Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

[R68OnBroadway]

How many trains can the WillyB handle per hour? I’ve been looking at a lot of these proposals to have split express/local service between Marcy and Broadway Junction, but upon further examination, I realize that you can’t really do that unless you want to give Jamaica Av riders only slightly better service.

Now to talk about skip stop service. I seriously doubt that a good portion of people are taking the  from Jamaica to lower Manhattan; those people are either a) taking the  and transferring in Manhattan or b) taking the  to Broadway Junction for the  to Jay for the  . Skip stop to me is more or less an excuse by the MTA to run fewer trains since the  runs for such short periods. The ’s poor ridership is a result of its poor frequencies which combined with the frequency of other lines leave everyone ditching it for the . Killing skip stop would actually decrease travel times for riders as you could run double the trains which would be great for enticing more riders to use the  to the  vs Q52/53 to .

[Caelestor]

54 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. Doing the separate “brown R” service and ensuring Broad and Essex operate (relatively) smoothly should be considered as far as fixing the problems with 4th Ave local and the current  line are concerned. Past discussions have called for extending both the  and  to Bay Ridge, but then we’d have a very long  route whose reliability might take a dive. 

I’ll admit that’s something I didn’t know.  I don’t ride the  in Brooklyn or Queens enough to know. What I do know is  /   skip stop service started roughly eight months earlier than  /  skip stop service (December 1988 vs August 1989). We still have the  today, while the  departed South Ferry for the last time in May 2005. My impression has been that  /   service survives to this day for exactly that reason - that there still is enough demand from Jamaica to Lower Manhattan with relatively low ridership in between. The stations in East New York have some of the lowest ridership in Brooklyn. There were some different circumstances that spelled the end of  /  service faster. I seem to recall reading about issues with more stations being made all-stops, like 191st St with its deep-tunnel elevators.  line stations had (and still have) higher ridership. But maybe it also had to do with lots of people traveling within the  route, which you’re stating is now the case with the . 

I don’t disagree that  and  service at the skip stations is criminally low. And I agree that  /  service has failed miserably for the past 30 years in enticing riders off the . Probably nothing short of a parallel rail line to the  in Queens is going to entice riders off it. But revising the  to better serve Jamaica Ave/Fulton St riders can still be done with or without revising 4th Ave local service. We’ve had lots of past discussions on implementing a  peak express in lieu of skip stop service. I’d be glad to see them consider it. 

One issue with the  is that the and the LIRR Atlantic branch do a much better job at getting riders to Lower Manhattan and especially Downtown Brooklyn. However, what the can do is capture the latent ridership between Broadway Jct and Marcy Ave, which is relatively high given the low frequencies the non-transfer stops receive.

But back to the point, a (brownR) train is a pretty good solution for Bay Ridge riders, given the spare capacity along the Bay Ridge + Nassau St lines. I don't have much else to say.

13 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

How many trains can the WillyB handle per hour? I’ve been looking at a lot of these proposals to have split express/local service between Marcy and Broadway Junction, but upon further examination, I realize that you can’t really do that unless you want to give Jamaica Av riders only slightly better service.

Now to talk about skip stop service. I seriously doubt that a good portion of people are taking the  from Jamaica to lower Manhattan; those people are either a) taking the  and transferring in Manhattan or b) taking the  to Broadway Junction for the  to Jay for the  . Skip stop to me is more or less an excuse by the MTA to run fewer trains since the  runs for such short periods. The ’s poor ridership is a result of its poor frequencies which combined with the frequency of other lines leave everyone ditching it for the . Killing skip stop would actually decrease travel times for riders as you could run double the trains which would be great for enticing more riders to use the  to the  vs Q52/53 to .

According to the L train shutdown, the Bridge can handle 24 tph. Hence why I suggested 7.5 tph on the  each.

[R68OnBroadway]

6 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

According to the L train shutdown, the Bridge can handle 24 tph. Hence why I suggested 7.5 tph on the  each.

