Bay Ridge area politicians call for split R train

[Lawrence St]

30 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. The MTA really needs to step up their game. And they (and the City and State) have got to invest the money to do so. If they run the service on the cheap, then they can’t possibly expect it to run well. You get what you pay for.

Pretty sure the reason why is because Queens Blvd is such a mess...instead of spending this money on CBTC which is likely going to fail anyway, spend the money towards making a 5th track or the QBL bypass.

[Caelestor]

Actually, CBTC is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve capacity, the other being articulated subway cars. The expensive infrastructure, i.e. tunnels + stations, are already there, and the signals have to be replaced anyways. That said, the 63 St line should be extended to Woodside and later Forest Hills to relieve the current QBL chokepoint at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave.

As for the , the only split it needs is from the , especially along 60 St. Neither the  nor  are frequent enough to impose serious merging delays, so the problem lies in poor operations.

[Wallyhorse]

16 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  is scheduled to be on 12-minute headways or 5 tph, and yet, the waits for the train often end up being much greater than that. This is not acceptable, nor should it have to be. 

This might be one way to gauge whether or not there really is some advantage to running the Bay Ridge/4th Avenue segment of the  to the Nassau St Line. They can gauge whether or not riders like it better before making any kind of permanent change to the full  line.

It would be the best way to do that.  Using G.O.'s to experiment with potential future alternate routing when warranted is something I would do a lot of.

[Wallyhorse]

8 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

Actually, CBTC is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve capacity, the other being articulated subway cars. The expensive infrastructure, i.e. tunnels + stations, are already there, and the signals have to be replaced anyways. That said, the 63 St line should be extended to Woodside and later Forest Hills to relieve the current QBL chokepoint at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave.

As for the , the only split it needs is from the , especially along 60 St. Neither the  nor  are frequent enough to impose serious merging delays, so the problem lies in poor operations.

Like I said, the easiest is to supplement the with a new or train running 95th-Essex that also replaces the current shuttle late nights.  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

Actually, CBTC is one of the most cost-effective ways to improve capacity, the other being articulated subway cars. The expensive infrastructure, i.e. tunnels + stations, are already there, and the signals have to be replaced anyways. That said, the 63 St line should be extended to Woodside and later Forest Hills to relieve the current QBL chokepoint at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave.

As for the , the only split it needs is from the , especially along 60 St. Neither the  nor  are frequent enough to impose serious merging delays, so the problem lies in poor operations.

That they may be, but I don’t really like to look at CBTC and open-gangway rolling stock as “cure-all’s” for the overcrowding on the subway. I can’t tell you how many times in past threads I’ve seen CBTC and open-gangway R211s referred to like they will be some kinds of magic bullets for overcrowding and service reliability on QBL. They really need to go beyond CBTC to address the overcrowding and other issues that cause delays on the . “Divorcing” the  from the  will certainly be another way to improve the ’s reliability. But those are issues for another thread.

The ongoing CBTC installation process on the QBL, however, doesaffecting  service in Brooklyn. And the installation process is still far from over. I mean, we can continue to run the  the way it is until CBTC work is finished up in Queens and then evaluate some kind of long-term solution for the . But then, it’ll just be “more of the same” for riders on the Bay Ridge/4th Ave Local end. Or, we can do something different that doesn’t require waiting years for the completion of new signal technology and ironing out all its teething problems (like what’s happening on the  now). Implementing a Bay Ridge-Nassau service is something that can be done short-term. And provide most of the same transfers the current  does in Lower Manhattan. The  and  would be the only ones lost if the Brooklyn section of the  is rerouted to Nassau St. Yes, it wouldn’t serve Midtown Manhattan, Flatiron or Union Square. But let’s be honest here, how many folks from Bay Ridge ride the  straight to those areas now? 

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Like I said, the easiest is to supplement the with a new or train running 95th-Essex that also replaces the current shuttle late nights.  

