quadcorder

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.

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

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

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

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)

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.

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."

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.

Consecutive

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.

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)

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.

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