RR503

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

As far as the goes, skip-stop as currently implemented is the poor man's peak express. The RPA has been calling for the retrofitting of a third express track all the way to the subway portion of Archer for a while now. Once you have that, you get to have peak express and a fully local  , which skip-stop currently tries to make up for.

I'm of two hearts on this plan. On one hand, the  needs relief, and Jamaica better subway service. On the other, you're furthering the underservice of communities between Jamaica and Myrtle, unless you add some express stops in between -- no small undertaking given the lack of provisions for any. If you don't add express stations, the williamsburg bridge's capacity constraints disallows any further addition of service much beyond those 12 tph, all but locking in the current 6 tph service. 

18 minutes ago, Deucey said:

Since the current express track ends at B-way Junction, why skip-stop instead of running  express between Marcy and B-Way, then local to the end, with  doing local stops before with  , or is that a switching nightmare because of Myrtle Av?

If you're suggesting running  local from Bway to Marcy, and the  express, I would agree in a perfect world. That said, I was thinking about this since it was brought up earlier, and it occurred to me that train spacing would get weird. It takes 8 mins to go from Bway to Myrtle via local, and about 4.5 via express. If trains are running their current 5 minute headways during rush, your express is now only 1.5 mins behind your local. Problem is, that's about the time saving express gains you from Myrtle to Marcy, so one of those trains is gonna be delayed at that interlocking while the other makes its way through/into Marcy. Then, you'll have 2 trains spaced close together over the bridge, down Centre street, and into Broad, where fumigation time is bound to delay the trailing train even more.

Thoughts? 

Emails or paperwork. Lots. 

Patience. I'm sure a poster on here will fill us in. 

19 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

SMH. I'll leave y'all alone before I repeat myself. This thread started out good till everyone started arguing in a debate over buses vs. trains. Until I can come with a solution everyone can agree to, or if someone else does the same, I'll not be posting in this thread. 

19 hours ago, LGA Link N train said:

Come to think of it, I said something similar a few pages back

And you two think these posts are a good use of forum bandwidth?

15 hours ago, Art Vandelay said:

This is truly an outstanding post. 

I do have one minor quibble however- Skip stop service has a value on Jamaica, as most of the stops being skipped aren't particularly notable in terms of ridership. I think a stronger argument could be made for eliminating the inner Broadway El express, as some of those stops really are getting quite busy. Either way- neither will be done, because speeding up the J is important to allow it to relieve the Queens Boulevard express, so that as many people as possible can be diverted away from the E. (Which to bring this all full circle, is one of the reasons why the RBL will never be reactivated- Nobody in their right mind would connect anything to Queens Boulevard.)

 

Thank you!

Much of the reason that those stops have such low ridership is exactly because they are skipped. Having a subway that (in a perfect world) runs every ten minutes during rush doesn't exactly inspire usage. Yes, I'm sure some people from Jamaica use the  to get to lower manhattan because of skip stop, but I know folks who take the  because it runs more frequently, more reliably, and just 'feels' faster. And anyway, you can probably claw back a few minutes lost from skip-stop if you send half of all trains full express from Bway to Marcy. I'd actually wager that the flying along the middle track there would help attract Jamaica riders more so than skip stop, which just feels slow. 

But returning to ridership. Look at the ridership gains made in Chicago when they eliminated skip-stop. We can do the same here. The current pattern privileges the needs of Jamaica residents over those of riders along the  line proper -- an unfair situation if I may say so. Again, greatest good for the greatest number. 

7 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

Or (since this would be long after the shutdown is over) I would have it where the is permanently moved to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (joining the  there) and revive the old  to replace the  on QBL with the  running to Rockaway Park. 

That said, I would  still prefer to do it with the out of Whitehall (late nights to/from 34th Street) and put the  back on Astoria as the full-time line there with  ( trains going out of service going via the West End or Sea Beach to Coney Island and) the joining the  to 96th on two fronts:

1. You would this way eliminate a lot of switches by doing so.

2, You might have more political clout to have it done if the new RBB line went to lower Manhattan to serve what some (even if WE know better) still consider to be "the financial district," particular the operators of the Casino at Aqueduct (who are from Malaysia).  

