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

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

There are a considerable number of old timers who would never accept the (R) having a southern terminal OTHER than 95th-Bay Ridge (something I was reminded of when I was putting together some of my ideas in the past).  Keeping that in mind:

(N) and (Q) would both run as has been suggested to 96th and 2nd.

(R) runs 95th-Bay Ridge to Essex full time with scheduled in-service yard runs that end and begin at Broadway Junction that are in the schedule.  Late nights and weekends could be extended to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the (M) if the (M) is not permanently extended after the (L) shutdown ends.

(W) becomes the full-time Broadway local, running to either 9th Avenue or Bay Parkway (alternating trains, late nights operating from 9th Avenue) to Astoria.  

The (M) can be beefed up to become a full-time service to 71st-Continental if the (R) is taken off Broadway.  

 

The West End Line doesn't need a full-time (W) in addition to the full-time (D), along with a potential chokepoint at 36th Street, where both trains would have to merge. We already had that once before, when the (D) and (brownM) merged there prior to July 2010. Just run the (W) to Bay Ridge alongside the ( R ) , so there can be additional service to the busier 4th Ave Local stations south of 36th Street and to Bay Ridge.

And you can't beef up the (M) without reducing service on the (J) and ( R ) . You can run it seven days a week, but you would still need a second service to/from 71st-Continental on weekdays (at least).

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

you would still need a second service to/from 71st-Continental on weekdays (at least).

Sometimes, I just wish transit from the very beginning had never connected the 60th Street Tunnel Connection tracks (splitting off to/from the Queens Blvd local tracks) to the actual 60th Street Tunnel tracks (to/from Astoria). I think I remember @Around the Horn saying that the Queens Boulevard Line was never meant to connect to Broadway in the first place (hence part of the reason why 59th/Lex is two tracks and a single island platform rather than two side platforms just in case). Because it was only Astoria that was meant to feed into Broadway without any connection from other trunk lines from Queens. This is part of the reason of why the (R) is severely delayed no matter what it says on its official printed schedule written in black and white, combined with the aforementioned merges with the other lines and the poor-terminal setup at 71st Avenue-Forest Hills. All of these really hurt the (R) alot.

I know I do not ride the (R) daily and I don't dislike the current routing design of the entire (R) route either. However, do I dislike all the delays and irregular service on the line that I've been hearing about all along? Yes, I absolutely do and something has to chance sooner or later. They could have let the two 60th Street Connection tracks run side-by-side with the two tracks to/from Astoria, but they chose not to presumably because 60th Street itself is far too narrow for a wide-open four-track subway along that stretch, so they didn't have a choice but to let the 60th Street Tunnel Connection merge with the 60th Street Tunnel itself.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Sometimes, I just wish transit from the very beginning had never connected the 60th Street Tunnel Connection tracks (splitting off to/from the Queens Blvd local tracks) to the actual 60th Street Tunnel tracks (to/from Astoria). I think I remember @Around the Horn saying that the Queens Boulevard Line was never meant to connect to Broadway in the first place (hence part of the reason why 59th/Lex is two tracks and a single island platform rather than two side platforms just in case). Because it was only Astoria that was meant to feed into Broadway without any connection from other trunk lines from Queens. This is part of the reason of why the (R) is severely delayed no matter what it says on its official printed schedule written in black and white, combined with the aforementioned merges with the other lines and the poor-terminal setup at 71st Avenue-Forest Hills. All of these really hurt the (R) alot.

I know I do not ride the (R) daily and I don't dislike the current routing design of the entire (R) route either. However, do I dislike all the delays and irregular service on the line that I've been hearing about all along? Yes, I absolutely do and something has to chance sooner or later. They could have let the two 60th Street Connection tracks run side-by-side with the two tracks to/from Astoria, but they chose not to presumably because 60th Street itself is far too narrow for a wide-open four-track subway along that stretch, so they didn't have a choice but to let the 60th Street Tunnel Connection merge with the 60th Street Tunnel itself.

Bear in mind that the connection was opened in 1955 (only several years after Astoria operations were folded directly into BMT operations). Had it been built for integration from the outset, we probably would've had a better design...

