Comments on: An easy answer to the F train problems http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/ A New York City Subway Blog Sat, 20 Mar 2010 23:32:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: IanH http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-73961 IanH Mon, 08 Mar 2010 20:26:01 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-73961 As soon as the Culver Viaduct Project is complete, they can have the F and the V swap north and south terminals. This means that the F would take 71st Avenue in Queens and Church Avenue in Brooklyn via 63rd Street tunnel on weekdays and resume its normal route between 179th Street and Coney Island on weekends and late nights, leaving the V Train to operate the F's current route on weekdays between 179th Street and Coney Island via 53rd Street tunnel. This give the F Train a chance to go local in Queens while the V run express in Queens and Brooklyn. In addition, the V can take 2/3's of the R160 cars and 1/3rd of the R46 cars. The F would be all R46 cars again. Since the new cars have the new electronic strip map and the Flexible INformation Display, they can change between the V and the F at either Coney Island or 179th Street and the R46 cars can be taken out of service when the V is not operating. As soon as the Culver Viaduct Project is complete, they can have the F and the V swap north and south terminals. This means that the F would take 71st Avenue in Queens and Church Avenue in Brooklyn via 63rd Street tunnel on weekdays and resume its normal route between 179th Street and Coney Island on weekends and late nights, leaving the V Train to operate the F’s current route on weekdays between 179th Street and Coney Island via 53rd Street tunnel. This give the F Train a chance to go local in Queens while the V run express in Queens and Brooklyn. In addition, the V can take 2/3’s of the R160 cars and 1/3rd of the R46 cars. The F would be all R46 cars again. Since the new cars have the new electronic strip map and the Flexible INformation Display, they can change between the V and the F at either Coney Island or 179th Street and the R46 cars can be taken out of service when the V is not operating.

]]> By: AlexB http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-62160 AlexB Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:47:30 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-62160 1. Currently, the F has to wait for the G at Smith-9th and for the V at 2nd Ave. Under what I described, the F would still have to wait for the G and the V, only now it is at Church Ave and Bergen St. Considering there are no other trains using the lower level tracks on the Culver express, I don't see why using those tracks to turn around the V would be a big problem. 2. Currently, the J, M, & Z line combine for a total of 18 trains/hour over the Williamsburg Bridge. If you add the V train, that comes to a total of 28 trains/hour. This is difficult, but not impossible. 3. There would be a merge if the V and E were swapped. Theoretically, it could be done without delays, but in real life, it would probably lead to some delay. The positive trade off would be that there would be a real crosstown route, from the LES to Chelsea/W Village, that would allow JMZ riders to get to the west side with only 1 transfer, instead of the 2 it requires now. 1. Currently, the F has to wait for the G at Smith-9th and for the V at 2nd Ave. Under what I described, the F would still have to wait for the G and the V, only now it is at Church Ave and Bergen St. Considering there are no other trains using the lower level tracks on the Culver express, I don’t see why using those tracks to turn around the V would be a big problem.
2. Currently, the J, M, & Z line combine for a total of 18 trains/hour over the Williamsburg Bridge. If you add the V train, that comes to a total of 28 trains/hour. This is difficult, but not impossible.
3. There would be a merge if the V and E were swapped. Theoretically, it could be done without delays, but in real life, it would probably lead to some delay. The positive trade off would be that there would be a real crosstown route, from the LES to Chelsea/W Village, that would allow JMZ riders to get to the west side with only 1 transfer, instead of the 2 it requires now.

