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.
CenSin

MTA Pulls Emergency Brake on All Major Projects as Financial Woes Mount

Recommended Posts

15 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

The only way to save money from cutting the (Z) is to cut back the entire Jamaica Line to once every 10 minutes.

There’s probably another way:

  1. Run (J) trains express between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction in the peak direction.
  2. Have (Z) trains run local between Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction, terminating at Broadway Junction.

The sell is that during AM rush, the (Z) trains coming out of the East New York yard will have plenty of seats and (J) trains will have a longer express run.

As for the (B)(W), my guess is that unprecedented times might even put those routes on the chopping block with slight boosts to the ones that have to pick up the slack: (C)(D)(N)(Q). Being a Coney Island resident, I honestly would not mind that arrangement at all. The West End, Sea Beach, Brighton (local), and Fulton Street (local) lines will all see increased service as an unintended consequence.

Share this post


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

There’s probably another way:

  1. Run (J) trains express between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction in the peak direction.
  2. Have (Z) trains run local between Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction, terminating at Broadway Junction.

The sell is that during AM rush, the (Z) trains coming out of the East New York yard will have plenty of seats and (J) trains will have a longer express run.

As for the (B)(W), my guess is that unprecedented times might even put those routes on the chopping block with slight boosts to the ones that have to pick up the slack: (C)(D)(N)(Q). Being a Coney Island resident, I honestly would not mind that arrangement at all. The West End, Sea Beach, Brighton (local), and Fulton Street (local) lines will all see increased service as an unintended consequence.

A (J)(Z) setup like the above would actually make sense- more so than the current setup, anyway.  

As to the Broadway Line, maybe they won't axe the (W), but I could certainly see the rush-hour (N)(R) trips to 96th Street getting cut.  Which is fine by me; the routing gymnastics that the MTA started engaging in with the Second Avenue Line were poorly conceived from the get-go.  Just improve (Q) service and call it a day.

Edited by R10 2952

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Deucey said:

Astoria folks got over losing (R) and (Q); Brighton riders got over losing (D); Bronx folks survived without <C>. Middle Village will be okay.

In fairness, the <C> ran only during rush hours and the replacement <B> service also ran during rush hours only (and still does today with midday and evening service turning at 145th St). Now if it was the full-time (D) that was slated to be replaced with another service, then you might see Concourse riders raise hell over it. Losing the (Q) was not a big loss because the (W) came back in 2016, so there was little loss of train frequency in Astoria (if any). 

27 minutes ago, CenSin said:

There’s probably another way:

  1. Run (J) trains express between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction in the peak direction.
  2. Have (Z) trains run local between Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction, terminating at Broadway Junction.

The sell is that during AM rush, the (Z) trains coming out of the East New York yard will have plenty of seats and (J) trains will have a longer express run.

As for the (B)(W), my guess is that unprecedented times might even put those routes on the chopping block with slight boosts to the ones that have to pick up the slack: (C)(D)(N)(Q). Being a Coney Island resident, I honestly would not mind that arrangement at all. The West End, Sea Beach, Brighton (local), and Fulton Street (local) lines will all see increased service as an unintended consequence.

Normally I’d gladly be in favor of a (J) peak express / (Z) peak local operation over the current skip-stop operation, especially if it runs for all of rush hour (unlike skip-stop). My concerns with such operation is that if the new (J) and (Z) run on the same frequencies as the current ones (6 tph), then every stop east of Myrtle Avenue is going to have only 6 tph in the peak direction except Broadway Junction. The stops between Myrtle and the Junction would get 12 tph in the reverse-peak, which is probably more than is needed for reverse-peak, but that’s an unfortunate consequence of doing a peak express on any three-track line. With only 6 tph, it could either result in more crowded (J) trains east of the Junction, or it could chase riders away, either to other lines or other forms of transportation. 

And although it been established that Brighton riders prefer direct Broadway service over 6th Avenue service, would they really be willing to accept a long-term, full-time loss of Brighton Express service. They put up with it these past few months because they knew it would be temporary. But if the upcoming fiscal pain is going to force a long-term suspension of Brighton express service, I have a feeling you’re going to see major blowback over it, even if the (Q) gets a boost in service. Likewise in Astoria, if the (W) gets cut long-term. They can’t substitute the (Q) to Astoria in place of the (W) now, unlike in 2010.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

In fairness, the <C> ran only during rush hours and the replacement <B> service also ran during rush hours only (and still does today with midday and evening service turning at 145th St). Now if it was the full-time (D) that was slated to be replaced with another service, then you might see Concourse riders raise hell over it. Losing the (Q) was not a big loss because the (W) came back in 2016, so there was little loss of train frequency in Astoria (if any). 

