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.

JeremiahC99

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    1,170
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

245 Excellent

Social Info

2 Followers

About JeremiahC99

  • Rank
    Hardcore Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

1,073 profile views
  1. Orion Artics? We didn’t have any artics from Orion (in fact, they never even made artics). I believe you must be talking about the old New Flyer D60HF buses that were replaced by the New Flyer XD60s and NovaBus LFSA Smart Bus.
  2. Due to reliability issues on the , I believe that these same people would actually be better off riding the meandering route to the 59th Street station to catch the more reliable train. I use the occasionally and I have friends who live in Sunset Park who use the line, and I know what these issues look like. have proposed fixed to and train issues on the subways thread, but I’m facing the reality that they won’t come for a very very long time. However, if they want to use the 86th Street station, then what I recommend is a rush hour extension of the proposed B1 along Shore Road, operating every 8 minutes along that street (the regular B1 service between Shore Road and Manhattan Beach would run every 4 minutes). This should provide some service to the 86th Street stop for those who need it alongside the new B9 option. Other times, B9 service to the 59th Street station should be increased.
  3. I'm also opposed to extending the past Euclid with only current infrastructure, but if new infrastructure is built to avoid this merging (such as the BRoadway-Fulton Tunnel to allow for service to run on the line), then I'm on board with it. Originally, I had intended to have service go to Rockaway Park, while the and new go to Far Rockaway and Lefferts respecively. The problem with this, as some people pointed out when I made it, is that even with the going express in Brooklyn and Manahttan, the length of the line would make the line unreliable. Since then, the plan has gone through several modifications, eventually settling with my current plan: to Lefferts, to Far Rockaway, and to Rockaway Park at all times except late nights, when service is is extended to Euclid Avenue to enhance connections. The express and to Euclid plans are unchanged. In addition, even though I am now planning to run all three Queens services at 12 trains per hour, I have also proposed enhancing the Q53 SBS by extending it west and increasing its frequency to the Rockaway Blvd station, though it does come with problems in itself. I believe the reason for their opposition to the is that it goes in a "loop" from Metro to 71st Avenue, something I see nothing wrong with. The only thing I find wrong with the is the Manhattan-Queens crossing. Currently, it runs via 53rd Street, which feeds into the 8th Avenue Line with a spur off to the 6th Avenue corridor. This interferes with the route, preventing service increases along the route. IF the route ran via 63rd Street, and a new 53rd-8th Avenue service added, removed from QBL and back to Astoria, and service moved to the express tracks and swapped with the , then we can see "segregation" of services on the Manhattan-Queens tunnels, with the 63rd Street Tunnel solely serving 6th Avenue trains, 60th Street serving only Broadway Trains, and 53rd Street serving only 8th Avenue trains. 24 trains through each tunnel and zero impacts. In addition, they have also opposed my Nassau-8th Avenue plans (no matter how many revisions I make) due to the fear that the plan creates more -like routes. In fact, my route for the new connection is nothing more than an 8th Avenue line. They don't also like the connection at Spring Street, since they don't want the connection to be at the local station, but this has not stopped them before. And as for the getting longer trains, this will tie in to my revised plan for the and replacing and service over the bridge, with the to Broadway Junction and the to Metropolitan Avenue. Bowery, Essex Street, and all other stations on the line would be lengthened as well. For SAS, following the scrapping of the SAS services running via all three current Manhattan-Queens crossings, I started to come up with a new plan to have the SAS service another borough (Queens), while getting people off the Lexington Avenue Line. I thought of the old Northern Blvd Line I was thinking of a while back, and thought "Maybe I should use this for the new SAS northern end". At this point, I am proposing to have the outer tracks go to the Northern Blvd Line. I'll talk of the alignment later, but there will be issues with the service pattern development The problem I see with the 4-track Essex Street is with the two island-platforms configuration, the situation would just end up recreating Flatbush Avenue , but on the . I want to avoid this annoying situation. The other option is a configuration similar to Atlantic-Barclays IRT and both of the 34th Street-Penn Station stops: two side-platforms and one island platform. Problem with this is that this would result in inconvenient transfers to the new services over the bridge, such as my proposed and routes for the Nassau-8th Avenue connection. Under this option, passengers could transfer across the platform at Bowery as well. For my and option, I am against having the relay at Bowery since all four tracks will be in use under this plan, with the and using the outer tracks and the using the inner tracks. The southern tracks would be reactivated under this option. This would leave no extra tracks for relaying at Bowery. There needs to be some compromise for a 4-track Essex to work.
