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

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. 

Doing that would mean that the (5) would have to run to Brooklyn 24/7, the (3) would either stay the same late nights, or could be extended as a local to South Ferry allowing the (2) to run express 24/7 on 7 Avenue. The (5) would run express 24/7 on Lexington Avenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RR503 said:

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. 

I'm not sure how the (5) would mess w/ the (3) seeing as the (4) doesn't. The (4)(5) both would clear Rogers w/o even touching the path of the (2)(3) 

Share this post


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

Doing that would mean that the (5) would have to run to Brooklyn 24/7, the (3) would either stay the same late nights, or could be extended as a local to South Ferry allowing the (2) to run express 24/7 on 7 Avenue. The (5) would run express 24/7 on Lexington Avenue.

The MTA will never do such a thing. It's a nice thought, but budget realities means that if the (2)(3) both go to the same places then only one will suffice overnights (and weekends for that matter, hence Lex's point). The MTA will continue to run only the (2) and (4) into Brooklyn overnight as long as there are only two branches to serve. As far was weekends are concerned, the current pattern is already the best and pretty generous to boot seeing as the MTA could try to get away w/ having the (4) go local after Franklin and take over New Lots. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, shiznit1987 said:

The MTA will never do such a thing. It's a nice thought, but budget realities means that if the (2)(3) both go to the same places then only one will suffice overnights (and weekends for that matter, hence Lex's point). The MTA will continue to run only the (2) and (4) into Brooklyn overnight as long as there are only two branches to serve. As far was weekends are concerned, the current pattern is already the best and pretty generous to boot seeing as the MTA could try to get away w/ having the (4) go local after Franklin and take over New Lots. 

 

The (3) or (5) running 24/7 is assuming the Utica line is built. The (5) running to Brooklyn 24/7 means the (3) will still at least run to Times Square 42 St late nights, meaning better late night service overall. MTA already had the (4) and (5) local in Brooklyn on weekends for more than a year, so they could just as easily do that again. The (3) would have to run 24/7 for Harlem residents in some form (like to South Ferry on weekends). The Harlem politicians will complain if the (3) is cut on weekends permanently.

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a world where the Utica Ave line exists, then yes I see the MTA running 3 services into Brooklyn overnight. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Assuming we have (2)(3) to Flatbush, (4) to NL and (5) to Utica, we would probably see the (5) running the same service pattern at all times (minus the peak express on WPR as it wouldn't exist outside of rush hours). The (3) would probably still run on the weekends given Bronx G.Os and any station not operating 24/7 being a political impossibility (given that the plan to close 145th back in the 60s was a flop it would be even more difficult now). The MTA might want to short-turn weekend (3) service but doing so is only possible at SF (which creates a merge at Chambers and a confusing service pattern) so you might as well run it into Brooklyn.

Edited by R68OnBroadway
  • Thumbs Up 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 4:19 PM, Lex said:

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.

 

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).

Which fundamentals? The physical layout of the tracks at Rogers? The service hours of each line? Current off-peak train frequency? 

The current weekend service plan isn’t bad. But that’s because (2)(3)(4) trains run less frequently then, and there’s no (5) train in Brooklyn on the weekends, so it doesn’t cut in front of the (3) at Rogers, like it does on weekdays. But no one’s calling for termination of weekday/rush hour (5) service at Bowling Green. That would be much worse than de-interlining Rogers. We do need more frequently running trains if we’re going to address crowding on the (2)(3)(4)(5) (peak and off-peak), let alone provide for a Utica Avenue subway extension.

And let’s be honest here - the fastest and easiest way we’re going to get a subway down most of Utica is via the A-Division. In order to have a B-Division train run down Utica, they’d have to bring in another B-Division service on Fulton St (be it the (R), the (T) or something else), because extending the (A) or (C) down Utica is a non-starter. So extending a line down Utica starting at Fulton will be centuries off (if we’re lucky!). Because we’re already decades off from having a (T) line (if ever) or a new East River tunnel to connect the (R) or (W) to Fulton at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (which would require years and years of study before they can even break ground on it).

