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.
Eric B

Limited F express service coming to Brooklyn for rush hour !

Recommended Posts

At one point at least, they already had some trains (probably more than two) running express. That was when they were still working on the signals or something? Not sure when that finished. Didn't know if they still ran some express, "unofficially".

They make it sound like such a big deal for the local stations, but it's just two trains, and as we saw, more than that have bypassed for other reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well lets see how it works...I guess that's why the (MTA) trying limited express service to start off...To see how successful it could be 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideally they'd restore the express on the Culver; this is just half-assing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Connie said:

Ideally they'd restore the express on the Culver; this is just half-assing it

The only way you’d be able to do that in a decent way is to kill the (M) which I don’t see happening unless you could give the (L) 30+ TPH (which will only happen given power upgrades and tail tracks at 8th/short turn tracks at Atlantic). Once you have that, you can run 15 TPH on both the (F)(V) with the (V) local terminating at Church and (F) via express. The (G) would be extended to 18th middle with new switches to avoid merging delays; I’d also have fumigation staff at Forest Hills and Church to have trains turn as soon as possible. As for the (M), it would go back to (brownM) and run from Metropolitan to Bay Ridge to supplement the (R).

Edited by R68OnBroadway
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

The only way you’d be able to do that in a decent way is to kill the (M) which I don’t see happening unless you could give the (L) 30+ TPH (which will only happen given power upgrades and tail tracks at 8th/short turn tracks at Atlantic). Once you have that, you can run 15 TPH on both the (F)(V) with the (V) local terminating at Church and (F) via express. The (G) would be extended to 18th middle with new switches to avoid merging delays; I’d also have fumigation staff at Forest Hills and Church to have trains turn as soon as possible. As for the (M), it would go back to (brownM) and run from Metropolitan to Bay Ridge to supplement the (R).

You can't kill the (M) , Bushwick, Ridgewood, etc LOVE the (M) on 6th Ave and would riot if the Brown M was restored.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


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

Ideally they'd restore the express on the Culver; this is just half-assing it

But at least its better than nothing. Besides, it does look like some customers do have an easy bus access to other stations that can handle the load, such as the (B) and (Q), the former of which also serves 6th Avenue in a more direct manner. For example, at Fort. Hamilton Pkwy, riders can take a short and lovely walk over to Caton Avenue for the B16 bus to Church Avenue, and at 4th Avenue, affected (F) train passengers can hop on the (R) train instead.

However, all three lines do not serve the east side, so to better serve that, I am proposing a free shuttle circular linking the Lower East Side to the Prince Street subway station. Actual routing is to be determined, but it could potentially be helpful to get Lower East Side riders to and from alternative lines in case the (F) proves undesirable.

And hopefully by then, those damn Sea Beach stations reopen IN FULL. I have a slight feeling that this could take a significant load off the (N) and the lowered numbers could give the contractors an excuse to delay the reopening of these stations.

36 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The only way you’d be able to do that in a decent way is to kill the (M) which I don’t see happening unless you could give the (L) 30+ TPH (which will only happen given power upgrades and tail tracks at 8th/short turn tracks at Atlantic). Once you have that, you can run 15 TPH on both the (F)(V) with the (V) local terminating at Church and (F) via express. The (G) would be extended to 18th middle with new switches to avoid merging delays; I’d also have fumigation staff at Forest Hills and Church to have trains turn as soon as possible. As for the (M), it would go back to (brownM) and run from Metropolitan to Bay Ridge to supplement the (R).

The (G) to 18th is a good idea, and can be implemented with or without (F) express service. As for the express service and the (M) situation, a better long term alternative should be to resurrect the plan for the IND Worth Street Line or build a new trunk line that replaces the elevated Jamaica Lines. With the branches, and a transfer passageway at one of the Worth Street Line stations to the Lexington IRT, Williamsburg would not lose their one seat ride to Midtown, and yet we can still have an express service. While Jamaica Line customers would lose access to Lower Manhattan, they would have easy access to the (4)(5) and (6) to Lower Manhattan, which from my experiences, has additional room to accommodate riders

To address this new problem, there is also an alternative that you suggested in June, which was to build a connection between the Nassau Street Line and the IND Eighth Avenue Line via Spring Street, that way we can connect the Jamaica Line to an uptown Trunk Line, while at the same time, introducing Culver Express service and de-interlining Queens Blvd, as well as provide service on the Nassau to Lower Manhattan.