  4. I am not proposing an elevated Hillside Avenue extension all the way to Springfield Blvd. My plan is for tunneling from 185th Street Springfield Blvd, with all planned stations (188th Street, 197th Street, Francis Lewis Blvd, 212th-214th Street, and Springfield Blvd all underground. Where I want to see new elevated structures along Utica Avenue, which would be an elevated line from Farragut Road to the end of the line at Kings Plaza. The new modern structure would be on the west side of Utica and over Flatbush, to keep some of the costs down.
  5. I looked at the site, and it is pretty good. I must say that the modern aerial guideway option is a pretty neat option. They should implement it on the RBB as a pilot for future elevated structures. For some reason, I could see this happening for the potential Utica Avenue Line to Kings Plaza. As for service, I am proposing this alongside several other Queens projects, such as the Queens Bypass to Jamaica Center (now a relief Line), extension of the Hillside Avenue section of Queens Blvd to Springfield Blvd in Queens Village, and extensions of both Archer Avenue levels to Hollis (Lower level) and Rosedale at Francis Lewis (Upper level). Alongside the RBB, four projects (the archer extensions I count as two separate ones) will allow for increase in train turnaround capacity and service into underserved areas of Queens. The problem with putting all of these projects together is creating a service plan that works for almost everyone. Dealing with the bypass is already enough, but with the RBB, I feel like throwing fuel to fire. My original plan was to have the and using the 53rd Street Tunnel and the and on the 63rd Street Tunnel (it ties in with the Nassau-8th connection) These pair of services would be supplemented by services coming from the Second Avenue Subway. Let’s call these -1 and -2. At 36th Street, the would take the bypass and the would join -2 and . At Rego Park, the splits off from the other two. In the midst of all this, the and -1 would be express. Past Briarwood, the splits off to meet with the for the trip to Rosedale and the other lines go on Hillside. The problem with this giant complex plan is that even though I have all aforementioned services running at 12 trains per hour, train thorough put of 36 trains per hour on a single track would be impossible with all of the interlining at the 63rd Street connector, the Junction with RBB, and an Briarwood. In light of this, this service plan was scrapped. A new service plan would need to be created. Any ideas?
  6. For this to work, you would have to rebuild Essex Street so that the middle track could access both platforms. This should be done by having the westbound platform and track swapped, with the station configuration turning into that of Whitehall and other 3-track express stops elsewhere in the system. Also, is it possible to turn 12 trains per hour on a single pocket track (the middle track in this case)?
  7. We could do that, but I'm in the business of just eliminating the bottlenecks entirely. I ride the and on the Fulton Street Brooklyn Line every morning to school, where the is express and the local. What the merge does is take the capacity of a single track, and split it on two tracks, (theoretically) 15 trains on the express track and around 10 trains on the local tracks. However, the slow service combined with the merging delays the trains, creating long waits on both tracks, especially in the morning, when I have to put up with it at times. Here is the perceived complexity (I'm discounting the Nassau-8th Avenue connection for purposes of this post): The plan for Fulton service is to construct a new East River Tunnel connecting the Broadway Line with the Court Street Museum tracks (the station would be used) and another tunnel connecting to the Jamaica El east of Cypress Hills (getting rid of that slow bottleneck), as well as extending the Astoria Line to LGA. From here, in my new revised plan, the and would both travel via this new tunnel to service as local service on the Fulton Street Line, with the going to Euclid Avenue and the taking over the route to Jamaica Center. At this point, the would be based out of Pitkin Yard, and the would be based out of East NY Yard. would be express to Lefferts Blvd, and the would solely service Far Rockaway (unchanged from before). The would operate between Broadway Junction and 95th Street. Both the service would replace service to