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  
Union Tpke

Utica Avenue Transit Improvement Study Discussion

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

@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. 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.

Didn't mean to criticize, TM5! You know I love your posts, just enjoy a little friendly debate sometimes.

I'm getting my train length figures from BOT docs put out in the 40s and 50s. See here and here. It seems completely within the realm of possibility that sometime between '54 and '61 they shortened train lengths -- ridership did decrease a good bit over that period, after all. 

During rushes/midday, Utica would probably get (3) or (5) service, depending on what you do to Rogers. Call that 15tph. Weekends, you'd either just run the (3) down there and extend the (4) to New Lots, or run the (5) to Brooklyn/(3) to 42nd or South Ferry/(4) to New Lots and (2) as today. I think your point about potential bus transfers is key in determining overnight patterns -- whichever corridor has the lowest volume of continuing connections should get the shuttle, as you want to be minimizing time spent transferring for those who have to transfer again from the corridor to reach their final destination. Can't say which one that'd be; if I had to guess though, Utica. 

That said, it'd be mighty nice if you could just extend the (3) or (5) to Utica 24/7 and give the line a full time Manhattan link. Then we don't have to choose. 

I have a question for you, now: how fluid was 142nd St junction back in your day? It's a merge I can find precious little info on, would love to have your observations on its capacity/its fluidity post 1970s resignalling. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

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

Think you're mistaken about the train consists. When the (3) and (2) swapped Brooklyn terminals the New Lots line ended up with the newer R62A cars but within a year the consist length was increased. The AM ridership noticed that their trains were standing room only leaving Saratoga heading toward Utica so two changes were made. The (3) trains became 10 cars and a few extra Lexington Avenue trains were added to the AM Livonia line at the same time. That started around the time MK was rehabbing our fleet and turning out Redbirds. That 7:48/ 7:50 New Lots to East 180th St (5) was a favorite of my neighbors and my bank account !!!.  We used to call trips like that " specials " and guys would complain when they couldn't work those jobs. The (5) trains were originally graffiti covered consists running between New Lots and Grand Concourse and returning to Brooklyn to lay up on the Eastern Parkway line between Atlantic and Utica Avenues on the n/b express tracks. It was rare to see a Redbird enter New Lots station from the yard in the morning and the riders recognized the train when they saw it on the yard lead while walking to the station. It's things like that type of service which make it hard for me to compare service levels in different eras with those who didn't either live there or work in RTO back then. Just trying to clarify things somewhat. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Think you're mistaken about the train consists. When the (3) and (2) swapped Brooklyn terminals the New Lots line ended up with the newer R62A cars but within a year the consist length was increased. The AM ridership noticed that their trains were standing room only leaving Saratoga heading toward Utica so two changes were made. The (3) trains became 10 cars and a few extra Lexington Avenue trains were added to the AM Livonia line at the same time. That started around the time MK was rehabbing our fleet and turning out Redbirds. That 7:48/ 7:50 New Lots to East 180th St (5) was a favorite of my neighbors and my bank account !!!.  We used to call trips like that " specials " and guys would complain when they couldn't work those jobs. The (5) trains were originally graffiti covered consists running between New Lots and Grand Concourse and returning to Brooklyn to lay up on the Eastern Parkway line between Atlantic and Utica Avenues on the n/b express tracks. It was rare to see a Redbird enter New Lots station from the yard in the morning and the riders recognized the train when they saw it on the yard lead while walking to the station. It's things like that type of service which make it hard for me to compare service levels in different eras with those who didn't either live there or work in RTO back then. Just trying to clarify things somewhat. Carry on.

@Dj Hammers @SubwayGuy @RR503 Do any of you know when in 2001 the change was made?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FY02_Annual_Report_on_Funding_Recommendations.pdf