(Those 75-footers do nothing to help. The sooner we can get rid of them, the better...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Sometimes, I just wish transit from the very beginning had never connected the 60th Street Tunnel Connection tracks (splitting off to/from the Queens Blvd local tracks) to the actual 60th Street Tunnel tracks (to/from Astoria). I think I remember @Around the Horn saying that the Queens Boulevard Line was never meant to connect to Broadway in the first place (hence part of the reason why 59th/Lex is two tracks and a single island platform rather than two side platforms just in case). Because it was only Astoria that was meant to feed into Broadway without any connection from other trunk lines from Queens. This is part of the reason of why the (R) is severely delayed no matter what it says on its official printed schedule written in black and white, combined with the aforementioned merges with the other lines and the poor-terminal setup at 71st Avenue-Forest Hills. All of these really hurt the (R) alot.

I know I do not ride the (R) daily and I don't dislike the current routing design of the entire (R) route either. However, do I dislike all the delays and irregular service on the line that I've been hearing about all along? Yes, I absolutely do and something has to chance sooner or later. They could have let the two 60th Street Connection tracks run side-by-side with the two tracks to/from Astoria, but they chose not to presumably because 60th Street itself is far too narrow for a wide-open four-track subway along that stretch, so they didn't have a choice but to let the 60th Street Tunnel Connection merge with the 60th Street Tunnel itself.

@bobtehpanda While I wish that the 53rd Street Line was built as a 4-track line (I was at the Transit Museum archives on Friday and found a document mentioning that this was an initial plan), or that they built 63rd Street in the 1950s, having interlined service to serve Queens Boulevard local is much better than having everyone get off the (GG) and pile onto the (E) and (F) at Queens Plaza. If it were up to me in the 1950s, and I had to chose this connection or no improvement, I would chose this connection. One thing that all of us should remember is that the Lex-59 transfer is the only connection between Queens Boulevard and Lex express. I never use Lex/59th because I don't want to use the local (R) and instead use the (E) to Lex/53. I always rush to the front of the platform at Kew Gardens so I can get off of the (E) platform before the hoards of people slow me down. I then take the (6) to 42nd for the (4)(5). A connection between Lex/59 and Lex/63 would solve this problem.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

A connection between Lex/59 and Lex/63 would solve this problem.

That really makes me wonder about how the stations are positioned. Depending on where everything is located, that connection could prove to be more trouble than it's worth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

@bobtehpanda While I wish that the 53rd Street Line was built as a 4-track line (I was at the Transit Museum archives on Friday and found a document mentioning that this was an initial plan), or that they built 63rd Street in the 1950s, having interlined service to serve Queens Boulevard local is much better than having everyone get off the (GG) and pile onto the (E) and (F) at Queens Plaza. If it were up to me in the 1950s, and I had to chose this connection or no improvement, I would chose this connection. One thing that all of us should remember is that the Lex-59 transfer is the only connection between Queens Boulevard and Lex express. I never use Lex/59th because I don't want to use the local (R) and instead use the (E) to Lex/53. I always rush to the front of the platform at Kew Gardens so I can get off of the (E) platform before the hoards of people slow me down. I then take the (6) to 42nd for the (4)(5). A connection between Lex/59 and Lex/63 would solve this problem.

An important thing to remember about the (R)(4)(5) connection at Lex-59, though, is that during peak hours it really doesn't save much time. Platform and mezzanine crowding is such that average transfer times are in the 5 minute range, putting just staying on the (R) at only a ~2 minute time disadvantage for Lower Manhattan. 

 

Share this post


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

An important thing to remember about the (R)(4)(5) connection at Lex-59, though, is that during peak hours it really doesn't save much time. Platform and mezzanine crowding is such that average transfer times are in the 5 minute range, putting just staying on the (R) at only a ~2 minute time disadvantage for Lower Manhattan. 

 

Ah, but the average rider does not think that way, and if you position yourself in the right spot on the platform, that transfer time can be reduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only good thing about the (R) is the overnight extension to/from Whitehall that was implemented at the time when the (W) was revived. Overnight (R) riders who need direct access to/from 95th Street, 86th Street, 77th Street, and Bay Ridge Avenue no longer needed to wait for the (D) or (N) because who knows if either of those two would be running on time based on their printed schedules. Bay Ridge residents can also can take the (1)(2), (4), (A), (F), (G), and/or (Q) trains, including the Staten Island Railway, and connect directly to the (R) at the free transfer points (South Ferry-Whitehall St, Court St, Jay St-MetroTech, Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr, and 4 Av-9 St).

