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.
Union Tpke

Utica Avenue Transit Improvement Study Discussion

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I think… that the Utica Avenue line will be a huge cost no matter what it connects to. From what I've read so far:

1. Eastern Parkway: you have to build a flying junction—and no, deinterlining will definitely not fly in this century, because everyone feels entitled.

2. Fulton Street: it will be a huge reverse-trunk structure with the Cranberry Street tunnel supporting Utica Avenue, Lefferts Boulevard, and the Rockaways. I don't know what the ridership is like for the (A), but that kind of split doesn't look good.

3. South 4 Street: ha!

On the other hand, if they connected to the Fulton Street line, then they could take that Eastern Parkway junction out of service to reconfigure while funneling people east into the Utica Avenue line as a temporary alternative.

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Deucey said:

At that point, you’re building it on els or underground, so why not make the equipment interoperable with A or B division rolling stock? (And I know I previously mentioned doing a 3rd Av and Fordham line as LRT - mainly to prevent either becoming an (A) extension from 207th St, but my mind’s changed on that. Even with my SI-Belt-Nassau idea, I see using LIRR cars or B division spec as a better plan. LRT isn’t infeasible, but maybe not the superior alternative.)

As an aside, you can totally engineer an LRT to B-Division standards (other than 600 ft train length, though you can certainly make it easier to build 600 ft train length if you're cut and covering.) Heck, you can even have a train running in the street if you really want it.

6504764869_f24e1760b0_b.jpg

14 hours ago, Lex said:

Perhaps not, but there's an obvious solution that also allows for more coverage and a more capable terminus. It would be better than trying to connect Eastern Parkway down Utica Avenue (for what it's worth, I wouldn't do it with Fulton Street, either, though we'd still have service down the corridor).

It'd probably help if you were to, you know, actually say what your plan is.

There's not really spare capacity on Fulton, the Atlantic Branch isn't a subway and doesn't go to Manhattan, dead-ending in Williamsburg or Bushwick also isn't helpful since most people will transfer (and there's no money for it), and there's no money for a new tunnel under the river.

Share this post


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

It'd probably help if you were to, you know, actually say what your plan is.

There's not really spare capacity on Fulton, the Atlantic Branch isn't a subway and doesn't go to Manhattan, dead-ending in Williamsburg or Bushwick also isn't helpful since most people will transfer (and there's no money for it), and there's no money for a new tunnel under the river.

If there's no money for a tunnel under the East River, then that'll complicate matters, particularly since the plan people seem to favor is one that'll give the MTA an excuse to cut service while failing to better serve those heading to destinations north of Eastern Parkway.

Having trains follow Myrtle Avenue and Utica/Reid allows people to have an easier time reaching multiple points in Brooklyn at once. This would feed into Second Avenue (Hanover Square will not be built under this plan) and a maintenance facility would be built beyond Kings Plaza.

Honestly, I don't like this idea (doing too much in Brooklyn, not to mention the aforementioned yard being in a flood zone), but I don't particularly like any of the ideas being floated. Capacity issues aside, I can't imagine that Fulton or South 4th Streets would really do anything notable, and Eastern Parkway would require some change in routes that would not be conducive to running one or more of them (aside from not doing enough or the fact that their service is hindered by several areas that are more removed from the potential line). Of course, doing nothing is also a terrible idea.

Share this post


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

If there's no money for a tunnel under the East River, then that'll complicate matters, particularly since the plan people seem to favor is one that'll give the MTA an excuse to cut service while failing to better serve those heading to destinations north of Eastern Parkway.

Having trains follow Myrtle Avenue and Utica/Reid allows people to have an easier time reaching multiple points in Brooklyn at once. This would feed into Second Avenue (Hanover Square will not be built under this plan) and a maintenance facility would be built beyond Kings Plaza.