And if you don't remember:

 

Share this post


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

And hopefully by then, those damn Sea Beach stations reopen IN FULL. I have a slight feeling that this could take a significant load off the (N) and the lowered numbers could give the contractors an excuse to delay the reopening of these stations.

You do realize they've been fully open already right?

On the subject of the (F) express, the plan has been asinine since day one and they'll probably discontinue it before Christmas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

You can't kill the (M) , Bushwick, Ridgewood, etc LOVE the (M) on 6th Ave and would riot if the Brown M was restored.

The problem is that the (M) isn’t always time competitive to the (L), especially given the latter’s frequencies. The (L) is currently scheduled to take 21 minutes to get from Wyckoff to 6th-14th; the (M) is scheduled to take 27. Factor in frequency differences and delays at Myrtle and the WillyB and you end up with the (L) to the (F) being a better choice. If you are further down the line, then you can head to Essex and then take the (F) or (V) (which would run at 30 TPH). Meanwhile, Culver express can save a great deal of time and spur development in Kensington, Midwood and the like with faster commutes. You could also be able to boost (J) frequencies and encourage development there as well. The (L), given upgrades, can run up to 30+ TPH, something the (M) will never achieve. If we can do that, then I think it’ll be fine to end 6th-Myrtle service to give Culverland good service and not have to worry about (J)(brownM) delays screw over 6th and then QBL.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on my understanding, local service as measured in tph during the specified time periods isn't being cut. Trains only run every 5 minutes (12 tph) at those times, so it's likely that the MTA can make a timetable to add the 2 express trains. Conversely this makes train service in the other peak direction more robust, because an equal number of trains will then be running on the (F) in both directions.

Share this post


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

The problem is that the (M) isn’t always time competitive to the (L), especially given the latter’s frequencies. The (L) is currently scheduled to take 21 minutes to get from Wyckoff to 6th-14th; the (M) is scheduled to take 27. Factor in frequency differences and delays at Myrtle and the WillyB and you end up with the (L) to the (F) being a better choice. If you are further down the line, then you can head to Essex and then take the (F) or (V) (which would run at 30 TPH). Meanwhile, Culver express can save a great deal of time and spur development in Kensington, Midwood and the like with faster commutes. You could also be able to boost (J) frequencies and encourage development there as well. The (L), given upgrades, can run up to 30+ TPH, something the (M) will never achieve. If we can do that, then I think it’ll be fine to end 6th-Myrtle service to give Culverland good service and not have to worry about (J)(brownM) delays screw over 6th and then QBL.

That's not even a fair comparison, since it would only hold for those going between those two intermediate points specifically. Most people are not using the (M) between those two points (many do not even start on the subway).

For many, the (M) is faster and convenient than the (L). To get to the (L) from my area (Middle Village) would require residents to first take/make their way to the most unreliable buses (Q54 or Q59, pick your poison). The (M) as it is a one seat ride which reduces the number of transfers needed, which also needs to be factored in as well. I'd argue the (M) as it is is necessary, because otherwise, a lot of people would be heading up to the QBL (which is already overcrowded). Furthermore, the (M) is much faster than taking a bus from points south of Broadway to the (L) .

Rerouting the (M) back to Nassau Street would inconvenience a much larger group of people than it would benefit. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, when they announced the (M) in 2010, they said something like 15,000 people were using the (brownM) and 25,000 people were transferring at Essex to the (F).

I would imagine (M) ridership now is higher than that 25,000 figure. 

Share this post


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

The problem is that the (M) isn’t always time competitive to the (L), especially given the latter’s frequencies. The (L) is currently scheduled to take 21 minutes to get from Wyckoff to 6th-14th; the (M) is scheduled to take 27. Factor in frequency differences and delays at Myrtle and the WillyB and you end up with the (L) to the (F) being a better choice. If you are further down the line, then you can head to Essex and then take the (F) or (V) (which would run at 30 TPH). Meanwhile, Culver express can save a great deal of time and spur development in Kensington, Midwood and the like with faster commutes. You could also be able to boost (J) frequencies and encourage development there as well. The (L), given upgrades, can run up to 30+ TPH, something the (M) will never achieve. If we can do that, then I think it’ll be fine to end 6th-Myrtle service to give Culverland good service and not have to worry about (J)(brownM) delays screw over 6th and then QBL.