But I also don’t understand how de-interlining Rogers would be a giant 🖕to Harlem residents during off peak hours. Who’s to say they would cut the (3) entirely during off peak hours if Rogers is de-interlined? I honestly don’t think they would. It would result in major overcrowding during evening, overnight and weekend hours on the (1) and (2) lines. And the (1)(2)(3) do get quite crowded on weekends and late nights. That was why the late night (3) shuttle train got brought back in 2007 and to Times Square (not just to 135th Street) And it survived the 2010 budget cuts. Worse comes to worse, you run the (3) local in Manhattan to South Ferry. It would be no different than the (N) running local in Manhattan on weekends. And like the (R), the (1) could certainly use the extra service, especially between 96th Street and Times Square.

On 4/30/2019 at 6:55 PM, 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.

How so? If the IRT made decisions a century ago that have messed up the services in Brooklyn today, then what else can be done to correct said decisions?

And if the (5) runs in Brooklyn during evenings and weekends instead of the (3), why would there be a decrease in general service?

21 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Assuming we have (2)(3) to Flatbush, (4) to NL and (5) to Utica, we would probably see the (5) running the same service pattern at all times (minus the peak express on WPR as it wouldn't exist outside of rush hours). The (3) would probably still run on the weekends given Bronx G.Os and any station not operating 24/7 being a political impossibility (given that the plan to close 145th back in the 60s was a flop it would be even more difficult now). The MTA might want to short-turn weekend (3) service but doing so is only possible at SF (which creates a merge at Chambers and a confusing service pattern) so you might as well run it into Brooklyn.

Frankly, I think this is definitely a workable service plan. Maybe the only thing I’d change is running the (4) to - and eventually down - Utica, while running the (5) to NL. During overnights, the (4) would replace the (5) to NL. Then if the Utica extension gets built, an overnight (5) shuttle can run between NL and Atlantic.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/1/2019 at 8:01 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Which fundamentals? The physical layout of the tracks at Rogers? The service hours of each line? Current off-peak train frequency? 

The current weekend service plan isn’t bad. But that’s because (2)(3)(4) trains run less frequently then, and there’s no (5) train in Brooklyn on the weekends, so it doesn’t cut in front of the (3) at Rogers, like it does on weekdays. But no one’s calling for termination of weekday/rush hour (5) service at Bowling Green. That would be much worse than de-interlining Rogers. We do need more frequently running trains if we’re going to address crowding on the (2)(3)(4)(5) (peak and off-peak), let alone provide for a Utica Avenue subway extension.

And let’s be honest here - the fastest and easiest way we’re going to get a subway down most of Utica is via the A-Division. In order to have a B-Division train run down Utica, they’d have to bring in another B-Division service on Fulton St (be it the (R), the (T) or something else), because extending the (A) or (C) down Utica is a non-starter. So extending a line down Utica starting at Fulton will be centuries off (if we’re lucky!). Because we’re already decades off from having a (T) line (if ever) or a new East River tunnel to connect the (R) or (W) to Fulton at Hoyt-Schermerhorn (which would require years and years of study before they can even break ground on it).

But I also don’t understand how de-interlining Rogers would be a giant 🖕to Harlem residents during off peak hours. Who’s to say they would cut the (3) entirely during off peak hours if Rogers is de-interlined? I honestly don’t think they would. It would result in major overcrowding during evening, overnight and weekend hours on the (1) and (2) lines. And the (1)(2)(3) do get quite crowded on weekends and late nights. That was why the late night (3) shuttle train got brought back in 2007 and to Times Square (not just to 135th Street) And it survived the 2010 budget cuts. Worse comes to worse, you run the (3) local in Manhattan to South Ferry. It would be no different than the (N) running local in Manhattan on weekends. And like the (R), the (1) could certainly use the extra service, especially between 96th Street and Times Square.