]]> By: Cen-Sin http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61907 Cen-Sin Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:31:53 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61907 1. Bergen Street's lower level as a turn around area poses several problems. Trains terminating on the same track as the trains that pass through would cause some delays; doing it twice (V and G) makes it a big delay. Not only will F train riders have to wait for the G train at Church Ave/Smith-9 Sts, but they will have to wait for V trains to leave Jay St. Of course, they could always open up the lower level and riders would just run down the stairs for the the V. There might also be capacity problems during rush hours; only the Brooklyn bound track can store the V trains while they're waiting to switch to the Manhattan-bound track. They could always move the trains further down (storing 2 or 3 trains on a single track, or install a double crossover in place of the single crossover. 2. The V over the Nassau St line would be a questionable idea. We're trying to cram the J, M, Z, and now the V into two tracks between Essex St and Marcy Avenue; 3 services serving a single track in a one direction is a bad idea; 4 isn't better (assuming the J and Z are considered separate). This might work out very well. I like the transfer options. And do we know which direction the masses of transferring Nassau line riders are coming from? 3. Swapping the E and V within their trunk line segments would mean swapping their colors as well. At the same time, even with the flying junctions, delays will crop up frequently. If there were only two services being swapped, there would be no problem at the flying junction, but there are two services being swapped and two that are not. There will be a merge for local trains going in both directions. Then again, maybe I don't really understand your third point fully. 1. Bergen Street’s lower level as a turn around area poses several problems. Trains terminating on the same track as the trains that pass through would cause some delays; doing it twice (V and G) makes it a big delay. Not only will F train riders have to wait for the G train at Church Ave/Smith-9 Sts, but they will have to wait for V trains to leave Jay St. Of course, they could always open up the lower level and riders would just run down the stairs for the the V. There might also be capacity problems during rush hours; only the Brooklyn bound track can store the V trains while they’re waiting to switch to the Manhattan-bound track. They could always move the trains further down (storing 2 or 3 trains on a single track, or install a double crossover in place of the single crossover.
2. The V over the Nassau St line would be a questionable idea. We’re trying to cram the J, M, Z, and now the V into two tracks between Essex St and Marcy Avenue; 3 services serving a single track in a one direction is a bad idea; 4 isn’t better (assuming the J and Z are considered separate). This might work out very well. I like the transfer options. And do we know which direction the masses of transferring Nassau line riders are coming from?
3. Swapping the E and V within their trunk line segments would mean swapping their colors as well. At the same time, even with the flying junctions, delays will crop up frequently. If there were only two services being swapped, there would be no problem at the flying junction, but there are two services being swapped and two that are not. There will be a merge for local trains going in both directions. Then again, maybe I don’t really understand your third point fully.

]]> By: AlexB http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61880 AlexB Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:02:06 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61880 All the ideas where the V is extended as the Culver local are great, but meaningless until the Culver Viaduct rehab is done. I think the MTA should look into two temporary extensions of the V to aid the F: 1) To Jay St, using the express tracks at the lower level of the Bergen station to turn the trains around (would require track rehab); and 2) To Bway Junction via the Chrystie St Connection and Jamaica express. These extensions wouldn't relieve crowding further into Brooklyn, but it would relieve the burden of the F at Delancey St where half of the JMZ riders transfer to the F. Option 1 would also help the F train by absorbing riders at E Bway, York, Jay, & possibly Bergen (if renovated). Option 2 would obviously do a lot to help the not crowded JMZ, but could convince rider on the crowded L and AC to transfer at Bway Junction. As discussed in previous comments, a switch of the 8th ave/Fulton trains and 6th ave/Culver trains is not possible at Jay St without causing serious delays due to the way the switches are set up, but it is possible at W 4th because of the flying junction. Switching the C and F or V is not helpful, but switching the V and E could be. The E could run down 6th Ave and Church Ave and terminate as it does now at WTC (making the Queens-downtown commute a bit faster). The V could run down 8th Ave and Houston and terminate as I described above at Bergen St (option 1). If this happened, F train riders could get off at Bergen, walk downstairs, and get a seat on an empty V train to take them to 8th Ave. Or, if the V were extended via the Chrystie St connection (option 2), it would provide another way to 8th Ave from the F that skips a stop (2nd Ave). It would provide a real crosstown service from the LES to Chelsea via the village, creating a sort of horseshoe around central Manhattan, and give JMZ riders direct and convenient access to the west side for the first time. The V train is an interesting discussion because it is redundant and can do anything we want it to, providing "extra" service where necessary. It also always brings up the history of the IND and its variety of routing possibilities. http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-hoytberg.png http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-chrystie.png http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-eny.png http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-w4.png All the ideas where the V is extended as the Culver local are great, but meaningless until the Culver Viaduct rehab is done. I think the MTA should look into two temporary extensions of the V to aid the F: 1) To Jay St, using the express tracks at the lower level of the Bergen station to turn the trains around (would require track rehab); and 2) To Bway Junction via the Chrystie St Connection and Jamaica express. These extensions wouldn’t relieve crowding further into Brooklyn, but it would relieve the burden of the F at Delancey St where half of the JMZ riders transfer to the F. Option 1 would also help the F train by absorbing riders at E Bway, York, Jay, & possibly Bergen (if renovated). Option 2 would obviously do a lot to help the not crowded JMZ, but could convince rider on the crowded L and AC to transfer at Bway Junction.