Cutting the  to 7.5 tph sounds like a great way to further overburden the  and  . Until we can get either a third track across the bridge (which we can then use to de-interline in the peak direction) or can run 30 tph, the better idea is to kill the  and increase the  to 12 tph.

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Cutting the  to 7.5 tph sounds like a great way to further overburden the  and  . Until we can get either a third track across the bridge (which we can then use to de-interline in the peak direction) or can run 30 tph, the better idea is to kill the  and increase the  to 12 tph.

@Around the Horn @RR503

Concerning a third track over the bridge... It is possible and can be done, but would cost a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/21/nyregion/neighborhood-report-williamsburg-bracing-for-subway-snags.html?searchResultPosition=115

Quote

When the project begins, Brooklyn-bound service on the J, M and Z lines is to terminate at the Delancey Street station on the Lower East Side, and Manhattan-bound service will stop at Marcy Avenue in Williamsburg. The transit agency plans to divert riders to the A, C, E, G and L lines, and will add free trips over the 96-year-old bridge on the B39 bus.

The Transportation Department considered building a bypass track, but decided it would cost too much and further prolong the disruption.

Andrew Albert, chairman of the New York City Transit Riders Council, a transit advocacy group appointed by the Governor, said the transit agency and the Transportation Department could have done more to solicit commuters' opinions. ''They really haven't included us, or the public, in this process,'' he said.

Mr. O'Leary said engineers and transit experts have been working on rerouting commuters for months. ''We're not looking for community response,'' he said. ''No one knows this subway system better than we do.''

Transportation Department officials said the plan to suspend subway service is part of a long-term $700 million repair project that started in 1988, when engineers first expressed concerns about the bridge's structural integrity. The bridge was closed for two months then and emergency repairs were made. TOM ROE

 

[Around the Horn]

39 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Mr. O'Leary said engineers and transit experts have been working on rerouting commuters for months. ''We're not looking for community response,'' he said. ''No one knows this subway system better than we do.'' 

Well damn...

[Union Tpke]

13 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Well damn...

I hadn't even noticed that quote.

[RR503]

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Killing skip stop would actually decrease travel times for riders as you could run double the trains which would be great for enticing more riders to use the  to the  vs Q52/53 to .

This is really key. The  is barely competitive with the  for Jamaica to Lower Manhattan. For Woodhaven/Richmond Hill however, the  is almost competitive with [bus]-  - anywhere in Manhattan, the impediment being long headways. Fix that, and you’re then really competing. 

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

@Around the Horn @RR503

Concerning a third track over the bridge... It is possible and can be done, but would cost a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/21/nyregion/neighborhood-report-williamsburg-bracing-for-subway-snags.html?searchResultPosition=115

The real crime with that rebuild was the signal system they installed and the fact they didn’t fix the damn curve. 

I’ve always been a bit on the fence on 3rd track over the bridge. There are other bottlenecks that scream for fixing before it — Myrtle, the Marcy curve itself, the platforms at Essex. Something to think about for the future, but maybe put a pin in it for now...

[Union Tpke]

1 minute ago, RR503 said:

This is really key. The  is barely competitive with the  for Jamaica to Lower Manhattan. For Woodhaven/Richmond Hill however, the  is almost competitive with [bus]-  - anywhere in Manhattan, the impediment being long headways. Fix that, and you’re then really competing. 

The real crime with that rebuild was the signal system they installed and the fact they didn’t fix the damn curve. 

I’ve always been a bit on the fence on 3rd track over the bridge. There are other bottlenecks that scream for fixing before it — Myrtle, the Marcy curve itself, the platforms at Essex. Something to think about for the future, but maybe put a pin in it for now...

Agreed on the second point. I am not even sure how they would manage to fit a third track on the bridge. It would be an interesting operation for trains to be deinterlined in one direction and interlined in another. How would scheduling work?