How so? If the IRT made decisions a century ago that have messed up the services in Brooklyn today, then what else can be done to correct said decisions?

And if the (5) runs in Brooklyn during evenings and weekends instead of the (3), why would there be a decrease in general service?

Frankly, I think this is definitely a workable service plan. Maybe the only thing I’d change is running the (4) to - and eventually down - Utica, while running the (5) to NL. During overnights, the (4) would replace the (5) to NL. Then if the Utica extension gets built, an overnight (5) shuttle can run between NL and Atlantic.

Or run the (5) 24/7 full length, no sense to have two (5) shuttle services overnight, might as well combine them with a through service.

Edited by GreatOne2k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, you can do that too, but knowing the MTA’s propensity to run as little service overnight as possible, I suggested the two disconnected (5) shuttles, though they haven’t run two disconnected sections of a line in regular overnight service since the (B) in the 70s and early 80s which ran two shuttles between 57th St and Rockefeller Center and between 36th St and Stillwell Ave. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my cynicism, but I don’t really see this study doing much in terms of actually bringing subway service down Utica Ave. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does lead to it, but given our track record of not building necessary subway lines, I’m not holding my breath that this will lead to anything beyond B46 SBS improvements.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 5:57 AM, Lance said:

Forgive my cynicism, but I don’t really see this study doing much in terms of actually bringing subway service down Utica Ave. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does lead to it, but given our track record of not building necessary subway lines, I’m not holding my breath that this will lead to anything beyond B46 SBS improvements.

The optimistic way of looking at it is that De Blasio and Cuomo will probably be out by the time the study wraps up and maybe we can have someone serious walk the walk.

BdB is term limited and we've never had a four-term governor, they usually go insane from the stress first.

Share this post


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

The optimistic way of looking at it is that De Blasio and Cuomo will probably be out by the time the study wraps up and maybe we can have someone serious walk the walk.

BdB is term limited and we've never had a four-term governor, they usually go insane from the stress first.

I have the same hopes too given that Byford is around, but I hope he can hold out until Cuomo is out the door...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 8:57 AM, Lance said:

Forgive my cynicism, but I don’t really see this study doing much in terms of actually bringing subway service down Utica Ave. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does lead to it, but given our track record of not building necessary subway lines, I’m not holding my breath that this will lead to anything beyond B46 SBS improvements.

As someone who lives in the area, I believe that a Utica Avenue subway is needed to speed commutes to Downtown Brooklyn and Manhattan, and it should be prioritized. My current commute to City Tech in Downtown takes about 55 minutes. I feel that with an extension of the (3) train down Utica to Kings Plaza, I can see travel time be reduced by 15-20 minutes. Commutes to Manhattan would also be shortened as well. Hopefully they can get an actual subway to be built here is Flatlands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add my two cents to the discussion.  This past January marked 50 years that my friend and I entered the Utica Avenue Second System station as provisional RR Porters.  Our tour guide that day was a Station Supervisor who,  as a longtime Brooklynite, was depressed because that shell had lain unfinished for so long. He's probably passed on by now but my friend and I have taken his place. We passed by a few months ago and after the station rehab  we had to figure out how to even gain entry to the shell. Whether it's an IRT or an IND line being proposed our guess is it won't happen in the next 30 years or so. I'm not disputing the need for a line but whether the City of New York or the MTA would ever prioritize or be able to fund such a project. Look at the SAS,the Archer Avenue debacle, or the vanished Third Avenue El and I'd say that anyone optimistic about this project happening is a good candidate for a drug test. Just my opinion. Carry on. 

  • LMAO! 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

Let me add my two cents to the discussion.  This past January marked 50 years that my friend and I entered the Utica Avenue Second System station as provisional RR Porters.  Our tour guide that day was a Station Supervisor who,  as a longtime Brooklynite, was depressed because that shell had lain unfinished for so long. He's probably passed on by now but my friend and I have taken his place. We passed by a few months ago and after the station rehab  we had to figure out how to even gain entry to the shell. Whether it's an IRT or an IND line being proposed our guess is it won't happen in the next 30 years or so. I'm not disputing the need for a line but whether the City of New York or the MTA would ever prioritize or be able to fund such a project. Look at the SAS,the Archer Avenue debacle, or the vanished Third Avenue El and I'd say that anyone optimistic about this project happening is a good candidate for a drug test. Just my opinion. Carry on. 

