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.

bobtehpanda

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    7,194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    21

bobtehpanda last won the day on March 19

bobtehpanda had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,351 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Seattle, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

11,493 profile views
  1. This is a distinction without a difference. In Tokyo literally search the word "hospital" and you immediately pull up dozens with rail lines adjacent, underneath, at the front door, etc. In any case, I don't know how much of a concern there would even be: Goldwater Hospital's description as a "hospital" is a little generous - it was mostly a nursing and chronic care facility. It wouldn't have surgeries, MRIs, or anything else that would be significantly affected by vibration or EM interference. The 63 St line and a 57 St line would have similar construction methods. One notable thing about Roosevelt Island station is that it is extremely deep, since on either side there is a river crossing that has to stay navigable. It is 100 feet deep, and at that depth it is well within the bedrock, not really affecting things above it.
  2. It would've been no more of an investment than building the line from 63 St to 21 St Queensbridge and connecting to the Queens Blvd Line at 36 St. It would've been more useful and wasted less money, since the total amount of new tunnel would've actually been smaller.
  3. Hospitals coexist with rail tunnels all over the world, who gives a shit? Hospitals need transit service too, since they're generally major employers.
  4. To be real honest here, there are lots of diverging points here that could've made today's situation better; imagine if the Flushing Line had been built with 4 tracks, if 53rd had been built with 4 tracks, if we had made the Flushing Line BMT and the Astoria IRT, etc. We actually had an opportunity to fix this much more recently though. The 63rd St tunnel probably shouldn't have been on 63rd St; it should've been on 57th and hooked up to QBL at Queens Plaza. That would have eliminated the backtracking problem all on its own.
  5. Your LRTs are mostly weird Frankensteins of middling-to-poor performing bus routes that don't take people to where they need to go. Like most of the ideas you've proposed here. Most of these wouldn't justify a dedicated bus lane let alone expensive rail infrastructure.
  6. Because it's quite clear that OP is only mostly interested in drawing crayons all over the place and not things that actually work.
  7. Still expensive to operate and there is already service between Court Square and Queens Plaza. Just build a physical transfer and call it a day.
  8. Why build a super expensive shuttle when you can just build a transfer station to Court Square at 11th and 44th?
  9. This would be a Manhattan-bound service cut for the QBL. QBL is full. If deinterlining happens another service should replace the to go to Manhattan. I don't know why you hate giving more Manhattan-bound seats to Queens riders.
  10. CPW riders aren't the only riders in the system, and CPW is far from capacity; Queens riders have a real need for more capacity across the river and this is the only way to get it.
  11. The problem is not what CPW riders want, the problem is that CPW needs to be deinterlined to make room for more 53rd St trains, and combined with piping down trains only to53rd and 63rd it allows 60th to go into Astoria uninterrupted. If the gets taken off QBL something has to replace it, and this is the only way to make room that would be helpful to most commuters (and no, extending the would not be helpful to most commuters)
  12. The local running past Forest Hills is a non-starter; that was already tried in the '90s and was massively unpopular because of how slow it was. All those riders ended up changing for express trains anyways.
  13. well, costs is the big one. Of course, ESA kinda blew up in their faces, but hindsight is 2020. also, pun intended, tunnel vision. ESA more or less dates back to 1968, the founding of the MTA. The MTA has not, in the 21st century, proposed a new subway extension by itself that wasn't in an older plan. Everything "new" line extension, Red Hook , to Secaucus, down Utica, RBB, has been pushed by either the state or the city in some capacity.
  14. to 63rd. replaces the . So QBL looks like 6th av QBL local 6th av QBL express 8th Av QBL express 8th Av local
  15. I think a QBL local would work fine. When the was introduced, crowding on the reduced significantly even though the frequency split went from 18 / 12 to 15/15. The gets absolutely slammed because it is the only 8th Av connection still, but a would reduce the need for that significantly. I agree that Woodhaven should eventually be built anyways. But my point about backtracking being an extremely undesirable and unrealistic practice for commuters to tolerate stands. There is no place in the system where we ask riders to backtrack like that and then make a wrong-direction transfer involving two level changes.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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