[NewFlyer 230]

On 6/26/2019 at 1:44 AM, Lex said:

Sure, at the cost of the people at a good chunk of intermediate stations for a single hour in the peak direction.

The fact of the matter is, plenty of people will be off the train at Broadway Junction, as large numbers of those riders aren't looking for the Financial District (not to say that the number is necessarily close to 0, but let's be realistic here). Moreover, if we want anything close to more  service during the rush, we should look for ways to facilitate short-turns at Woodhaven Boulevard (these would run to/from Chambers Street as a supplement to the regular , which would effectively require killing skip-stop, anyway).

I would be in favor of having select trains terminate at Woodhaven Blvd. It would definitely come in handy when weekend work takes place, which causes the whole  line past Broadway Junction and or Cresent Street to be closed. However a switch would be required to allow trains to turn there, which honestly I don’t think would be much as a priority for the . 

[Bay Ridge Express]

What would also reduce runtime is adding a middle track (peak direction express) between Broadway Junction and Cypress Hills via Jamaica Av that would act as a super express bypass of the Crescent St curve and would connect to the middle track already present west of Broadway Junction.

[RR503]

14 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

Agreed on the second point. I am not even sure how they would manage to fit a third track on the bridge. It would be an interesting operation for trains to be deinterlined in one direction and interlined in another. How would scheduling work?

Can’t imagine it’d be pretty if you kept Myrtle...you'd likely have to put holds on someone at Myrtle to make the junction work. Otherwise it’d be simple: just make sure that trains are evenly spaced going out Jamaica and Myrtle and work backwards from there. 

[Union Tpke]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Can’t imagine it’d be pretty if you kept Myrtle...you'd likely have to put holds on someone at Myrtle to make the junction work. Otherwise it’d be simple: just make sure that trains are evenly spaced going out Jamaica and Myrtle and work backwards from there. 

I know it wouldn't make sense if you kept Myrtle. My question was how deinterlining in one direction and interlining in the other would affect service in the "reverse-peak" direction.

[Lex]

5 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

What would also reduce runtime is adding a middle track (peak direction express) between Broadway Junction and Cypress Hills via Jamaica Av that would act as a super express bypass of the Crescent St curve and would connect to the middle track already present west of Broadway Junction.

And the only people to benefit would be those in Jamaica and possibly around Woodhaven Boulevard...

[Trainmaster5]

20 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. Doing the separate “brown R” service and ensuring Broad and Essex operate (relatively) smoothly should be considered as far as fixing the problems with 4th Ave local and the current  line are concerned. Past discussions have called for extending both the  and  to Bay Ridge, but then we’d have a very long  route whose reliability might take a dive. 

I’ll admit that’s something I didn’t know.  I don’t ride the  in Brooklyn or Queens enough to know. What I do know is  /   skip stop service started roughly eight months earlier than  /  skip stop service (December 1988 vs August 1989). We still have the  today, while the  departed South Ferry for the last time in May 2005. My impression has been that  /   service survives to this day for exactly that reason - that there still is enough demand from Jamaica to Lower Manhattan with relatively low ridership in between. The stations in East New York have some of the lowest ridership in Brooklyn. There were some different circumstances that spelled the end of  /  service faster. I seem to recall reading about issues with more stations being made all-stops, like 191st St with its deep-tunnel elevators.  line stations had (and still have) higher ridership. But maybe it also had to do with lots of people traveling within the  route, which you’re stating is now the case with the . 

I don’t disagree that  and  service at the skip stations is criminally low. And I agree that  /  service has failed miserably for the past 30 years in enticing riders off the . Probably nothing short of a parallel rail line to the  in Queens is going to entice riders off it.

But revising the  to better serve Jamaica Ave/Fulton St riders can still be done with or without revising 4th Ave local service. We’ve had lots of past discussions on implementing a  peak express in lieu of skip stop service. I know I’ve spoken out in favor of it. I’d be glad to see Transit consider it. But when (hopefully, not if) they consider what to do about the  train’s perennially poor service, they’re probably not going to consider evaluating future  /  service simultaneously.

