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.

mrsman

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    145
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think the nomenclature of whether to call a or a is secondary to the issue of routing trains in such a way as to not tangle up the system. It seems that under the vanschnookenraggen plan*, and are identical except that one is local and one is express along the Concourse and one goes to Bay Ridge and the other goes to Sea Beach in Brooklyn. I think the reason why goes to Bay Ridge, is because is the part time line and it is easier to make a Bay Ridge night shuttle than a Sea Beach night shuttle. But there is no reason why you couldn't run the trains the other way around and have the be the full time line and be the part time line. Regardless, the important take away from van's plan is the overall system benefit of having three separate routings through DeKalb that do not interfere with each other: BD 6th Ave express - Bridge N tracks - 4 Ave express - To Sea Beach or Bay Ridge NQ Bwy express - Bridge S tracks - Brighton tracks - express to Brighton, local to CI RW Bwy local - Montague tunnel - 4 Ave local - To West End line (with some trains likely short-turning either at Whitehall or Bay Parkway) * He only made public what he will do in Brooklyn - there is still the possibility that he may change the routings along the CPW line and have A and B to Washington Heights with C and D to Grand Concourse. What he plans to do with all of the above lines north of Herald Square is still up in the air until he releases those plans.
  2. With regard to the LIE line, I echo the statements above. Add a station for 108th. No need for a station at College Point. And extend this line as far as you can into Alley Pond Park to provide park and ride facilities and an alternative to the Port Washington line.
  3. The DC Metro does something similar for their employees who died in the line of duty. The memorial is at Metro Center, the central transfer station of the system, but in a relatively quiet part of the station, to allow for quiet thoughts and contemplation. https://dcist.com/story/11/01/31/metro-unveils-employee-memorial-at/ I agree that something equivalent for subway employees should be done at a very prominent Manhattan subway station like Times Square. And I also agree that Goble deserves a unique honor given what he did.
  4. These are very good points. Pocket tracks to allow for short turning trains are necessary to keep trains on schedule, to account for the myriad events that could cause delays throughout the system. There is a need for frequent service through the core at peak times to meet the demand, reduce congestion and waiting times. If you schedule 30 TPH through the core that is a train every 2 minutes which seems to be the maximum throughput for typical stretches of track. But scheduling that many trains does not leave room for error, so you have to provide the short turns so that as much service to the core can be provided, even when accounting for the delays.
  5. I do like the idea of using the Atlantic branch for a subway. Direct Brooklyn to Jamaica service is a big plus. If there is funding for a new East River tunnel, then it seems like the best option would be a connection. Lower Manhattan - Downtown Brooklyn - East New York - Jamaica as an express subway with few stops in between (just places where there would be transfers to other subway lines). If no new East River tunnel is built, but small landside connecting tunnels are allowed, then I envision something along the following: and feed the Montague tunnel, with continuing to Bay Ridge, but taking over the Fulton local tracks. [Most who envision this connection do it by way of the Transit Museum and using a tunnel along Clinton St.] A Spring Street tunnel to connect 8th Ave local trains to the Williamsburg Bridge. This means the M will run on 8th Ave local instead of 6th Ave, allowing for all of the 6th Ave trains to use the Rutgers street tunnel. This would allow the trains to continue to the Culver line and the trains (which will take the place of M along 6th Ave) becoming the Fulton express. [Extrapolating the above further, means and will enter Queens along the 63rd street tunnel and M and along the 53rd street tunnel. Whether this is further deinterlined along Queens Blvd can be decided independently, but my preference would have M and E as the QBL locals and F and V as the QBL expresses.] As teh Fulton line would now be served by and , and will be available for the Atlantic Express. 8th Ave express, through the Cranberry tunnel and then a new tunnel in Brooklyn. The tunnel will be along Adams-Boreum-Atlantic to connect the High Street station with Atlantic/Flatubush and possibly a new station in between to service Downtown Brooklyn. to service Atlantic/Flatbush - either Franklin or Nostrand (there is already a station at Nostrand, but Franklin allows a connection to ) - ENY station (with connection to ) - Woodhaven (to connect with some future Rockaway Park service) - and then Jamaica. Alternatively, the Atlantic line can branch with half the trains ending in Jamaica and the other half servicing and supplementing the Rockaways via Howard Beach.
  6. The K train is not really necessary. Let all of the increased runs be M trains instead. Decreased R trains on QBL will mean room for more M trains on QBL to maintain current service levels. In no way am I suggesting a cut to 4th Ave service. SOme of the additional W trains could be extended there. THe goal is to have N service PW and utilize the unused capacity on 63rd street to avoid constructin a new East River Tunnel and to have N stay on the Broadway express tracks. But doing that would mean the need to provide additional local W service to Astoria. Could this be done by keeping levels the same? Maybe yes. So let's propose something simpler with fewer changes. PW-63rd-Bwy Express, no longer serving Astoria. Increased service to meet Astoria's demand. The additional trains (above the capcaty of the City Hall curves) to terminate at City Hall.
