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.

CDTA

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    2,030
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by CDTA


  1. 1 hour ago, RR503 said:

    Honestly there have been very few switch removals over the years. Many areas have in fact gained capability -- 125th (A)(B)(C)(D) and 4th/9th Culver come to mind. 

    That said, there are a few areas where switch removal has hindered flexibility. The three that immediately come to mind are:

    - the crossovers west of Hoyt on IRT EPW, which at one time allowed Lex trains to serve the station. 

    - the crossovers at Freeman St on IRT White Plains which punctuated the otherwise enormous express section.

    - the crossovers between the southbound tracks south of Broadway Lafayette St (IND). (To be fair, this removal was necessitated by the construction of the Chrystie ramp to/from the Manhattan Bridge, but the function was not duplicated in any new switch north of the station. Today, that lack of crossover capability south of W4 on s/b 6th forces insanely complex changes whenever express trains need to do more than run local from 34 to W4 -- think Culver swap and (E) via (R)

    The more interesting examination IMO is that of crossover provisions. Especially on the IND, many spaces were left for switches -- and yet they were never installed. I'd love to see crossovers installed in the provisions south of 96/CPW, for example...

    Not to derail, but is there a map of said provisions?


  2. Something to keep in mind is that pretty much every low-income rider ESPECIALLY in the city isn't a choice rider. They need to take the train or bus to get to work. Uber or cabs aren't even on their radar. Yes this program is expensive, but so are things like food stamps and school lunches, which I would argue are close to equal importance. A significant number of cities have done this already too.

    • Upvote 1

  3. I'd hate to be that guy, but I'm a little skeptical here. A lot of it seems to be potentially meaningless buzzwords. I mean it's nice that they're actually admitting management is a problem, but what's the plan to fix it? Something vague and undefined. A lot of it seems to be bottom of the barrel stuff that should've been done a long time ago. Things like competent management, working on multiple lines, etc, that every other transit agency seemed to figure out a long time ago.

    Having said all that, actually shutting down lines consistently is a great move. The big issues with line shutdowns and service changes isn't that they happen, it's that they're so inconsistent and you actually have to look them up each time you go out. I imagine it's going to be a lot easier for tourists now too since they can just look at a map and see whatever line isn't running on weekends.

    On 5/23/2018 at 9:33 AM, Lance said:

    Eric Phillips, a spokesman for Mr. de Blasio, said the city was not willing to help pay for Mr. Byford’s plan. He said the authority should use its existing resources and the state should approve a new revenue source, like the millionaire’s tax that Mr. de Blasio has proposed.

    Oh my God.

    It's really, REALLY hard to look like an unlikable person next to Cuomo. I have such a strong, palpable dislike for Cuomo, and yet every time De Blaiso opens his mouth I find myself running back into Cuomo's arms. Here's an idea Mr. Mayor. You like the millionare's tax so much? Think it's such a good idea? Implement it in the city YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. This guy acts like he's the minority leader of the senate or something. It seems like all he does is complain about how woe is him and he can't do anything because he's just a little tiny mayor. Glad to know the mayoral office is such a weak position, can't believe he spent $13 Million on a campaign for a position that allows him to do nothing whatsoever! Grow the f**k up. Implement this plan that you think can raise so much money and use that to fund your portion of the plan instead of preemptively whining like a child that big ol mean Cuomo won't let you do anything. Run for f**king governor if you're such a genius and know how to solve all of the state's problems. I can't wait for Cuomo to come out and say he doesn't like the plan so that DeBlasio starts running around going on about how it's the best plan ever and he's doing his part and funding it but the state is bullying poor old DeBlasio and won't put up their share. Screw DeBlasio and screw the NYCGOP for putting in the one person who'd do a worse job than him as their candidate.

    • Upvote 4

  4. Glad to know that if I don't like somebody all I have to do get then arrested is go after their service dog 👍

    /s

    That reckless endangerment charge is absolute bollocks, who does this chick know that she got someone charged for bringing their legal service dog on the train? I hope this guy lawyers up because that seriously sounds like an ADA violation. Of course he won't though because he's just a poor folk from Brownsville, thanks New York City for showing that yes, you are still courrupt and have no problem harming innocent people as long as you're able to spin it, not like anyone thought otherwise.