Right. Until Congressman Rose, et al, wrote to President Byford, a part-time Nassau line supplementing the  (except the part about the overnight shuttle) seemed to be the prevailing idea on the Forums for how to improve 4th Ave Local service. But then, that would mean having the  stay just the way it is and still suffer from the whims of the Queens Blvd line. 

Edited February 25, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Railfan 007]

TL;DR: Even though this idea is pipe dream, in my opinion this idea of mine would increase reliability for the . Make it express in Manhattan, and remove it from 60th and place it in 63rd to help increase its frequency. This also a plan to de-interline the Broadway lines for increased reliability. A lot of one-seat rides disappear for more frequent, reliable service.

: Coney Island to 96th St-2nd Av; via Sea Beach, 4th Av express, Broadway express, and 2nd Avenue

: Coney Island to Astoria Blvd; via Brighton local/exp, stop at DeKalb, Montague tunnels, Broadway local, 60th St tubes.

: Bay Ridge-95th St to Forest Hills; via 4th Avenue local, stop at DeKalb, Broadway express, run via 63rd Street, then Queens Blvd local

For Dekalb Interlocking:

DeKalb interlocking is built in such a way so 4th Av local trains can head to the Manhattan Bridge at the same time Brighton trains can head to Montague tubes, without needing any new construction. This means s heading for the bridge can continue without delaying s heading to the tunnel. s proceeds its normal route with no issues, and now either increase the frequency of the  and route s to 9th Av / Bay Ridge-95th. With the  being the only provider of service for Brighton,  makes a comeback as a weekday line for Brooklyn, specifically Brighton express. 

34th St-Herald Sq crossover, current choke point as the  switches from local to express/vice versa:

Nothing merges here anymore, so no more bottleneck! Plus, with the  doing the express and  alone (although running frequently), there isn't any need for switching here.

63rd St connection for the /  and / merge

This will be a new bottleneck, and I need to do more research, but this idea would also require the swapping of the /. It can probably work without an / swap, but it maybe more problematic with scheduling  in between s and then line it up to . If the  moves to 63rd however, the  will have to make a comeback on Queens Blvd, as 36th St to 65th St would only be served by 63rd tunnels with no connections to 53rd. Hopefully in the future Lexington Av-63rd St station and Lexington Av-59th St stations can have an in system connection. Late night service would require Roosevelt Island and 21st St-Queensbridge to have some service if the /  are doing 63rd, so it would make sense to keep the   via 63rd. Either these 2 options:

1. Weekdays run  via 53rd and nights run if via 63rd

2. Leave the  on 53rd and have buses serve the stations at nights

Another issue I see people complaining about is lost in system transfer at Lexington Av-59th St station for the

60th Street tunnels

The Q will be the sole provider for the Astoria line and coming off the high frequencies from both / from Brighton, funneling it all up Broadway local, and then over to Astoria, it should provide very frequent trains for Astoria riders to not complain. Yes they lose express service, however its a simple cross platform transfer at 57th, 42nd, or 34th, as the  are running together express.

Fleet movement

With the  reduced in route length, a few trains can be diverted to the . Same for the , as its running via 4th Av instead of Brighton. With the  express, it would also reduce its fleet by a little, further providing sets for , and with the  being rolled into , more sets. 

[Wallyhorse]

8 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Right. Until Congressman Rose, et al, wrote to President Byford, a part-time Nassau line supplementing the  (except the part about the overnight shuttle) seemed to be the prevailing idea on the Forums for how to improve 4th Ave Local service. But then, that would mean having the  stay just the way it is and still suffer from the whims of the Queens Blvd line. 

That it would, however, the new line (running between 95th and Essex) would basically outside of rush hours be running at the same intervals as the current  (rush hours would be a max of 8 TPH).  The new line solves the main problem, which is 4th avenue, allowing the current to remain as is since there would be up to a combined 20 TPH on the 4th Avenue local between the  and the new line at peak hours,  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

This would be in contrast to past proposals to extend the  or  to South Brooklyn only during rush hours. In fact, I recall posting in one of the more recent threads that many of the complaints about the  stem from long waits during post-rush hour evening service and on weekends. So if they go for a supplementary Nassau St line on to/from Bay Ridge, it can’t be limited to just rush hours.

