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.

MTA to extend service cuts on five NYC subway lines through late 2022


nightmare402
 Share

Recommended Posts

Riders on a handful of subway lines can expect regular hiccups in their evening commutes until at least November 2022 as MTA officials attempt to give more time for slow-crawling work trains to travel to construction sites.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority board on Wednesday is set to approve the move, which will trim weekday evening service on the B, D, N, Q and R lines.

The changes mean D and N trains will run local instead of express beneath Fourth Ave. in Brooklyn, cutting the number of hourly trains on each line. Some northbound D train service will begin at Broadway-Lafayette St. instead of Coney Island, according to the MTA’s service plan.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-subway-service-cuts-construction-mta-20210620-46elklthafah3fs7jsjidjco34-story.html?fbclid=IwAR0CcNYVzEW_oAiNsJOTdt7UryjAOCoihAn8Xi6BUyu_t75y0-8gCyGl2z0

Edited by nightmare402
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

In what world does starting the (D) at Bway-Lafayette make sense? 

I think they’re going to turn some southbound (D) service back north to avoid congestion on the Fourth Avenue corridor. Just my guess. Carry on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

I think they’re going to turn some southbound (D) service back north to avoid congestion on the Fourth Avenue corridor. Just my guess. Carry on.

Those trains are actually going all the way to Coney Island, but on the return trip, they're operating via the (F) from Coney Island to Broadway Lafayette (NIS), and they will start there. 

Its mentioned on the last few pages of the recent board committee materials: https://new.mta.info/document/42411

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

In what world does starting the (D) at Bway-Lafayette make sense? 

There will be apparently two (D) trains that start there, so the way I see this making sense if they're placed in between the last (D) up to Norwood via 4th Avenue Express, and the first (D) via 4th Avenue local. Running local and all of that, including the merging, takes up time, which may leave a substantially longer gap than the indicated headway (hence the put-ins at Broadway Lafayette). I don't know for sure if that's the process, but that's the way I see it. 

Edited by BM5 via Woodhaven
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

In what world does starting the (D) at Bway-Lafayette make sense? 

They already do this with certain late night trips. They operate normally southbound and arrive at Coney Island on the (F) platform then deadhead to Broadway-Lafayette via Culver where they reenter service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

They already do this with certain late night trips. They operate normally southbound and arrive at Coney Island on the (F) platform then deadhead to Broadway-Lafayette via Culver where they reenter service.

Wouldn't it be easier to have those (D) trains operate in service on the (F) until Broadway-Lafayette? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Wouldn't it be easier to have those (D) trains operate in service on the (F) until Broadway-Lafayette? 

nope. "Too many riders on Culver would be confused", "Culver would have too much unneeded service" and "it would cost too much money" probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

nope. "Too many riders on Culver would be confused", "Culver would have too much unneeded service" and "it would cost too much money" probably.

Confused...What about when the (D) and (F) swap southern operation's due to fast track and other deversion...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Confused...What about when the (D) and (F) swap southern operation's due to fast track and other deversion...

That's not the same as having trains under one label serving West End and Culver (in both directions) simultaneously.

Edited by Lex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, biGC323232 said:

Confused...What about when the (D) and (F) swap southern operation's due to fast track and other deversion...

The (D) and (F) swap achieves the same train per hour and doesn't cost any extra money. Also, the quotes aren't my opinions.

What I would do is run those (D) trips in service up Brighton. The (B) stops running between 7 and 9 depending on what's going on that night anyway, and those empty (D) trains are a waste when they're actually needed elsewhere.

With this scenario, you're still cutting the same trains per hour but you're actually moving more people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

The (D) and (F) swap achieves the same train per hour and doesn't cost any extra money. Also, the quotes aren't my opinions.

What I would do is run those (D) trips in service up Brighton. The (B) stops running between 7 and 9 depending on what's going on that night anyway, and those empty (D) trains are a waste when they're actually needed elsewhere.

With this scenario, you're still cutting the same trains per hour but you're actually moving more people.

I know that..I was just talking in term's of being confused like if a (D) never showed up on the (F)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, paulrivera said:

The (D) and (F) swap achieves the same train per hour and doesn't cost any extra money. Also, the quotes aren't my opinions.

What I would do is run those (D) trips in service up Brighton. The (B) stops running between 7 and 9 depending on what's going on that night anyway, and those empty (D) trains are a waste when they're actually needed elsewhere.

With this scenario, you're still cutting the same trains per hour but you're actually moving more people.

I also would have preferred the (D) running via Brighton Express in place of the (B). Gives the same amount of service riders need.

And they really need to stop ending the (B) so early, CPW Local is crowded during the evening rush and the (C) with its 8 cars and 12 minute headways is not helping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

I also would have preferred the (D) running via Brighton Express in place of the (B). Gives the same amount of service riders need.

And they really need to stop ending the (B) so early, CPW Local is crowded during the evening rush and the (C) with its 8 cars and 12 minute headways is not helping.

Maybe it's time to consider having the (B)(F) and (M) all swap terminals?

