Union Tpke

On 4/3/2020 at 10:42 PM, paulrivera said:

Here’s a random thought:

When we get back to a sense of normalcy, does anyone think that NYCT will revisit and maybe change their 125% loading guidelines going forward?

If they do, it will to cut service more. As @RR503 has mentioned in the past, we need to move away from loading guidelines to schedule our service.

Just now, Around the Horn said:

So improve the Q102 instead of waste billions of dollars on an underground bus line...

"Yes, everyone wants “creative” solutions in transit.  But too often, “I want a creative solution!” means “You need to change the facts of math and geometry to suit my interests!”

 

Yeah, to me, creative solutions and out of the box solutions are always gimmicks to bring attention to politicians (like Cuomo) to make them seem on top of things when what really needs to be done is to take off the shelf solutions (done in other transit systems, or in our own past) and put them in place. Not as sexy, but much more effective.

Just now, Jova42R said:

This is a bus...

An underground one, which is ridiculous, since cars are restricted on the island.

25 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

The walk from the Octagon to the  is almost 25 min. The walk from Southpoint Park to the  is 15 min at a brisk pace. Roosevelt Island NEEDS a cross-island BRT or subway, and this is the best option.

And the Q102 is NOT SUFFICIENT! It doesn't stop going towards Queens north of Motorgate, and going from Queens, it loops up to the Lighthouse. Also, it runs only every 20-30 mins. (Maybe a Q102 split could work WITH INCREASED SERVICE LEVELS, though - Maybe an extension to Manhattan?)

There are other areas with much more pressing needs than Roosevelt Island. If you need to improve N-S transit, improve bus service.

I just found these on the Transit Innovation Partnership Signal Partnership page. I haven't looked through them yet, but feel free to post what you find, especially for the R211s. I saved these on the web archive so they are safe from being wiped from the site.

https://transitinnovation.org/challenge/signal

R142: https://transitinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R142 Contract Specification.pdf

R142A: https://transitinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R142A-Contract-Specifications.pdf

R211: https://transitinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/R211 Tech Spec.pdf

29 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

If we're talking about improving transit on Roosevelt Island, I'd propose the following:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sUYGIUN8SSc9CVfU1tl88DeRU4mC9z8m&usp=sharing

An underground trolleybus line.

The line would be underground between 31 St and Roosevelt Island on the LGA Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the North Manhattan Branch, 1 Av and Roosevelt Island on the South Manhattan Branch, and the entire Queens Plaza branch.

Fleet: New Flyer Xcelsior XT60 (would this warrant enough ridership for a 60' bus? Would it be better to have a XT40 or XT35?)

Ideally, 30 BPH on the core line, 15 BPH on each branch.

The service patterns would be:

• 79 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - QUEENS PLAZA
• 34 ST - ROOSEVELT ISLAND - LGA

Long Island City and Octagon would be transfer points with island platforms.

Thoughts @Union Tpke @Caelestor @Lex @LaGuardia Link N Tra?

 

There is absolutely no need whatsoever to improve transit on Roosevelt Island. They have a subway station. The only improvement I can think of is additional entrance capacity to the subway station, but that is only a concern for events. We shouldn't be looking to solve problems that do not exist.

21 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yeah, of course they don’t want to. But we aren’t getting new Manhattan<>Queens tunnels anytime soon, and the only way you can extract more capacity from Queens boulevard is by getting more people to ride locals west of Roosevelt, sooooo...

As anyone who rides QB can tell you, the incentives to stay on the local today are mighty weak. Ever been to Roosevelt during the AM rush? Wall of lining the express, that grows whenever a local pulls in.

@RR503 The only reason I would ever ride QB local is if my feet hurt a lot and I am exhausted, and even then, I am party to taking the  or bailing for the express at Queens Plaza or Roosevelt. We really need to market deinterlining in Queens as adding a whole new tunnel's worth of capacity for only modifying service patterns with minor capital investments. We could compare the cost of building new tunnels vs. Lex 59/63 transfer + Astoria improvements + M to 10 car, and there is no contest.

10 hours ago, Snowblock said:

My random thought for the night: defying my best instincts, I've actually been reading fantasy plans on this forum the last couple days (since there really isn't anything better to do with my free time lately than screw around online). And the impression I keep getting is that many of you have absolutely no consideration for the train crews and what their job entails when they are off the train. There are certain places that can not be used as terminals. Just because you can turn a train there doesn't mean you should. Cutting back runs so that both destinations are locations that don't have crew facilities (even great men have to pee sometimes!) is cruel and inhumane. And in these times of social distancing and the city refusing to do anything about assaults against employees, how can you have an entire line worth of crews have to stand around on the platform, having no place to even sit down or eat their lunch, until they are ready to make their next trip? Even when non-terminal locations are used as temporary terminals for a GO, it will always return to a regular location and their time at that temporary terminal will be at best to drop back to the second train arriving.