Yet (Z) to Middle Village would be a full-time service, (M) to/fro B-way Junction a M-F service, and all they'd have to do is walk 12 feet at Myrtle or stand still at Marcy - like they do on weekends currently.

Losing <C> for <B> affected the folks on the Concourse that worked at 1 Penn Plaza since they had to walk up stairs or two blocks (as I said before) - yet they survived. Myrtle Av folks would just walk 12 feet. Like they do on weekends currently.

Edited by Deucey
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Yet (Z) to Middle Village would be a full-time service, (M) to/fro B-way Junction a M-F service, and all they'd have to do is walk 12 feet at Myrtle or stand still at Marcy - like they do on weekends currently.

While I like this idea, I'm trying to put the math together in my head. Currently (under pre-Covid circumstances), the (M) runs 8 TPH during Rush Hours, while the (J) and (Z) evenly split 12 TPH in half. (6 (J) and 6 (Z)). Not only that but the Williamsburg Bridge is capped at a Capacity of 24 TPH due to the Signals and the slow curves on each end of the bridge that lead to Essex and Marcy.  So under your idea, I assume that the (J), (M) and (Z) would have to have their service levels adjusted as to maintain the overall service level between Myrtle and Essex? In other words, you'd have 8 (M)'s to Broadway Junction, 6 (Z)'s to Middle Village, and 10 (J)'s covering the whole line between Jamaica Center and Broad Street. 

Even though I support this idea, no matter how I look at it, there would be a service cut east of Broadway Junction during skip-stop hours, maybe I have to process it a bit more. But then again, I see a fair trade off here. 

 

Edited by LaGuardia Link N Tra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

there would be a service cut east of Broadway Junction during skip-stop hours

That’s the idea really—to save money by cutting service. The (V)-to-(M) transition worked out really well only because it also happened to be a net benefit to the (M) ridership while taking nothing away from the former (V) ridership other than the 2 Avenue stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/24/2020 at 8:59 AM, CenSin said:

For example, those wide elevator/escalator banks installed in the newest stations and spacious mezzanines/platforms are looking much more reasonable in the era of social distancing whether social distancing will be permanent or seasonal. (There are preliminary findings that suggest immunity to the virus is not lasting and that the virus has already mutated into something different.)

The most cost-effective, social distancing option would be to skip mezzanine levels entirely and just have high-speed, high-throughput direct exits from platform to street, like every other goddamn metro system in the world. The less time people spend in the subway the better.

On 6/25/2020 at 5:36 PM, Deucey said:

I've no problem with both coasts becoming Canadian provinces. Aside from better politics and a social safety net, 'America Lite' is a better America than America.

Trust and believe that Canada wants no part of this.

Edited by bobtehpanda
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Trust and believe that Canada wants no part of this.

A boy can dream of singing Oh Canada instead of Francis Scott Key's slavery tribute, although God Save the Queen isn't problem-free.

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

While I like this idea, I'm trying to put the math together in my head. Currently (under pre-Covid circumstances), the (M) runs 8 TPH during Rush Hours, while the (J) and (Z) evenly split 12 TPH in half. (6 (J) and 6 (Z)). Not only that but the Williamsburg Bridge is capped at a Capacity of 24 TPH due to the Signals and the slow curves on each end of the bridge that lead to Essex and Marcy.  So under your idea, I assume that the (J), (M) and (Z) would have to have their service levels adjusted as to maintain the overall service level between Myrtle and Essex? In other words, you'd have 8 (M)'s to Broadway Junction, 6 (Z)'s to Middle Village, and 10 (J)'s covering the whole line between Jamaica Center and Broad Street. 

Even though I support this idea, no matter how I look at it, there would be a service cut east of Broadway Junction during skip-stop hours, maybe I have to process it a bit more. But then again, I see a fair trade off here. 

 

Pops two scenarios to mind:

free up cap by running (M) like (A) - one branch to Middle Village and the other to Jamaica Center, and make the Nassau like a shuttle between Broad St and Essex St - then there's 24 TPH for midtown service (although a service cut to (F) would be required); or

Run (J) between MV and Broad, and (M) from Jamaica. Doubles TPH to 16 for (M) - if not more bc fewer trains are needed on Nassau St; still have to cut (F) service (or have a new route switch to 8th Av at Jay St or West 4th), but could solve gaps on 4th Av and QBL local by truncating (R) to Astoria or 96th St.

