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.

engineerboy6561

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    875
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

149 Excellent

1 Follower

About engineerboy6561

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Looking at the track map for that just makes me sad; it would make far more sense to have the Muni level have four tracks; trains on the outer tracks could turn at a loop that drops a level down between the BART tracks and tracks to the eastern portal, while trains on the inner tracks would continue on to the T third St. Alternately, that loop could also have connections to a few storage tracks under Bierman Park if you wanted to be able to lay trains up there.
  2. True; my thought process was 15tph JSQ-57 St/2 Av, 15tph Nungessers-57 St/2 Av, and then 15tph Nungessers-JSQ, with extension options to Fort Lee and Newark (eventually giving 15tph Ft Lee-Newark Penn via the Ironbound, 15tph Ft Lee-57 St/2 Av, and 15 tph Newark Penn-57 St/2 Av via the Ironbound after the extension). If I had infinite cash and a crayon I'd run a four-track trunk from Anderson/Columbia Avs to Newark Penn Station (mostly because that's the region where the population densities are high enough to support something of that size), then branch out on either end of the trunk to serve less dense areas (allowing for 30tph into Manhattan via 57 St, 45 through tph within NJ, and taking large loads off the 1 and 25 buses as well as the lines mentioned above. It would basically be a second system for the PATH.
  3. Yup; that's basically it. 57 St misses the but lets me hit the ; it lets me basically serve every major corridor in Manhattan. I wasn't really thinking of bringing the PATH to Queens (unless it were actually integrated with NYC subway), but that might be an option if we had fare integration.
  4. @bobtehpanda Here's a map I threw together of what that might look like: https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=1OJS51GGPt25EraCnvhBvWy3bEwNK0jhK&ll=40.746660285820255%2C-74.03709978970096&z=13 I chose to send it up JFK below 48 St because that's about a half mile from the HBLR, and so that way there's not too much duplication (PATH to 57 St would serve as an alternative to HBLR to bus to PABT), and JFK is fairly heavily trafficked (NJT buses and jitneys alike); above 48 St Bergenline Av is a huge corridor; Union City, West New York, Guttenberg, and even Fairview are dense enough to support subway service (as are JC and Hoboken); I just picked Nungessers as a stopping point because it's already a bus hub. It also would really be worth getting Hoboken something, since the 126 runs something like 30bph during rush, and they're all full; extending WTC-HOB service to 48 St via Washington St/Park Av would do it. The resulting expansion would get you 15tph JSQ-57 St, 15 tph Nungessers-57 St, and 8 tph 48 St-WTC, which would take huge loads off the 126, 156, 159 and the jitneys.
  5. Agreed; honestly if PATH had infinite money I'd suggest a Bergenline Av/JFK Blvd trunk from Nungessers to JSQ, with a 57 St connection; you'd hit the densest parts of northern NJ, and a 57 St crosstown would let you connect directly to the all directly.
  6. I'm not sure that actually makes a ton of sense to run, though. I agree with extending the out to Springfield (not sure if Belmont Pk makes the most sense given the turn at Springfield Blvd that would require, and the fact that you wouldn't have much ridership to Belmont Park outside occasional race days. Through-routing trains from Hillside onto Jamaica would be an interesting option as part of a larger plan to expand service to southeastern Queens, but then turning that down to Canarsie doesn't make much sense (also doing that limits tph from Canarsie to Manhattan to 15 max).
  7. The 3 Av comment really depends a lot on who/what you expect 2 Av to serve; if its main market is explicitly serving those parts of the far East Side that the Lex misses then it might make sense to keep it on 2 Av all the way down through Midtown even at the cost of a fair amount of connectivity. For what I was doing where 2 Av was effectively serving as the main core segment of three different outer-borough corridors (Jamaica, Northern Blvd, and 3 Av) the connectivity in Midtown is super important (especially if you want to relieve the Lex in Manhattan). That small 26-block jog gives basically all the Flushing and QBL trains plus the Lex direct access to 2 Av, which then basically means that all of Queens that has subway service has easy access to 2 Av, and that everyone coming up from Williamsburg has easy access to basically anywhere in the city (granted, this is less of an issue with the D providing express service to Jamaica, but in a deinterlined subway like what I've seen proposed (6 Av takes Brighton, Broadway takes 4 Av, 8 Av takes Fulton, 2 Av takes Jamaica) this arrangement would still allow for a two-seat ride to basically all of Midtown from the Jamaica and Northern Blvd lines, and I think preserving this capability really matters. I tied Jamaica up through Broadway with the intention of providing 45 tph on the new corridor to Williamsburg/Bushwick/Ridgewood as train relief, which I think is sorely needed. Essentially Broadway Junction here would look like West 4th St (two layers of four tracks each, directly overtop each other), and ideally there would be a W4-type interlocking bracketed by diamond crossovers allowing for Jamaica service via Fulton and Rockaway service via Williamsburg. Swapping the two corridors ( to Euclid, to Ozone Pk/Rockaways, (P) to SE Queens via Jamaica) would be an interesting idea, and I could see it working. The to Brighton is mostly there because I assumed Brighton needs 30tph peak and it let me recapture Franklin shuttle trackage. I got the link to work by copying the link in my browser when I was editing the map, changing maps/d/edit? to maps/d/view? and making sure my share settings allowed people to see the map.