This is exactly why 205 on the is not a terminal and the crew change is done at Bedford Park. Likewise when the  goes to 86 St (or the to Ave X for that matter), the crew change is at Kings Highway which is equipped to handle multiple crews (but NOT Kings Highway on the  which I know is a miserable place for everyone involved to end at).

I have missed reading your informative posts here and it is great to have you back, even for a short period.

On 4/2/2020 at 11:01 AM, MeeP15-9112 said:

How many garbage train runs are there and what times do they usually run?

In high school, I would sometimes see the R32 garbage train at Queens Plaza heading northbound at about 12:30. I would sometimes see it heading southbound at Roosevelt Avenue at about 3:07 or so. Both on the local tracks.

52 minutes ago, Jova42R said:

 

 

Ok, what corridors could use trams in NYC? I think (just off the top of my head):

 

Again, what is the obsession with streetcars? Frequency and the overall quality of service is more important than mode.

There are several pieces by the amazing transit consultant Jarrett Walker that you should read. Here are a couple about streetcars:

https://humantransit.org/2011/12/outtake-on-endearing-but-useless-transit.html

https://humantransit.org/2009/07/streetcars-an-inconvenient-truth.html

11 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

I'll second this...

Northern Blvd is wide enough for a busway or tramway running down the center if you remove the parking and use the center three lanes.

The 14th Street busway has already shown that high frequency articulated vehicles with dedicated rights of way attract more ridership. Doing the same on Northern Blvd seems like a no brainer to me. BRT or LRT from Flushing to Columbus Circle (like the DOT had planned previously) would do quite well.

Realistically, peak load point from Brooklyn on a hypothetical train extension would probably be 34th Street-Hudson Yards, assuming full build out and occupancy of the developments at Hudson Yards and Manhattan West, so a three track two platform station (like North Greenwich on the Jubilee line) there would do the trick. If we're aiming for 30 TPH on the line I would have at a minimum 20 TPH to 72nd Street/10 TPH to Hudson Yards, given how high density the Upper West Side is.

Those photos are amazing! Then drastically increase density on the corridor by rezoning it, turning it from a corridor with autoshops to a corridor that is actually urban.

35 minutes ago, Snowblock said:

See above. MIght I also add that in the time it would take to relay the  at 215, it could have completed the trip up to 242. So once again I ask WHY would you want it to end at 215 and force essential employees commuting home to take 2 buses?

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this discussion.

http://www.mta.info/press-release/mta-headquarters/mta-and-city-new-york-announce-agreement-dedicate-347-madison-avenue

MTA and City of New York Announce Agreement to Dedicate 347 Madison Avenue Redevelopment Proceeds to MTA Capital Program

Revenue from Redevelopment of MTA-Owned Site 341-7 Madison Avenue to Generate More Than $1 Billion for MTA Capital Investments

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the City of New York today announced an agreement on a site-specific value capture strategy to jump-start development of 341-7 Madison Avenue, the site of the MTA’s former headquarters East Midtown. Real estate taxes and other revenue generated from the future ground lease for the redevelopment of the property will be dedicated to the MTA capital program.

The redevelopment plan is expected to generate more than $1 billion over the life of the ground lease to fund approved transit projects. It provides a creative way for the City of New York to fulfill its obligation to provide $600 million from alternative non-tax-levy revenue sources as part of its $2.66 billion contribution to the MTA’s 2015-2019 Capital Program. It also demonstrates the MTA’s commitment to maximizing the value of its real estate assets.
In addition, like other developments in East Midtown, more transit improvements in Grand Central Subway will be completed in conjunction with the project.

“The deal embodies the MTA’s commitment to maximize the value of its assets for the public’s bottom line,” said Janno Lieber, President of MTA Construction & Development. “The project is an example of environmentally friendly transit-oriented development. The new project will include a new entrance on Madison Avenue with direct connection to Grand Central and the new Long Island Rail Road terminal. The terminal is set to open in 2022. Optimizing connections between jobs and public transportation is key for future economic growth all over the downstate region.”

“The revenue associated with this agreement fills a critically needed funding segment for our Capital Program,” said MTA Chief Financial Officer Robert Foran. “With the MTA and our government funding partners still assessing the budgetary implications of the coronavirus pandemic, this funding is more important than ever. It demonstrates how the MTA is taking every step it can to shore up its funding.”