  7. What type of costs are involved with converting the PW line to be compatible with IND/BMT lines? Currently, we have some unused capacity on the 63rd street tunnel, but using that would require a new allocation of services on the Manhattan trunk lines. While it would require more intermixing than I'm generally comfortable with, you can have the run as a Broadway express and then join the across the 63rd street line. continues as QBL express and will service the PW line. 2nd Ave/96th - Broadway express (15 TPH) PW line - 63rd tunnel - Broadway express (15 TPH) QBL local - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (7 TPH) Astoria - 60th tunnel - Broadway local (14 TPH) QBL express - 53rd tunnel - 8th Ave (15 TPH) QBL express - 63rd tunnel - 6th Ave local (15 TPH) QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Metropolitan (7 TPH) K QBL local - 53rd tunnel - 6th Ave - Will Bridge - Broadway Juntion (7 TPH) will run all-stops east of Broadway Juntion, but rush hour express between Broadway Junction and the bridge, terminating at Broad Street. To bring the off Astoria, we need to increase service to Astoria, thereby decreasing service but providing other service to maintain service levels along the QBL local. I propose a K train which is really a variant of the heading to Broadway Junction instead of Metropolitan Ave.
  8. I would love to see the Port Washington line be operated, both in frequency and in fare policy, more like a rapid transit service. A handful of expresses at premium fare should operate to serve teh Nassau County stations and then skip all stops (aside from Bayside, Flushing, and Woodside) before reaching GCT or Penn. The majority of trains on the line can operate from Great Neck, stopping at all stations on a frequent basis (every 5 minutes during rush hour, 10 minutes off-peak, and 20 minutes overnight) I hate the idea of spending money unnecessarily. There already is a good corridor that services trains, just underutilized.
  9. I also like the idea of a deinterlining pilot. Many of the deinterlining ideas require no captial infrastructure, just posting a GO to let passengers know of some of the proposed changes. I am confident that if deinterlining, even in a minor way, were allowed to happen, the system efficiency would be readily apparent. Of course, deinterlinig pre-supposes that we run trains at a relatively frequent schedule, so a good test pilot would need to be post-COVID.
  10. There are definitely ways to deinterline Columbus Circle, yet still maintaing express service on both the Concourse and Inwood branches of the CPW line. You can maintain one CPW express to 207th, One CPW express up Concourese to Norwood, one CPW local to 168th, and one CPW local to 145th, extended to Bedford Park Blvd during rush hours - as was done pre-COVID. Once that pattern is established, though, you can have all CPW expresses to 8th Ave and all CPW local to 6th Ave (or vice versa) to avoid interference at Columbus Circle. A proposal to send all expresses to Concourse and all locals to Inwood (or vice versa) would not cut the mustard. Both branches have long trips and both should have one local and one express train to service the corridors. I always liked nerdy.nel's assesment of CPW. Given the arrangement of tracks, the conflicts at 145th are not an all-day phenomenon as they are at Columbus Circle. https://nerdynel.me/2019/01/31/nytip101cpw/
  11. I think we all can agree that a direct connection subway is better than any people mover type idea. First, it eliminates a transfer. Second, it does provide a one-seat ride from Manhattan. The proposed 11 train, would give a one seat ride to Grand Central, Bryant Park, Times Square, and Hudson Yards and of course a one transfer ride from all of the main trunk lines. Third, is fare policy. More often than not, when a separate people mover is used, a separate fare is expected. For JFK, it is so exorbitant, because even if you have already paid $2.75 (or a LIRR fare to Jamaica), you then have to fork over an additional $7.75. [It is true that some airports with people movers will allow a ride from the terminals to the nearby regular subway station for free, but given JFK - we would have to assume at least $5 additonal for the LGA air train without a free subway transfer.] However, if the airport is just another station on the subway line, it is likely to be at normal subway fares (or even if at a premium, not a super premium). Chicago's L, which like NYC MTA, is designed with paying as you enter and not tapping as you exit, charges a $2.50 fare. No extra fare to exit at O'Hare. $5 instead of $2.50 is charged to enter from O'Hare. No premium at all is charged for riding to Midway, largely because it is also a major bus transfer point as well as a stop to service the airport. If the LGA were on the subway, it would be difficult to charge an extra fare upon exiting and even if an extra fare upon entering, it is less likely to be exorbitant, and it will also cover your subway fare and give you a bus transfer as well. However, it has to be acknowledged that splitting the does mean that less service will be available, since we have to split to serve both LGA and Flushing. Given some of the earlier comments, this may not be a problem as more trains can turn back at Hudson Yards than at Flushing, so the extra trains (that would normally terminate early) are just diverted to LGA instead.