Honestly, I don't like this idea (doing too much in Brooklyn, not to mention the aforementioned yard being in a flood zone), but I don't particularly like any of the ideas being floated. Capacity issues aside, I can't imagine that Fulton or South 4th Streets would really do anything notable, and Eastern Parkway would require some change in routes that would not be conducive to running one or more of them (aside from not doing enough or the fact that their service is hindered by several areas that are more removed from the potential line). Of course, doing nothing is also a terrible idea.

I just don't understand the objection here. Between 8 and 9 AM, 17 (2) and (3) trains transit Wall St heading north and 22 (4)s and (5)s pass through Bowling Green (not including the 2 that are put in there). That's 39 trains per hour, or 65% of those tubes' potential capacity. I don't know about you, but that suggests to me room to grow -- really the only thing holding capacity back is Rogers. So sure, it won't accomplish the crosstown, but you can't always get everything in one swoop -- just be sure to leave provisions for the future.

To the earlier point that this may reduce potential service on other corridors: Flatbush can turn 18tph, New Lots probably about 15. That leaves 27 trains per hour of capacity to be played with -- so go build Utica, improve Flatbush, improve New Lots, do whatever. Just don't go around pretending that that capacity doesn't exist.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

If there's no money for a tunnel under the East River, then that'll complicate matters, particularly since the plan people seem to favor is one that'll give the MTA an excuse to cut service while failing to better serve those heading to destinations north of Eastern Parkway.

Having trains follow Myrtle Avenue and Utica/Reid allows people to have an easier time reaching multiple points in Brooklyn at once. This would feed into Second Avenue (Hanover Square will not be built under this plan) and a maintenance facility would be built beyond Kings Plaza.

Honestly, I don't like this idea (doing too much in Brooklyn, not to mention the aforementioned yard being in a flood zone), but I don't particularly like any of the ideas being floated. Capacity issues aside, I can't imagine that Fulton or South 4th Streets would really do anything notable, and Eastern Parkway would require some change in routes that would not be conducive to running one or more of them (aside from not doing enough or the fact that their service is hindered by several areas that are more removed from the potential line). Of course, doing nothing is also a terrible idea.

 

40 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I just don't understand the objection here. Between 8 and 9 AM, 17 (2) and (3) trains transit Wall St heading north and 22 (4)s and (5)s pass through Bowling Green (not including the 2 that are put in there). That's 39 trains per hour, or 65% of those tubes' potential capacity. I don't know about you, but that suggests to me room to grow -- really the only thing holding capacity back is Rogers. So sure, it won't accomplish the crosstown, but you can't always get everything in one swoop -- just be sure to leave provisions for the future.

To the earlier point that this may reduce potential service on other corridors: Flatbush can turn 18tph, New Lots probably about 15. That leaves 27 trains per hour of capacity to be played with -- so go build Utica, improve Flatbush, improve New Lots, do whatever. Just don't go around pretending that that capacity doesn't exist.  

To add onto this:

  • Redistributing trains is not really a service cut. If a maintenance facility at Kings Plaza is necessary to hold extra trains for the service, there's no reason it couldn't hold IRT trains (and solve the supposed problem of displacing (3) trains from Livonia Yard.) Not to mention, you'd be extending trains along a route where people are already boarding said line. It's not a major shift in commuting patterns, because the B46 already has tons of people getting off at Crown Heights, as do the dollar vans, and if you needed to go somewhere other than north Brooklyn you were probably changing to the IRT.
  • Not only is Nostrand Junction a known to-do list item that might be covered under this study and any plans that result from it, but IIRC these are also the lines prioritized for CBTC under Fast Forward. So there will also be an increase in TPH per track. And if it isn't, the priority could change as a result of this study.
Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2019 at 7:53 PM, Union Tpke said:

https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing

The dream of a subway running down one of Brooklyn's busiest corridors is nearly as old as the subway system itself.

Now, NY1 has learned the MTA and the city have started a study to see if the Utica Avenue subway extension, a nearly century-old idea, is worth pursuing.