Astoria, and the would go up the SAS. A route to World Trade Center would replace the on Queens Blvd, and allow for the reroute of the to 63rd Street, and the to be express on 8th Avenue as well. To allow for further deinterlining, the and routes would swap (similar to the service change during the 6th Avenue Fastrack) north of 59th Street so that the goes express to Norwood-205th Street and the local to 168th Street. The complexity that these people point out is that I'm proposing constructing a new 1.5-mile tunnel, rejiggering 7 routes and creating a new route just to extend the by seven stops. They don't like it, and instead, they want to leave the rest of the subway system as is, but extend the to Lefferts Blvd. What they don't realize it that they are creating yet another merge between the and without removing any other merge, adding more fuel to an already-burning fire. They even pretend that there are NO bottlenecks. In contrast, my plan, while it would involve more moving parts, would actually improve operations further. Yes, I'd be creating a merge at 36th Street, but the 8th Avenue merges are consolidated to only a single one at 145th Street, and the 34th/Broadway, 60th Street, 6th Avenue/53rd Street, and others are eliminated. In addition, Queens Plaza remains, but is a less of an impact, as only 8th Avenue trains are using Queens Plaza (compared to the current pattern of 8th Avenue, 6th Avenue, and Broadway trains using it) . More specifically (red is for high-impact merges added, green is merges removed): 63rd Street Connection 6th Avenue/53rd Street 50th Street/8th Avenue 59th Street-Columbus Circle Canal Street Hoyt-Schermerhorn Further changes will come from my revised Nassau-8th Avenue connections. I agree with you. The is a big benefit for everyone, so saying it has no benefits is preposterous. Even before the change, 22,000 riders were transferring to Midtown-bound trains, while only 17,000 went to Lower Manhattan. When I was in the area doing some shopping for class supplies, I had the option of using the either the or to get from Essex Street to the Lexington Avenue Line. Though the was an ideal to getting to the and , I often used the if it came as well. In the Culver Express analysis, it was also mentioned that the ridership has rapidly grown since the changeover to 6th Avenue, and this resulted in service being increased to 10 trains so far. More trains should be run on the line to accommodate further increased ridership, but due to the bottleneck of the Williamsburg Bridge, we can't. And this brings me to one of my big revisions to the Williamsburg Bridge: In my earlier plans, I had the going to Broadway Junction, and the to Metropolitan Avenue, absorbing the , while the was unchanged. However, to address the bottleneck at the bridge, service over the Williamsburg Bridge would end. Instead, in a move that would possibly piss off railfanners, the would be rerouted from its long-time World Trade terminus and be rerouted over the Williamsburg Bridge to Broadway Junction, while the , which would continue to use 8-car trains, would terminate at Essex Street, which would be rebuilt to increase capacity and better handle terminating trains, and avoid merges In addition to the rebuild of Essex Street, Bowery and every station on the Jamaica El would be rebuilt for longer trains, and just like that, you have full capacity on each line. This would increase capacity for midtown-bound riders because instead of the current 10 midtown-bound trains and 12 downtown-bound trains, you now have 24 Midtown-bound trains over the bridge. More efficient for population growth if you ask me. The one kid who wanted that Allen Street stop came up with that garbage statistic while disputing the success of the . He thinks the statistics were made up. You are right. Maybe instead of these three services, how about having the SAS go via a new 2-track tunnel to Queens and have the Queens line operate via Northern Blvd. Would that work?
  8. I’ve seen much worse than that. I’ve even heard them suggest extending the to Lefferts, but they don’t even know that this will create another bottleneck at Euclid Avenue, adding to the already excruciating ones at Hoyt and Canal. I tell them this plan, but they dismiss it because it’s to “complex”. They want to leave everything as is, but simply extend the . I have also started to believe that none of these YouTube guys even ride the subway to get to/from somewhere important (whereas you guys do). The one person is a YouTuber named AJ, Abstract Enthusiast. He is the one with the well-thought out plan comment. In addition, these other guys have also disputed the ridership Numbers, citing the fact that the number of people who benefited from the change (22,000) is false. One of them has even proposed additional Nassau Street Stops, such as at Allen Street, and he claims that this will bring up the number of people benefitting from the direct ride to Lower Manhattan from 17,000 to 30,0000. However, not only would this slow trains further, but it would barely affect the Nassau ridership and also take away ridership from other nearby stations, such as Bowery, Essex Street, and Grand Street.