    • Upvote 1

  5. Here's an idea. How about moving the Javits Center to the parts that can't do high rise development? It'll still be in a fairly central location unlike aqueduct, and it'll free up much more valuable land in Manhattan.


  6. Also as an addendum:

    You could also squeeze two more 10-car R160s out of there to give to the (A) or (C).  Because of the way fleets are currently assigned, compared to current numbers, there are a few 'half-trains' laying around which obviously can't be assigned. Under the above scenario they're just added to the spares, thus increasing the spare ratio by a little bit, but you could also assign them to the (S) , since it does use half-trains. Going off of the above, if you gave it a 4-car R32, a 4-car R46, and a 4-car R68 (all three half-trains left over in the above plans), you could get rid of the 1.5 R160s currently assigned to the line, which would end up giving you two additional trains. However, for a variety of reasons (making Pitkin have three extra fleets for a shuttle, the OPTO issue, etc) it's not very likely to happen in practice so I didn't include it above. Thought it was a neat thing worth sharing though. 


  7. (G) 19 R32s, 2 R160 (all 8 car)

    (J)(Z) 21 R179s, 3 R160s, 5 R143s

    (M) 32 R160s

    (L) 16 R143s

    (N)(W) 33 R46s

    (Q) 21 R68s

    (B) 13 R68s, 8 R46s, 4 R42s

    (A) 38 R160s

    (C) 8 R160s, 11 R179s (all 10 car)

    (F) 40 R160s, 4 R46s

    (E)(R)(D) unchanged

    Uses all currently assigned full trains except for four additional 8-car R160 trains, which could either be idle or assigned to add even more service to any of the 8-car lines.

    Aside from standard planned (G)(J) and (M) increases, this also adds 1 TPH to the (C).


  8. On 3/22/2018 at 9:53 PM, officiallyliam said:

    The problem there is that as you've increased the usability of the West Hempstead line, you've simultaneously decreased the usability of the Oyster Bay line. Although it has low ridership today, the riders that are there primarily want to go New York City, not south through Nassau County. I'm totally with the LRT/tram-train idea from Valley Stream to Mineola via Hempstead, but I'm unsure about going all the way up to Oyster Bay.

    When the third track project is done there's no longer going to be any direct Oyster Bay-NYC service, so you might as well make it go somewhere.


  9. By installing switches just south of 50th St, and between Broadway-Lafayette and Grand St (This would be fairly difficult to do southbound but northbound is fine) you have the (C) run over the 8th Ave Express, and the (M) run via 63rd St and the 6th Ave Express. That, combined with moving the (F) to 53rd St would completely segregate the (E)(F), which allows for a very high degree of operational flexibility. 

    Something wrong on the...

    ...8th Ave Local? Just run all the (E)s via the (F), which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

    ...6th Ave Local? Just run all the (F)s via the (E), which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

    ...8th Ave Express? Move the (A) and (C) to the local track, then move the (E) to the (F), which can all be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

    ...6th Ave Express? Move the (B)(D) and (M) to the local track, then move the (F) to the (E), which can be done without causing any additional merging or delays.

     


  10. 28 minutes ago, Eric B said:

    It seems to be whole lines that go out. Would be nice if he could have parts of lines. Someone else once showed me an app in development that IIRC used something like RYG colored elements like they have for roads.

     

    Hit the nail on the head for me. Sorry but the (B) running local for three stops is not at all the equivalent of the entirety of the (B)(D)(F)(M) being out.


  11. People seem to be forgetting that any PATH expansion involves signifant construction in New York City. By extending the (7) you eliminate that cost, which is likely to be the most expensive part of the project, which actually reduces the overall cost to New York as any of the cross-river projects are going to be funded by us through PANYNJ anyways. There's also a benefit for the city that's only available through a (7) extension; Direct access to LIC from NJ and vice versa, which'll allow for untold development in the area. Don't be so quick to knock it.

    Also worth noting for the first time this gives Westchester/CT residents a two-seat ride to New Jersey and again, vice versa.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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