Oh Wally... You're proposing to run three distinct services on 6th avenue local -- something that is, well, impossible. The  needs 15, the  10, and QBL at least 10 . That's 35. 

You know, I agree with your sending the  up SAS, but I just don't understand the fascination you (and others) have with the  to Astoria. There's a reason they eliminated that service pattern, and it's because the very deadheading you suggest to and from CI was inefficient. Repeating actions we know to have failed before expecting a different result is pretty much the definition of insanity, no?

Now, let's do some critical thinking. Much of our RBB service will overlap with the  line. Unless fulton/chambers sts are 'fake news,' the  goes to the 'Financial District,' no? And for those along the non- RBB, ever heard of the ? That covers much of the remaining catchment zone.

Now, finally, let's talk clout. What has more people, the RBB corridor, or Second Avenue? How about the RBB vs Utica? Or RBB vs 3rd avenue? Or RBB vs Queens Bypass? Again, we need to see the big picture. There are areas of this city that are much, much more underserved than the RBB corridor. On all levels of planning, from train routings to long-term capital projects, we need to disassociate our thought from our feelings. Objectivity must rule, or we'll just end up with more AirTrains to nowhere. 

They wouldn't dare possibly implicate fellow union employees by going after shoddy workmanship. What's more, maintainers (covered by the TWU) should have been checking for such things as corrosion and loosening -- something clearly not done. Easier for them, and better for their members to scapegoat. 

Did any train actually get sent to Church? And if so, did they run via culver exp? 

21 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I meant to say there would be more demand for it to go to QBL because it connects with OTHER LINES in doing so! If the  connects to more subway lines- as evident by its extension to Church Av, it SHOULD go to QBL! 

How does an extension to elminate what was hands-down the least efficient termination procedure in the system at the other end of a line mean anything relative to the end we're talking about? People on QB want to go to Manhattan, not Manhattan Avenue. Why do you think the 11th st cut was built? Or the 63rd street connector? 

20 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I do agree with you about congestion but I pointed out two solutions that could potentially relieve congestion. 

1. Make the  an express from Jamaica to Canal St. A third track will be constructed after Crescent, OR the line will be relocated to Jamaica Av to eliminate the sharp curve with the third track. 

2. The 63 St-Queens Bypass. Now I know this will only happen in the LONG-TERM only after SAS Phase 3 is open but this will actually relieve congestion as it will allow a faster commute for eastern Jamaica riders.

I'm all for the bypass, but how does installing a track that allows trains to skip the areas we're talking about in any way help transit access in said areas?

The Jamaica line doesn't need express service. It needs skip-stop to be ended. The time savings commuters will realize in shortened headways because of that will vastly outweigh any savings from express service. If you feel bad for getting rid of express, then send the  local from Bway Junction to Marcy, and the  express -- the stops from Myrtle to Marcy need more service anyway. 

25 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

It's because the expresses are FASTER THAN THE LOCALS! They will still take the express regardless of time savings. 

The time difference between taking the  vs  from Roosevelt to Queens Plaza is about two minutes, and that's before we factor in delays at 36th street on the express tracks. The difference is all in the perception of greater speed. I wish there was a way we could demonstrate that to commuters. 

25 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

Firstly, the people there want ANY type of subway service, whether it is a local or express. Expresses DON'T have to be EVERYWHERE.

Everybody in New York wants subway service. The fact of the matter is that given the size of the un/underserved population along RBB, and the time savings that such a project would get them, other projects would be able to bring more to the city than this one. There are dense areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens (think 3rd avenue, Utica Avenue and Northern Boulevard) that have no subway service whatsoever. They should get first priority simply because the good we'd be doing them would have more impact. In planning we have to make choices like this -- money isn't infinite. We have to pursue the projects that will bring the greatest good for the greatest number, which the RBB will not. 

Look, a few months ago, I was walking in Forest Park, and hiked down to the old ROW to see how it was doing. The state of affairs -- trees in the tracks, ties rotting, the corridor being reintegrated into nature -- made me sad. In that moment, I too wanted to reactivate the line; to see trains rolling south towards the beaches. But rationally, I knew that couldn't happen. There are other, bigger, fish to fry at the moment. Whatever your connection of sentiment may be with the line, you must dissociate -- see the big picture. For it's this exact mentality of pet projects that has wrought our current transportational disaster. 