Yup. Under current construction practices and the way the budget shakes out, expect to see something like this start construction in like 2030 at the earliest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Start: Apr 2018

End: Feb 2020

Progress: 0% complete

Anyone surprised? Maybe they finally figured out that the (4) could not be extended like the rest of us already knew. The only via subway option is extending the local (3), which is absolutely not sexy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Anyone surprised? Maybe they finally figured out that the (4) could not be extended like the rest of us already knew. The only via subway option is extending the local (3), which is absolutely not sexy.

Not if you deinterline Rogers (which you would pretty much have to if you built Utica).

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

Not if you deinterline Rogers (which you would pretty much have to if you built Utica).

The way I see it, once Utica Avenue branch is built, the crowding will go down on the Nostrand Avenue branch. The Brighton (B) and (Q) are absorbing commuters to the west and the Utica Avenue (2) or (3) will be absorbing commuters to the east. There will be no reason to maintain the higher frequency on the Nostrand Avenue branch anymore. Thus, one service can be taken off that branch. That could be the (5), which will instead go with the (4) to New Lots Avenue (with some short turns at Crown Heights–Utica Avenue). And because the (5) will be entirely redundant from 149 Street–Grand Concourse to New Lots Avenue, the full-length (5) can be switched off on nights and weekends as it currently does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, CenSin said:

The way I see it, once Utica Avenue branch is built, the crowding will go down on the Nostrand Avenue branch. The Brighton (B) and (Q) are absorbing commuters to the west and the Utica Avenue (2) or (3) will be absorbing commuters to the east. There will be no reason to maintain the higher frequency on the Nostrand Avenue branch anymore. Thus, one service can be taken off that branch. That could be the (5), which will instead go with the (4) to New Lots Avenue (with some short turns at Crown Heights–Utica Avenue). And because the (5) will be entirely redundant from 149 Street–Grand Concourse to New Lots Avenue, the full-length (5) can be switched off on nights and weekends as it currently does.

Well there would still be a terminal issue at Flatbush, since that also limits how many trains that can be run on the line. In my plan I just posted in the proposals thread, I have the Nostrand Avenue Subway line extended to Kings Hwy to improve terminal operations since the inefficient Flatbush Avenue would not be rerouted anymore. In addition, since some of the bus lines (i.e, B41) feed into the congested Nostrand Junction area, with the extension, some of the bus routes can avoid congestion and be rerouted from NOstrand Junction to new locations on the extension, much like what I proposed for bus routes in Queens with the new extensions there. This would also allow for the creation of bus routes operating in a grid layout, since these new crosstown buses would bypass the Nostrand Junction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Well there would still be a terminal issue at Flatbush

There wouldn’t be a terminal issue at Flatbush Avenue. The (2) would be the sole service on the Nostrand Avenue branch in my scenario. The (3) would have the Utica Avenue branch all to itself. And both the (4) and (5) would have the New Lots Avenue branch with some (5) short-turns. The reduced frequency on Nostrand Avenue would relieve the terminal of the pressure it currently faces.

Share this post


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

There wouldn’t be a terminal issue at Flatbush Avenue. The (2) would be the sole service on the Nostrand Avenue branch in my scenario. The (3) would have the Utica Avenue branch all to itself. And both the (4) and (5) would have the New Lots Avenue branch with some (5) short-turns. The reduced frequency on Nostrand Avenue would relieve the terminal of the pressure it currently faces.