And on a side note, I must say I’m pleasantly surprised to see this thread make it to 500 posts.

Let me correct you about the Jamaica skip-stop Service.  I remember Jamaica skip-stop from the 60's. It was labeled A/B service and it ran from 168th Street to Eastern Parkway. From there it ran express to Manhattan.  Local trains began at Atlantic,  Rockaway Parkway,  or Eastern Parkway.  They were joined at Myrtle by local trains to Chambers while they continued on to Canal Street and terminated. Essentially you had the long route running skip-stop and then express to Broad, the second longest running to Chambers,  and the Broadway-Brooklyn Short line to Canal Street.  As for the Fourth Avenue local problem a previous poster summed up what I think is the problem.  Poor dispatching down the line. I don't remember the dispatcher locations anymore but there used to be Queens Plaza,  57-7, City Hall and DeKalb.  Someone had to see those s/b locals bunching up and corrected the situation well before South Brooklyn.  I don't see any excuse for that to happen.  As for the split advocates who push for Nassau service my question is why Essex Street?  You already have 2 different services there.  Why gum up that location?  I don't know if the trackage still exists but what about Chambers Street station instead ? Relay there and head back to Brooklyn.  Just my observation.  Carry on. 

 

 

[R68OnBroadway]

42 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

 As for the split advocates who push for Nassau service my question is why Essex Street?  You already have 2 different services there.  Why gum up that location?  I don't know if the trackage still exists but what about Chambers Street station instead ? Relay there and head back to Brooklyn.  Just my observation.  Carry on. 

I share this view; Essex should get all 3 tracks for through service (adding a 4th in the old terminal and removing the NB track to kill the curve would also be great) to maximize throughput on the Williamsburg. However, I would simply reopen the old platforms at Bowery and Canal and have the  use the outer tracks while the 4th Av service uses the inner tracks and terminates at Bowery so you can get the transfers at Canal and also have the potential for a connection to 6th Av at Grand St  in the future.

[Around the Horn]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

As for the split advocates who push for Nassau service my question is why Essex Street?  

At least for me the answer is transfers.

At Canal Street you have the  and  and at Essex Street you have the  and . If they ever were to create more out of system transfers with OMNY or even build a physical transfer passageway to Grand Street (which isn't that far from Bowery), you would also have the  and .

Also having a second service on Nassau Street on the weekends would provide additional service to the Lower East Side, which is a popular destination.

[RR503]

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Let me correct you about the Jamaica skip-stop Service.  I remember Jamaica skip-stop from the 60's. It was labeled A/B service and it ran from 168th Street to Eastern Parkway. From there it ran express to Manhattan.  Local trains began at Atlantic,  Rockaway Parkway,  or Eastern Parkway.  They were joined at Myrtle by local trains to Chambers while they continued on to Canal Street and terminated. Essentially you had the long route running skip-stop and then express to Broad, the second longest running to Chambers,  and the Broadway-Brooklyn Short line to Canal Street.  As for the Fourth Avenue local problem a previous poster summed up what I think is the problem.  Poor dispatching down the line. I don't remember the dispatcher locations anymore but there used to be Queens Plaza,  57-7, City Hall and DeKalb.  Someone had to see those s/b locals bunching up and corrected the situation well before South Brooklyn.  I don't see any excuse for that to happen.  As for the split advocates who push for Nassau service my question is why Essex Street?  You already have 2 different services there.  Why gum up that location?  I don't know if the trackage still exists but what about Chambers Street station instead ? Relay there and head back to Brooklyn.  Just my observation.  Carry on.

Beyond the transfer issues ATH mentions, relay moves at Chambers cross in front of all traffic — or did they somehow do them without using the bridge stubs back in the day? 