24 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

A minor quibble: the dominant travel orientation is to Manhattan, or Midtown, more specifically. As such, the RBB is actually more oriented towards that then the scenic route on the or  . But yes, it's really not necessary.

That being said, "the express buses are good enough" is not really a good argument, because the express buses cost so much to run. The subway is dirt cheap and the marginal cost of pressing more bodies into the train is virtually nil.

What’s more, for many along the RBB corridor, the extra fare for express buses puts them economically out of reach. I agree with deucey insofar that we should capitalize on all extant transit options, and that should include express bus, but to capitalize on just one in ignorance of local demographics isn’t smart. 

In combination of all the stuff suggested above, I’d do a detiming of Fulton street to reduce travel times and increase reliability, eliminate skip stop on the  to shorten headways, and extend the  to Lefferts to increase capacity. Those improvements, combined with the above will frankly leave the Rockaways better off transportationally than many other areas of the city. Leave the RBB for when the MTA has leisure cash. 

A Rockaway Beach discussion should discuss all issues pertaining to the RBB. Given that a park and improved bus service are frequently proposed alternatives to reactivation, I think this discussion is wholly within bounds. 

And FWIW, if the mods really did think it was time for a lock, they would lock it. You don't need to tell them to. 

Now, for my thoughts. I could not agree more with lower LIRR fares/bus restructuring to feed LIRR as transit solutions for queens. The impending isolation of the atlantic branch from the rest of the LIRR network gives MTA a chance to try its hand at running a sort of crossover regional rail/subway network -- something akin to overground. What's more, the interest in RX and  the Lower Montauk Branch could all be tied into the creation of such a network, thereby leveraging existing assets with less investment than would be needed to build equivalent subway lines. 

So yes, the RBB is a cool little idea. But when placed in the context of that corridor's transportational requirements, and those of the city at large, I think it will -- for now, at least -- have to take a back seat. 

12 hours ago, D to 96 St said:

But the thing is with RBB, it is more worthy since it will improve access from the Rockaways and stops the line turning into a park. 

-Connecting SAS to Fulton is more important since it will allow the express to Lefferts. 

-Serve LGA with an extension of the Astoria Line , realistically. I don't personally see the need for a 125 St crosstown. 

-I don't think this can be done because there are too many tunnels under 34 St, INCLUDING NORTH-SOUTH ones. Plus. not too sure if demand would warrant it since it is far from QB.

-I do see the need but an extension of the  across Gun Hill would make more sense. 

-Fully agree with Utica.

-Same with Rogers.

-Also agree with the North Shore Line and the HBLR to SI since 8 St is close to the Bayonne Bridge.

-I somewhat agree tho this should just be the proposed Triboro RX. 

 

 

I think the failure in logic with RBB is shown above. We shouldn't build rail lines solely because the line may be turned into a park. What's more, given that there are myriad dense transit deserts in the city, we definitely shouldn't be building them in areas of low density, and also not in ones that already have subway service. 

I agree with all the other proposals you/Deucey have outlined, save for maybe LMB subway conversion because of the effect it may have on regional freight ops. 

13 hours ago, Daniel The Cool said:

Nope they run extra  and Trains during the Holiday weekends in December to accommodate riders and holiday shoppers every year. Last year they ran extra  though on the first weekend of the Holiday weekends instead of extra  and Trains due to a G.O on Queens Blvd.

Ugh. Why can't us Culver riders get some love... 

In real life it ends quite a bit south of Jamaica.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6909182,-73.82196,14.75z

While I don’t think that there’ll be space/need for the  post RBB (everything else I agree with), that’s a damn impressive hand-drawn map. Great job!

1 hour ago, LTA1992 said:

Excuse my ignorance, but I think that if it was such a huge issue, something would have been done about it in the last year it's been on the property. 

 

Why is this JUST NOW becoming an issue?