  8. It is; this has been an ongoing problem for a while. Try this link? https://www.google.com/maps/d/view?mid=1Sgq--JwpB1No7avLLLVpK-bsAtq4z9Is&ll=40.72700381444096%2C-73.87290985&z=11 Thanks for the critique; (P) via Nassau plus a slightly different tunnel would still be a great idea; Bowery would still wind up closed or shuttle-only because the curve needed to connect 2 Av/Houston with Bowery would be ridiculously sharp. As far as Utica Av is concerned, sending the down there might make more sense than keeping it on Brighton. I'm not too sure of the relative merits of moving the off Brighton vs having the go down Utica and keeping 30tph on Brighton, but it could work. I really do feel that express service to Jamaica is important to have because that gets you 45-60 express tph between Jamaica and Manhattan (which should take some of the pressure off the , and also allows for extending the Jamaica trunk into SE Queens because the travel time between Jamaica and Midtown would be about equivalent on the vs the under this configuration.
  9. I just finished throwing something together that would address a lot of these issues (though this also results in the Nassau line being basically abandoned): https://www.google.com/maps/d/drive?state={"ids"%3A["1Sgq--JwpB1No7avLLLVpK-bsAtq4z9Is"]%2C"action"%3A"open"%2C"userId"%3A"114356854643211448619"}&usp=sharing Under this service pattern, the 2 Av line runs on 3 Av from 63 St to 37 St the way that was discussed upthread, and sees a full 60tph from 63 St down to Houston St; the two branches see 45tph each above 63 St, and then Brooklyn service is distributed between a new Williamsburg/Jamaica trunk and 4 Av/Brighton. The new trackage involved would be a four-track trunk from Norwood-205 St down to Springfield/Merrick Blvds via Webster Av/3 Av/2 Av/3 Av again/2 Av/Broadway(Brooklyn)/Jamaica Av/Merrick Blvd, a four-track trunk from Bell Blvd to 72 St/3 Av via Northern Blvd/36 Av, a three-track extension from Norwood-205 St to Bay Plaza via Gun Hill Rd/Bartow Av, a two-track branch from 161 St/3 Av to Bay Plaza via Boston Rd/Tremont Av/Amtrak tracks, a two-track branch from 2 Av/Houston St to Court St IND via the 2 Av subway route, a two-track branch from Marcy Av to Prospect Pk via Union Av/Franklin Av, a two-track branch to LGA via 94 St, and a two-track extension from Middle Village-Metropolitan Av to Woodhaven Bl QBL, which would be converted to an express station. The service patterns would be as follows: : Bedford Pk Blvd-Coney Island via Concourse local/CPW local/6 Av exp/Williamsburg/Brighton local. : Bay Plaza-Hook Creek Blvd via Concourse local (peak direction express)/CPW/6 Av/Jamaica express. : 179 St-Coney Island via 53 St, QBL express, 6 Av local, Culver express between Bergen St and Church Av. : Forest Hills-Church Av via 63 St, QBL/6 Av/Culver local. (J): Flushing/Main St-Springfield Blvd via Northern Blvd/2 Av lower/Jamaica local. : Bell Blvd-Woodhaven Blvd via Northern Blvd/2 Av lower express/Jamaica local/Middle Village local (P): LGA-Euclid Av via 94 St/Northern Blvd/2 Av lower/Fulton St local; this line would run via a new tunnel from Hanover Sq to Court St. : Bay Plaza-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av (upper and lower)/4 Av express/ West End local; this line would replace the in Brooklyn so the could serve Queens : Norwood-205 St-Coney Island via 3 Av/2 Av upper local/Broadway/4 Av express/Sea Beach local. :Bay Plaza-Brighton Beach via Amtrak tracks/Tremont Av/Boston Rd/3 Av/2 Av upper local/Broadway/Brighton express. This would probably be a 20-30 year project, and would likely need to be done in phases; I'd recommend doing 2 Av upper and 3 Av as far as Fordham Plaza with provisions for express tracks as the first step; that gets you 30tph to the Bronx right off the bat. The second phase would be the Jamaica replacement from Rivington-Essex to Broadway Junction, finishing with a temporary portal at the junction. From there we'd want to lay the core four-track line from 72 St to Rivington-Essex with the Grand St connector, turning the teal and running it to 72 St lower level. From there we'd build the Northern Blvd line to Flushing with provisions for express tracks, letting us run the along the entire new route, and temporarily running the to Jamaica. From there we'd just need to finish the express tracks in the Bronx, in Queens, finish the Jamaica line, and add the lower Manhattan connector and we would have the core of the new system running ( up 3 Av, teal , , and (P) up Northern relieving the , and to Jamaica relieving some of the strain on QBL, via West End, (P) supplementing the on Fulton (offering 20-22 local tph on that corridor), returning, and the running Culver express). The remaining tracks are mostly nice-to-haves; the Gun Hill extension takes a huge load off the Bx28/38 and should help the by providing a 45-minute ride to Midtown from the northeast Bronx, the (P) run to LGA via a 94 St connector is a short, low-cost way of connecting LGA into the subway system, the extension to Woodhaven Blvd is a nice gap-filler to have (and lets us set up to potentially extend it down HHE), and the via Williamsburg (and subsequent swapping