Your analysis is missing a whole demographic who currently benefits from the current (M): which are the riders who live at the northernmost 4 stations. You assume that everyone going to Midtown is boarding at Myrtle-Wyckoff, which is NOT the case. In fact, almost ALL of the 22,000+ riders who benefit from the orange (M) route comes from these stations:

Metropolitan Avenue

Fresh Pond Road

Forest Avenue

Seneca Avenue

Knickerbocker Avenue

Central Avenue

Myrtle Avenue-Broadway

Flushing Avenue

Lorimer Street

Hewes Street

Marcy Avenue

It is also worth noting that before the changes to the M route from Nassau to 6th Avenue, many of the areas residents used to walk or take the bus to Myrtle-Wyckoff or another (L) station, then ride the (L) straight into Manhattan. IF they wanted Midtown, they would have to transfer to the overcrowded (F) at the cramped 14th Street-6th Avenue stop. Further down Myrtle and Jamaica, Midtown-bound customers would also have to transfer at Essex Street, not very desirable given crowds on the (F) past Smith-9th Street.

After the change was made, station registrations were redistributed among the stations. More specifically:

Quote

The rerouting of the M from the Nassau Street corridor to the 6th Avenue corridor created a new one-seat ride for customers between Ridgewood, northern Brooklyn and midtown Manhattan.  Along the Myrtle Avenue and Jamaica corridors rapid background development continues to lead to high ridership growth. The rerouting of the M does not seem to have significantly affected total station registrations; however, there appears to have been some redistribution among stations.  Ridership growth at the Myrtle-Wyckoff Avs station, which is served by both the M and L trains, was less than corridor-wide growth (or Canarsie line growth). This would indicate that some midtown-bound riders who previously entered at Myrtle-Wyckoff to board the L train are now entering at M stations further upstream closer to their homes and riding through directly to midtown via the M.   

 I recommend you read up on this portion of the evaluations here: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/NYCT_2010_Service_Reduction_Evaluation.pdf

However, while deinterlining is nice, doing it too much would deprive most riders of a one-seat service during rush hours and force the MTA to create expensive and inconveniently long passageways. In our case here, there needs to be way to balance the needs of these issues:

  • Full Culver Express service with no impacts to local service
  • Connection between the Jamaica BMT with an uptown trunk line
  • Queens Blvd deinterling

A simple solution that accomplishes all three needs would be a simple two-track connection between the Nassau Street Line and the 8th Avenue IND line via Broome Street. I call it the Broome Street connection. I won't get into all the technicalities here, but the premise would that it would merge into the inner tracks of the (needlessly) 4-track wide Nassau Street line, with Midtown trains on the inner tracks and Nassau trains on the outer track (a reconfiguration of the tracks between Canal and Bowery would be needed for this to happen). From there, trains can continue as normal.

I am also recommending actually rebuilding the Bushwick cut as to eliminate the stupid at-grade junction at Myrtle-Broadway. This junction forces all trains in the area to proceed at a slower rate and delays all trains in this area. Its like the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Clark Junction between their red, brown, and purple lines. A better way to fix this is to have a three track wide station for Myrtle trains above the existing Jamaica trains between Lewis Avenue and Myrtle Avenue. It would be three tracks wide, and would currently have two tracks, with the structure and station having a provision for three tracks. The junction would be just after Flushing Avenue with the Myrtle Spur coming off both local and express tracks.

Now with that under control, service changes. First, I am proposing that to have the Myrtle trains connect to an uptown trunk like it does now and to keep with nomenclature changes, I am proposing to reroute the (M) from 6th Avenue to 8th Avenue via the Broom Street cut. The service would be designated as the Blue M (however, since NYCTF has no blue M, this (K) bullet would be a stand in for that). Service to Metropolitan Avenue and to Queens would not change, but the service will now travel via 8th Avenue.

To make room on 8th Avenue for this new service (K) and to (slightly) speed commutes to Brooklyn, I am recommending to reroute the (C) to operate express south of 59th Street-Columbus Circle with the (A) to allow for express trains to Brooklyn only, like the nearby (2) and (3) lines, which also enter Brooklyn. New construction of double crossovers between 59th and 50th Streets would allow for switching (C) trains to occur simultaneously with merging (D) trains. 50th Street's upper level would not be served during day time hours, but since the (E) and (K)/Blue M would still serve 50th Street below, it won't be a problem. It would make all express service go to Brooklyn, with local service staying into Manhattan, and moves the Canal merge to 50th Streets.

