quadcorder

3 hours ago, CDTA said:

Here's a thought. What about connecting PATH from WTC to Atlantic Terminal, and up the Atlantic Branch? This would be much more useful than the Atlantic Branch in its current form, and it'd allow people from NJ to get a one seat ride to a new office hub, Downtown Brooklyn. You don't have to do any work on the Atlantic Branch itself because PATH is FRA compliant, and you could easily from there expand it to JFK, providing for the first time a one seat ride to downtown, Floral Park, and Valley Stream, not only providing eastern Queens with vital rail service but also allowing the LIRR to speed up service and focus on its main job of commuting customers from LI. You wouldn't have to really do any work either aside from JFK because again, PATH is FRA compliant so you don't need to do anything special for them to run.

Look at the World Trade Center station. How do you propose to extend service from there? The path east is blocked directly by the Vehicle Security Center parking garage under the Oculus. Even if not, the trackage of the WTC station is incompatible with the extension, and the Oculus closed around the WTC makes it almost impossible to rebuild.

I'm impressed by how much classism you have been able to pack into one post.

23 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

In my opinion, CBTC IS NOT THE ANSWER TO INPROVING OUR TRAIN CAPACITY ISSUE

I'm sorry. LOL. What? Do you disgaree with the fact, "CBTC increases the maximum number of trains per hour that can safely be run on one track in one direction"?

Look where they're going!

http://web.mta.info/nyct/materiel/collectsales/pdfs/mc17593.pdf

1 hour ago, paulrivera said:

When you get off the  train and head towards Oculus, there are these closed off (maybe new?) turnstiles that face 90 degrees immediately to the right. I'm assuming they're starting to move around the exits to set up the free transfer for the .

All they need now is to put a new HEET on the Church Street side and extend the fencing separating the  from that other passageway to lead riders into the transfer corridor (and of course open the corridor itself) and the new transfer will be good to go.

Are these turnstiles new, or have they been there for a while and I just noticed them?

From this discussion -

it is unclear exactly where these turnstyles came from. However, they have only token slots and not metrocard swipes!

Just now, bobtehpanda said:

The point being that I don't buy that the jughandle really solves anything. If anything, the jughandle makes it harder to build a connection to the (L), slows down trips, and makes the less attractive.

The major impetus for Phases III and IV will be the completion of East Side Access, because those LIRR riders heading downtown will just slam the Lex.

Oh - I agree that the jughandle doesn't help, I wasn't directly commenting on that.

13 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Perhaps, but I think in this case we can have our cake and eat it too. I honestly don't think that Hanover Sq will be the most optimal terminal for 30+TPH of traffic. But I could be wrong.

I don't expect 30 TPH to terminate at Hanover Square in the near future, since T + Q <= 30 on the Upper East Side and the Second Ave - 63 St Tunnel to Queens connection won't see trains until they have somewhere to put them on the Queens side (e.g. Queens Bypass)

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

Has the MTA considered plug doors for subway cars? A lot of Asian systems use them as the mechanized equivalent of the subway stuffers in Tokyo

 

Platform-side doors, as they are called, were evaluated and rejected by the MTA due to the required platform space causing additional crowding or something like that.

40 minutes ago, R42N said:

I know that there is a problem with a report due to a sharp curve, but they would be absolutely foolish if they do not do this.

It would make no sense to build expensive new tunnels when you have perfectly usable and un-used tunnels a few blocks away. I’d close off the entire Nassau Street line for five years while you completely renovate these dire stations, and then you can re-open it like new. 

Again, unless you can show me cost estimates that suggest that a 5-year closure of the Nassau St line and complete rebuilding would cost less than extending an already-under-construction tunnel another few blocks, then I'm inclined to advocate the construction plan which meets modern needs AND is less destructive of existing infrastructure, both transit and otherwise, especially given that people who know a lot more than either of us agree with me.

"I know that there is a problem with a report due to a sharp curve, but they would be absolutely foolish if they do not do this." reads to me like "I know that the plan has a fatal flaw, but if we ignore the flaw it has all the benefits we want."

25 minutes ago, vngannxx said:

Building a cross platform transfer at grand st with 2nd/6th Ave crossovers and rerouting the route south of Chatham square to merge with the JZ at Chambers St would present additional operational flexibility.

- it would allow B/D trains coming from 6th ave to access Montague. 

- allow the T to bypass the midtown portions of 2nd ave due to construction/stall train, travel via 6th ave to lex 63st, where it can continue from 72-125st. 

- provide the T with transfer options at Fulton st. 

It would also be impossible, if you look at the physical street geometry between Chatham Square and Nassau-Chambers, to build this connection. And again, the Nassau St platforms are currently 480ft.

There's a much simpler fix there - run Middle Village-bound trains via the upper level platform by building a new connecting track over Lewis Avenue, and Manhattan-bound trains via the lower level. This wouldn't require reconstruction of either the Myrtle or Broadway viaducts, and takes advantage of the existing grade-separated junction between the Myrtle-Broadway connector and the Myrtle Ave el. No new platform construction is required and no land has to be taken along Broadway between Flushing and Myrtle (where the el runs quite close to buildings).