But even if a new service is brought down there from Nassau, the issues with the current  service will still be there if it’s left just the way it is. That’s why I’m open to the idea of splitting the , rather than just supplementing it. 

Edited February 26, 2019 by T to Dyre Avenue

[darkstar8983]

14 hours ago, Railfan 007 said:

TL;DR: Even though this idea is pipe dream, in my opinion this idea of mine would increase reliability for the . Make it express in Manhattan, and remove it from 60th and place it in 63rd to help increase its frequency. This also a plan to de-interline the Broadway lines for increased reliability. A lot of one-seat rides disappear for more frequent, reliable service.

: Coney Island to 96th St-2nd Av; via Sea Beach, 4th Av express, Broadway express, and 2nd Avenue

: Coney Island to Astoria Blvd; via Brighton local/exp, stop at DeKalb, Montague tunnels, Broadway local, 60th St tubes.

: Bay Ridge-95th St to Forest Hills; via 4th Avenue local, stop at DeKalb, Broadway express, run via 63rd Street, then Queens Blvd local

For Dekalb Interlocking:

DeKalb interlocking is built in such a way so 4th Av local trains can head to the Manhattan Bridge at the same time Brighton trains can head to Montague tubes, without needing any new construction. This means s heading for the bridge can continue without delaying s heading to the tunnel. s proceeds its normal route with no issues, and now either increase the frequency of the  and route s to 9th Av / Bay Ridge-95th. With the  being the only provider of service for Brighton,  makes a comeback as a weekday line for Brooklyn, specifically Brighton express. 

34th St-Herald Sq crossover, current choke point as the  switches from local to express/vice versa:

Nothing merges here anymore, so no more bottleneck! Plus, with the  doing the express and  alone (although running frequently), there isn't any need for switching here.

63rd St connection for the /  and / merge

This will be a new bottleneck, and I need to do more research, but this idea would also require the swapping of the /. It can probably work without an / swap, but it maybe more problematic with scheduling  in between s and then line it up to . If the  moves to 63rd however, the  will have to make a comeback on Queens Blvd, as 36th St to 65th St would only be served by 63rd tunnels with no connections to 53rd. Hopefully in the future Lexington Av-63rd St station and Lexington Av-59th St stations can have an in system connection. Late night service would require Roosevelt Island and 21st St-Queensbridge to have some service if the /  are doing 63rd, so it would make sense to keep the   via 63rd. Either these 2 options:

1. Weekdays run  via 53rd and nights run if via 63rd

2. Leave the  on 53rd and have buses serve the stations at nights

Another issue I see people complaining about is lost in system transfer at Lexington Av-59th St station for the

60th Street tunnels

The Q will be the sole provider for the Astoria line and coming off the high frequencies from both / from Brighton, funneling it all up Broadway local, and then over to Astoria, it should provide very frequent trains for Astoria riders to not complain. Yes they lose express service, however its a simple cross platform transfer at 57th, 42nd, or 34th, as the  are running together express.

Fleet movement

With the  reduced in route length, a few trains can be diverted to the . Same for the , as its running via 4th Av instead of Brighton. With the  express, it would also reduce its fleet by a little, further providing sets for , and with the  being rolled into , more sets. 

 

I Think the current setup should be kept, but just supplement the  with a Nassau St variant from Chambers St to Bay Ridge-95 St during rush hours and middays (only if its really used)

- 7AM to 6PM going towards Chambers St

-7:45AM to 7PM going towards Bay Ridge

*Frequency cannot be more than 6tph and maybe 1-2 additional  trains in the Reverse-peak will have to terminate at 59 St due to limited terminal capacity at Bay Ridge.