  12. I agree. Plans to fully deinterline 6th Ave and QBL would employ something along the lines of a 6th Ave local - 63rd - QBL local and have all of the QBL expresses to 53rd street to 8th Avenue. One can keep providing the without reducing 6th Ave or QBL service. (Of course, Culver service is limited by the number of trains provided). Run both and as 6th Ave local - QBL locals and provide instead and services as the QBL express. Whether and continue to the Cranberry tunnel as an 8th Ave express or terminate at WTC as an 8th Ave local is dependent upon what happens along CPW.
  13. I like vanschnookenraggen's plan, since it is very streamlined. You can read more of my comments on his site. The one hurdle I see is convincing the West End riders that this is better for them than a direct express, which they will be losing. On an ops basis, it certainly is better, since they wait less for a proposed and then transfer to a or at 36th - but with all deinterlining plans the "cost" is that the West End riders will need a transfer, when before they could ride directly on the , albeit a less frequent train than what is proposed here. The basic truth of any deinterlining is a trade-off: More frequent trains and fewer delays due to merging in exchange for an additional likely transfer for a set of passengers. I think it is a good trade-off, but many others do not.
  14. Interestingly enough, DeKalb already has no direct service to 6th Avenue on weekends and Federal holidays, as well as during the “Essential Service” plan during the early part of the pandemic when the was suspended. It’s not out of the question that DeKalb may lose that service again if the are forced to implement 40 percent service cuts. I’m really hoping it doesn’t come to that, because ridership is starting to rise again from where it was six months ago. If that keeps up, and they still have to go through with cutting service, expect overcrowded trains with no way to contain Covid. That said, my preference (assuming Covid goes the way of polio) is also to do express to Brighton, local to Stillwell via Brighton, to Sea Beach with expanded service hours and to Stillwell via West End. This is because it’s been stated in past discussions that the found there was a stronger preference from Brighton riders for Broadway and from southwest Brooklyn riders for 6th Avenue. It is interesting to imagine a deinterllining in the context of service reduction. One of the greatest benefits of deinterlining is being able to run more trains, not fewer. One could contemplate as a service reduction the following: eliminated Concourse - CPW express - 6th Ave - 4th Ave express - West End Astoria - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Sea Beach 96th - Broadway express - Brighton local Rush hour Q route with Brighton express Forest Hills - Broadway local - Montague tunnel - 4th Ave local - Bay Ridge Such a pattern would be a cut, and would be very bad for Sea Beach riders, but can illustrate a deinterlined system. Of course the provision of comes at the direct expense of so whether such a service is maintained would have to be analyzed carefully. I don't like it. The letter designations should have some sort of meaning and one of the easiest systems of meaning is that A-H are IND and J-R are BMT. Of course, there are some lines that run as both BMT and IND lines, but at its basic core, 6th Ave is IND and should be designated by B and D, whereas Broadway is BMT designated by N, Q, and R.
  15. So long as Manhattan Bridge trains serve Broadway express and 6th Ave express, deinterlining DeKalb is a good idea. For the vast majority of passengers, you are only slightly increasing their walk, yet at the same time removing interference that causes significant delay. (Deinterlining DeKalb would not be possible if SAS trains were routed onto the bridge and 6th Ave trains went to Williamsburg Bridge as some others have proposed. In that case, the distance between Broadway and SAS midtown stations would be too great.) IMO, I think it was unfortunate that MTA did not implement this in 2004 when both the north and south sides of teh bridge were opened after a constuction project that closed 2 of the 4 tracks for the previous 15 years or so. During the 1990's Brighton local, Q-orange Brighton express, and West End trains all served 6th Ave while the from Sea Beach was sent to the Montague tunnel. Then, from 2001-2004, Brighton local, Brighton express, and West End trains all served Broadway express only while the from Sea Beach was sent to the Montague tunnel. These service patterns showed that the ridership was adaptable and that Brighton and West End riders directly (and Sea Beach and Bay Ridge indirectly via a transfer at 36 St) were able to ride EITHER 6th Ave express or Broadway express without complaint, because only one set of tracks were open. In 2004, when teh Manhattan Bridge project was completed was teh perfect time to implement a deinterlining regime as all riders would have a memory of either restoring back to the 1990s pattern (for their branch) or continuing the 2001-2004 pattern for their branch. So Brighton local and express to 6th Avenue restores the 1990's plan for those riders, sending West End to Broadway continues the 2001-2004 service, and making Sea Beach a Broadway express is a clear service benefit. Alternatively, sending Brighton local and express to Broadway continues the 2001-2004 service, sending West End to 6th Ave restores the 1990's plan, and making Sea Beach a 6th Ave express is also a clear service benefit. In both cases, (from the perspective of a 2004 rider) you can provide a familiar service pattern for Brighton and West End riders, a new express service for Sea Beach riders, and less interference for all riders. Unfortunately, MTA restored the 1980's service pattern which caused more interference and wasn't reallly necessary in 2004. And unfortunately to propose something different now would be politically difficult as people got used to the past service pattern that was in place since 2004 for over 16 years. Nonetheless, deinterlining DeKalb in some way would still be overall benefitical for the system and the ridership, just more difficult to do now then to have done it in 2004.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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