Since the (M)'s reroute from 6th Avenue will create additional capacity on the 6th Avenue local tracks, here is the opportunity to create an express service on the Culver Line, with ZERO changes to Culver Local service. How will this be done? Easy. First, the existing (F) service would remain local on the Culver Line, serving all stops to Coney Island. Second, a resurrected (V) would operate on almost the exact same route as the (F), except it would operate express between Church Avenue and Jay Street-MetroTech. This would provide faster service on the Culver Line, all with no impacts to local service. Much better than the crap the MTA wants to do now.

Now here is the fun part of this. How do we accommodate all those services on the Queens Blvd IND? One way to do this, and I can't believe I'm saying this, is to remove the (R) from the Queens Blvd Line. The 60th Street Connection, created in 1955, allows for a local service to Manhattan on the Queens Blvd line, but with the (K) and (V) both on the local tracks, this is no longer necessary, especially with the 6th Avenue and Broadway sections ONE block apart (no kidding). Instead, with this new plan, the (R) would be sent back to Astoria full time. (N) service would be rerouted to 96th Street with the (Q) (both lines will go to 125th Street in Phase 2) and the (W) will be folded into the (R). Now before you have concerns about yard access, this new (R) train pattern would use the upgraded 36th-38th Street Yard since that yard is undergoing upgrades for the Second Avenue Subway, and its just off the 4th Avenue line, so nothing is lost. Remember, this isn't pre-1987 with pre GOH R27 and R32's on the line. Now we have more reliable R46 and R160 cars on here, and with new R211s on the way, yard access and reliability should not be an issue (I also hope we don't go back there)

I am also proposing the (F) to run express east of 71st Avenue when the (V) operates.

Final services are as follows:

(A): Inwood-207th Street - Far Rockaway/Lefferts Blvd. Rush Hours also to/from Rockaway Park. 8th Avenue Express, Cranberry Street Tunnel, Fulton Street Express, Rockaway Local.  

(B): Bedford Park Blvd - Brighton Beach. Concourse Local, 8th Avenue upper Local, 6th Avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Express. Weekdays only.

(C): 168th Street - Euclid Avenue. 8th Avenue upper local, 8th Avenue lower Express, Cranberry Tunnel, Fulton Street Local. All times except late nights.

(D): Norwood-205th Street - Coney Island. Concourse Local (Express rush hours), 8th Avenue Express, 6th Avenue Express, Manhattan Bridge, 4th Avenue Express (local nights), West End Local.

(E): Jamaica Center - World Trade Center. Queens Blvd Express (Local nights), 8th Avenue lower Local.

(F): Jamaica-179th Street - Coney Island. Queens Blvd Express (local nights full line, weekends east of 71st Avenue), 6th Avenue Local via 63rd Street, Rutgers Street Tunnel, Culver Local.

(G): Court Sq - Church Avenue. Crosstown Local, Culver Local

(J)/ (Z): Jamaica Center - Broad Street. Jamaica Local, Nassau Street Local. Skip-stop service between Jamaica Ctr and Myrtle Avenue, then weekday peek express service to Marcy Avenue.

(K)/Blue M: Forest Hills-71st Avenue - Metropolitan Avenue. Queens Blvd Local, 8th Avenue Local via 53rd Street, Jamaica Local. Nights and weekend to Essex Street.

(N): 96th Street (125th Street phase 2) - Coney Island. Broadway Express (local nights), Manhattan Bridge (Montague Street Tunnel nights), 4th Avenue Express, Sea Beach Local.

(Q): 96th Street (125th Street phase 2) - Coney Island. Broadway Express (local nights), Manhattan Bridge, Brighton Local.

(R): Astoria-Ditmars - Bay Ridge-95th Street. Astoria Local, Broadway Local, Montague Street Tunnel, 4th Avenue Local. NOTE: This line will use 36th-38th Street Yard.

(W): Folded into (R).