 

With routes as long as the  there really does need to be a supplement route, to make up in case of incidents: the  on weekday evenings is a god-send especially since the  has to trek up the local track from Brooklyn, causing major delays to northbound Astoria service. 

 

Route splitting does seem like a good idea at first, but our infrastructure is limited in that there are few ways to run short-turn trips without losing capacity past the short turn point. Especially in the  tunnel between Manhattan and Brooklyn; a lot of Broadway trains can be rerouted thru there should there be an issue on the Manhattan Bridge (north or south tracks)

Edited February 26, 2019 by darkstar8983

[RR503]

Fix the signals, fix the terminals, empower the crews,  to 96. This doesn't have to be so complicated.

Longer term,  to Astoria, 59-63 passage, new yard at 38th. 

[Bay Ridge Express]

20 hours ago, Railfan 007 said:

TL;DR: Even though this idea is pipe dream, in my opinion this idea of mine would increase reliability for the . Make it express in Manhattan, and remove it from 60th and place it in 63rd to help increase its frequency. This also a plan to de-interline the Broadway lines for increased reliability. A lot of one-seat rides disappear for more frequent, reliable service.

: Coney Island to 96th St-2nd Av; via Sea Beach, 4th Av express, Broadway express, and 2nd Avenue

: Coney Island to Astoria Blvd; via Brighton local/exp, stop at DeKalb, Montague tunnels, Broadway local, 60th St tubes.

: Bay Ridge-95th St to Forest Hills; via 4th Avenue local, stop at DeKalb, Broadway express, run via 63rd Street, then Queens Blvd local

For Dekalb Interlocking:

DeKalb interlocking is built in such a way so 4th Av local trains can head to the Manhattan Bridge at the same time Brighton trains can head to Montague tubes, without needing any new construction. This means s heading for the bridge can continue without delaying s heading to the tunnel. s proceeds its normal route with no issues, and now either increase the frequency of the  and route s to 9th Av / Bay Ridge-95th. With the  being the only provider of service for Brighton,  makes a comeback as a weekday line for Brooklyn, specifically Brighton express. 

34th St-Herald Sq crossover, current choke point as the  switches from local to express/vice versa:

Nothing merges here anymore, so no more bottleneck! Plus, with the  doing the express and  alone (although running frequently), there isn't any need for switching here.

63rd St connection for the /  and / merge

This will be a new bottleneck, and I need to do more research, but this idea would also require the swapping of the /. It can probably work without an / swap, but it maybe more problematic with scheduling  in between s and then line it up to . If the  moves to 63rd however, the  will have to make a comeback on Queens Blvd, as 36th St to 65th St would only be served by 63rd tunnels with no connections to 53rd. Hopefully in the future Lexington Av-63rd St station and Lexington Av-59th St stations can have an in system connection. Late night service would require Roosevelt Island and 21st St-Queensbridge to have some service if the /  are doing 63rd, so it would make sense to keep the   via 63rd. Either these 2 options:

1. Weekdays run  via 53rd and nights run if via 63rd

2. Leave the  on 53rd and have buses serve the stations at nights

Another issue I see people complaining about is lost in system transfer at Lexington Av-59th St station for the

60th Street tunnels

The Q will be the sole provider for the Astoria line and coming off the high frequencies from both / from Brighton, funneling it all up Broadway local, and then over to Astoria, it should provide very frequent trains for Astoria riders to not complain. Yes they lose express service, however its a simple cross platform transfer at 57th, 42nd, or 34th, as the  are running together express.

Fleet movement

With the  reduced in route length, a few trains can be diverted to the . Same for the , as its running via 4th Av instead of Brighton. With the  express, it would also reduce its fleet by a little, further providing sets for , and with the  being rolled into , more sets. 

I had this pipe dream in mind but had no idea how to implement it because of all those services on DeKalb, and also the fact that some  riders would probably not happy that their train would go via Montague, but if the  were to run express in Manhattan, this is the way to go.

