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.


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


RR503 last won the day on October 15

RR503 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

3,700 Excellent


About RR503

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Drainage ditch

Recent Profile Visitors

3,262 profile views
  1. There is literally no demonstrable need for a Lower Manhattan-Rockaway Beach Branch route. I know you see LM as being 'what the powers that be really want,' but if you so much as opened Crains or the like today, you would notice that LM is increasingly being treated as a residential market, and that business generally doesn't care much about the MTA except as an entity whose debt they can buy/refinance. And that's to say nothing of there already being routes to Lower Manhattan from all but a small portion of any RBB service's potential catchment area. As for the specific proposal, allow me to reiterate what I said before: the RBB will not work without Queens deinterlining. The capacity simply is not there. If you want this corridor, you have to accept deinterlining as well. And allow me to add that merging services off of Brighton at Dekalb would be an operational disaster. As regular riders in that area can tell you, the speed at which all 4th local and Brighton trains enter/leave Dekalb is...slow, which would translate into (even more) massive capacity loss under merge operation.
  2. Totally agree with you that optimally the funds would be spent elsewhere, but capacity isn’t the only metric of signal system functionality. If we don’t do Crosstown, it’ll be the only stretch of track left with original IND signals — the next oldest stuff to it is a full 25 years younger, and relies on different interlocking technology. Sure it isn’t a total dealbreaker, but these ancient signals are pretty expensive, and they only become more so when you’re spreading fixed expenses (like keeping the tooling for DIY vacuum tube relays) over a smaller set of active signals. I have many problems with how subway signal issues were reported, but this is something folks really got right: maintaining 1930s era signaling is quite pricy. This is all to say the agency can expect a good RoI through doing replacement here — and that’s on top of the ops RoI inherent in CBTC installs. And anyway, who doesn’t want a that can consistently beat an from Bergen to Queens?
  3. The signal system on xtown is original. The interlockings are still fully manual US&S machines with L/R signal numbering. http://www.trainsarefun.com/lirr/lirrextralist/MTA Transit Diagrams/Schematic Track & Interlocking Diagrams (2019-01).pdf#page=235
  4. A website my friend is creating. The public part of it is here: https://pvibien.com/stringline.htm
  5. A good # of s via 8th And so far, one too:
  6. Try riding the n/b out of Brooklyn during the AM rush. Legitimately one of the more miserable experiences there is — the gentrification of Fort Greene and transfers slam those trains.
  7. Yeah, because you totally can’t suffer the effects of highway separation if the highway is older than the housing. Many (most) world class cities have people buying or renting apartments to use as second homes. It’s only in NYC that it’s become a major supply issue, and that’s because we just don’t build enough housing — less of our housing stock was built after 2010 that friggin Rochester. I say fix that before foisting pieds a terre. Did I ever say that it interfered with it? Or did I say that allowing the 6 to use a ground level ROW would make the thing a hell of a lot cheaper to build...
  8. Being tied into the grid has a shitton of benefits, whether it be creating more foot traffic (good for street safety and business), allowing easier access to other people/places, or simply creating easy entrance/egress points for residents. It's worth remembering that, despite all appearances, people don't just want to go to the train -- access to local businesses, other residents, etc, is likely more important on the whole, and it's the destruction of those sorts of links that ravaged urban neighborhoods when highways were rammed through them. NYC's housing growth is all but a statistical error on a city scale, a reality largely driven by the fact that we are among the most NIMBY cities in the country. New units are expensive because a) they're largely being built in taller (=higher price/sq foot) buildings, b) the ridiculously complex permitting and construction process in NYC massively inflates costs and c) developers know that, in a market as constrained as that of NYC, they can charge high prices. The arguments about vacant units and induced demand are BS. A few thousand vacancies among luxury condo rentals is nothing on the city scale, and research has repeatedly shown that new construction lowers prices and reduces gentrification. Gonna wait