“This type of redevelopment deal is consistent with what we envisioned when we agreed on a funding commitment to the MTA’s 2015-2019 Capital Plan,” said New York City First Deputy Mayor Dean Fuleihan. “Through mutual agreement, we were able to find a creative way to fund transit projects on behalf of riders, while also ensuring that the maximum potential of the East Midtown Rezoning is fully realized.”

“Our East Midtown Rezoning provided a way to responsibly increase the economic value of one of the city’s most vibrant and transit-oriented areas,” said Vicki Been, New York City Deputy Mayor for Housing and Economic Development. “This transaction builds on our success to date at One Vanderbilt and 270 Park Ave by further generating first class space to attract new businesses and good jobs to the City while ensuring the new developments invest in transit and public spaces that will benefit the business district and everyday New Yorkers.”

The Madison Avenue site served as the MTA’s headquarters from 1979 until 2014, when employees were moved to 2 Broadway where they are co-located with the headquarters of MTA New York City Transit and MTA Bridges and Tunnels. 347 Madison was built in 1917 and was originally known as the Equitable Trust Building after the bank that first occupied the building.

The MTA issued an open, competitive request for proposals from the real estate development community seeking maximum return for the prime site. The request generated intense competition, with nine entities submitting bids to lease and redevelop the site. Boston Properties was conditionally designated as the developer of this site. The project proposal will be evaluated through New York City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure and propose a set of transit improvements to be constructed to earn a zoning bonus.

1 hour ago, Jova42R said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Another QBL/ relief line:

Some lines would serve as good relief lines.

Thoughts @Theli11 @Collin @Union Tpke?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1zHS7VAIXr8VH-f42_ANBY4Yl0h0dg8Hm&usp=sharing

Why not just have dedicated BRT/LRT down Northern and the Queensboro Bridge?

@RR503 

5 minutes ago, mrsman said:

I totally agree with this.  I really don't see a down side to deinterlining CPW, so long as both Washington Heights and Concourse trains each have access to both express and local trains.

A number of years ago, the service pattern was  to Washington Heights and  to Concourse, each side having one express and one local, each side having one 8th Ave train and one 6th Ave train, Washington Heights having their express train run to 8th Ave and Concourse having their express train run to 6th Ave.  If you are coming from way north, you are staying on whatever express train you are on and you will transfer at 59th if you need to.  It's a cross-platform transfer so it's not so hard.  If you board at 145th or 125th, you do have the option of waiting for either  or  and not transferring at 59th.  Similarly, if you board at a local stop south of 125th, you also have the option of waiting for the  or  and not transferring at 59th.  

I propose a deinterlining by keeping the old pattern of the previous paragraph, except that all 8th Ave trains run local on CPW and all 6th Ave trains run express on CPW.  By deinterlining 59th, for passengers that board north of 145th, you won't really change the net number of people transferring at 59th, some people will need to transfer just as they always have, some people will now avoid the transfer, and some people will have a new transfer (likely balanced out by the number of people who no longer need to transfer).  Operationally, I prefer running  as the CPW locals so that there is a direct connection to 50th st station, but the same arguments would also apply if  were the express and  were the locals.

Yes, the passengers boarding at 145th, 125th, and the CPW local stops south of 125th may now be forced to transfer.  To the extent that express customers want 8th Ave or local customers want 6th Ave, those customers will now be forced to transfer at 59th.  But this is a station that was designed to be a major transferring point and it is a cross-platform transfer.  (And yes, we also have all the transfers to and from the  .)  Additionally, it is possible that modern trains could make use of the center platform to alleviate crowding for those whose origin and destination is at 59th and aren't there just to transfer.

As with all deinterlining proposals, the trade-off is a new transfer for the ability to run more trains.  Less waiting, less crowding is far more beneficial in my opinion than the hassle of one additional transfer.  At 59th, it is simply a cross-platform transfer and very doable.

The center platform at 59th Street was closed in 1983 to reduce dwell times (the need to open and close doors on both sides). You would need to renovate it and add an elevator, which is a questionable investment.

@RR503 On your second deinterlining map you mention  short-turns to Myrtle. You forgot to add your Atlantic Avenue terminal improvements, which would allow them to be extended. You forgot to note the eliminated merge at East 180th Street.

30 minutes ago, mrsman said:

There is definite benefit to reinstituting an express service from Forest Hills to 179th.  There are so many bus riders from Eastern Queens that shouldn't have to sit on a train at every stop on this line.  Instead of extending QBL locals to 179th, you can divide QBL express into three services, all three of which are express west of Forest Hills:  1) Express to 179, 2) Local to 179, and 3) Express to Jamaica Center.

As far as 7th Ave station is concerned, if  were CPW locals, there would be no need for transfers of CPW folks to the 8th Ave local.  QBL locals can become 8th Ave expresses and service 50th st at the lower level.