 

 

Urban purists would shoot this down as an affront to the memory of "Master Builder" Robert Moses, who famously stated that “cities exist to be conduits for suburban traffic” and thus are not entitled to their own viability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Urban purists would shoot this down as an affront to the memory of "Master Builder" Robert Moses, who famously stated that “cities exist to be conduits for suburban traffic” and thus are not entitled to their own viability.

Robert Moses was certainly a controversial figure, with plenty of supporters and detractors, but I sincerely doubt that your assertion holds any water today.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

 

Urban purists would shoot this down as an affront to the memory of "Master Builder" Robert Moses, who famously stated that “cities exist to be conduits for suburban traffic” and thus are not entitled to their own viability.

I’m confused here. Why would so-called urban purists see this as an “affront” to the memory of Robert Moses? That was indeed his attitude about cities. But one of the major goals of a Utica Avenue subway extension is to make it faster and easier to get up and down Utica, as well as to make it quicker and easier to get to Manhattan and other points in Brooklyn. I wouldn’t call this a conduit for suburban traffic (the semi-suburban areas of Mill Basin and Bergen Beach would still be a ways off from the extension).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I’m confused here. Why would so-called urban purists see this as an “affront” to the memory of Robert Moses? That was indeed his attitude about cities. But one of the major goals of a Utica Avenue subway extension is to make it faster and easier to get up and down Utica, as well as to make it quicker and easier to get to Manhattan and other points in Brooklyn. I wouldn’t call this a conduit for suburban traffic (the semi-suburban areas of Mill Basin and Bergen Beach would still be a ways off from the extension).

 

 

That is exactly why Robert Moses would oppose it: because it would make things faster and easier only for city residents. The "wrong" people would benefit and the "right" people would not benefit (even though they also wouldn't lose anything). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Maybe there is something I'm missing here, but in my mind the solution to Rogers has always been this:

(2) Local to Flatbush (18tph)

(3) Local to New Lots (12tph)

(4) Express to Utica (12tph), Express to New Lots (6tph)

(5) Express to Utica (12tph)

In terms of terminal capacity, New Lots and Flatbush both turn out 18tph, while Utica turns out 24tph. I don't know if Utica can handle this amount, but in the end I think this represents a nice mix with none of the three Brooklyn terminals getting overloaded and both the Nostrand and New Lots branches getting 18tph. 

In terms of service across the IRT, this boosts (2) service along WPR/South Bronx and gives a nice service boost to the Jerome Ave (4) line to help a very densely populated section of the Bronx. The (3) still serves it's purpose as a Harlem/UWS relief line and gives it a reason to exist 7 days a week as the main New Lots service. 

 

In the future, if the Utica Ave line gets built, I would send both the (4) and (5) there full time since one of the Lex trains would need to take the brunt of the transfers @ Utica/EP and Franklin Av. A 4-track 179st-style terminal can be built @ KP to allow for maximum turnaround throughput. 

Edit: I'll keep the (5) express in The Bronx

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by shiznit1987
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

3 Brooklyn branches means that the (3) or (5) would have to run to Brooklyn 24/7, unless one branch is a late night shuttle.

Also if the Clark Street or Joralemon Street Tunnels were to ever close again, MTA would have to extend the (1) or (6) to Brooklyn to cover one of the branches, or run one of the branches as a shuttle. 

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

3 Brooklyn branches means that the (3) or (5) would have to run to Brooklyn 24/7.

Also if the Clark Street or Joralemon Street Tunnels were to ever close again, MTA would have to extend the (1) or (6) to Brooklyn to cover one of the branches, or run one of the branches as a shuttle. 

Knowing the MTA, they'd try to get away with having the (4) be the sole Utica line with (5) service staying the same. The (3) probably would go 24/7 to Brooklyn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, GreatOne2k said:

3 Brooklyn branches means that the (3) or (5) would have to run to Brooklyn 24/7, unless one branch is a late night shuttle.

Also if the Clark Street or Joralemon Street Tunnels were to ever close again, MTA would have to extend the (1) or (6) to Brooklyn to cover one of the branches, or run one of the branches as a shuttle. 