[RR503]

13 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

I had this pipe dream in mind but had no idea how to implement it because of all those services on DeKalb, and also the fact that some  riders would probably not happy that their train would go via Montague, but if the  were to run express in Manhattan, this is the way to go.

I'm not a fan. 4th local is a low density route, as is Montague. Brighton and 4th express + associated branches are higher ridership. Let them keep express service with easy cross platforms to Lower Manhattan. 

If you want to fix Queens, there's the perennial  via 63/ to Astoria proposal, or you can just do the right thing and deinterline that area. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by RR503

[Caelestor]

There is no need to adjust the Dekalb services. Brighton is the busiest of the BMT branches, and so all Brighton service should run via the Bridge. The  and  also run express via the Bridge given their longer routes + greater catchment area. This leaves the  to serve Montague.

QBL local doesn't need more local service, and the express tracks are maxed out. So send the  to 96 St, separate the  from the  and merge the  into the  timetables. The  can serve Astoria / Forest Hills - Whitehall St - Bay Ridge in whatever way makes sense.

[Deucey]

Why is it  goes express at 34th St instead of at 57th St?

[MysteriousBtrain]

12 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Why is it  goes express at 34th St instead of at 57th St?

"Serve the tourists at 49th st"

[Wallyhorse]

8 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I Think the current setup should be kept, but just supplement the  with a Nassau St variant from Chambers St to Bay Ridge-95 St during rush hours and middays (only if its really used)

- 7AM to 6PM going towards Chambers St

-7:45AM to 7PM going towards Bay Ridge

*Frequency cannot be more than 6tph and maybe 1-2 additional  trains in the Reverse-peak will have to terminate at 59 St due to limited terminal capacity at Bay Ridge.

With routes as long as the  there really does need to be a supplement route, to make up in case of incidents: the  on weekday evenings is a god-send especially since the  has to trek up the local track from Brooklyn, causing major delays to northbound Astoria service. 

Route splitting does seem like a good idea at first, but our infrastructure is limited in that there are few ways to run short-turn trips without losing capacity past the short turn point. Especially in the  tunnel between Manhattan and Brooklyn; a lot of Broadway trains can be rerouted thru there should there be an issue on the Manhattan Bridge (north or south tracks)

As said, agree, but as noted, this new or line can run to Essex and terminate there.  This as I would do it as noted would be 24/7 and replace the shuttle late nights.  Runs to and from East New York Yard would begin or end at Broadway Junction on the line and would continue in service to or start in service from there on such runs, with such scheduled and in the timetables. 

As I'd also do it, the would permanently go overnights and on weekends to 96th/2nd to supplement the  on the SAS portion, however, if the doesn't want to do that after the work is done, I'd then look late nights and weekends at extending the new or to Metropolitan Avenue to replace the entirely at those times. 

Edited February 27, 2019 by Wallyhorse

[Deucey]

44 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

As said, agree, but as noted, this new or line can run to Essex and terminate there.  This as I would do it as noted would be 24/7 and replace the shuttle late nights.

So make us SIers rely on the ever coming train only, or ride to Broad Street and walk to the ferry and wait for the boat to show up?

Nah.

As @RR503 has repeatedly said, just run the system better - instead of running it as an expenditure and a chore.

[Wallyhorse]

1 hour ago, Deucey said:

So make us SIers rely on the ever coming train only, or ride to Broad Street and walk to the ferry and wait for the boat to show up?

Nah.

As @RR503 has repeatedly said, just run the system better - instead of running it as an expenditure and a chore.

also runs via the tunnel as well as the  late nights I believe.

Also, anyone specifically looking for Whitehall can change to the or on the same platform at DeKalb, Jay-Metrotech or Court (and you have the  option at Court).   Whitehall would be the only station affected by that change and the new routing also has transfers to the  and   at Fulton and the  at Chambers late nights and the at Canal then.  