That would be a mess. You would have merges at Briarwood AND 75th. Not a good idea.

11 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@Union Tpke to add on to my quote.  How about the following suggestion:

One Pair of ESA Tracks link up with Atlantic Avenue while the other pair goes to Staten Island. Then your CBD connector could also be integrated.


On second thought, I'm not sure if a downtown CBD Link is feasible, given the amount of Narrow Streets and old infrastructure in Downtown Manhattan

Yes it is feasible. Deep bore tunnel with large TBMs so the stations are inside the tunnel.

1 minute ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

But isn't the plan to split the 2 tracks into 4, which would then split into 8 for 4 different platforms at Grand Central? 

That is still 2 tracks worth of capacity. Branching like that is a huge waste of capacity.

On 3/23/2020 at 5:28 PM, Union Tpke said:

What, would you say, is the other most damaging removal of switches?

@RR503

On 3/20/2020 at 1:27 AM, RR503 said:

Honestly I don’t know. It’s unclear whether this issue is a function of the way NYCT zone controllers/interlockings interact with CBTC, whether this is some AWS overlay bug or something else entirely (perhaps related to our conservative design assumptions?). 

Do you know if this issue is being looked at? Asking other systems how their CBTC systems work with interlockings should be done, if it isn't already.

On 3/19/2020 at 5:57 PM, RR503 said:

What UT said. The only equivocation I'd make rel. CBTC and capacity is that current NYCT CBTC architecture locks trains out of stations until the train in front is fully clear of the platform. Doesn't make a huge difference on stations where the leader can exit quickly, but at Cordlandt and City Hall (especially City Hall, given entrance speeds there are also slow)  you'll need that ability to achieve full capacity. 

 

Again, do you know if this issue is being looked at?

2 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

@Union Tpke to add on to my quote.  How about the following suggestion:

One Pair of ESA Tracks link up with Atlantic Avenue while the other pair goes to Staten Island. Then your CBD connector could also be integrated.

There are only 2 ESA tracks. Also, it is a waste to have it go to SI or Brooklyn. If you need to connect them to something, connect it to the Morris & Essex Lines in New Jersey.

Just now, Jova42R said:

Ah ok, so make the station at 28th/10th?

That is way too close to the station at 34th, the tail tracks are there, meaning that you would have to lengthen them, and there will be almost no benefit for your billion dollar investment.

On 3/25/2020 at 5:36 PM, bobtehpanda said:

In general, I'm not really interested in your proposals, so stop @'ing me. 

This isn't an "alternative". This doesn't distribute people throughout the central city.

The Lower Montauk is a waste of time. So is the West Side Line; it's mostly surrounded by Riverside Park and at a dramatically different elevation. Half the walkshed is in the Hudson. I have similar feelings about intensifying services on the inner part of the Hudson Line. And the Bay Ridge Branch north of Jackson Heights is too difficult to build train stations on, and in any case that capacity is more useful for the NEC and PSA.

The Empire Corridor would do well for through-running between the LIRR and the Hudson Line. I would have stops from South to North at Dyckman Street, 155th Street, 125th Street and 62nd Street. You just need to electrify it, double track, and connect it to the north tracks at Penn Station.

1 minute ago, Jova42R said:

Sorry to ask, but what's the 179 St dilemma?

Someone notes how the tail tracks end at 184th Place, and then proposes opening a station at 188th, which requires more tail tracks, and on and on.

On 3/27/2020 at 8:06 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

If I recall correctly, I remember someone saying that adding a switch just before Astoria Blvd is not feasible, However I don’t recall the reason as to why. Also. I wouldn’t recommend short turning any trains at Queens Plaza given the high passenger volume headed towards Astoria and Ditmars. An idea for solving the Yard issue in the short term (and one I’m not completely fond of) is to rebuild the switches south of 36th Street/4th Avenue. If you do this with a maxed out SAS and Deinterlined DeKalb Junction, you can have  service go to Bay Ridge-95th (switching Local after 36th Street),  Service going to West End from Astoria, and  Service running up with the  to 96th while remaining the same in Brooklyn. 

 

Adding switches over the hump might not be possible but redoing Ditmars like what was proposed in the PCAC's 100 days, 100 nights proposal should be doable. It just needs capital $.

On 3/30/2020 at 1:30 PM, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

That brings me to ask the question:

Aside from costs, why did the never consider the idea of connecting ESA with Atlantic Terminal? 

It would be better to connect Atlantic Terminal with the Erie lines (Pascack Valley, Main/Bergen) with a stop at Fulton Street with cross platform transfers to my aforementioned Harlem-SI line to connect the job markets of Brooklyn and LI with NJ. Having the line loop is a major waste when you can take a dent at car traffic going across the CBD.