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit (NYCT) have completed an Option 1 Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine the preliminary operating and engineering options for improving the capacity and flexibility of subway services crossing the East River. The study was formerly known as the East River Crossing MIS. The distribution among the subway lines crossing the East River is uneven and some crossings are congested while others have underutilized capacity. One of the major goals of the study was to provide alternatives to current NYCT subway service over the aging Williamsburg and Manhattan bridges. The MIS reviewed approximately 68 strategies and ultimately recommended Manhattan Bridge Alternative 5 (MBA 5) as the preferred alternative to be advanced for further analysis. The full MBA 5 Alternative has an estimated capital cost of approximately $600 million, and an estimated operating cost of $0.4 million. The MBA 5 Alternative is comprised of five components. These include: Rutgers Street Tunnel-DeKalb Avenue Track Connection; Lawrence Street-Metro Tech to Jay Street Passenger Transfer; Broadway-Lafayette and Bleecker Street Passenger Transfer; Revise Existing Service Pattern on the D/Q/N lines; and lengthen the No. 3 line trains. The MBA 5 Alternative also recommended adding approximately 12 additional passenger trains per hour. These components are important to NYCT system improvements. However, the Rutgers Street- DeKalb Avenue Track Connection provides the major benefits of the MBA 5 Alternative and its ability to provide critically needed system flexibility and additional capacity. In addition, it should be noted that while the study has been completed and a recommended alternative identified, the MTA/NYCT is focusing on the engineering of the Broadway-Bleecker Street and Jay Street passenger transfers as distinct components. These activities have been programmed into the MTA’s FY 2000-FY2004 Capital Program. The Broadway-Bleecker Street passenger transfer is programmed for construction at $25 million in 2004. Design is expected to start in 2001, and construction in 2004. The Lawrence-Jay Street transfer is programmed for design at $0.6 million in 2001.

Share this post


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

@Dj Hammers @SubwayGuy @RR503 Do any of you know when in 2001 the change was made?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FY02_Annual_Report_on_Funding_Recommendations.pdf

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit (NYCT) have completed an Option 1 Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine the preliminary operating and engineering options for improving the capacity and flexibility of subway services crossing the East River. The study was formerly known as the East River Crossing MIS. The distribution among the subway lines crossing the East River is uneven and some crossings are congested while others have underutilized capacity. One of the major goals of the study was to provide alternatives to current NYCT subway service over the aging Williamsburg and Manhattan bridges. The MIS reviewed approximately 68 strategies and ultimately recommended Manhattan Bridge Alternative 5 (MBA 5) as the preferred alternative to be advanced for further analysis. The full MBA 5 Alternative has an estimated capital cost of approximately $600 million, and an estimated operating cost of $0.4 million. The MBA 5 Alternative is comprised of five components. These include: Rutgers Street Tunnel-DeKalb Avenue Track Connection; Lawrence Street-Metro Tech to Jay Street Passenger Transfer; Broadway-Lafayette and Bleecker Street Passenger Transfer; Revise Existing Service Pattern on the D/Q/N lines; and lengthen the No. 3 line trains. The MBA 5 Alternative also recommended adding approximately 12 additional passenger trains per hour. These components are important to NYCT system improvements. However, the Rutgers Street- DeKalb Avenue Track Connection provides the major benefits of the MBA 5 Alternative and its ability to provide critically needed system flexibility and additional capacity. In addition, it should be noted that while the study has been completed and a recommended alternative identified, the MTA/NYCT is focusing on the engineering of the Broadway-Bleecker Street and Jay Street passenger transfers as distinct components. These activities have been programmed into the MTA’s FY 2000-FY2004 Capital Program. The Broadway-Bleecker Street passenger transfer is programmed for construction at $25 million in 2004. Design is expected to start in 2001, and construction in 2004. The Lawrence-Jay Street transfer is programmed for design at $0.6 million in 2001.

2nd half of the year, it seems. In July (3)s were 9 cars, by December they were 10. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

@Dj Hammers @SubwayGuy @RR503 Do any of you know when in 2001 the change was made?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FY02_Annual_Report_on_Funding_Recommendations.pdf

The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and New York City Transit (NYCT) have completed an Option 1 Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine the preliminary operating and engineering options for improving the capacity and flexibility of subway services crossing the East River. The study was formerly known as the East River Crossing MIS. The distribution among the subway lines crossing the East River is uneven and some crossings are congested while others have underutilized capacity. One of the major goals of the study was to provide alternatives to current NYCT subway service over the aging Williamsburg and Manhattan bridges. The MIS reviewed approximately 68 strategies and ultimately recommended Manhattan Bridge Alternative 5 (MBA 5) as the preferred alternative to be advanced for further analysis. The full MBA 5 Alternative has an estimated capital cost of approximately $600 million, and an estimated operating cost of $0.4 million. The MBA 5 Alternative is comprised of five components. These include: Rutgers Street Tunnel-DeKalb Avenue Track Connection; Lawrence Street-Metro Tech to Jay Street Passenger Transfer; Broadway-Lafayette and Bleecker Street Passenger Transfer; Revise Existing Service Pattern on the D/Q/N lines; and lengthen the No. 3 line trains. The MBA 5 Alternative also recommended adding approximately 12 additional passenger trains per hour. These components are important to NYCT system improvements. However, the Rutgers Street- DeKalb Avenue Track Connection provides the major benefits of the MBA 5 Alternative and its ability to provide critically needed system flexibility and additional capacity. In addition, it should be noted that while the study has been completed and a recommended alternative identified, the MTA/NYCT is focusing on the engineering of the Broadway-Bleecker Street and Jay Street passenger transfers as distinct components. These activities have been programmed into the MTA’s FY 2000-FY2004 Capital Program. The Broadway-Bleecker Street passenger transfer is programmed for construction at $25 million in 2004. Design is expected to start in 2001, and construction in 2004. The Lawrence-Jay Street transfer is programmed for design at $0.6 million in 2001.