of the and ) takes one train out of DeKalb interlocking and frees the to run up to its full 15tph potential, while providing yet another connection between Williamsburg and Midtown). The and extensions aren't strictly necessary from a relief perspective, but would be nice to have (and with express service on the Jamaica line, one-seat travel times between Merrick and Linden or Merrick and Springfield and east Midtown are pretty good. The branch via Boston/Tremont/Amtrak tracks is an option that I'm not entirely sure is the best idea, but was just a thought I had after reading the IND second system article; it's somewhat duplicative of the but also about 2/3-3/4 of a mile away (which is a little closer than the distance between Brighton and the Culver El, and yet both of those are fairly heavily used). This plan does essentially abandon the Nassau St line; you could run a shuttle from Broad St to Delancey-Essex for people who still need to access it (since the old Delancey-Essex and the new Rivington-Essex would be 500' or less apart you could easily connect them via a concourse (and I was planning on adding a spare track connection between the new subway and Nassau St that would see use before the gets pulled off Nassau but after the Jamaica subway build is underway; that and Montague would keep Nassau St attached to the city subway system, and enable the transit museum to be moved to the unused platforms at Bowery and Canal.
  10. As a rough idea that's not too bad; I'll want to throw up a few things tonight and tomorrow as well, mostly because my goals are: 30+ TPH to the Bronx via 3 Av, preferably with express provisions 30+ TPH to Queens via Northern or Astoria Blvd (Astoria lets you connect at 86 St, which is how I'd do it if we were doing this from scratch, and connects to 31 St at an express station, but Northern lets you better align with a 72 St transfer station, which would theoretically allow for 60tph to the Bronx if we so chose). 30+ TPH to Jamaica via Williamsburg to relieve the (L) and the eastern QBL segments, preferably with full express provisions Something to serve Utica Av if at all possible (although that may be simpler to do with the (4) depending on how things go) Cleaning up DeKalb is a nice-to-have, but I'm not quite sure how feasible that is. The other fun challenge here is going to be designing something like that in a way where it can be phased in over a period of 20-30 years and there are enough incremental benefits to each segment that the thing keeps getting funded instead of getting declared a boondoggle and de-scoped partway through.
  11. Essentially the core capacity issue is that 2 Av can only flow 30 tph with two tracks, or 60tph with four, and having the on 2 Av eats into those slots north of 63 St (even more so if we decide to deinterline northern Broadway ( 15 tph to Forest Hills, 15tph to Astoria, 30tph going elsewhere, as that would put 30tph onto the existing tracks above 63 St and require a fully discontinuous 2 Av corridor if the corridor runs two tracks). There's not really a great way to resolve this without there being a four (or even six) track segment on 2 Av. A 6 track segment would accommodate the plus sixty additional tph, letting you run a full four-service corridor all the way down the island on top of service. The big question then would be whether it would be possible to thread a four-track corridor above the 63 St tunnels and below the tracks, with a 61 St express stop connecting the at 59 St to the at 63 St via mezzanine. I personally like this idea because it could comfortably form the core of a full Second System like I posted about a few pages ago, but I can understand it not being the most practical. The cheaper option (which would sacrifice some elegance and room for expansion) would be to have the 2 Av/3 Av/Broadway corridors basically mirror the CPW/8 Av/6 Av corridors; in that case trains would run 2 Av express -> Broadway express, trains would run 2 Av local -> Broadway express, trains would run 2 Av local/3 Av local, and some new services coming in from Queens would claim the free 3 Av local/3 Av express slots. A Northern Blvd line would be pretty well located for that; build it out via Northern Blvd/36 Av and then swing around on 3 Av to merge with the 2 Av/3 Av line just above the 61 St express station. This is the more affordable option, and in conjunction with a Northern Blvd line could work really well. In a situation like that the would serve the Bronx, while new services (potentially a teal if we rebuild the Jamaica line as a four-track subway, which we should) would serve Northern Blvd and take up 30tph worth of slots on the lower half of the line. This might work out to be the best option; you could ameliorate the discontinuity by bringing the Northern Blvd line across 36 Av and under the two-layer 72 St station, so passengers going from the Bronx to the LES could just change from the to the at 72 St for continued express service. That's not perfect, and the constraints aren't ideal, but it would work decently well. Alternately, if we're building a 3 Av corridor, we could just build a cut-and-cover four-track corridor on 3 Av and leave the 2 Av