[RR503]

5 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I know it wouldn't make sense if you kept Myrtle. My question was how deinterlining in one direction and interlining in the other would affect service in the "reverse-peak" direction.

I don’t think you’d see any adverse effects...between terminal downtime and the potential to put a hold or two in, it _should_ be fine. Question would likely be what it is today: how would changed frequencies propagate in scheduling across the system? 

Edited June 28, 2019 by RR503

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Let me correct you about the Jamaica skip-stop Service.  I remember Jamaica skip-stop from the 60's. It was labeled A/B service and it ran from 168th Street to Eastern Parkway. From there it ran express to Manhattan.  Local trains began at Atlantic,  Rockaway Parkway,  or Eastern Parkway.  They were joined at Myrtle by local trains to Chambers while they continued on to Canal Street and terminated. Essentially you had the long route running skip-stop and then express to Broad, the second longest running to Chambers,  and the Broadway-Brooklyn Short line to Canal Street.  As for the Fourth Avenue local problem a previous poster summed up what I think is the problem.  Poor dispatching down the line. I don't remember the dispatcher locations anymore but there used to be Queens Plaza,  57-7, City Hall and DeKalb.  Someone had to see those s/b locals bunching up and corrected the situation well before South Brooklyn.  I don't see any excuse for that to happen.  As for the split advocates who push for Nassau service my question is why Essex Street?  You already have 2 different services there.  Why gum up that location?  I don't know if the trackage still exists but what about Chambers Street station instead ? Relay there and head back to Brooklyn.  Just my observation.  Carry on. 

 

 

The current  /  service started less than a year before  /  service did and still survives to this day, warts and all. I do know about the 60s-era A/B service on the Jamaica El, but I didn’t think it was relevant to this topic. 

Agree that poor dispatching may be playing a big part in the ’s unreliability. But better dispatching can only go so far when the route runs seven days a week, has multiple merges with other lines and is local in three boroughs on three busy corridors. And unless you’ve got Darth Vader for a boss it’s pretty easy and safe to say, “We’ll double our efforts to keep the trains running on schedule.” But, to use a tired old cliche, actions speak louder than words. And if they do say they will commit to better dispatching, it won’t be the first time they’ve said it.

2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I share this view; Essex should get all 3 tracks for through service (adding a 4th in the old terminal and removing the NB track to kill the curve would also be great) to maximize throughput on the Williamsburg. However, I would simply reopen the old platforms at Bowery and Canal and have the  use the outer tracks while the 4th Av service uses the inner tracks and terminates at Bowery so you can get the transfers at Canal and also have the potential for a connection to 6th Av at Grand St  in the future.

You would need to build a new mezzanine and staircases to access the old platform at Canal Street (not sure about Bowery). If there were an in-system transfer (I’m not really a fan of out-of-system transfers) between Bowery and Grand, then I’d be fine with the Nassau R terminating there, though Essex and Delancey is a pretty hopping area on the weekends (although the Bowery is too).

1 hour ago, Around the Horn said:

At least for me the answer is transfers.

At Canal Street you have the  and  and at Essex Street you have the  and . If they ever were to create more out of system transfers with OMNY or even build a physical transfer passageway to Grand Street (which isn't that far from Bowery), you would also have the  and .

Also having a second service on Nassau Street on the weekends would provide additional service to the Lower East Side, which is a popular destination.

It’s been decades since there’s been a second Nassau service on weekends, and overnight, hasn’t it? As long as I’ve been alive (probably much longer than that), it’s been just the . Maybe this too, is something Transit needs to rethink.

Edited June 28, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Bay Ridge Express]

4 hours ago, Lex said:

And the only people to benefit would be those in Jamaica and possibly around Woodhaven Boulevard...