Service will be more frequent on some lines. However, this plan should quell any concerns with Culver Express service, since this simple two track connection can usher in multiple radical changes for the system that can allow for Queens Blvd Deinterlining (removing the (R)), Culver Express service with no impacts to local service (adding the (V) ) and a connection between the Jamaica Line and an uptown Trunk (rerouting the (M)) all in one. It will be the biggest changes in service since Chrystie Street. Its a win-win for everyone. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also not forget the ops implications here: what you're essentially doing by deinterlining Essex is dumping every Midtown rider who comes over the Williamsburg Bridge onto the platforms at Essex and Canal. With today's infrastructure, that just won't work. There is no way you can keep dwells under control -- let alone keep platform conditions safe -- with that density of transferring ridership. 

Now, there totally are investments you can make to alleviate some of these issues (Bowery-Grand xfer, reopen the other platform at Canal, redo the network of passageways at Canal, build into the trolley terminal at Essex), but those investments, well, need to be made before this can work. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

You do realize they've been fully open already right?

On the subject of the (F) express, the plan has been asinine since day one and they'll probably discontinue it before Christmas.

I am aware of that. Somehow, it must of slipped by me.

However, I do agree that the (F) express plan now is a bad idea and may be discontinued. I suspect that it may draw low ridership, since its only two Manhattan bound trains during each rush hour and during the early part too.

On the subject with another post, (M) ridership may have gone up beyond 22,000-25,000 riders since 2010. It could be higher, given that three years ago, train service on this line was increased to 9 trains per hour.

Edited by JeremiahC99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/10/2019 at 10:40 AM, Connie said:

Ideally they'd restore the express on the Culver; this is just half-assing it

I wouldn’t say that. By running the express <F> trains between Church and Jay, they will have enough ridership to justify a possible expansion of the express service beyond this trial basis. If they ran the <F> express between KH and Jay, the trains would have very few riders on them and the service would likely get axed within a few months. I just hope Transit does a damn good job of promoting the hell out of it beyond the press release on the (MTA) website.

It's a start.

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

Let's also not forget the ops implications here: what you're essentially doing by deinterlining Essex is dumping every Midtown rider who comes over the Williamsburg Bridge onto the platforms at Essex and Canal. With today's infrastructure, that just won't work. There is no way you can keep dwells under control -- let alone keep platform conditions safe -- with that density of transferring ridership. 

Now, there totally are investments you can make to alleviate some of these issues (Bowery-Grand xfer, reopen the other platform at Canal, redo the network of passageways at Canal, build into the trolley terminal at Essex), but those investments, well, need to be made before this can work. 

In fairness, a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection would still allow allow (M) riders to get to Midtown. It would just be via 8th Avenue Local instead of 6th. It’s not a terrible idea. Whether it’s actually needed is another thing. Now if there’s very little demand for 8th Avenue for current (M) riders in Middle Village, Ridgewood and Bushwick, then it probably isn’t worth the expenditure. The current (M) does get the job done. But having a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection does have its advantages, especially for de-interlining 8th Avenue and QBL. It was also permit there to be enough track capacity for a full <F> express (or (V) service) in South Brooklyn (which there isn’t with the current (M) service). And you can still do a transfer between Bowery and Grand St and reopen the abandoned platform at Canal.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


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

In fairness, a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection would still allow allow (M) riders to get to Midtown. It would just be via 8th Avenue Local instead of 6th. It’s not a terrible idea. Whether it’s actually needed is another thing. Now if there’s very little demand for 8th Avenue for current (M) riders in Middle Village, Ridgewood and Bushwick, then it probably isn’t worth the expenditure. The current (M) does get the job done. But having a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection does have its advantages, especially for de-interlining 8th Avenue and QBL. It was also permit there to be enough track capacity for a full <F> express (or (V) service) in South Brooklyn (which there isn’t with the current (M) service). And you can still do a transfer between Bowery and Grand St and reopen the abandoned platform at Canal.

WillyB-8th would absolutely solve the issue, provided transfers are created to trains going downtown. The question is much more whether deinterlining before such a connection is made is wise.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RR503 said:

WillyB-8th would absolutely solve the issue, provided transfers are created to trains going downtown. The question is much more whether deinterlining before such a connection is made is wise.

It would be possible to deinterline some sections with this new connection and some new infrastructure. With a new 36th Street Yard ready for passenger train inspection (and also to add, new R211 cars to replace the aging fleet), there would be no need for the (R) on Queens Blvd anymore. Under this plan, the (R) would be rerouted back to Astoria with the (N) going via Second Avenue Subway with the (Q). The (W) would be folded into the (R).