9 minutes ago, MysteriousBtrain said:

Yeah even though maybe Bombardier could of made it a bit safer, I don't get why this part wasn't tested before the 30-day testing. But since it was the TWU that pointed this out, I feel like they are hopping on the R179 blame game to get something out of it. Just my thoughts. 

I’m confused. If this is an issue, how will open gangway cars work? Does the TWU oppose the 211s? 

And don’t they think that not having massive gaps between cars will make things safer? 

Edit: also see above for more discussion 

I’m pretty sure the same set just passed me headed south on Culver Exp. Anyone know what this could be? 

Just saw a set of NIS R32s heading north through Bway Lafayette. I’m assuming an xfer to 207? 

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

As opposed to the work required when smashing the load-bearing walls of the current Chrystie St connection? There's no provisioning at all, so I don't understand how this is supposed to be any less disruptive. If anything, shallow is probably more disruptive.

Both will require “smashing.” The deep option requires a ton of underpinning — including the construction of a mezzanine below active tracks. Moreover, the TBM tunneling will entail a longer work window, a more complex station, and produces a worse final product. And this is to say nothing of the fact that it’ll be more expensive.

A dose of skepticism towards the MTA’s plans for SAS is always healthy. 

13 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

OOS= Out Of System(this goes for the Lex-63 to Lex-59 transfer)

QBL will have CBTC ready by 2021, so frequencies could be improved, and it would be a tight fit, but not impossible.  

Here's how it would help things: it would give riders at Queens Plaza improved access to 60 St. 

You're a bit confused with the  to Whitehall...technically it assumes the role of the  if its on QB and the  assumes the role of the . In other words, the  is terminating at Whitehall late nights from CONEY ISLAND! 

As for the 36 St merge- I did notice it could potentially be a major bottleneck because the  and  have to converge on the same spot. Regardless, this is the only way to do it without constructing expensive connections. 

 

 

No, I got what OOS meant, I'm wondering why you're worried about the  losing one. In system transfers are objectively better than out of system ones -- something that  via 60 provides. 

According to MTA docs, QBL CBTC will increase capacity by about 3 trains per hour. So no. No scope. 

Again, you're missing my point about Queens Plaza. The issue isn't 60th st access -- originating customers can just walk to Queensboro, and customers can change at Roosevelt or Forest Hills. The issue is that by moving the  to 63, you're restricting the ways riders east of there on Queens Boulevard can get to the station. If you live between Roosevelt and Queens Plaza, and want to get the , or want to go to work in downtown LIC, you can now only take the  . That's a bad thing, given that the  is already the slight favorite of the two. 

No, it isn't the only way to do it. I've got a radical, cutting edge method, one that gives riders more access to important transfer points and business corridors without expense:

Leave the  train alone. 

1 hour ago, D to 96 St said:

First off, the yard won't be that big. It will only take up part of the ConEd land. And why isn't it a big priority to you? The MTA proposed this many times before and the only reason it was shot down was because of NIMBYS. Routing it through 19 Av will have a lesser impact on the community. 

Also, as for losing a transfer to the , your  ALSO loses an OOS CONNECTION. My plan will get rid of the 59 St merge. 

But after Phase 3 of SAS opens, there could then be a 2 Av-Queens service via 63 St! This means that riders on my  will eventually be able to transfer at Roosevelt Island for East Side service! 

A solution to no access via 60 St- A transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza! 

I’m all for your routing via the ConEd land, just not a yard there, for the reasons stated above. Why do I care? Because I like electricity to be reliable. 

I don't see your point regarding the  OOS connection. Can you explain what you mean? (Also note that almost no one uses OOS connections).

As for the 59th merge, well, yes, your plan doesn’t have the 59th merge. It has one at 36th street (both, in fact)... 

After phase three of SAS (assuming we get there), your  will have to be moved. The  runs 15tph, and the  would have to run at least 10-12, so there frankly wouldn’t be space for a  train or whatever if your  goes via 63. 

I also don’t see how a QP QBP transfer would help things. My issue was that riders on your  would lose access to downtown LIC and the  train. Unless you’re secretly adding a station on the 63rd st line, this doesn’t help that at all. (I do support the connection in general)

Also: what’s serving Sea Beach nights? You have  to Whitehall...