Ok? Those are the areas where commuting via the  is the least beneficial and most competitive with the Q52/53 or  

 

[Lex]

2 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Ok? Those are the areas where commuting via the  is the least beneficial and most competitive with the Q52/53 or  

 

And this mentality only serves to inflate those points at the expense of the intermediates, particularly between Woodhaven Boulevard and Broadway Junction.

Any proposal of this sort would need to run close to a combined 20 tph to keep the issues stemming from full-blown express service down, and even if we were to have some changes at Essex Street and across the bridge, we would still need to leave enough room for  service (and a buffer for when shit hits the fan).

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

At least for me the answer is transfers.

At Canal Street you have the  and  and at Essex Street you have the  and . If they ever were to create more out of system transfers with OMNY or even build a physical transfer passageway to Grand Street (which isn't that far from Bowery), you would also have the  and .

Also having a second service on Nassau Street on the weekends would provide additional service to the Lower East Side, which is a popular destination.

I don't dispute your transfer points but coming up from Bay Ridge aren't there Sixth Avenue connections,  Broadway connections,  and IRT connections between 95th Street  and Barclays , DeKalb,  and  Metrotech? 

[Bay Ridge Express]

1 hour ago, Lex said:

And this mentality only serves to inflate those points at the expense of the intermediates, particularly between Woodhaven Boulevard and Broadway Junction.

Any proposal of this sort would need to run close to a combined 20 tph to keep the issues stemming from full-blown express service down, and even if we were to have some changes at Essex Street and across the bridge, we would still need to leave enough room for  service (and a buffer for when shit hits the fan).

Ofc it would be assuming you also built a track through the Williamsburg Bridge and fixed Myrtle Av operations. I don't see my proposal happening with the current service levels.

[bulk88]

On 6/27/2019 at 8:28 PM, Union Tpke said:

@Around the Horn @RR503

Concerning a third track over the bridge... It is possible and can be done, but would cost a lot.

https://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/21/nyregion/neighborhood-report-williamsburg-bracing-for-subway-snags.html?searchResultPosition=115

 

WillyB was built with SIX tracks. Right now it has two tracks.

https://cdn.newsday.com/polopoly_fs/1.10694988.1439322907!/httpImage/image.JPG_gen/derivatives/display_960/image.JPG

I've heard of a napkin proposal to rebuild from Marcy to Myrtle to be 4 tracks. J train skips Marcy and Flushing Ave after Myrtle making the J faster for eastern riders. Deinterlining M and J except for going over the bridge (balloon loop).  Lorimer and Hewes are closed/combined/rebuilt into a Union Ave, ADA, transfer to G, 2 island new express stop. Flushing Ave has an express track built over the current express track. Myrtle either has a separate M platforms or Islands. Possibly stacked islands (think Queensboro Plaza). Essex Street is rebuilt to 4 tracks so M and J never have a conflict for a platform. There already is a little bit of balloon loop operations already at Essex Street with how M will wait doors open at Essex taking on additional customers while a J passes infront onto WillyB. MacArthur, 12 street ,19 street BART has something similar. 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rail_Tracks_map_pattern_24A.svg

 

An example of balloon looping or simultaneous loading, but most metros that do that only do it for the merge (3 tracks) not for split direction for cost reasons. Since train separation distance is 10-15 seconds, platform dwell time becomes highest capacity limit, not ATP. ^^^^ track layout allows huge dwell times without affecting TPH.

Edited July 1, 2019 by bulk88
preview problems????

[bulk88]

On 6/19/2019 at 7:11 PM, Caelestor said:

Assuming the BMT trains are sent to Flushing instead, it's not a terrible idea because most Flushing riders transfer at Queensboro Plaza today. The major downside is that the  wouldn't have a yard.

1968 Plan For Action which involved converting northern half of Pelham line to Div B, Whitlock Avenue going north, to go down NEC to Oak Point yard to SAS, but the 6 train stub that ended at Hunts Point Avenue would deadhead with Div A stock to Westchester Yard every day down the now Div B Pelham express El track.