With the (R) removed from QBL, this creates additional space on the local track for both the Culver express service and the Jamaica-8th Service. Under this plan, the (M) will be renamed the (K) (or blue M if nomenclature issues arise) and travel the same route as the (M), but via 8th Avenue and the new connection to the Nassau Line. To make room on the local tracks for the (K), new switches between 59th Street and 50th Streets would be built to allow for trains switching between local and express tracks to do so at the same time as trains merging to/from the 6th Avenue spur via 7th Avenue-53rd Street. This would allow for the (C) to run express south of 59th Street-Columbus Circle with the (A). 50th Street on the upper level would not be served during daytime but since the (E) and (K) would serve it below, then it shouldn’t be a problem.

Now with the (M) off 6th Avenue, we now have the track capacity available to have a Culver Express service without affecting local service. Using it to our full potential, the existing (F) service would be unchanged and a resurrected (V) service would operate weekdays only on the same route as the (F), but express between Jay Street-MetroTech and Church Avenue. This pattern is similar to the nearby Brighton line in which the full time (Q) runs local while the part time (B) operates express. Doing something similar for the Culver line would allow for the (F) to run on the same route as much as possible.

A consequence to this is all 8th Avenue service is on 53rd only and all 6th Avenue is on 63rd Street only. This could pose problems for customer traveling between the 6th Avenue corridor and 53rd Street line stations. However, since alternate stations are nearby, passengers would be able to walk to another station with no problems. More specifically:

5th Avenue-53rd Street ➡️ 47th-50th Street

Lexington Avenue-53rd Street ➡️ Lexington Avenue-63rd Street

Court Square-23rd Street ➡️ 21st Street-Queensbridge

Queens Plaza ➡️ 21st Street-Queensbridge.

However, what exists now is a new IND Division that eliminates the current bottlenecks with deinterlining to allow for trains to be more frequent and faster, while still taking onto account ridership patterns. However, one bottleneck that is created is at 36th Street, since the (V) would have to switch to the local tracks to serve local stops with the (K). Another one that is created is the potential merge between the (E) and (K) and the move of the (A) and (C) merge from Canal and 59th Street. However, the (C), (K) and (V) all run at a lower frequency compared to the other lines it follows. The (K) and (V) would both operate at 10 trains per hour taking into account Williamsburg Bridge capacity for the (K) (24 trains total) and capacity on the 6th Avenue Local tracks with the (V) (25 trains total). However, (C) service frequency would remain the same to accommodate Fulton Street riders, but the express ridership should see more frequent service (though comparable to the frequency with the (2) and (3) express).

Thus for 8th Avenue Lower, we have the (A) and (C) express and (E) and (K) local. On 6th Avenue, we have the (B) and (D) express and the (F) and (V) on the local track. For Manhattan and Queens connections, the (E) and (K) would be via 53rd Street and the (F) and (V) would be via 63rd Street, providing more frequent service for connections to the (N) and (Q) via Second Avenue, especially when phase 2 opens. Finally on Queens Blvd, we have the (E) and (F) on the express track (today’s pattern), and the (K) and (V) on the local tracks. While (V) service would continue to 179th Street with the (F), which is now express east of 71st, the (K) would terminate at 71st Avenue due to lack of capacity at Jamaica Center. This should make service more frequent on all lines.

Edited by JeremiahC99
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

In fairness, a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection would still allow allow (M) riders to get to Midtown. It would just be via 8th Avenue Local instead of 6th. It’s not a terrible idea. Whether it’s actually needed is another thing. Now if there’s very little demand for 8th Avenue for current (M) riders in Middle Village, Ridgewood and Bushwick, then it probably isn’t worth the expenditure. The current (M) does get the job done. But having a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection does have its advantages, especially for de-interlining 8th Avenue and QBL. It was also permit there to be enough track capacity for a full <F> express (or (V) service) in South Brooklyn (which there isn’t with the current (M) service). And you can still do a transfer between Bowery and Grand St and reopen the abandoned platform at Canal.

The destination for most (M) riders from Brooklyn, and from the Queens Blvd line is between West 4th Street and 47th-50th Street with one station drawing the biggest crowds on all lines: 34th Street Herald Square. That station does get really crowded at rush hours, especially the 6th Avenue platform, and it’s gotten to a point that platform controllers were stationed there to deal with the crowds on the (B), (D), (F), and (M) lines.