In this scenario:

(B) becomes a full-time train and runs via 63rd in place of the (F) to 179 ((B) can run on the express track to 57th like it once did), also extended nights and weekends to Coney Island.
(F) remains full-time, but returns to running via 53rd and is a local to 71-Continental at all times. 
(M) runs 19/7 to 168 (late nights as it does now)

This scenario also allows the (E) to go back to being a 24/7 express on QBL (including late nights).

Basically, the (B) in this scenario would run like the (F) currently does, but express in Manhattan with the (B) going to Brighton instead of Culver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Maybe it's time to consider having the (B)(F) and (M) all swap terminals?

In this scenario:

(B) becomes a full-time train and runs via 63rd in place of the (F) to 179 ((B) can run on the express track to 57th like it once did), also extended nights and weekends to Coney Island.
(F) remains full-time, but returns to running via 53rd and is a local to 71-Continental at all times. 
(M) runs 19/7 to 168 (late nights as it does now)

This scenario also allows the (E) to go back to being a 24/7 express on QBL (including late nights).

Basically, the (B) in this scenario would run like the (F) currently does, but express in Manhattan with the (B) going to Brighton instead of Culver.

NO....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

They already do this with certain late night trips. They operate normally southbound and arrive at Coney Island on the (F) platform then deadhead to Broadway-Lafayette via Culver where they reenter service.

Only three trains they do this with...

Normally..

What you are seeing is the GO they have going on till August with the Deltas and Foxes swapping trunk lines In Brooklyn due to track work in Manhattan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Maybe it's time to consider having the (B)(F) and (M) all swap terminals?

In this scenario:

(B) becomes a full-time train and runs via 63rd in place of the (F) to 179 ((B) can run on the express track to 57th like it once did), also extended nights and weekends to Coney Island.
(F) remains full-time, but returns to running via 53rd and is a local to 71-Continental at all times. 
(M) runs 19/7 to 168 (late nights as it does now)

This scenario also allows the (E) to go back to being a 24/7 express on QBL (including late nights).

Basically, the (B) in this scenario would run like the (F) currently does, but express in Manhattan with the (B) going to Brighton instead of Culver.

This is a G.O, not the IND Second System expansion plan...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

Maybe it's time to consider having the (B)(F) and (M) all swap terminals?

In this scenario:

(B) becomes a full-time train and runs via 63rd in place of the (F) to 179 ((B) can run on the express track to 57th like it once did), also extended nights and weekends to Coney Island.
(F) remains full-time, but returns to running via 53rd and is a local to 71-Continental at all times. 
(M) runs 19/7 to 168 (late nights as it does now)

This scenario also allows the (E) to go back to being a 24/7 express on QBL (including late nights).

Basically, the (B) in this scenario would run like the (F) currently does, but express in Manhattan with the (B) going to Brighton instead of Culver.

Because we really need the (M) train to become another “hybrid express-local train” in Manhattan that causes unnecessary delays by switching from the local to the express tracks, just like the (N) does on Broadway? And in roughly the same area, no less?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Clarifying my response
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Because we really need the (M) train to become another “hybrid express-local train” in Manhattan that causes delays by switching from the local to the express tracks, just like the (N) does on Broadway? And in roughly the same area, no less?

Maybe, but in this format you are actually only adding the merge northbound (where the (M) goes from the local to the express track) and changing the merge southbound (the (F) and (M) would merge between 42nd and 34th instead of before 47-50). This also would give CPW local riders as I do it two services other than late nights at all times, including weekends as this version of the (M) would be 19/7 instead of the (B)'s current 17/5 while the (B) would become a 24/7 line.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Maybe, but in this format you are actually only adding the merge northbound (where the (M) goes from the local to the express track) and changing the merge southbound (the (F) and (M) would merge between 42nd and 34th instead of before 47-50). This also would give CPW local riders as I do it two services other than late nights at all times, including weekends as this version of the (M) would be 19/7 instead of the (B)'s current 17/5 while the (B) would become a 24/7 line.  

No, the merge is in both directions, not just one. It’s the same exact delay-prone merging that the (N)(R)(W) do between 42nd and 34th. And it’s entirely unneeded. There are other, better ways to give CPW local riders two services seven days a week. Much better than delaying northbound (B) and (D) trains at 34th and southbound (F) trains at 42nd, while the (M) cuts in front of them.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 6/22/2021 at 9:35 AM, Lex said:

That's not the same as having trains under one label serving West End and Culver (in both directions) simultaneously.

This is not confusing with the (Q) via Sea Beach and (N) via 2 Avenue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, CenSin said:

“What makes some overloaded designations okay but not others?”

The problem is, (MTA) has a habit of doing the stupidest thing possible when it comes to designations. They even tell crews that if they sign their train up anything other then the route it's suppose to be on, they'll get a write up. Which makes no sense, because would you rather have a R160 (D) at 9th Av, or an R160 (N) saying via BROADWAY/WEST END and trying to figure out what the hell it means and delaying other passengers who are trying to understand what train this is.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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