As discussed in previous comments, a switch of the 8th ave/Fulton trains and 6th ave/Culver trains is not possible at Jay St without causing serious delays due to the way the switches are set up, but it is possible at W 4th because of the flying junction. Switching the C and F or V is not helpful, but switching the V and E could be. The E could run down 6th Ave and Church Ave and terminate as it does now at WTC (making the Queens-downtown commute a bit faster). The V could run down 8th Ave and Houston and terminate as I described above at Bergen St (option 1). If this happened, F train riders could get off at Bergen, walk downstairs, and get a seat on an empty V train to take them to 8th Ave. Or, if the V were extended via the Chrystie St connection (option 2), it would provide another way to 8th Ave from the F that skips a stop (2nd Ave). It would provide a real crosstown service from the LES to Chelsea via the village, creating a sort of horseshoe around central Manhattan, and give JMZ riders direct and convenient access to the west side for the first time.

The V train is an interesting discussion because it is redundant and can do anything we want it to, providing “extra” service where necessary. It also always brings up the history of the IND and its variety of routing possibilities.

http://images.nycsubway.org/tr.....ytberg.png

http://images.nycsubway.org/tr.....rystie.png

http://images.nycsubway.org/tr.....il-eny.png

http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/detail-w4.png

]]> By: Matt http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61855 Matt Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:15:03 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61855 As long as we're waiting for the 2011 viaduct rehab to be completed, why not go for broke? There's a single express track all the way out to Kings Highway, which allow express service all the way out there in the peak direction. In an ideal world, this is the service pattern I would prefer: AM rush hours: F local from Stillwell to Kings Hwy, express to Manhattan (18th Ave, Church Ave, 7th Ave, Jay St, then merge to local 6 Av line), Coney Island-bound express to Church Ave, then local to Stillwell. V local from Kings Hwy to Manhattan in both directions PM rush hours: F express from Manhattan to Kings Hwy (Jay St, 7th Ave, Church Ave, 18th Ave, Kings Hwy), then local to Stillwell. Manhattan-bound local from Stillwell to Church Ave, then express to Manhattan. V local from Kings Hwy to Manhattan in both directions Late night and weekends: F local, all Culver line stops No V trains If that proved too tricky, you could just run the F express in both directions to Church Ave, then local between Church Ave and Stillwell, with the V terminating at Church Ave. Late nights and weekends there would be no V and the F would make all local stops. You could also argue that this pattern is more fair to residents at, say, Avenue P who otherwise have no express service and the same long local ride to Manhattan they currently have on the F. As long as we’re waiting for the 2011 viaduct rehab to be completed, why not go for broke? There’s a single express track all the way out to Kings Highway, which allow express service all the way out there in the peak direction.

In an ideal world, this is the service pattern I would prefer:

AM rush hours:
F local from Stillwell to Kings Hwy, express to Manhattan (18th Ave, Church Ave, 7th Ave, Jay St, then merge to local 6 Av line), Coney Island-bound express to Church Ave, then local to Stillwell.
V local from Kings Hwy to Manhattan in both directions

PM rush hours:
F express from Manhattan to Kings Hwy (Jay St, 7th Ave, Church Ave, 18th Ave, Kings Hwy), then local to Stillwell. Manhattan-bound local from Stillwell to Church Ave, then express to Manhattan.
V local from Kings Hwy to Manhattan in both directions

Late night and weekends:
F local, all Culver line stops
No V trains

If that proved too tricky, you could just run the F express in both directions to Church Ave, then local between Church Ave and Stillwell, with the V terminating at Church Ave. Late nights and weekends there would be no V and the F would make all local stops. You could also argue that this pattern is more fair to residents at, say, Avenue P who otherwise have no express service and the same long local ride to Manhattan they currently have on the F.