The 8th Avenue connection would allow for Jamaica Line trains to continue serving this busy stretch, but do so two blocks away from all the tourists (hopefully). Penn Station isn’t that far of a walk from the Empire State Building so it shouldn’t be that bad walking. Besides, we have had those service changes (FASTrack) where the 6th Avenue Line north of West 4th Street was out of service for nights at a time and look at how we fared. We can do just fine if we got rid of the 6th Avenue-Myrtle connection and replaced it with the 8th Avenue-Myrtle connection. It will still accomplish the same thing the Chrystie Street cut does now: connect the Jamaica Line to an IND Midtown Trunk Line (as if its another version of the Worth Street Line).

Share this post


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

It would be possible to deinterline some sections with this new connection and some new infrastructure. 

I don't disagree! I was speaking specifically about deinterlining at Essex Street, not in general. 

Share this post


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

I don't disagree! I was speaking specifically about deinterlining at Essex Street, not in general. 

A deinterline of Essex Street would go along with the new Nassau-8th Avenue connection. To start, I would have the inner tracks be used by the new service via 8th Avenue and the outer tracks used by the existing Nassau Street trains to Lower Manhattan. The connection would be two tracks. After Bowery, the tracks would dip underneath the Nassau Line and curve onto Broome Street while the Nassau Line take the 1913 route to Canal Street. A track realignment would be needed to have the northbound inner track merge with the outer track. Either that or have the outer platform and track at Canal reopened. The two track connection would then make a stop at a new Broadway-Lafayette station, which would have a passageway to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line at Spring Street. From there, the line would continue along Broome Street to meet with the 8th Avenue Line to merge onto the local tracks south of Spring Street. The Chrystie Street cut would be relegated for service disruptions.

At the Essex Street end, the station would be expanded into the abandoned trolley terminal to accommodate another track and platform. Again, the outer tracks would accommodate the existing Nassau Trains and the inner tracks would accommodate the Midtown trains. Alongside the new track, there would be a new side platform at Essex Street since the station was built with a provision for another track and platform next to the trolley terminal.

All of this can be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 7:14 AM, Eric B said:

At one point at least, they already had some trains (probably more than two) running express. That was when they were still working on the signals or something? Not sure when that finished. Didn't know if they still ran some express, "unofficially".

They make it sound like such a big deal for the local stations, but it's just two trains, and as we saw, more than that have bypassed for other reasons.

For only two northbound trains in the morning and two southbound ones in the evening, I honestly don’t think local (F) riders between Church and Jay will miss them. Now if they were to expand it to, say, a 50/50 local/express split like the (MTA) proposed a couple years ago, then I can see how it would be a big deal to local riders (along with the folks they vote for).

1 hour ago, JeremiahC99 said:

A deinterline of Essex Street would go along with the new Nassau-8th Avenue connection. To start, I would have the inner tracks be used by the new service via 8th Avenue and the outer tracks used by the existing Nassau Street trains to Lower Manhattan. The connection would be two tracks. After Bowery, the tracks would dip underneath the Nassau Line and curve onto Broome Street while the Nassau Line take the 1913 route to Canal Street. A track realignment would be needed to have the northbound inner track merge with the outer track. Either that or have the outer platform and track at Canal reopened. The two track connection would then make a stop at a new Broadway-Lafayette station, which would have a passageway to the IRT Lexington Avenue Line at Spring Street. From there, the line would continue along Broome Street to meet with the 8th Avenue Line to merge onto the local tracks south of Spring Street. The Chrystie Street cut would be relegated for service disruptions.

At the Essex Street end, the station would be expanded into the abandoned trolley terminal to accommodate another track and platform. Again, the outer tracks would accommodate the existing Nassau Trains and the inner tracks would accommodate the Midtown trains. Alongside the new track, there would be a new side platform at Essex Street since the station was built with a provision for another track and platform next to the trolley terminal.

All of this can be possible.

An :M: via the 8th Avenue Local with that intermediate stop at Lafayette between Bowery and Spring could make for a pretty good crosstown line for Lower Manhattan too. Getting across Lower Manhattan by pretty much any wheeled vehicle can be a real chore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To run M via 8th still doesn't solve the problem of capacity to add back the V, because they would all still be running together through Bway-Laf. That's just one station to merge in before and merge back out after, but it would still cause the same congestion.

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.