You're probably correct on the dates. I still think the R62A cars were joined in 5 car link bar consists before 2000 because that's when Livonia yard had to be reset to allow only 10 car trains to be laid up. The tracks at Livonia stored 10 car  (2)(4) ,and  , (5) trains overnights  prior to that while the (3) line was primarily housed at Lenox Yard. Thanks for the correction. Carry on.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Happened to touch base with some real old timers recently and brought up the problems that still plague the subway system to this day. I'm relaying this as the rookie of the group. I was wrong about the 10 car trains coming out of New Lots in the morning back in the prehistoric era of the 1980's.  We seem to agree that the 10 car trains leaving the terminal were not (3) equipment but rather a combination of (2) , (4) , and (5) trains, yard put ins that Operations and Planning added to the schedule to smooth over the complaints of short trains when the (2)  and (3)  swapped Brooklyn terminals.  The first interval was a (5) which left at 5:50 or so, Two number (2) trains, plus  two (5) trains which ran light ( not in service ) to Flatbush Avenue and represented the first two Flatbush-Lex trains daily. They would relay at Nostrand Junction and wrong-rail into President St and cross over to the s/b track south of President. There were two or three (4) put ins and that 7:48 (5) train I mentioned which was scheduled to arrive at East 180th St at 9:02 and terminate. When I worked that particular interval I'd usually continue up to Dyre in service, depending on their service needs up there or if we'd have a G.O. scheduled up there. The folks I talked to were working road jobs in the early '80's but by the middle of the decade they were working yard jobs at Livonia, Lenox, or relay jobs at Utica Avenue IRT. They, like myself, were taught by instructors with a different mind-set, which is why most of us aren't impressed with the so-called NTT. We come from the school where signals, track, and power distribution were held in higher regard than anything Car Equipment could provide. We IRT guys were tasked with operating cars dating back to R12s while the other guys were pushing R10s and some of both groups were qualified on Lo-Vs but never operated them in regular passenger service. I was also reminded that Lenox did run 10 car equipment, albeit for one day. The day was July 4, 1986 and the (3) ran 9 car R62A equipment supplemented by 10 car R62 equipment transferred from Mosholu  Yard for that day. I was working OT on the (1) that day and remembered the radio chatter from different train crews. Let's just say it's dangerous when you make a 9 car stop with a 10 car train. They had to call in motor instructors from all over to warn the crews at Lenox to check the consist before leaving the terminal. It was a celebration of the Statue of Liberty's centennial with Tall Ships on display in New York Harbor. I don't know how the (5) operated that day but the (1) operated from VC to Rector in service, light around the ferry, and back in service n/b at Rector. I recall that there was a supplementary schedule for the (1)  but when the festivities were coming to a halt there were supervisors at Rector St n/b who told us when to pull into the station, when to open the doors and when to depart. When my C/R and I got the go ahead to head north we were already supposed to be at VC and off the clock. He was on the extra list but I was working an RDO that started at 5 pm. When I got to VC at 4:30 or so I was told by the union that I, being a Utility list guy and not an extra list person, was erroneously forced to work on my day off. I had the option to go home but at 5pm, and living in Brooklyn and traveling by train I'd missed every BBQ I could have attended. That was the only time I worked my day off in my whole career and I've never forgotten it. Those old timers still laugh at what happened to me that day. To make matters worse when I got back to VC the midnight dispatcher was calling for a M/M to make his scheduled last trip when I got to the office to turn in my OT slip. I knew who he was looking for and I informed him that M/M B was probably approaching Dyckman St. The crew office and O&P had taken all of the station switchmen and given them road jobs for that one day so there was nobody available to lay up trains and he had two trains in the station. Dude asked me to make an extra trip and it took every bit of patience I had to avoid cursing him out. I told him I'd do him a favor and lay up a train to the yard to avoid killing him. I did so and when I got back and turned in my OT slip the dispatcher started blubbering out an apology when he saw how much I made for the day. To this day my buddies and I, RTO, Surface, and CED, profess our love for our co-workers, hourly and local supervision, but look upon the monolith that claims to run the agency with utter contempt. We ask ourselves how a Brooklyn IRT crew or a BMT South can traverse Nostrand Junction or Dekalb relatively on time back then compared to today's trains which are routinely late on both corridors while having newer equipment. We, too, had days where everything went wrong but it seems to happen more now than when us IRT guys had trains that couldn't climb the Joralemon tubes or smoked or caught fire somewhere enroute. Of course the conditions for riders and workers were much different back then. Most people wanted to get where they were going in a safe and timely manner. Didn't matter what type of subway car or bus showed up either. I, personally, don't care what type of train shows up if I have to be at my destination at a particular time. I talk with my friends and family and I'm wondering what's going on in all of the departments. Seems to be a bunch of incompetent people throughout the (MTA)  who outnumber those who do know how to provide service. From the Prince on down. What are the odds on the Prince straightening out the Brooklyn IRT, DeKalb, or speeding up service on CPW ? Sorry for the long rant. Maybe this belongs in Random Thoughts ? Carry on.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@RR503 

