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.

officiallyliam

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    318
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

officiallyliam last won the day on May 30

officiallyliam had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

447 Excellent

About officiallyliam

  • Rank
    Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    Ridgewood, Queens

Recent Profile Visitors

602 profile views
  1. officiallyliam

    The new era begins

    To throw my own two cents in to the route designation debacle, I'm on the side that says a five-character route number (like SIM3c) is absurdly awkward - how many cities have you seen with five-digit numbers for bus routes? The prefixes should always be one letter, and express buses should be X___, using a numbering system like @Deucey's. You'd have to change around some of the borough designations (Brooklyn could be K for Kings, Bronx simply B, Staten Island could be S or R if you wanted to avoid duplicating Suffolk), and like anything else, people would figure it out quickly. QM, BM, and especially BxM and SIM give us route numbers that are way too long from the start.
  2. officiallyliam

    LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

    You could run trains every ten minutes on the two Main line branches (Port Jefferson, Ronkonkoma), plus on Babylon and Hempstead during peak hours pretty comfortably. This adds up to 24 tph between Jamaica and Harold interlocking, and as long as Queens interlocking is grade-separated, only two lines at a time ever have to share tracks (Ronkonkoma and PJ, Hempstead and Babylon). The only downside to this is that it leaves out the Atlantic branches (Long Beach and Far Rockaway). You'd either have to run all or most of these to Brooklyn (which would eliminate Jamaica conflicts), or they could share tracks with Babylon and Hempstead, but then you're looking at ~36 tph on one track, which is probably pushing it. (Although if Babylon/Hempstead/Atlantic trains got the express tracks between Jamaica and Woodside, 90-second intervals could be feasible, as long as Harold interlocking can work quickly.)
  3. officiallyliam

    LIRR And MNRR Random Thoughts Thread

    The LIRR, like the subway, has more of a problem with poor operation than it does with absolute lack of capacity. The money being poured into the third track project for the Main line ($1.9b) would have been much better spent on a number of smaller improvements - full electrification (or at least to Port Jefferson and Patchogue/Speonk), a flyover at Queens interlocking, and eliminating the grade-crossings would have done enough without the third track. (And running better, not less, service to terminals other than Penn would help). Two tracks is plenty for Ronkonkoma/Port Jefferson service (yes, you'd have to cut direct Penn service from Oyster Bay, but until that line really starts growing in ridership, I don't see that as the end of the world). I'm sure this is an unpopular take, but I'm not sure how necessary express service on the Main line really is, especially if all the trains were to be electric. It's five extra stops from Hicksville to New Hyde Park. The M7s are actually derated, meaning they don't accelerate as fast as they potentially could; if the LIRR changed this, and the Main line was run solely by M7s/M9s with PTC, I think we'd find that the added time would be negligible. And this would allow us to run proper reverse-peak service without the third track, which seems like another boondoggle in waiting.
  4. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    149th to Astoria Blvd on Triboro, followed by M60 to LGA, isn't backtracking; nor is 149th to Flushing by transferring to the . The Q44 goes to West Farms, not the Hub, so it's two different corridors we're talking about. The problem with Astoria is street access, I agree. Hell Gate platforms to platform is doable; from Hell Gate to the street directly is definitely challenging.
  5. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    Which job centers are we talking about? Jackson Heights is directly on Triboro, of course. LIC would be backtracking, yes, but from the South Bronx the Triboro to a Queens Blvd express would probably be just as fast or faster than the Lex to the . South Bronx to Flushing would be faster via a Triboro to journey, and even faster if there were a connection between Triboro and the LIRR; Jamaica would also be easier to access from the Bronx via Triboro. RE: Astoria - From a total non-engineer's perspective, Astoria looks undeniably challenging, but not entirely impossible. One advantage of LRT is that it would require shorter and lighter platforms, which would be easier to build than big railroad platforms considering the limitations of building around the viaduct. And it's a pretty valuable connection to have IMO; Astoria is pretty hard to access from areas of Queens that aren't LIC. The best way I see is to tunnel under 7th Avenue to the Gowanus Expressway, then elevated or surface to the lower level of the bridge. That won't lead to St. George without being quite circuitous, but you could continue the line across the SI expressway (or Victory Blvd) out to the West Shore, or possibly into Elizabeth. LRT opens up a lot of possibilities for street-ruuning the line through areas where tunnels or new-build ROWs wouldn't be warranted; the only concern is that LRT does sacrifice capacity compared to a railroad line, and without the will to seriously change street design, my concern is that LRTs street-running through dense areas could totally cripple reliability.
  6. officiallyliam