Turning the overnight (R) at 36 St-4 Av was pointless from the beginning and from what I've read/heard, it always departed 36 St-4 Av just before a Coney Island-bound (D) or (N) local pulled in, leaving discouraged Bay Ridge residents to wait 18 minutes for the next (R) shuttle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Ah, but the average rider does not think that way, and if you position yourself in the right spot on the platform, that transfer time can be reduced.

Reduced, sure, but you can only crowd onto stairs so fast.

One key part of any route simplification program has to be getting riders to think properly about their commutes. There are a lot of really irrational routing decisions made in the system, and it should be a priority to change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

 including the Staten Island Railway

I meant the Staten Island Ferry, but it is too late for me to edit that. Damn lol.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


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

Reduced, sure, but you can only crowd onto stairs so fast.

One key part of any route simplification program has to be getting riders to think properly about their commutes. There are a lot of really irrational routing decisions made in the system, and it should be a priority to change that.

https://www.newspapers.com/clip/34612412/daily_news/

img?institutionId=0&user=527681&id=45524

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The only good thing about the (R) is the overnight extension to/from Whitehall that was implemented at the time when the (W) was revived. Overnight (R) riders who need direct access to/from 95th Street, 86th Street, 77th Street, and Bay Ridge Avenue no longer needed to wait for the (D) or (N) because who knows if either of those two would be running on time based on their printed schedules. Bay Ridge residents can also can take the (1)(2), (4), (A), (F), (G), and/or (Q) trains, including the Staten Island Railway, and connect directly to the (R) at the free transfer points (South Ferry-Whitehall St, Court St, Jay St-MetroTech, Atlantic Av-Barclays Ctr, and 4 Av-9 St).

Turning the overnight (R) at 36 St-4 Av was pointless from the beginning and from what I've read/heard, it always departed 36 St-4 Av just before a Coney Island-bound (D) or (N) local pulled in, leaving discouraged Bay Ridge residents to wait 18 minutes for the next (R) shuttle.

Didn't the original (R) shuttle also skip 53rd St/45th St and caused a merging delay with the (N) at 59th St?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Didn't the original (R) shuttle also skip 53rd St/45th St and caused a merging delay with the (N) at 59th St?

No, because you know that all lines in the system at night run every 20 minutes, so it’s not like the (N) and (R) were scheduled to come to 59 St-4 Av at the same time especially when the former is fully local throughout its entire route every night.

And yes the old overnight (R) skipped 53rd and 45th northbound.

Edited by Jemorie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 12:46 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The West End Line doesn't need a full-time (W) in addition to the full-time (D), along with a potential chokepoint at 36th Street, where both trains would have to merge. We already had that once before, when the (D) and (brownM) merged there prior to July 2010. Just run the (W) to Bay Ridge alongside the ( R ) , so there can be additional service to the busier 4th Ave Local stations south of 36th Street and to Bay Ridge.

And you can't beef up the (M) without reducing service on the (J) and ( R ) . You can run it seven days a week, but you would still need a second service to/from 71st-Continental on weekdays (at least).

That is true.  Then the (R) and (W) both run full-time from 95th-Bay Ridge with one to Astoria and the other to Essex with it becoming brown.  A new train could run Whitehall to 71st-Continental to replace the (R) along Queens Boulevard if the (M) can't be beefed up (maybe a "Yellow (V)?") with a limited run of such continuing to 9th Avenue on the (D). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/6/2019 at 7:40 AM, Union Tpke said:

Wow...they really believed the “11th Street Cut” was the greatest thing since Unification (in 1940) to happen to the BMT and IND. In fairness, without the 63rd Street Tunnel (which was more than three decades away), perhaps it was.

On 8/6/2019 at 11:15 PM, Wallyhorse said:

That is true.  Then the (R) and (W) both run full-time from 95th-Bay Ridge with one to Astoria and the other to Essex with it becoming brown.  A new train could run Whitehall to 71st-Continental to replace the (R) along Queens Boulevard if the (M) can't be beefed up (maybe a "Yellow (V)?") with a limited run of such continuing to 9th Avenue on the (D). 