At 142nd St Junction trains were scheduled as N/B and S/B (3) trains passing each other at the same time and the same thing for (2) service. When we ran the (3) shuttle train it would arrive at 135th St. before the (2) , relay south of the station and proceed north back into 135 middle. We would wait for a N/B (2) to leave , then proceed north and make a reverse move back into the northbound platform and pick up passengers and head back to Lenox Terminal. There was a time when the s/b (2) was delayed at Allerton Avenue in the Bronx by a skating rink crowd and we operated the shuttle down to 96th St so riders could catch the (1) . At the time the shuttle train was only 4 cars and we only opened up one car for service so you could imagine the load. I heard that the four car shuttle actually went down to Times Square one Saturday night. What I’m trying to point out is that there are schedules but good dispatching can overcome the unforeseen circumstances. Carry on. 

Edited by Trainmaster5
Context
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should run the line from from the Houston St through South 4th street, Stuyvesant and Utica Aves. There are already built stations, and they can do it quickly if they stop going overboard with Bore'd caverns.

 

Alternatively they can branch off existing lines in Brooklyn (the middle track at  (G) Bedford -Nostrand or the  (J)(M)(Z) around Myrtle Ave Station

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

They should run the line from from the Houston St through South 4th street, Stuyvesant and Utica Aves. There are already built stations, and they can do it quickly if they stop going overboard with Bore'd caverns.

 

Alternatively they can branch off existing lines in Brooklyn (the middle track at  (G) Bedford -Nostrand or the  (J)(M)(Z) around Myrtle Ave Station

IND Second System and anything related to it is a pipe dream at best; IRT is the best and most realistic option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone help me answer this question, on the IRT flatbush (2)/(5) at flatbush station Where does the provision go to is it routed towards KP or straight down Nostrand

Share this post


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

Can someone help me answer this question, on the IRT flatbush (2)/(5) at flatbush station Where does the provision go to is it routed towards KP or straight down Nostrand

It's probably where the Avenue H exit currently sits. The Flatbush Avenue exits are around the middle of the station.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/28/2019 at 7:19 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

IND Second System and anything related to it is a pipe dream at best; IRT is the best and most realistic option. 

In that case, forget it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lex said:

In that case, forget it.

What’s with this constant hatred for  Utica? Sending the (3) to Flatbush won’t kill it given politics and the relief it gives. You’ll never have an IND one. 

Share this post


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

What’s with this constant hatred for  Utica? Sending the (3) to Flatbush won’t kill it given politics and the relief it gives.

 

Saying that as if it's actually a good idea requires severe myopia.

25 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

You’ll never have an IND one. 

Not without feeding it into something else, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lex said:

Saying that as if it's actually a good idea requires severe myopia.

Not without feeding it into something else, anyway.

Deinterlining Rogers would allow us to increase capacity and fully utilize the IRT expresses... the fact that you continue to insist that it’s better to keep an inefficient interlined pattern is myopia itself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Deinterlining Rogers would allow us to increase capacity and fully utilize the IRT expresses... the fact that you continue to insist that it’s better to keep an inefficient interlined pattern is myopia itself.