And for railfanning sakes, NY would be 6 stations short of a true London-esque Circle Line.

Not to @Wallyhorse the thing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Pops two scenarios to mind:

free up cap by running (M) like (A) - one branch to Middle Village and the other to Jamaica Center, and make the Nassau like a shuttle between Broad St and Essex St - then there's 24 TPH for midtown service (although a service cut to (F) would be required); or

Run (J) between MV and Broad, and (M) from Jamaica. Doubles TPH to 16 for (M) - if not more bc fewer trains are needed on Nassau St; still have to cut (F) service (or have a new route switch to 8th Av at Jay St or West 4th), but could solve gaps on 4th Av and QBL local by truncating (R) to Astoria or 96th St.

And for railfanning sakes, NY would be 6 stations short of a true London-esque Circle Line.

Not to @Wallyhorse the thing...

IIRC similar scenarios have been discussed on the proposals thread that would require physical reconfiguration (and SAS Lower to exist) to solve the problem

  • (F)(M) - Culver local/exp
  • (B)(D) - Jamaica Line, (B) is the Middle Village branch
  • (T)(V) - SAS Lower to Manhattan Br.

Nassau either becomes

  • strictly 4th Av shuttle
  • unused
  • an intact four-track ROW for, say, a future regional rail line heading south from Midtown and proceeding to 2/3 of the following (Hoboken, SI, Atlantic)

Share this post


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

A boy can dream of singing Oh Canada instead of Francis Scott Key's slavery tribute, although God Save the Queen isn't problem-free.

Have these dam fear mongerers tell it, we in this country will end up singing the March of the Volunteers (Chinese nat'l anthem)....

  • LMAO! 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, CenSin said:

There’s probably another way:

  1. Run (J) trains express between Marcy Avenue and Broadway Junction in the peak direction.
  2. Have (Z) trains run local between Myrtle Avenue and Broadway Junction, terminating at Broadway Junction.

The sell is that during AM rush, the (Z) trains coming out of the East New York yard will have plenty of seats and (J) trains will have a longer express run.

As for the (B)(W), my guess is that unprecedented times might even put those routes on the chopping block with slight boosts to the ones that have to pick up the slack: (C)(D)(N)(Q). Being a Coney Island resident, I honestly would not mind that arrangement at all. The West End, Sea Beach, Brighton (local), and Fulton Street (local) lines will all see increased service as an unintended consequence.

I kind of thought about that scenario, because I know that the ridership west of Broadway Jct (twd Manhattan) is greater than east of it. I just wasn't sure if the level of service and crowding would be acceptable to those east of Bwy Jct.

But now thinking about it, I'm starting to like your idea more and more, because most stations are currently skipped anyways with the current skip stop pattern

Share this post


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

I kind of thought about that scenario, because I know that the ridership west of Broadway Jct (twd Manhattan) is greater than east of it. I just wasn't sure if the level of service and crowding would be acceptable to those east of Bwy Jct.

But now thinking about it, I'm starting to like your idea more and more, because most stations are currently skipped anyways with the current skip stop pattern

I’ll go really old school for you. 15  (J)(Z)  skip-stop to Eastern Parkway and express  to Manhattan. 14 - Locals from Rockaway Parkway, Atlantic, Eastern Parkway to Manhattan. Myrtle-Chambers via local to Manhattan. The end result was quicker service from Jamaica, seats at Eastern Parkway from the various put-ins and no real reason for the Myrtle-Chambers crowd to make the cross platform transfer at Broadway and Myrtle. Of course the demographics and ridership patterns have changed, as well as the signal system on the Willy B., but I wonder how much train traffic can be run into Essex St ? I’ll leave the calculations to my fellow posters. Just my musings. Carry on.

Edited by Trainmaster5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I’ll go really old school for you. 15  (J)(Z)  skip-stop to Eastern Parkway and express  to Manhattan. 14 - Locals from Rockaway Parkway, Atlantic, Eastern Parkway to Manhattan. Myrtle-Chambers via local to Manhattan. The end result was quicker service from Jamaica, seats at Eastern Parkway from the various put-ins and no real reason for the Myrtle-Chambers crowd to make the cross platform transfer at Broadway and Myrtle. Of course the demographics and ridership patterns have changed, as well as the signal system on the Willy B., but I wonder how much train traffic can be run into Essex St ? I’ll leave the calculations to my fellow posters. Just my musings. Carry on.