To answer the above question - which I think proposed J trains run express the whole way from the bridge to Broadway Junction, while Z trains run local - which doesn't work for similar reasons, since evenly spaced trains coming off the bridge would arrive at the same time at Broadway Junction.

Regarding RBB - I don't think even if everyone from the Archer Ave Lines took the J that there would be capacity for another route on the QB lines, since so much QBX crowding comes from a) stops after 71st and b) transfers from local trains closer than Continental.

21 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

Do they have to pass 30 consecutive days of testing or just 30 days of testing in general?

Consecutive

3 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Do you add anything to any thread? All you do is complain about what other people post yet you add nothing to the discussion. 

You're right - I just listen and don't pipe up much beauase I don't have any information to contribute. I do, however, think I am adding more to the discussion by complaining than are the people I am complaining about...

Yes, lock please!

Yes - it's a waste of money which could be better spent on many more important projects. I wish they would go ahead and build the park so you would let it alone.

I just went through this thread, and it's literally all @LGA Link N train saying the same thing over and over again.

How about instead, you scroll back in this thread to where some, you know, reliable sources, confirmed what the future assignments will be, and then stop speculating wildly.

I'm not interested in @D to 96 St's proposal because it requires construction and Con Ed is likely not willing to relocate. I'm interested in solving problems in the real world, where the MTA's construction priorities may not align with our fantasies. The best idea I have to solve the yard problem would be either running trains from CI yard via the Sea Beach express and putting in at 59th Street on the local track (for the 4 Av Local - Broadway Local - Astoria service called or at your preference, with the other name for 71st St - 63rd Tunnel - Bway Express - 4 Av Express - Sea Beach service) or if minor construction is allowed then building the express tracks on 4 Av south of 59th as storage tracks.

I agree that losing the QBL via 53rd guaranteed transfer to Lex express is bad, but this would solve all the capacity issues with Second Avenue.

OK, the yard constraint is real. The goal is obviously just to decrease the amount of switching on BMT Broadway - perhaps running some additional W trains to 4th Ave, decreasing the number of N trains, and increasing Q service is sufficient. That idea has been discussed plenty.

9 hours ago, P3F said:

Somehow you conveniently forgot that you would get rid of half of Astoria's capacity, which is not something you want to do with the current crowding situation. In addition, you would increase crowding on the D and Q trains, because nobody wants to stay on an N which takes an entire 10 minutes longer to get from DeKalb to Canal. This suggestion is poorly thought out and quite absurd in its current state.

• now runs express / Sea Beach
• now runs 4 Av Local
• So the total bridge service has not decreased - nor do Sea Beach riders need to transfer to a bridge train, since they are already on one.
• service from Astoria runs with the current frequency of both and service but without the need for two service designations. Turn all the former trains at Whitehall if you like - or extend some down 4 Av Local. This can be dynamically programmed much closer to the demand time than service is currently programmed.

What do people think of this to relieve merging difficulties on BMT Broadway and encourage transfers via 63rd Street:

• Reroute via 63rd Street tunnel, replacing in Manhattan and Brooklyn
• Reroute via Lower Manhattan and 4 Ave local, discontinuing service

Upsides:

• (goal) Allows increased Second Avenue service without the difficulties of pulling trains off other routes or finding a place besides Whitehall to turn trains
• Allows flexibility in 4 Av Local and Astoria service frequencies by turning trains at Whitehall

Downsides:

• Astoria loses express service (it's not much faster and half their trains are local already)
• Merging into on QBL has the ability to delay the   (if serious, solution: hold trains at Queens Plaza local platform with new switches just before the station)

4 hours ago, RR503 said:

Standard MTA convention dictates that regardless of funding source, LIRR cares are always the base version, and MNR ones always have the /A attached. 

While you’re right that at times ppl have said that the A distinction has to do with funding (though I heard the as were ESA cars), for the sake of simplicity and brevity, I think it’s better if we continue with the old system. 

That was the convention in the past. It's not the convention anymore. It's not simpler or clearer to continue with the old system because the old system is not accurate. M9A cars and M9 cars will both run on both systems (assuming they do run on the MNRR). Any other claim is not clearer or simpler, just plain wrong.

The only use I could see would be adding a switch from SB / after Wall Street to allow terminating   trains without blocking service. However, I think this might run under 1-25 Broadway, which would complicate matters considerably.

42 minutes ago, R179 8258 said:

Since when R32 can’t run on the  don’t the  and  runs the almost close the number of passengers 

Sorry, wrong reason - they can't run on the F due to low MDBF and the way QBX issues would cascade far worse than Fulton or 8 Av issues.

R32 and R42 cannot run through Montague, or on lines which run through Montague in a diversion, nor can they run on the F due to the large number of passengers it handles.

This is posted in NJ Transit

This is posted in NJ Transit