That's literally putting a small bump in peak service (which will quickly unravel, especially since the number of trains already serving the one station at Utica Avenue borders on excessive, not to mention that the resulting pattern fails to address the greater issue of the IRT's myopia, the whole reason for this mess in the first place) at the expense of general service.

Edited by Lex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lex said:

That's literally putting a small bump in peak service (which will quickly unravel, especially since the number of trains already serving the one station at Utica Avenue borders on excessive, not to mention that the resulting pattern fails to address the greater issue of the IRT's myopia, the whole reason for this mess in the first place) at the expense of general service.

So, sorry, your argument is that a ~50% increase in Brooklyn IRT peak service following a pattern which undoes the negative operational consequences of the IRT’s design is somehow...bad? Maybe this is too much in the way of facts for this discussion, but the IRT expresses run at capacity from the Bronx and damn well near capacity from Brooklyn — redoing service patterns at Rogers fixes that, and gets you the necessary throughput growth for a Utica line, which would have large and positive impacts on commute times, development and the like. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

So, sorry, your argument is that a ~50% increase in Brooklyn IRT peak service following a pattern which undoes the negative operational consequences of the IRT’s design is somehow...bad?

Considering that it does absolutely nothing to address the fundamentals, yes. Moreover, the focus on peak service leaves no room for picking up on the nuances of off-peak patterns, particularly during evenings and weekends.

 

20 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Maybe this is too much in the way of facts for this discussion, but the IRT expresses run at capacity from the Bronx and damn well near capacity from Brooklyn...

Maybe this is too much in the way of facts for this discussion, but that full statement only applies to Lexington Avenue. In Brooklyn, the (2) struggles to retain its crowds while the (3) is practically empty without any notable delays. (This isn't so much about Lexington Avenue being faster as it is an issue of people generally caring about destinations.) To make matters worse, the quoted portion alone doesn't apply anywhere near evenly. That issue is almost exclusive to peak periods, and when we start talking about off-peak, we really get to see what the routes are like. The (2) and Lexington Avenue trains carry decently, but the (3) is even more dead than during peak periods, particularly since the only thing it really has going for it is the ability to allow the (4) to have some chance to get back to the Bronx in anything resembling a timely fashion. Strip it of that and the only trains that will be left are the AM peak-early evening runs. Further souring its prospects are the numbers for the only two stations it exclusively serves, which are below President Street, and both stations have buses nearby to other stations on the route (the M7 is especially bad in this regard).

The whole idea is just a giant 🖕 to Harlem residents trying to travel outside of peak periods, and they'll be more negatively affected than Brooklyn residents could possibly be positively affected (and that's to say nothing of forcing all Nostrand Avenue riders to transfer during peak periods, which I deliberately didn't bother bringing up due to myopia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TBH, having Nostrand riders transfer @ Franklin isn't the end of the world. If the issue is Central Brooklyn riders wanting (4)(5) trains then shouldn't the name of the game be putting in operational patterns designed to make that happen? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

TBH, having Nostrand riders transfer @ Franklin isn't the end of the world. If the issue is Central Brooklyn riders wanting (4)(5) trains then shouldn't the name of the game be putting in operational patterns designed to make that happen? 

We already have those patterns, albeit in the worst manner possible thanks to decisions made a century ago.

Again, if the line had better design, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Also, I literally decided not to make that the central focus because that's all that anyone pushing that proposal even thinks about. This particular push for a bump in peak service (if we're really lucky, ~33%, not ~50%) completely disregards what will (not may) happen to off-peak service, which will actually lead to a decrease in general service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lex said:

We already have those patterns, albeit in the worst manner possible thanks to decisions made a century ago.

Again, if the line had better design, we wouldn't even be talking about this.

Also, I literally decided not to make that the central focus because that's all that anyone pushing that proposal even thinks about. This particular push for a bump in peak service (if we're really lucky, ~33%, not ~50%) completely disregards what will (not may) happen to off-peak service, which will actually lead to a decrease in general service.

To be fair, this sounds like the issue is trusting the MTA to maintain proper IRT service into Brooklyn in off peak hours. From my vantage point, if the MTA was going to cut the (3) to a peak only line it would have done so by now. If the MTA could be bowed to have the (3) overnight what makes you think they can get away with cutting it from Brooklyn? I think wither the Utica Ave line gets built or not, the sweet spot for off-peak Brooklyn IRT service has been found in the current pattern. I'd love to see the (5) run to BK full time but that probably won't happen. 