I’m not really sure if reduced Nostrand Avenue frequency is going to fly with residents along the line because Nostrand Avenue is not only served by east-west bus riders coming from other neighborhoods. In fact, much of the lines ridership is coming from neighborhoods like East Flatbush, Flatbush, and Midwood. The Utica Avenue Subway would only absorb ridership from the B46 bus and maybe a few East-west bus line, but would barely absorb riders from the Nostrand Avenue riders.

And even if I were wrong and Nostrand Avenue ridership did get sucked up, it still wouldn’t be a bad idea to extend the line down for better operations. After all, aside from the efficient terminal ops, ending the constant running between platforms to catch the first train (the station was not meant to be a terminal, and as a user of that stop every day, it just gets painful and tiresome to keep running around the platforms), the other benefit of this would be that some of the bus routes can be rerouted from the Nostrand Hub to the new stations, providing faster and more reliable service due to bypassing congestion at Avenue H, and serve a better function than subway feeders. The spoke and hub system once made sense years ago, but with the advent of commuting patterns that don’t involve going into Manhattan, that system no longer meets our needs. With the extension, the bus routes in the area would then avoid the Nostrand Junction traffic (which I’ve personally seen) operate in a grid, which is cheaper to operate and more productive than being subway feeders, which is not where everyone wants to go.

As for the new terminal, the new station would be of Island platform configuration (like real terminals), ending the need for one to run around the station just to change trains. With this new terminal, if one needs to change trains to the one they’re on to the one that will leave first, they can make a simple walk across the platform. No more running around the platform.

As for Utica, the line would also coexist with the Nostrand extension, giving bus riders in the new grid system multiple subway options to access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

I’m not really sure if reduced Nostrand Avenue frequency is going to fly with residents along the line because Nostrand Avenue is not only served by east-west bus riders coming from other neighborhoods. In fact, much of the lines ridership is coming from neighborhoods like East Flatbush, Flatbush, and Midwood. The Utica Avenue Subway would only absorb ridership from the B46 bus and maybe a few East-west bus line, but would barely absorb riders from the Nostrand Avenue riders.

And even if I were wrong and Nostrand Avenue ridership did get sucked up, it still wouldn’t be a bad idea to extend the line down for better operations. After all, aside from the efficient terminal ops, ending the constant running between platforms to catch the first train (the station was not meant to be a terminal, and as a user of that stop every day, it just gets painful and tiresome to keep running around the platforms), the other benefit of this would be that some of the bus routes can be rerouted from the Nostrand Hub to the new stations, providing faster and more reliable service due to bypassing congestion at Avenue H, and serve a better function than subway feeders. The spoke and hub system once made sense years ago, but with the advent of commuting patterns that don’t involve going into Manhattan, that system no longer meets our needs. With the extension, the bus routes in the area would then avoid the Nostrand Junction traffic (which I’ve personally seen) operate in a grid, which is cheaper to operate and more productive than being subway feeders, which is not where everyone wants to go.

As for the new terminal, the new station would be of Island platform configuration (like real terminals), ending the need for one to run around the station just to change trains. With this new terminal, if one needs to change trains to the one they’re on to the one that will leave first, they can make a simple walk across the platform. No more running around the platform.

As for Utica, the line would also coexist with the Nostrand extension, giving bus riders in the new grid system multiple subway options to access.

I don’t think work on Flatbush Avenue will be in scope of the plan. The idea has merit, but we’re discussing realistic possible outcomes of this study that the MTA is conducting. Of course, the odds are highest that nothing will be done. But the rearrangement of services I described isn’t too outlandish if the shovels hit the ground and the construction wraps up. What the MTA is unlikely to do, however, is add more work to their potential project. While you and I may figure that a logical add-on is fixing Flatbush Avenue, the bean counters would never let it happen. The trend has been to reduce the amount of work on useful infrastructure—less tracks, less stations, less waterproofing—if South Ferry, Hudson Yards, and 2 Avenue are any indication. If this ever gets approved, the next thing that will happen is the plan being scaled back halfway through construction. A reconfiguration of the junction, modernization of the Flatbush Avenue terminal, or extension of Nostrand Avenue are all pies in the sky ideas.

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.