Assuming the (3) goes to Flatbush and the (4) goes to New Lots via the express while the (5) goes to Utica via the local: you would just run the (5) at the same service pattern at all times (maybe make it local late nights if there isn’t enough express demand).

Edited by R68OnBroadway

Share this post


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

Assuming the (3) goes to Flatbush and the (4) goes to New Lots via the express while the (5) goes to Utica via the local: you would just run the (5) at the same service pattern at all times (maybe make it local if there isn’t enough express demand).

If the (5) runs all night, just have it run express in Brooklyn and Manhattan all night, no need for 3 locals, the (2) and (4) will be the locals

 

9 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

Knowing the MTA, they'd try to get away with having the (4) be the sole Utica line with (5) service staying the same. The (3) probably would go 24/7 to Brooklyn. 

In that case the (2) should be 24/7 express in Manhattan the the (3) can run local overnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The east side has the (1), (2), (3), (A), and (partially) (D) in that scenario, but the west side will still only have the (4), (6), and (partially) (Q). Running the (5) in stead of the (3) would balance the east and west sides at night with the amount of service. The east side isn’t exactly bursting at the seams with subway service while the 7 and 8 Avenue lines practically tie at the neck, hip, and feet.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

The east side has the (1), (2), (3), (A), and (partially) (D) in that scenario, but the west side will still only have the (4), (6), and (partially) (Q). Running the (5) in stead of the (3) would balance the east and west sides at night with the amount of service. The east side isn’t exactly bursting at the seams with subway service while the 7 and 8 Avenue lines practically tie at the neck, hip, and feet.

It’s the other way around , 1,2,3,A , etc on the west. 4,5,6 on the east 

Edited by Maxwell179
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Maxwell179 said:

It’s the other way around , 1,2,3,A , etc on the west. 4,5,6 on the east 

I’m compass-challenged. Although I can always find my way to places like a homing pigeon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It never ceases to amaze me when I read these doomsday scenarios about the Brooklyn IRT.  Some posters are much younger than myself so I can excuse them.  I must correct a misconception about service levels. The Seventh Avenue trains were the Brooklyn locals when my generation and the one before that grew up. There were more riders back then, 1940- 1980 or so and they ran more trains. The Lexington WPR terminated at Utica M-F rush hours while the Lexington-Jerome went to Flatbush during the rush hours and both terminated at Atlantic midday. No ATS, no CBTC,  just tower operators manually throwing switches at Nostrand Junction  and the towers located at Utica. You're probably wondering why I said " more " trains. Simple. Two five car trains had the same capacity as today's ten car consists and the operating practices were very different than they are today. Woodlawn trains only served Utica Saturday and Sunday midday when the Lenox locals ran to Flatbush. If any variant of this so-called proposal comes to pass I've only seen one poster in this thread that clearly sees the likely outcome. Less service in total. Does anyone believe that the MTA will run 3 services 24/7 across  the Junction?  For those who say rebuild the Junction I can only say your idea may be 100% correct but it will never happen because of the impact it would have on the immediate Crown Heights neighborhood and those neighborhoods south and east of Eastern Parkway.  Just my opinion.  Carry on. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

You're probably wondering why I said " more " trains. Simple. Two five car trains had the same capacity as today's ten car consists and the operating practices were very different than they are today. Woodlawn trains only served Utica Saturday and Sunday midday when the Lenox locals ran to Flatbush. If any variant of this so-called proposal comes to pass I've only seen one poster in this thread that clearly sees the likely outcome. Less service in total. Does anyone believe that the MTA will run 3 services 24/7 across  the Junction?

They ran 5 car trains during the off peak, but for rush hours from about 1950-1960 they scheduled thirty two ten car trains from Utica/New Lots up Lex, and twenty nine ten car trains from Flatbush and NL up 7th (I'm pretty sure the Lex-Jerome to Flatbush operation only began in earnest in 1960). That's over fifty percent more service than is run today. 