Share this post


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

Maybe this is too much in the way of facts for this discussion, but that full statement only applies to Lexington Avenue. In Brooklyn, the (2) struggles to retain its crowds while the (3) is practically empty without any notable delays. (This isn't so much about Lexington Avenue being faster as it is an issue of people generally caring about destinations.) To make matters worse, the quoted portion alone doesn't apply anywhere near evenly. That issue is almost exclusive to peak periods, and when we start talking about off-peak, we really get to see what the routes are like. The (2) and Lexington Avenue trains carry decently, but the (3) is even more dead than during peak periods, particularly since the only thing it really has going for it is the ability to allow the (4) to have some chance to get back to the Bronx in anything resembling a timely fashion. Strip it of that and the only trains that will be left are the AM peak-early evening runs. Further souring its prospects are the numbers for the only two stations it exclusively serves, which are below President Street, and both stations have buses nearby to other stations on the route (the M7 is especially bad in this regard).

Thank you for providing an argument that one can engage with. Much better than throwing around the word "myopia."

The (2) and (3) carry pretty damn well; south from the Bronx, they actually run above their guideline capacity. North from Brooklyn can be more empty, but 5 square feet per passenger certainly isn't carrying air -- it is, in fact, what the TRB defines as overcrowding. The Lex of course is killed in both directions.

Generally, I think it's worth keeping in mind that the off-peak and peak problems exist on different scales. We quite literally cannot accommodate any more riders on the (2)(3)(4) and (5) lines during peak hours today, whereas the off peak issue comes down to a much greyer problem of minimizing transfer time. So forget Utica, if we're going to add any commuters in the areas of Brooklyn served by these lines, we need to fix this situation, and fast. Doing so may force transfers -- ones which, in the off-peak, have the potential to add appreciable amounts of time to trips -- but there's really nothing stopping you from adding intervals on the (2)(3)(4)(5) during the hours (ie weekday middays) when the (5) once ran to Flatbush, and indeed you probably should regardless of what happens.

I moreover fail to understand this Harlem argument. You think that reconfiguring Rogers is going to somehow cause 145 and 148 to close...? If yes, that's quite ironic, as you yourself have quite clearly outlined on multiple occasions the reasons why having the (3) to Harlem is operationally and capacitally important -- access to Lenox Yard, empty trains for the UWS, etc. Short of area ridership dynamics completely changing, I don't see this as being a concern. 

33 minutes ago, Lex said:

Also, I literally decided not to make that the central focus because that's all that anyone pushing that proposal even thinks about. This particular push for a bump in peak service (if we're really lucky, ~33%, not ~50%) completely disregards what will (not may) happen to off-peak service, which will actually lead to a decrease in general service.

We today schedule 17 (2)(3) and 22 (4)(5) trains into the core from Brooklyn during the AM peak. Redesigning Rogers routings (coupled with some fairly simple ops competence measures) would allow you to do about 30 on each. That's 60/39, or 1.538. In the form of a percent increase, that's 53.8%. In theory, you could maintain those service levels all day long.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Off peak service will improve as the (3) and/or (5) would have to run to Brooklyn 24/7. Running the (3) 24/7 would be much cheaper for the MTA, though running the (5) 24/7 is more useful for late night travel.

If one of the tunnels (Clark Street or Joralemon Street) were ever closed, the (1) or (6) would have to be extended to Brooklyn on weekends since there would now be three branches.

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


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

What’s with this constant hatred for  Utica? Sending the (3) to Flatbush won’t kill it given politics and the relief it gives. You’ll never have an IND one. 

Sending the 3 to Flatbush *would* kill the chance of off peak (3) service, since now the (2)(3) pretty much run the same route. The best of both worlds is to leave both the (2) and (3) alone and run the (5) to Utica. Some (4)s will be extended to New Lots to balance the load. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shiznit1987 said:

Sending the 3 to Flatbush *would* kill the chance of off peak (3) service, since now the (2)(3) pretty much run the same route. The best of both worlds is to leave both the (2) and (3) alone and run the (5) to Utica. Some (4)s will be extended to New Lots to balance the load. 

I think you want (3) (possibly with the (5)) to Utica and the (4) to NL. Otherwise you have the (5) crossing in front of the (3), not unlike today. 

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.