This sounds quite interesting.  Jamaica Center trains skip stop and then run express along Broadway Brooklyn.  Locals starting at E Pkwy to Manhattan (or are they required to start on the Canarsie line, would be concerned about interference with (L) ).  Middle Village trains also running local on Broadway Brooklyn.  This could work really well.

Then, when these trains get to Manhattan, some could go up 6th Ave and some could go down to Broad Street.  Perhaps if there are 6 (J) , 6 (Z) that run express but go to Broad.   Then, the remaining trains 6 (M) and 6 K [from E Pkwy] will go to 6th Ave (and eventually QBL local).

Then again, that is a service increase not a decrease, so it won't pan out financially,

 

 

 

Edited by mrsman
adding more information

Share this post


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

I’ll go really old school for you. 15  (J)(Z)  skip-stop to Eastern Parkway and express  to Manhattan. 14 - Locals from Rockaway Parkway, Atlantic, Eastern Parkway to Manhattan. Myrtle-Chambers via local to Manhattan. The end result was quicker service from Jamaica, seats at Eastern Parkway from the various put-ins and no real reason for the Myrtle-Chambers crowd to make the cross platform transfer at Broadway and Myrtle. Of course the demographics and ridership patterns have changed, as well as the signal system on the Willy B., but I wonder how much train traffic can be run into Essex St ? I’ll leave the calculations to my fellow posters. Just my musings. Carry on.

Problem with this is that compared to the old days Lower Manhattan is a less important commuting destination now, World Trade Center and PANYNJ be damned. Adding more trains to Nassau is leading a horse to water.

Prior to the introduction of the 6th Av (M) Delancey-Essex was considered one of the most overburdened transfer complexes in the system. The cat's out of the bag.

 

Share this post


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

Prior to the introduction of the 6th Av (M) Delancey-Essex was considered one of the most overburdened transfer complexes in the system. The cat's out of the bag.

 

Did the MTA ever consider a Bowery- Grand Street transfer? 

Also to add on, getting rid of the (M) will also make Canal also overburdened- the need to navigate the bridge platforms there make the complex a pain in the ass to traverse. The MTA should have a built a direct mezzanine a while ago with direct access to the (R)(W) , (6) , and (J)(Z).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Problem with this is that compared to the old days Lower Manhattan is a less important commuting destination now, World Trade Center and PANYNJ be damned. Adding more trains to Nassau is leading a horse to water.

Prior to the introduction of the 6th Av (M) Delancey-Essex was considered one of the most overburdened transfer complexes in the system. The cat's out of the bag.

 

Perhaps I could have worded it better but I took into account the (M) service into Essex and the new Sixth Avenue service. What I was getting at was the amount of trains that the bridge and Essex could handle, period. The comparison between the old days, the bridge incident,and the change in the signal spacing. How much service before Marcy-Essex becomes a bottleneck ? Just curious. Carry on.

Share this post


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

Did the MTA ever consider a Bowery- Grand Street transfer? 

Also to add on, getting rid of the (M) will also make Canal also overburdened- the need to navigate the bridge platforms there make the complex a pain in the ass to traverse. The MTA should have a built a direct mezzanine a while ago with direct access to the (R)(W) , (6) , and (J)(Z).

This is what they did with Fulton Center, and Fulton Center actually got cancelled one time because it cost too much money.

As far as Bowery-Grand Street, I don't think this has been seriously considered, though it'd be worth constructing.

Share this post


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

This is what they did with Fulton Center, and Fulton Center actually got cancelled one time because it cost too much money.

As far as Bowery-Grand Street, I don't think this has been seriously considered, though it'd be worth constructing.

However, unlike Fulton Center this would be an immense improvement as navigating the very narrow (N)(Q) side platforms is far more difficult and dangerous than the wide (A)(C) platform. 
 

That being said, they might look to build a mezzanine (or at least widen the platforms) to make the complex ADA compliant.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

However, unlike Fulton Center this would be an immense improvement as navigating the very narrow (N)(Q) side platforms is far more difficult and dangerous than the wide (A)(C) platform. 
 

That being said, they might look to build a mezzanine (or at least widen the platforms) to make the complex ADA compliant.

The Fulton Center was a massive ADA compliance project in addition to station rehabilitation and it cost  $1.4B.

Canal Street's greater need for improvement would mean that a similar project for that station would be even more expensive. Quite frankly there's no money for it, and that's before we consider the current COVID funding crunch.

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.