I don't understand your contention that building Utica will reduce overall service on EPW. We already run three services 19/7 on the corridor -- peeling the (3) off to run on Utica and sending the (4) to New Lots isn't a complex move. Even if you want to isolate 7th-Broadway on Flatbush under some Nostrand Junction/Flatbush Terminal rebuild scenario, this isn't hard to work with; to satisfy the 'maximum three services per trunk' rule, you could send the (3) to South Ferry and send the (5) to Utica. For late nights, someone may have to become a shuttle to Barclays, but I feel it's worth pointing out that that isn't a reduction (current service isn't being touched), it's just an uninspired addition of Utica service to the late night mix. Point being, there's no limitation that Utica imposes on the line's (well under-capacity) infrastructure. 

4 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

For those who say rebuild the Junction I can only say your idea may be 100% correct but it will never happen because of the impact it would have on the immediate Crown Heights neighborhood and those neighborhoods south and east of Eastern Parkway.

I share this concern. The story of post-Moses New York is one of a city that swung too far -- a city which now is creating regional stagnation by allowing its neighborhoods to act as their own municipalities. We can see this in housing -- NYC built less housing per capita than San Francisco last year -- but also in transit, where proposals like this, ones which are key to benefiting commuters far beyond the confines of some small area, are not even considered out of a fear of some 'community.' Hell, I'd even contend that there are commuters in those neighborhoods who are so fed up with irregular service, slow travel, and crowding that they'd support routing changes -- but with the way that 'community engagement' works in this city, you can almost count on their voices not being heard, as the technicalities of engagement basically ensure that naysayers are heard more than supporters. I'd argue that this is the biggest threat our city faces. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

They ran 5 car trains during the off peak, but for rush hours from about 1950-1960 they scheduled thirty two ten car trains from Utica/New Lots up Lex, and twenty nine ten car trains from Flatbush and NL up 7th (I'm pretty sure the Lex-Jerome to Flatbush operation only began in earnest in 1960). That's over fifty percent more service than is run today.

That started in December of 1950, and only grew to be rather popular.

 

21 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I don't understand your contention that building Utica will reduce overall service on EPW. We already run three services 19/7 on the corridor -- peeling the (3) off to run on Utica and sending the (4) to New Lots isn't a complex move. Even if you want to isolate 7th-Broadway on Flatbush under some Nostrand Junction/Flatbush Terminal rebuild scenario, this isn't hard to work with; to satisfy the 'maximum three services per trunk' rule, you could send the (3) to South Ferry and send the (5) to Utica. For late nights, someone may have to become a shuttle to Barclays, but I feel it's worth pointing out that that isn't a reduction (current service isn't being touched), it's just an uninspired addition of Utica service to the late night mix. Point being, there's no limitation that Utica imposes on the line's (well under-capacity) infrastructure.

Focusing so heavily on how many trains are running through a specific junction is the problem. Basically, what you've been doing here and in other threads is eschewing utility for frequency, which won't be anywhere near as effective as you claim. For one, Brooklyn riders generally care far more about Lexington Avenue. For two, the (3) has two requirements for its continued existence (providing empty trains for those in Harlem at 135th Street and points south during periods of higher ridership and allowing (4) trains to short-turn to provide some semblance of reliable service on that route, which is not as tied to a poorly-designed junction as is often insinuated). The fact of the matter is, the ridership potential for the (3) just isn't there, and divorcing it from relief duty in Brooklyn will only kill it that much sooner (not helped by the fact that the only stations served by it alone have a combined ridership that is lower than 110th Street, nor by the fact that there are buses in the vicinity of both of those stations, nor by the boneheaded design that the IRT went with from 142nd Street up to the somewhat-recently-established current terminus).

Also, turning any Brooklyn IRT service into some sort of "shuttle" is pure bunk, only partially because of the fact that there's absolutely no place to turn trains until reaching Atlantic-Barclays.

Share this post


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

That started in December of 1950, and only grew to be rather popular.

At a service level of four trains per rush hour, hence the "in earnest" qualification. 