    Rockaway Beach Branch

    It's still a waste of capacity; you're just wasting LIRR capacity instead of subway capacity.
  7. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    I personally don't have an issue with using (FRA-compliant) LRVs to take advantage of street-running in Jackson Heights, and maybe in the South Bronx as well to avoid tunneling, as long as it isn't going to sacrifice speed and reliability. Jackson Heights is a major destination (and would be one of the busier stops on a Triboro line) but street-running through there is no picnic. For as much as this line should attempt to serve major centers like Jackson Heights as best as possible, it should also be a quick way around the city, without too many local detours.
  8. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    I'd love to be able to use upper Roosevelt, but any circumferential on the NYCR right-of-way should continue beyond Jackson Heights, and using upper Roosevelt makes this impossible. Even if we were able to send the new tracks through the IND mezzanine (which is where they end), I doubt there's enough room between the surface and the top of the QBL tunnel to fit a new tunnel for this rail line. The unfortunate part is that Jackson Heights is the worst "missed connection" between the rail ROW and subway lines, but it isn't an impossible one. The distance from where the ROW hits Roosevelt to the 74th Street station is two blocks (680'). This is far from ideal, but an underground passage with high-speed moving walkways should connect the two stations. We could also do something a little unorthodox: build the connection facing the other way to 69th Street, which is a shorter walk (500') and a much less crowded station. Now, the Bronx routing: a Randall's Island station might be nice, but I don't think that it would justify its expense. Once it gets to the Bronx, the line should absolutely serve the Hub in the South Bronx rather than turn north to Co-Op City. You could probably (at least partially) reuse the old Port Morris Branch tunnel under St. Mary's Park; I'd include a station at Southern Blvd to connect with the , then tunnel under 149th to intersect the . That's certainly the extent of the line that I'd build immediately, but in an ultimate pipe-dream world I'd continue the line up to Yankee Stadium (via Concourse and 161st), then to 168th Street in Washington Heights (following the Hudson line). It's not a Triboro anymore, but it does complete a half-circle around the city and adds a connection between upper Manhattan and the South Bronx.
  9. officiallyliam

    Flipping the Northern Terminals for the B and C

    Keep the weekend at Essex. When CBTC is done, send it to Queens on weekends. Run the and at 7.5 tph (8 minute intervals) during the weekend. Without (or with faster) flagging the and on one track is 22.5 tph; I think we can handle that, and anyway, weekend work on CPW isn't permanent. Do the same on the - 8 minute headways. Keep the in the yard and the off of CPW. Everyone's happy, and nobody's confused because they were trying to get to East 53rd and ended up at West 103rd.
  10. officiallyliam

    Flipping the Northern Terminals for the B and C

    Right, but if our flagging rules weren't so primitive, and the trip down the express on CPW wasn't kneecapped by timers, you'd be able to run more frequent weekend service on more of the subway. Most improvements to service (such as a better weekend ) are very much tied to changing many poor operational practices.
  11. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    Putting a bus lane in on Kings Highway almost resulted in war; widening the Bay Ridge ROW to four tracks is almost certainly not feasible, nor do I think it's really necessary. Having freight and frequent passenger rail coexist on one corridor will require changing the way we operate freight service (so as to avoid the nightmare scenarios that Amtrak have faced), but our lack of willingness to be efficient with rail in much of the country doesn't mean it can't work here. Instead of operating really long, slower trains a few times per day, we could run shorter, more frequent freight services between Bay Ridge and Fresh Pond that could easily slot in between scheduled passenger intervals. In parts of the line that can be four-tracked (Fresh Pond to the start of the Midwood cut), freight and passenger trains can be separated; we could do the same on parts of the line that have room for three tracks (which I believe the line from north of FP through Maspeth does). More freight can be operated overnight and during early mornings with either no or less-frequent passenger service. A dual-mode (electric/diesel) freight locomotive could be useful; trains could run through from the greater region under diesel power and then switch to electric in the NYC area. The mass de-electrification of our rail network was a big mistake that should be reversed, and I'd hope that the success of electric freight in NYC could get the ball rolling on more electrification, at least in the Northeast before spreading around the country.
  12. officiallyliam