9th Avenue is not in any need of a service increase. It’s not a hugely busy station. How can it be with a giant cemetery almost immediately to the north? The point is to have a Broadway/QBL local that isn’t subjected to numerous merging delays, so a “Yellow (V)” train shouldn’t be going to 9th Avenue at all. Plus it would be overkill with a “Brown (R) and the (W) already there on 4th Ave local/Montague. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9th Avenue would strictly be a turning terminal for the (W) since not all of them can turn at Whitehall in this scenario and that is the closest place it can.  So as I would now do it:

A new "Brown (K)" (which I actually noted earlier on in this thread) would run 95th-Bay Ridge to Essex with <i>scheduled, in-service</i>. yard runs the end and begin at Broadway Junction that are noted as such in timetables.  This service runs 24/7

(N) now runs full-time with the (Q) to 96th Street,  Late nights does run local in Manhattan but does skip 49th Street at all times.

(R) remains as it is currently except it doesn't run at all late nights (replaced by the new (K) train as anyone specifically looking for Whitehall then can make a same platform transfer to the (N)anywhere between 59th and Court Street).

(W) is beefed up and runs 24/7 between Whitehall and Ditmars-Astoria with <i>scheduled, in-service</i> yard runs that end and begin at Bay Parkway on the (D) line.  At times when more trains are needed, some (W) trains are extended to 9th Avenue on the (D) where they terminate and turn around, running local on 4th Avenue.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

9th Avenue would strictly be a turning terminal for the (W) since not all of them can turn at Whitehall in this scenario and that is the closest place it can.  So as I would now do it:

A new "Brown (K)" (which I actually noted earlier on in this thread) would run 95th-Bay Ridge to Essex with <i>scheduled, in-service</i>. yard runs the end and begin at Broadway Junction that are noted as such in timetables.  This service runs 24/7

(N) now runs full-time with the (Q) to 96th Street,  Late nights does run local in Manhattan but does skip 49th Street at all times.

(R) remains as it is currently except it doesn't run at all late nights (replaced by the new (K) train as anyone specifically looking for Whitehall then can make a same platform transfer to the (N)anywhere between 59th and Court Street).

(W) is beefed up and runs 24/7 between Whitehall and Ditmars-Astoria with <i>scheduled, in-service</i> yard runs that end and begin at Bay Parkway on the (D) line.  At times when more trains are needed, some (W) trains are extended to 9th Avenue on the (D) where they terminate and turn around, running local on 4th Avenue.  
 

Sea Beach has a larger base (when there isn't extensive work being done). Why, then, would you put more trains on West End? Merging delays suck, the ridership can't justify the change, and it doesn't even solve any problems regarding route consistency or access to a maintenance facility.

That's to say nothing of the other crap...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Sea Beach has a larger base (when there isn't extensive work being done). Why, then, would you put more trains on West End? Merging delays suck, the ridership can't justify the change, and it doesn't even solve any problems regarding route consistency or access to a maintenance facility.

That's to say nothing of the other crap...

I agree with you on the larger points, but it is worth noting that having a Broadway Local service go via West End or Sea Beach makes yard access a hell of a lot easier. Not saying this is the way to do it, just something worth keeping in mind. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I agree with you on the larger points, but it is worth noting that having a Broadway Local service go via West End or Sea Beach makes yard access a hell of a lot easier. Not saying this is the way to do it, just something worth keeping in mind. 

I mean, we already do this with the (W) in some capacity (on Sea Beach). We would be better off having any potential route of the sort use Sea Beach in order to address the issues of night service, ridership along that line (as well as 4th Avenue between 36th and 59th Streets, to say nothing of the line north of there), and weekend service improvements. (Yes, merging could still prove difficult, but not in the same way as when the diverging point is designed like the ones at 36th Street or 59th Street-Columbus Circle. Those were strictly to cut down on the space used, which is especially bad for the latter, given the stretch north of there...)

Share this post


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

I mean, we already do this with the (W) in some capacity (on Sea Beach). We would be better off having any potential route of the sort use Sea Beach in order to address the issues of night service, ridership along that line (as well as 4th Avenue between 36th and 59th Streets, to say nothing of the line north of there), and weekend service improvements. (Yes, merging could still prove difficult, but not in the same way as when the diverging point is designed like the ones at 36th Street or 59th Street-Columbus Circle. Those were strictly to cut down on the space used, which is especially bad for the latter, given the stretch north of there...)