  9. No worries. I appreciate the feedback. I've actually used it to modify my last plan I put out, such as modifying the service plan for Nassau-8th Avenue connection to shorten the to Essex Street and replace it with the train, changed up Lower Manhattan service by replacing the with the . I've also looked into reimagining the Queens Bypass from the 1960s and making it into a relief line, in addition to a reactivated Rockaway Beach Branch (if Richmond Hill and Rockaway resident still insist on getting it), but both will run into problems for reasons I will explain another time. However, even with these revisions, the plan has received negative feedback from one particular demographic, which is YouTube Railfanners. With the exception of one person, who said it was well though-out, all of them have reacted negatively to the plan, with reasons from causing confusion, being too complex, service cutoffs. I've even heard one person say that they will stop using the subway once the R32 and R42 cars retire, since my new plans does not include. The worst part, and possibly the last straw, was when someone accused me of gentrifying East New York, Richmond Hill, and other neighborhoods, because of the removal of just ONE bottleneck that slows down subway service (the Crescent Street curves). At that point, I actually snapped. As far as that new Queens Tunnel, I will say that you are correct that we do need one, because as you said, if we can have a 4-track SAS, then might as well have a new 2-track tunnel to Queens. The first question I though of was: where should it go? Because of this I started to think on where to send the line. One of the ideas that popped out of my head was the old Northern Blvd proposal I bought up a while back. I was thinking "What if we could use this for a new SAS line to Queens?" It not only avoids interlining with at-capacity trunk lines, but it also serves a whole new area of the city. Would that be a great idea for a SAS-Queens Line?
  10. You could say that. Supposedly, 158 of the buses are supposed to be retired by the end of this year and have the new buses as a Christmas gift.
  11. When I thought of this plan, I wanted to ensure that this plan would help get riders off the Lexington Avenue Line by making a service that travels directly between the East Side and Queens, drawing crowds away from 59th Street and 51st Street. I was also under the impression that with CBTC, the maximum track capacity tops out to 36 trains per hour. With 2 services in each of the Queens tunnels both at 12 trains per hour, there would be 24 trains per hour in each tunnel, and thats before the SAS plans. With SAS-Queens services, plus the deinterlining of Queens Blvd's 36th Street interlocking, and 4-tracking the lower SAS, another 12 trains per hour would be added, giving 36 trains on the crossings. However, this would not be done without additional projects to expand service and increase capacity in Queens itself. The 63rd Street-SAS plan is slightly close to what Vanshnookenraggen proposed in his future of the SAS post, with a SAS-Queens connection via 63rd Street going out via Queens Blvd. Maybe I'm not coming up with the best plans after all.
  12. This is why I propose expanding the SAS-Queens connections beyond the planned connection to the 63rd Street Tunnel. With an additional connection to the 60th Street Tunnel and possibly to the 53rd Street Tunnel, riders on the Queens Blvd Line and Astoria Line can avoid transferring at 59th Street and 51st Street entirely and ride directly between work on the east side (or whatever they do there) and home in Queens. So for example, if such a rider lives in Astoria near the Queens Blvd Line (I’m going to use Steinway Street for this example) and goes to college at Hunter Colleges Bellevue Nursing School, rather than take the QBL Local train to 53rd and Lex (under current service patterns), then transfer to the to get to 23rd Street, then walk a half mile to the Bellevue Campus, that same person can now take the SAS local train straight from Steinway to 23rd Street-2nd Avenue via the 63rd Street Tunnel, then walk only one block to reach the campus. The same would happen in reverse for the commute home after class. No interaction with Lexington Avenue required. The 60th Street connection time the SAS would also provide redundancy as well. So if the same student sees the Queens Blvd Line knocked out due to an incident, they can then walk over to Broadway on the Astoria Line, take the Astoria-SAS train to 42nd Street, then transfer to the local SAS train to 23rd Street and vice versa in the evening, also avoiding Lexington Avenue.
  13. Why not convert the 51st Street stop into an express station, providing additional transfers?
  14. The 2005, 2006, and 2007 Orion VIIs are all scheduled to be replaced by the upcoming hybrid order.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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