or (F) to accommodate a bridge route along Brighton to 96th/2nd, but that causes another inconvenience.

You are right though - because there aren’t any Manhattan turn backs oriented for Brooklyn, you can’t really fix 4th Av without pain somewhere unless you redo the entire B Division.

I'm not sure I totally follow the second proposal. The idea is that we pull something from 6th local...? It's worth noting that whatever you do in Manhattan, you're still limited by the number of trains you can run over the Manhattan Bridge, which is however many trains you can run on 6th and Broadway Express. 

You can do a lot to 4th w/o full reorg. (W) or (J) could be brought down, a (Z) from Essex to Bay Ridge could be run, etc. 

Share this post


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

This was actually one of the originally proposed Dekalb service patterns in the 60s -- the general idea was that you'd have 2 services coming from the tunnel and 2 from the bridge into Dekalb itself, where one of each would go to 4th local and one of each would go to Brighton. Alas, I doubt Brighton would accept loss of Bridge service today, and I think we're better of without more interlining ((B) and (R) would have to merge in one direction, and (B) and (Q) in the other -- add another pair if you plan to run a service from the tunnel to Brighton). 

No capacity on Willy B for a new route, and that throughput should really go to existing lines anyway. 

You'd get maybe a few bus riders; the vast majority of those would carry air. Remember, once you're off the (R) it's a relatively quick ride up 4th express -- contrast that with a bus in mixed traffic that goes the same places as the subway, just slower.

 

8 hours ago, Deucey said:

I had the thought of a 96th run mirroring the rush hour (N)(R) but on 6th Av, but then it delays (Q) and (F) because of the merging at 2 Av, then it delays (B)(D)(M)(F) merging on 6 Av, while the 145th idea doesn’t change delays uptown, and since (R) is so infrequent anyway, DeKalb or Barclays wouldn’t be affected any worse than it is already.

Dunno if (brownM) coming back does anything meaningful since Nassau St isn’t a destination for most (since they ran empty and got cut), so I doubt (J)(Z) would be as much a benefit as a 6 Av service.

This is why I proposed an extension of the (J) / (Z) a while back. It allows for 4th Avenue a local service to be more frequent, but takes into account the limitations on the rest of the line, and doesn’t eliminate a useful service (the Orange (M)) in favor of a service that is less useful (the Brown M), and that is a non-starter idea for one, especially bringing back the brown M doesn’t do anything meaningful for anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

the Brown M), and that is a non-starter idea for one, especially bringing back the brown M doesn’t do anything meaningful for anybody.

Uh, I don’t know... longer QBL trains, QBL deinterlining and decent service for (F) riders in Brooklyn? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Deucey said:

I had the thought of a 96th run mirroring the rush hour (N)(R) but on 6th Av, but then it delays (Q) and (F) because of the merging at 2 Av, then it delays (B)(D)(M)(F) merging on 6 Av, while the 145th idea doesn’t change delays uptown, and since (R) is so infrequent anyway, DeKalb or Barclays wouldn’t be affected any worse than it is already.

Dunno if (brownM) coming back does anything meaningful since Nassau St isn’t a destination for most (since they ran empty and got cut), so I doubt (J)(Z) would be as much a benefit as a 6 Av service.

Not unless you run it as a shuttle between Chambers St and 95th St, same as the original <R> . The structure is in place, it just needs to be advertised.

One of the reasons why MTA stopped doing the (J) to Prospect when the (4) was out was because not a lot of people knew about  hence why it had low ridership. Once people see an alternate to the (R) in Manhattan they can easily take a Broadway Express to Canal St and take the <RR>.

Share this post


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

Not unless you run it as a shuttle between Chambers St and 95th St, same as the original <R> . The structure is in place, it just needs to be advertised.

One of the reasons why MTA stopped doing the (J) to Prospect when the (4) was out was because not a lot of people knew about  hence why it had low ridership. Once people see an alternate to the (R) in Manhattan they can easily take a Broadway Express to Canal St and take the <RR>.

I heard that it was the Railfan's Special!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Uh, I don’t know... longer QBL trains, QBL deinterlining and decent service for (F) riders in Brooklyn? 

They’re all good ideas, but the plan to do it is just wrong. My ideas I have posted on this thread have more or less aligned with ridership patterns of 2019. While there are some drawbacks that these plans will entail, I feel that they may be great to implement.