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

also runs via the tunnel as well as the  late nights I believe.

Also, anyone specifically looking for Whitehall can change to the or on the same platform at DeKalb, Jay-Metrotech or Court (and you have the  option at Court).   Whitehall would be the only station affected by that change and the new routing also has transfers to the  and   at Fulton and the  at Chambers late nights and the at Canal then.  

 is via bridge at all times. 

@Deucey — your objection is because north/downtown Brooklyn-SI at night will be complicated, correct? 

Wally, for the record I think some Nassau-Bay Ridge train is a good idea, at least until you work on a larger system service pattern redesign. I do think Deucey has a point here though — you want to be careful in weighing the value of each service pattern. 

[Wallyhorse]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

 is via bridge at all times. 

@Deucey — your objection is because north/downtown Brooklyn-SI at night will be complicated, correct? 

Wally, for the record I think some Nassau-Bay Ridge train is a good idea, at least until you work on a larger system service pattern redesign. I do think Deucey has a point here though — you want to be careful in weighing the value of each service pattern. 

I thought they moved the  to the tunnel late nights a few years ago. 

[Q Broadway Express]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

I thought they moved the  to the tunnel late nights a few years ago. 

@Wallyhorse No, the and the run via bridge at all times.

The and the run via tunnel.

[Deucey]

7 hours ago, RR503 said:

@Deucey — your objection is because north/downtown Brooklyn-SI at night will be complicated, correct?

Yup. Without Broadway Line trains, we're stuck with Lex Line trains - which isn't bad, but it's a 5 minute walk at best from BG to the ferry - meaning that the likelihood of waiting for 30 minutes for the next ferry goes up to what it was when the  shuttle stopped at 36th St (Bk).

Or we gotta take  to Chambers St then  to the ferry - adding 15 minutes or more due to the wait.

God forbid Lex is closed for tunnel repairs or track replacement and not running between BG or Borough Hall...

 

[Eric B]

5 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I thought they moved the  to the tunnel late nights a few years ago. 

You're probably thinking of them making it local nights. But that's only after Prince.

[Lance]

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

Fix the signals, fix the terminals, empower the crews,  to 96. This doesn't have to be so complicated.

Longer term,  to Astoria, 59-63 passage, new yard at 38th. 

Exactly. There are a lot of ideas being floated about lately and while the enthusiasm is quite welcome, a lot of them ignore the two most important criterions, ridership demands and route simplicity. Broadway is by far the easiest line to streamline in the B-Division without rearranging the entire system around it.

16 hours ago, Deucey said:

Why is it  goes express at 34th St instead of at 57th St?

High passenger count at 49 Street and possibly because it was easier for all Queens services to run local through 34 Street rather than have the switch over at 57 Street. When the  ran to 57 Street, terminating trains ran the risk of delaying trains heading uptown, hence the switch over at 34 Street. Now that the  runs to 96 Street, this should probably be revisited at some point. Of course, it just moves the merge point from one location to another, so it's unlikely that this relatively minor move will have a beneficial effect on service.

[bobtehpanda]

4 hours ago, Lance said:

Exactly. There are a lot of ideas being floated about lately and while the enthusiasm is quite welcome, a lot of them ignore the two most important criterions, ridership demands and route simplicity. Broadway is by far the easiest line to streamline in the B-Division without rearranging the entire system around it.

High passenger count at 49 Street and possibly because it was easier for all Queens services to run local through 34 Street rather than have the switch over at 57 Street. When the  ran to 57 Street, terminating trains ran the risk of delaying trains heading uptown, hence the switch over at 34 Street. Now that the  runs to 96 Street, this should probably be revisited at some point. Of course, it just moves the merge point from one location to another, so it's unlikely that this relatively minor move will have a beneficial effect on service.

If all bridge services move to the Broadway express without stopping at 49 St we can solve this issue forever. Astoria doesn't need an express service, it barely skips any stops til 34th!