43 minutes ago, Lex said:

Focusing so heavily on how many trains are running through a specific junction is the problem. Basically, what you've been doing here and in other threads is eschewing utility for frequency, which won't be anywhere near as effective as you claim. For one, Brooklyn riders generally care far more about Lexington Avenue. For two, the (3) has two requirements for its continued existence (providing empty trains for those in Harlem at 135th Street and points south during periods of higher ridership and allowing (4) trains to short-turn to provide some semblance of reliable service on that route, which is not as tied to a poorly-designed junction as is often insinuated). The fact of the matter is, the ridership potential for the (3) just isn't there, and divorcing it from relief duty in Brooklyn will only kill it that much sooner (not helped by the fact that the only stations served by it alone have a combined ridership that is lower than 110th Street, nor by the fact that there are buses in the vicinity of both of those stations, nor by the boneheaded design that the IRT went with from 142nd Street up to the somewhat-recently-established current terminus).

I'm all for making useful transit. I'm not for letting parochial concerns override regional imperatives. You'll notice all my 'evil' route change schemes have one thing in common: that they address corridors that are legitimately at capacity. The (2)(3)(4)(5) approach -- and exceed, in some areas -- even the MTA's guideline capacity; there needs to be change in the way they're operated so that they can so much as meet current demand for their services. Rogers, as it happens, is the largest impediment to more (and more reliable) service on those corridors, hence it is my focus. And FWIW, in the scheme of transportational ills, adding a cross platform transfer to someone's commute for the sake of reliability and capacity is not all that reprehensible. 

I don't understand this argument about the (3). No one is proposing its elimination, and the notion that somehow changing its route in Brooklyn will allow the MTA to kill the Harlem spur despite all the reasons you and others have given for its continued existence seems...off. 

Generally here, there's an issue with our system, which is that it's tied up in knots. Interlining is a useful tool, but it comes with baggage. Its effects on reliability, capacity and yes, efficiency are well documented concerns, and have caused really the entire rest of the world's subway systems to try their very best to eliminate it. Does NYC need to follow international best practices unthinkingly? No, but its also important to contextualize our current reliability and capacity issues properly, which should mean taking a long, hard look at the way we've chosen to structure service in this city. Anyone can tell you that we have a crowding issue, yet they can also tell you that the system is drowning in excess capacity. The answer as to why is complex, but one big part of it is indeed routing -- we've reached a point (especially on the B division) where our service plans are in fact so complex that we have to schedule delays just to make merges work. This needs to be talked about. 

Oh, re: shuttle. I agree that running the Utica line as a shuttle to Barclays is BS, but that wasn't the point. The point was that building Utica isn't gonna somehow reduce service on the Brooklyn IRT.

Edited by RR503
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

At a service level of four trains per rush hour, hence the "in earnest" qualification. 

I'm all for making useful transit. I'm not for letting parochial concerns override regional imperatives. You'll notice all my 'evil' route change schemes have one thing in common: that they address corridors that are legitimately at capacity. The (2)(3)(4)(5) approach -- and exceed, in some areas -- even the MTA's guideline capacity; there needs to be change in the way they're operated so that they can so much as meet current demand for their services. Rogers, as it happens, is the largest impediment to more (and more reliable) service on those corridors, hence it is my focus. And FWIW, in the scheme of transportational ills, adding a cross platform transfer to someone's commute for the sake of reliability and capacity is not all that reprehensible. 

I don't understand this argument about the (3). No one is proposing its elimination, and the notion that somehow changing its route in Brooklyn will allow the MTA to kill the Harlem spur despite all the reasons you and others have given for its continued existence seems...off. 

Generally here, there's an issue with our system, which is that it's tied up in knots. Interlining is a useful tool, but it comes with baggage. Its effects on reliability, capacity and yes, efficiency are well documented concerns, and have caused really the entire rest of the world's subway systems to try their very best to eliminate it. Does NYC need to follow international best practices unthinkingly? No, but its also important to contextualize our current reliability and capacity issues properly, which should mean taking a long, hard look at the way we've chosen to structure service in this city. Anyone can tell you that we have a crowding issue, yet they can also tell you that the system is drowning in excess capacity. The answer as to why is complex, but one big part of it is indeed routing -- we've reached a point (especially on the B division) where our service plans are in fact so complex that we have to schedule delays just to make merges work. This needs to be talked about. 