The (W) does this, yes, but currently the vast majority of (R)s come out of Jamaica vs only a few from CI, so the volume of CI yard put-ins (even when offset by storage in Astoria/at City Hall) would grow a good bit. So yes, you'd want a second service, and for ridership reasons you'd want it to be via Sea Beach. Operationally, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Both diverges are 15. 36 may have a slight edge in that it leads into 2 shots rather than one shots, but neither really is great. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lex said:

Sea Beach has a larger base (when there isn't extensive work being done). Why, then, would you put more trains on West End? Merging delays suck, the ridership can't justify the change, and it doesn't even solve any problems regarding route consistency or access to a maintenance facility.

That's to say nothing of the other crap...

That is true, but it's specifically because 9th Avenue is the closest station after Whitehall where trains can turn and it would only be for trains that can't turn at Whitehall.  Nothing more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

That is true, but it's specifically because 9th Avenue is the closest station after Whitehall where trains can turn and it would only be for trains that can't turn at Whitehall.  Nothing more. 

If it weren’t for the additional merge, 9th is actually a pretty decent single terminal — certainly better than anything else on West End or Sea Beach, what with all of them (in their current configs) being ad hoc relays with terminating trains blocking other traffic. Dunno how the signal system shakes out down there, but there also seems to be enough space in the 38 St interlocking to hold a holdout out of the line of continuing traffic, which’d be a real treat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 hours ago, Lex said:

I mean, we already do this with the (W) in some capacity (on Sea Beach). We would be better off having any potential route of the sort use Sea Beach in order to address the issues of night service, ridership along that line (as well as 4th Avenue between 36th and 59th Streets, to say nothing of the line north of there), and weekend service improvements. (Yes, merging could still prove difficult, but not in the same way as when the diverging point is designed like the ones at 36th Street or 59th Street-Columbus Circle. Those were strictly to cut down on the space used, which is especially bad for the latter, given the stretch north of there...)

 

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

The (W) does this, yes, but currently the vast majority of (R)s come out of Jamaica vs only a few from CI, so the volume of CI yard put-ins (even when offset by storage in Astoria/at City Hall) would grow a good bit. So yes, you'd want a second service, and for ridership reasons you'd want it to be via Sea Beach. Operationally, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. Both diverges are 15. 36 may have a slight edge in that it leads into 2 shots rather than one shots, but neither really is great. 

I always thought it was the West End Line that had the higher ridership vs Sea Beach. In past discussions about extending the (J) or (W) to South Brooklyn, I’ve suggested 8th Avenue for the terminal. That’s a station that gets a pretty sizable crowd. But like all Sea Beach stations, it only has two side platforms, so you don’t have a way to use the middle track as a pocket to short-turn or do put-ins there, like you can at 9th Avenue. And those extended (J) or (W) trains wouldn’t be able to serve the 4th Ave local stations in Bay Ridge.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I always thought it was the West End Line that had the higher ridership vs Sea Beach. In past discussions about extending the (J) or (W) to South Brooklyn, I’ve suggested 8th Avenue for the terminal. That’s a station that gets a pretty sizable crowd. But like all Sea Beach stations, it only has two side platforms, so you don’t have a way to use the middle track as a pocket to short-turn or do put-ins there, like you can at 9th Avenue. And those extended (J) or (W) trains wouldn’t be able to serve the 4th Ave local stations in Bay Ridge.

Sea Beach has two top 150 ridership stations at 59 St and 8 Ave compared to none on West End. Past that the lines are comparable in ridership, though Sea Beach is the faster train to / from Coney Island.

That said, 59 St - Bay Ridge has more ridership per station than either West End or Sea Beach, and all 4 Ave local trains should stay on the local tracks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

I always thought it was the West End Line that had the higher ridership vs Sea Beach.

Nope. West End's ridership is more sporadic and generally favors the southern end (while still having difficulty matching normal Sea Beach, mind you). That's one factor in the (brownM)/(M) change in 2010. (That was on top of not going where people wanted, but that's another story for another time.)

36 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

 And those extended (J) or (W) trains wouldn’t be able to serve the 4th Ave local stations in Bay Ridge.

While it's true that this is a missed opportunity, it also means that those trains to Bay Ridge won't be stuck doing the local stretch north of 59th Street on its own, and having the (W) serve as that second route will address certain issues that would otherwise come up with improvements in Queens to address why the (R) was shifted (back) to Forest Hills in the first place (along with other deficiencies up there).

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.