    Flipping the Northern Terminals for the B and C

    First of all, the doesn't really have a length problem: it's 40 stops and has a 1h10 scheduled runtime on the weekends, which is pretty average. Yes, you're right that weekend service is pretty dismal and often unreliable, but why can't we start just by fixing that? The is a popular route on the weekends (I'd hazard it's more popular than a weekend ) and if it was operated well on an 8-minute headway it would do just fine. Running the won't actually solve this problem, so much as put a Band-Aid over it; plus, the has a better routing for weekend service, running from PABT and Penn Station where people are coming in to the city, to Central Park West and Lower Manhattan where those people are going. I'd also add that more service at Fulton local stops is probably needed more than a weekend express on Brighton, where increasing service would do more for more people than running the . When the is needed 24/7 on 6th Avenue - which is certainly going to happen - run it to Queens Plaza or Forest Hills, not somewhere totally out of its normal route (yes, this includes 96th Street). It's much easier to say, "the doesn't run on weekends, take this train which normally parallels it instead," than it is to try to get people to understand, "there's no today, but the goes to Harlem (or the Upper East Side) instead of Queens just to make up for that."
  13. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    But an extension is somewhat harder to accomplish given the need to separate those tracks from the freight tracks (or find some other way to circumvent the FRA). A Triboro line - as an Overground-style railroad line, not a subway - is much easier to accomplish given the need to work side-by-side with both freight trains and Amtrak/Metro-North trains. As for adding southern capacity to the line, I'd use some of the old structure at Atlantic Avenue to build a terminating track there. Most of the capacity crunch exists west of Myrtle-Wyckoff (and soon will be west of Broadway Junction), and terminating trains at Atlantic rather than down in Borough Park gets them back to the area where they're needed most more quickly.
  14. officiallyliam

    Flipping the Northern Terminals for the B and C

    There was once a time when subway lines had very different routings and terminals depending on the time and day. We have thankfully moved away from a time where, for example, the , , and would all run to Queensbridge at different times within one day. I see no point in returning to this. Why have a subway line sometimes travel in the opposite direction from its usual route? Do you want the subway map covered in dashed lines so that everyone is aware of all the time-based service changes, and you really expect non-native NYers - many of whom come from places with either no metro system, or a far simpler one - to understand this map? It's bad enough now with all the G/Os affecting weekend service; there's no need to make regular service that confusing. And - similarly to many of your proposals - could you really provide one reason as to why a weekend to 145th is superior to better service, or - if we must - added service?
  15. officiallyliam

    Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

    @RR503 is right - if the concern is the environment and emissions in the city (which it should be), than we should really embrace freight rail. The Bay Ridge branch and the Lower Montauk are both key to this, as are expansions of rail yards at Fresh Pond and in Maspeth. And if we're still that concerned about emissions, I'd be all for what @Union Tpke suggested - electrifying the line using catenary. Any cross-harbor tunnel (which, yes, is a pipe dream) will likely need to be electrified, the northern end (Hell Gate) is already electric, and electrification would almost certainly happen for any passenger rail project along the corridor. I think also, though, that a strengthened freight rail service and a hypothetical passenger one could coexist along the Bay Ridge branch. Most of the line (except the open-cut through Midwood) is four tracks wide, and as long as things are scheduled (and operated) well, it should be conflict-free. Building a full circumferential line around Brooklyn and Queens (Triboro) is a better use of the ROW than an extension, and if the rolling stock could just be M8 cars with a more rapid transit seat layout, which gets rid of the FRA problems that would crop up for subway service. The only issue with this is Fresh Pond: we'd need to build a second yard somewhere in Queens to take pressure off of FP; right now, NY&A basically uses the tracks as far south as Wilson Avenue as part of FP Yard, which would kill any passenger service. But anyway, freight rail in NYC is somewhat undervalued as a resource (and potential resource): if anything, we should be using more freight rail (which would feed smaller, more local trucks for distribution) not less - that would only lead to more congestion (and large trucks) on roads like the LIE and all over the city.

×

Important Information

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