Could you provide more details about service patterns on the Brooklyn IRT Pre-1983? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

T@RR503, @Lex, I get both sides of the dilemma but let me throw some of my observations into the pot.

Lex accurately described the function of the (3) line from the time the WPR (2) was connected to the existing IRT West Side subway. The (3) went from being the Seventh Avenue local to South Ferry to become a full fledged Brooklyn service. I don’t remember when the (2) became the New Lots mainstay because when I was a child in Brownsville the (5) to Dyre was the Livonia line. When I moved to Flatbush in ‘61 the (3) was the Nostrand line mainstay with a variety of different equipment in a 9 car consist. When I became a C/R and when I moved to M/M I broke in on 9 car trains on the (3) .That’s why I take issue with some of the numbers quoted, especially if they come from the (MTA) itself. I remember correcting a young RTO supervisor when he gave a critique at East 180th one day when he constantly spoke about the Dyre Avenue line and terminal. Young man didn’t realize that East 180th or 239th-241st was where (5) line crews signed on daily with the dispatchers and Dyre only had an ATD part time. Those were the terminal stations. Crew changes were made at East 180. I’d like to know where those 10 car numbers for Seventh Avenue service came from when 9 car Seventh Avenue service was originating at Flatbush for at least part of that time. Maybe that’s including the older Broadway-Seventh Avenue service from VC ? My other question concerns Shuttle service in Brooklyn if we build a Utica line . 3 trunks with different demographics.. People clustered above the Nostrand line all the way to Flatbush. Large developments surrounding the Livonia line. Utica Avenue with a lower density immediately along the street, especially south of Tilden- Avenue D, but a much greater potential catchment area the further south you go after factoring in the transfer opportunities. Anyone care to take a stab at my observations? No harm intended and I can take criticism. Carry on.

Edited by Trainmaster5
Added content

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

T@RR503, @Lex, I get both sides of the dilemma but let me throw some of my observations into the pot.

Lex accurately described the function of the (3) line from the time the WPR (2) was connected to the existing IRT West Side subway. The (3) went from being the Seventh Avenue local to South Ferry to become a full fledged Brooklyn service. I don’t remember when the (2) became the New Lots mainstay because when I was a child in Brownsville the (5) to Dyre was the Livonia line. When I moved to Flatbush in ‘61 the (3) was the Nostrand line mainstay with a variety of different equipment in a 9 car consist. When I became a C/R and when I moved to M/M I broke in on 9 car trains on the (3) .That’s why I take issue with some of the numbers quoted, especially if they come from the (MTA) itself. I remember correcting a young RTO supervisor when he gave a critique at East 180th one day when he constantly spoke about the Dyre Avenue line and terminal. Young man didn’t realize that East 180th or 239th-241st was where (5) line crews signed on daily with the dispatchers and Dyre only had an ATD part time. Those were the terminal stations. Crew changes were made at East 180. I’d like to know where those 10 car numbers for Seventh Avenue service came from when 9 car Seventh Avenue service was originating at Flatbush for at least part of that time. Maybe that’s including the older Broadway-Seventh Avenue service from VC ? My other question concerns Shuttle service in Brooklyn if we build a Utica line . 3 trunks with different demographics.. People clustered above the Nostrand line all the way to Flatbush. Large developments surrounding the Livonia line. Utica Avenue with a lower density immediately along the street, especially south of Tilden- Avenue D, but a much greater potential catchment area the further south you go after factoring in the transfer opportunities. Anyone care to take a stab at my observations? No harm intended and I can take criticism. Carry on.

(3) trains were 9 cars until 2001 or so. Utica Avenue should be rezoned along with a subway extension.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.