]]> By: Matt http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61854 Matt Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:10:54 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61854 Bypassing 7th Ave wouldn't be smart, logistically. It's in the middle of one of the densest commuting populations. Having it be an express stop would be important for taking pressure off the local trains. As far as I can tell, most heavily used stops on the Culver line are 7th Ave, Carroll St, and Bergen St, and only 7th Ave has an express platform (disclosure: 7th Ave is my stop :) Bypassing 7th Ave wouldn’t be smart, logistically. It’s in the middle of one of the densest commuting populations. Having it be an express stop would be important for taking pressure off the local trains. As far as I can tell, most heavily used stops on the Culver line are 7th Ave, Carroll St, and Bergen St, and only 7th Ave has an express platform (disclosure: 7th Ave is my stop :)

]]> By: Think twice http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61846 Think twice Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:26:06 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61846 The Culver is pretty straight-forward. A 7th Avenue bypass (if we ever get that far) should be, as all things, done on a trial basis to gauge headways, travel patterns, etc. The Culver is pretty straight-forward. A 7th Avenue bypass (if we ever get that far) should be, as all things, done on a trial basis to gauge headways, travel patterns, etc.

]]> By: Cen-Sin http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61844 Cen-Sin Thu, 18 Jun 2009 14:11:21 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61844 The track configuration actually enables the 4 train to continue to/from New Lots Avenue. However, it's inefficient to switch between the New Lots line tracks and the IRT Eastern Parkway line's express tracks. The Utica Avenue station was designed to serve trains from two merging lines: the Utica Avenue line and the New Lots line. The New Lots line exists and is served by the 3 train, but the Utica Avenue line does not exist. If the MTA were to try to implement the service pattern I described, Utica Ave would be the bottleneck for express trains continuing from New Lots Ave. Until the Utica Avenue line is actually built, the optimal configuration would be the express trains terminating before the local trains. You can see that <a href="http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigbklyn-2.png" title="Brooklyn 2" rel="nofollow">the express tracks end in a stub while the local tracks curve southeast</a>. The track configuration actually enables the 4 train to continue to/from New Lots Avenue. However, it’s inefficient to switch between the New Lots line tracks and the IRT Eastern Parkway line’s express tracks. The Utica Avenue station was designed to serve trains from two merging lines: the Utica Avenue line and the New Lots line. The New Lots line exists and is served by the 3 train, but the Utica Avenue line does not exist. If the MTA were to try to implement the service pattern I described, Utica Ave would be the bottleneck for express trains continuing from New Lots Ave. Until the Utica Avenue line is actually built, the optimal configuration would be the express trains terminating before the local trains.
You can see that the express tracks end in a stub while the local tracks curve southeast.

]]> By: George http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61839 George Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:17:42 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61839 What about the 3 & 4 in Brooklyn? I never use that line so I have no idea how effective that is, but is there a reason why the 3 runs to ENY and not the 4, or people just prefer to take a longer time to get to Manhattan (or love switching trains)? What about the 3 & 4 in Brooklyn? I never use that line so I have no idea how effective that is, but is there a reason why the 3 runs to ENY and not the 4, or people just prefer to take a longer time to get to Manhattan (or love switching trains)?

]]> By: Adam http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/06/17/an-easy-answer-to-the-f-train-problems/#comment-61831 Adam Thu, 18 Jun 2009 03:54:10 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=3126#comment-61831 Except the MTA makes up excuse after excuse to not run G trains on Queens Boulevard. Except the MTA makes up excuse after excuse to not run G trains on Queens Boulevard.

]]>