Finally, FWIW, you seem to have ignored the most real ops argument against this — the 36th (queens) merge, and its effect on  reliability. 

29 minutes ago, quadcorder said:

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.

Why create a yard problem, then? 

 CI to 96th via Sea Beach.

 as now

 as now 

 Kings Highway (SB) to Astoria via 4 ave local, tunnel. Replaces  to CI nights/weekends. 

There. Only merge is between  and  at 59th. 

9 minutes ago, D to 96 St said:

I have suggested this multiple times before and this is how I'd do it. 

 is rerouted to Forest Hills-71 Av via 63 St all times except late nights, when it would terminate at Whitehall St.

 stays the same, with an extension to Broadway-125 St after Phase II is open.

replaces  at Astoria and is extended to LGA. Tail tracks would come with provisions to extend the line further east to Bayside and Flushing. Before you bring up the yard issue, there could be a new yard on Con Ed land, fixing the problem. 

 is extended to LGA with the , and also extended to Bay Pkwy on the  for additional rush hour service on 4 Av. 

Pros: 

No interaction between the exp and locals on Broadway.

Serves LGA, and allows for more service on 4 Av Local. 

Cons: 

Could be delays at 36 St due to merging with the . 

 

I like where you're going regarding no merging etc, but I don't think messing with that interlocking area around 36th is a good call.  and  trains really toe the line with their combined 30tph, and adding  trains into the mix there could quickly lead to massive backups. What's more, by sending the Broadway service via 63rd, QB local riders would lose transfers to the  and   (if you're west of Roosevelt), along with access to the 60th st corridor + downtown LIC -- something sure to anger them.

Unrelated, but building that yard on ConEd land could cause issues rippling across the subway system and city -- that's where they stage replacement parts for the grid. Get rid of that, and response times shorten, basic maintenance becomes more expensive, outages become more frequent. 

Finally, I'd send your supplimental 4th ave service down Sea Beach or to 95th st, not down West End. Those 4th ave stops as you head south are quite busy. 

9 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

To be fair, you could still do the connection from 2nd to the Bridge without the across the platform transfer, using the space from the old north side connection ramping down to the level of the 2nd Avenue tracks

5 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

So just because we built it on another level means we can't somehow connect tracks on these different levels? It'd require the same amount of punching through existing tunnels to do, since the existing trackways have no accommodation for Second Avenue at all. If those trackways existed, sure, I buy that we should do shallow Chrystie, but as it is they don't.

Think about this for a sec.

Yes, you could build ramp tracks from Second to Sixth. However, doing so would be much, much more expensive than just building everything on the same level. You'd first have to put together either a sloping TBM tunnel, or dig deep trenches on either side of the 6th tracks -- both without disturbing  and service too much. And yes, while punching through the connections onto 6th wouldn't be the hardest thing in the world, just imagine the underpinning that building an interlocking cavern directly below two active tracks would require.

IMHO, two shallow tunnels and a crossover switch would be just a tad easier. 

25 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, the connection would still be easier than any 6th Av - Lex connection in existence today. So what exactly are we losing?

An even easier connection...

Doing the across-the-platform xfer also could allow for crossovers to be installed btwn 2nd and 6th, giving another route for non-revs to/from CI/38th St (which was looked at as a passenger stock yard site when SAS fleet expansion kicks in). 

Could we make the  and  all 46/160 to ameliorate the Astoria sign switch problem? Maybe send the displaced 68s to the  ? 

Just now, LGA Link N train said:

The Choiceof using Second Avenue for this option, I'd rather use 6th while leaving the in the southern division 

If you’re talking about the vanshnook 2nd ave plan, you can’t do it halfway — that would require even more insanity than what he proposes. 

Aside from that, you’re missing what I’m saying. Sure, you may think Utica is better done off some other trunk (I disagree, but that’s a different discussion), but I repeat, what is wrong with provisioning for expansion? It’s not like the stubs *have* to be used for a Utica line — they can be for some line that none of us have thought of.

Planning ahead is good. 

What do you have against leaving space for future decision?

Whether or not you agree with Utica, it’s very possible that another line will be built off of SAS, so it only makes sense to leave provisions for it given that’s the most sensical detachment point.