On the subject of the (R), there was another post here that suggested that the old Brown (R) service should be reimplemented. However, I’m not too fond of the line terminating at Chambers Street since it would miss the first transfer lobby with the Broadway Line, which is Canal Street. Therefore, any Nassau Street service to 4th Avenue should either terminate at Broadway Junction, Metropolitan Avenue, just simply absorbed with the (J)/ (Z), which is the most preferable idea. However, I would just drop the frequency to 10 trains per hour to allow for the more popular (M) train to roll along at 14 trains per hour to accommodate crowds. I would also suggest putting faster R160s on the (R) and displace the slower R46 cars to other lines, like the (F), to allow for the (R) to take advantage of on-board software that allows for trains or automatically drift between local mode and express mode. This should also speed riders up slightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JeremiahC99 said:

They’re all good ideas, but the plan to do it is just wrong. My ideas I have posted on this thread have more or less aligned with ridership patterns of 2019. While there are some drawbacks that these plans will entail, I feel that they may be great to implement.

On the subject of the (R), there was another post here that suggested that the old Brown (R) service should be reimplemented. However, I’m not too fond of the line terminating at Chambers Street since it would miss the first transfer lobby with the Broadway Line, which is Canal Street. Therefore, any Nassau Street service to 4th Avenue should either terminate at Broadway Junction, Metropolitan Avenue, just simply absorbed with the (J)/ (Z), which is the most preferable idea. However, I would just drop the frequency to 10 trains per hour to allow for the more popular (M) train to roll along at 14 trains per hour to accommodate crowds. I would also suggest putting faster R160s on the (R) and displace the slower R46 cars to other lines, like the (F), to allow for the (R) to take advantage of on-board software that allows for trains or automatically drift between local mode and express mode. This should also speed riders up slightly.

Or you could terminate at Essex St and move the (J) and (M) to the eastbound track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terminating at Essex to me is a poor idea due to it only having a single track. The way I see it you have to options 

- (K) Bowery (center tracks; new crossover built)- Bay Ridge. (J) operates on outer tracks with (K) in inner. 

- (K) runs from abakndoned Bowery to Bay Ridge; (J) cut back to Chambers. New connection built between NB express at Chambers and current SB track.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Terminating at Essex to me is a poor idea due to it only having a single track. The way I see it you have to options 

- (K) Bowery (center tracks; new crossover built)- Bay Ridge. (J) operates on outer tracks with (K) in inner. 

- (K) runs from abakndoned Bowery to Bay Ridge; (J) cut back to Chambers. New connection built between NB express at Chambers and current SB track.

As long as we are on the rebuild the Nassau line plan:

 

I think we should rebuild the like between Canal St and Chambers Street. Have the two center tracks serve the (J)(Z) Brown (R) and have the two outer tracks create a bellmouth to second avenue. That way if service improves with this new line between Essex and Bay Ridge we can look at the possibility of adding a Harlem-Bay Ridge line that could replace at the very least the brown (R) in the future.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I'm not sure I totally follow the second proposal. The idea is that we pull something from 6th local...? It's worth noting that whatever you do in Manhattan, you're still limited by the number of trains you can run over the Manhattan Bridge, which is however many trains you can run on 6th and Broadway Express. 

You can do a lot to 4th w/o full reorg. (W) or (J) could be brought down, a (Z) from Essex to Bay Ridge could be run, etc. 

Short version: every other (B) becomes a (V) that goes to Bay Ridge, and follows the current (B) routing to DeKalb.

If the Franklin Shuttle wasn’t rebuilt as a 4-5 car single track, (B) could just go to Bay Ridge, (Q) could be the Brighton Express, and (S) could be the local to Coney Island.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

In the meantime they will continue the Save Safe Seconds campaign on the (R) line and they will heavily monitor it's performance.

 

Have they raised the limit for the City Hall curve? Trains seem to pass through there much quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Have they raised the limit for the City Hall curve? Trains seem to pass through there much quicker.

Yeah I think it went from like 6mph to 15 or something like that 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Deucey said:

Short version: every other (B) becomes a (V) that goes to Bay Ridge, and follows the current (B) routing to DeKalb.

If the Franklin Shuttle wasn’t rebuilt as a 4-5 car single track, (B) could just go to Bay Ridge, (Q) could be the Brighton Express, and (S) could be the local to Coney Island.

Eh. This feels like overkill to me. We have all the capacity we would ever need for 4th local in Montague; adding this complexity at best saves folks a cross-platform transfer and reduces service to the (relatively high demand) Brighton corridor. 

I agree the (S) should have been built to real train standards (and, hell, should have been linked into the (G) to make a real crosstown), but I don't think that should displace Manhattan service -- just have the shuttle run down the local with the (Q)

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.