line as a stub. That's not particularly satisfying because it doesn't really serve the far East Side all that well, and coming all that way out only to stop running at Harlem-125 St is a waste. That would essentially be the core of the same sort of Second System I discussed a few pages ago, just shifted a block over (but it's also a waste of what we've already built). Also, I don't really see a solid path for that to happen unless this does turn into a second Great Depression, and 2 Av gets basically left as-is for 20-30 years, at which point people decide the corridor is just cursed and want to try elsewhere. Frankly, a 2-track 2 Av line just staying as it is and running from 125 St to Hanover Sq is significantly worse than all of these alternatives because the QBL, 14 St, Roosevelt Av, and Lexington Av corridors are all basically full to bursting, and 15tph from Harlem to the hospitals on the East Side doesn't do all that much for any of those corridors. While I get that building out the full Second System needed to address all of these issues is unfeasible all at once barring massive infrastructure stimulus, we should be building the chunks we can in a way that doesn't meaningfully foreclose on additional growth until we've addressed the overcrowding on those corridors.
  12. The 99 might work out; I'm just not sure (since most trips to those places would now be 59->99 or 91->99 instead of being direct runs on the 91). I'd be interested to see how it plays out. I agree that the county center is a transit desert; it's just also the sort of spot where most people drive regardless of the bus's existence (density mostly under 3K people/square mile, median household income over 88K, 80+ percent single family homes along almost all the route except for Nanuet), so I'm not sure how well a bus serving those spots would be used. Maybe if you were able to coordinate the schedule with HudsonLink (have every other HudsonLink meet up with the 99 at Macy's) you could get ridership but I don't know how much.
  13. So just to review: The 59 gets extended to Piermont from Nyack The 91 drops service to the county seat, Helen Hayes Hospital, and Yeager Health. The 92 drops its connections to the psych hospital and the industrial park The 93 gets extended to Tuxedo The 94 gets extended to Jones Pt The 95 gets extended to Spring Valley and drops the deviation into Helen Hayes, as well as all West Haverstraw service The 96 light rail connects Harrington Park, NJ and Blauvelt, NY to Tarrytown MNR, just missing central Nyack The 97 looks basically unchanged The 98 runs from Suffern to Stony Point via 202 The 99 comes out of Montvale, runs near the turnpike, straight up to New City, then hitting all the county functions and Jawonio before taking 33 to Helen Hayes. This looks interesting; I don't know Rockland County that well so I'm not sure how much use I'm going to be. The thing I would suggest when you plan things is to look at https://www.policymap.com/ and look at incomes and population densities, because that will tell you a lot about what sort of transit use you can expect. My first thoughts are: The 98 looks like it's gonna carry air; it's running through a really spread out area that's pretty well off for 95% of the route, with the exception of the termini. Most of the people who live near it are likely to drive. The 99 looks interesting, and it looks good on paper. In practice, I'm not so sure because it looks like the 91 as it is is configured to connect the poorer, high-density patches of the county to the county seat and the hospitals, and the 99 doesn't really do that very well.
  14. What this sounds like is using close-stopping commuter rail trains to fill a niche similar to express subways (which if you're doing that means that you'd be essentially folding the Rockaways, everything on LIRR west of Hempstead (and presumably everything on MNR south of Croton-Harmon/North White Plains/Stamford and everything on NJT east of Summit/Montclair State, south of Suffern/Pascack Valley, or north of South Amboy/MetroPark into RER-type commuter service running something like bigger Class 700s, while outlying trains coming from Trenton/PJ/Greenport/Huntington/New Haven would still be more traditional commuter rail.
  15. That would be absolutely amazing to have; if you ran GCT-HOB via a new rail tunnel you could comfortably through run Morris and Essex/Gladstone/Montclair-Boonton trains up to CT using a mix of ALP45DP/46s, MLVIIIs and M8s (through running NEC and NJCL service would be limited to MLVIIs and ALP45DP/46s because of the transformer issue with the M8s. That would also get the NEC a backup route through NY if things went all to hell; dealing with the old Hudson River tubes would be much less of an issue because you could take them offline and route NEC service through GCT if needed (it would be a really ugly crunch if ESA had to deal with peak NYP volume from NJ, but you could do things like single track the tunnels during non-peak and weekend times without impacting service too heavily by just sending everything through GCT.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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