to respond until you make a legitimate argument. Being conscious of and acting upon pollution issues are quite different things. Transportation emissions -- which really means car/truck emissions -- are the largest share of US GHG emissions; this is a massive problem, and our reliance on cars and the development patterns they encourage will only increase those emissions with time (no, EVs don't solve everything, because cars' environmental impact isn't limited to the tailpipe). The issue with sprawl (which, contrary to your estimation, is very much still an issue) is that it locks people into extremely inefficient lifestyles. In a city, we can walk a few blocks to get a carton of milk. In a suburb? Get in your car, drive five miles. This VMT-intensive lifestyle cranks emissions into the stratosphere, contributing massively to our environmental issues, and also creates very legitimate issues of street safety. Discouraging it -- which essentially means building enough housing in dense areas like the Bronx to provide a viable alternative -- has to be a priority for any set of environmental policies to work. In one sentence, building housing in dense, transit rich areas reduces emissions. A fun visual of the emissions divide. As for the equity issue, consider the costs of imposing car ownership on households, of systematically excluding communities of color from suburban housing, of designing transportation systems to serve suburbanites at the expense of city dwellers, etc.
  9. Couldn’t disagree more. Infilling the grid to attach that complex to the rest of the city would do a lotta good. It’s pretty basic urban theory that walkability and integration create all sorts of goods for urban environments—surprised this is a point of contention on a forum such as this. Yes, let’s totally blow by the city’s housing crisis, the potential for decent zoned densities in the area, and the fact that urban grid integration literally means creating a continuous built environment. Transitforums: this bushy, overgrown, encroached-upon, demand-peripheral ROW that was once called the RBB is the greatest transportation opportunity in this city. Also transitforums: what does a wide, clear, grade separated ROW to one of the densest areas of the city have to do with transit expansion? Nothing big, just pollution, traffic, urban sprawl, all sorts of inequity and the future of sea levels.
  10. Yeah. But the sometimes myopic way MTA analyzes cost structures frequently works against it — there are many cases where doing something good would, well, be good, but would also *save* the agency money. This is (possibly) one such case.
  11. Setting aside all the good this'd do for various sorts of pollution, integrating Co-Op city into the urban fabric of the Bronx would be good, no? Imagine converting that ROW into housing, or small-scale commerce -- you could extend the much more simply, too, with the traffic gone. I agree with you this is certainly not the most tantalizing highway removal ever, but I do think it's always worth challenging the "we must preserve this infrastructure because it exists" line of reasoning, especially in cases w/ this many external complications.
  12. The small marginal maintenance/crew cost incurred w/ 600' trains would likely be outweighed by the runtime savings incurred through shorter dwells b/c less end-loading.
  13. Sure, because you're cramming all 6th Avenue-bound demand east of Roosevelt onto 15tph of capacity -- no one rides through on the . Deinterlining would let you (at least) double the effective capacity to 6th, which should yield significant relief. Again, the local tracks run at, what, 70% guideline capacity and, at most, 67% track capacity? If you make access to the premiere market (53 St) conditional on riders' use of local trains, you've got a whole new ball game. At any rate, there are a zillion other things you can do to relieve stress on QB -- making the a functional route out of Richmond Hill/Woodhaven would be a great place to start.
  14. I’m somewhat of two minds on RBB, but I do think it’s worth emphasizing that the capacity issue is wholly a function of service design. Expresses run full, locals do not — if you can rearrange services in such a way that incentivized use of local capacity, you’re playing a whole new ball game. I suggest do the 8-53-local/6-63-express scheme. Does this do away with all of the RBB’s issues? No. Does it make capacity manageable? Yes.
  15. Also happens to be a goal whose accomplishment brings a shitton of positive externalities with it. Would love to better understand traffic breakdowns on 95 in that stretch -- with so much travel being solely local, I'm always a bit skeptical of the sorts of arguments that predict armageddon because trucks and through-city commuters...

  • Create New...

Important Information

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