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.

Jcb

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

37 Excellent

About Jcb

  • Rank
    Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    don't worry bout it

Recent Profile Visitors

413 profile views
  1. Even though I disagree with the idea that a modern el would still be unsightly and noisy, I understand where you're coming from. That would also allow the MTA to recoup some costs of construction by renting space around the line, much like Japan's train station apartment complexes.
  2. No. That's still a ridiculous cost. It should be less. Understood. New elevated construction isn't like most of what we have in this city. It can be much quieter and much lower-impact, much like the AirTrain's viaduct. The above picture is absolutely not an ideal form of construction. Something like this would be much lower-impact. No one considers these because the words "elevated line" conjure up visions of the old steel frameworks. They just need rebranding, at least in my opinion.
  3. The only reason that this project would have such a high price tag is because NYCT refuses to use cut-and-cover construction even though it's faster and cheaper. The insistence on TBMs and the allergy to elevated construction are a big cause of the extreme expense.
  4. You make good points, although the use of deep bore construction to minimize surface disruption is emblematic of the problem with SAS, I think. They decided to avoid dealing with the community as much as possible in order to slap down something that fits today's needs, with no real eye to the future. It didn't have to be some overbuilt mess like the Second System provisions, but I would think I should expect forward thinking out of a new trunk line.
  5. Phase 2,and to a much lesser extent, Phase 1, as we can all agree, are gimped versions of the potential core capacity that could've been gained with a 4-track trunk line, with the excuse given that "stop spacing is further, therefore faster." The curve towards 125 limits potential Bronx capacity and potential ridership siphoned off of all the Bronx IRT lines with the exception of the . The forced reverse branching limits lower 2nd Avenue, if it's ever built, to 15 TPH on the . ANy additional capacity would require the completion of the Queens Boulevard Bypass, another project which would require quite a bit of construction, time, and cost. This also limits potential Brooklyn capacity to 15TPH for Fulton Street, and precludes the creation of new Brooklyn and Queens trunks (Northern Boulevard, Horace Harding Expressway, Union Turnpike) because they would also be very limited in throughput. This also doesn't account for the increased travel time of what's essentially a Lexington Avenue relief line with no alternatives in case of something going wrong (as is traditon on the subway). Maybe if someone wrote a well-thought-out editorial with such concerns, it would become a common refrain somewhere... All they had to do was not blow it on planning for the future in order to save money, and guess what they did.
  6. Few thoughts on the (PM at least) I was on the first. Something must be seriously wrong with local service, whether the switches at Jay or terminal ops at Church, if the is saving 6 whole minutes over the local on that stretch. Having said that, The first PM express was directly behind a local and was lightly loaded from 57th street on down. Might just be a poor interval, though. Culver Express is a lot more heavily timed than I expected, especially considering how lightly used it is. The viaduct's speeds were somewhat disappointing, although I suppose the interlocking by 4th Ave-9th St might have something to do with that I got to Jay Street northbound right after the second express left, and the platform was PACKED. That either doesn't bode well for future service, or means that the express should be scheduled to directly precede a local, IMO. This service pattern won't go away at the end of the trial, it's basically the 2 trains that would randomly go express during the PM peak, but officially in the schedule. The has potential, and is the key to allowing the to finally have consistent, reliable intervals. However, as many people have said, this relies on Bergen Street Lower being reactivated to provide a transfer point for Red Hook and Carroll Gardens residents. Unrelated but the displays as ( F ) on the advertising screens and I think that's neat. (63rd St- 8th avenue connection theories, anyone?)
  7. I figured that more-or-less even frequencies were implied. I'm sorry if it wasn't clear. Services, as a rule, really shouldn't be scheduled to bunch.
  8. A Bay Ridge-Nassau Street service that runs in tandem with the like the old <R> Banker's special, but with expanded hours is probably the best way to solve the problem without any construction IMO. 95th street should have enough capacity to turn those trains. Essex would probably be the cause of the upper limit on capacity, as if you look at the track map, the distance that would have to be covered on a single track is rather long. With a little construction, the old four-track Nassau config could probably be restored, and termination could be done in the middle of Canal street, thus allowing for more frequency. As a bonus, a couple trains each morning and evening (maybe 2-3) before morning rush and then 2-3 after evening rush, could run to Broadway Junction if they need ENY access. Apologies if this proposal already came up earlier in the thread. Also, and unrelated, why did they reconfigure Nassau? What possible benefit was gained by removing two tracks from service and adding a bunch of slow curves to Brooklyn-bound service?
  9. Typical. Cuomo just can't let himself look good by being hands off. Him doing literally nothing would be better than this.
  10. I actually saw the 10 car doing simulated stop testing at Nostrand on Thursday
  11. The NYC subreddit doesn't do much besides complain about everything. It's kind of their thing.
  12. This concerns me. These deans aren't even certified professional engineers, and we're expected to take their recommendations and intuitions as fact for "state-of-the-art? Academia is quite different from actual engineering process, and it seems like Cuomo and De Blasio fail to realize this. It sounds like it will lead to more band-aids on top of bullet wounds, like the L shutdown't. Also, as Around The Horn said, this focus on design-build and "innovation at all costs" seems to be leading us to a situation similar to what happened back when the R44 and R46 were introduced-the subway is simply too complex and too vital to sustain large-scale tests of unproven tech. This does not mean that it should not learn from other agencies, though.
  13. If it's used to its full potential, it can be a huge boon to the operations of the transit system. However, the inefficiency that NYCT currently operates with makes its potential benefits not worth the cost, as we could easily achieve higher frequencies with the signals that we currently have. It definitely has more frequency potential than fixed block, but at this point in time it's too expensive for what we achieve with it.
  14. It's already peeling at the bottom of the walls near the no clearance signs
  15. It's kind of interesting how everyone settled on CBTC as the answer. Although it absolutely has its merits, are there any examples of it scaling up to a system with as much interlining and possibility of reroute? In the interim, though, the MTA has been given lemons. They aren't making the lemonade that they could be.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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