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.

T to Dyre Avenue

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    2,153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by T to Dyre Avenue

  1. Yes, I’m going to agree that the PATH train is best for this type of service, though if it were to come from Fort Lee or points west, it would have to run on its own separate right of way once off the GWB (which is owned by Port Authority, same as PATH) on the Manhattan side, because not only will the MTA not let PATH use the existing subway provisions north of 168th Street , PATH rail cars aren’t large enough to platform at the existing 8th Avenue Line stations.
  2. What time today? I heard announcements and saw on the MTA website that there were switch problems at Prospect Park. If it was during pm rush, perhaps it was trains the getting back on track after the problem cleared.
  3. Having SAS services through all three Midtown-Queens B-Division crossings is not practical. Each SAS service, including the , would be forced into running infrequently during rush hours, due to all the reverse-branching that would be required in Queens/Upper Manhattan. I can understand wanting redundancy in the event of a service disruption. But having both an SAS-53 and a SAS-63 service would be overkill, because in the event of an emergency, you’d have to run both of those SAS services in the same tunnel. That makes it pointless to have both. It just won’t work. The subway isn’t going to beat Uber by trying to be Uber. If I can hazard a guess here, I’d say the study planners back in the 90s probably thought SAS 3 and 4 would be little more than a pipe dream too. I seem to recall reading that MTA upper management didn’t really want to build the full length Manhattan line, preferring to build the subway only from 63rd to 125th streets and to run light rail from Union Square to the LES and the Financial District. Just looking at the MTA’s current SAS maps, it seems to me like the wasn’t more than an afterthought. Honestly, I think that would be more effective than SAS 3/4 as per the current MTA plan. I mean, let’s be honest here. Extending Metro-North would keep folks coming from Connecticut and Westchester (and Long Island once ESA opens) from pouring onto the at Grand Central, more so than an under-capacity SAS two avenue blocks away. It might just make more sense to forget extending the SAS south of 63rd and focus on having Metro-North/LIRR serve a greater portion of Midtown and Downtown.
  4. I have little doubt that the will have a faster runtime than the . But if the is the only SAS service south of 63rd, those time savings may very well be eaten up longer waits at the platform for a less-frequent , especially if there’s a delay somewhere north of 63rd, where the also runs. Maybe I missed something while looking at it, but it appears from the map in the second link that the east end of 53rd-Lex goes less than halfway to 2nd, while the west end of the platform goes very near to Lexington Avenue. The north end of 51st-Lex also gets up to 52nd St. This still gives the the advantage, unless a second SAS service is provided south of the 63rd St Junction to boost SAS 3/4 frequencies to a level more comparable to the . It sounds like either the or would be able to do all of these things if extended to 125th-Broadway. How could they serve totally different purposes while operating on the same line to the same terminal stop?
  5. The would provide many more trains per hour to 2nd Ave. That would entice Brooklyn bound riders to switch, especially those headed to somewhere in South Brooklyn. And the express run in Manhattan would be faster too, because there would no longer be any merging of express and local trains at 34th. But it will still be less frequent than the and it will likely be a lengthy transfer from the to the . That’s just one flaw in the ‘s post-Phase 2 plans for SAS.
  6. Not if SAS Phase 3 runs at only half capacity. Unless there is a second SAS service below 63rd, I don’t foresee a lot of QBL or riders switching from the Lex to the SAS. Though I am in full agreement with making Woodhaven Blvd an express QBL stop, as it would relive Roosevelt and cut out one transfer for the many bus riders who connect to the subway at Woodhaven.
  7. Southbound, leaving Canal, that may be the case, especially because the doesn’t stop at DeKalb. But northbound, everyone crowds onto the first train that comes. Now if it’s the , then it might not be so bad because from what I’ve observed, northbound ’s tend to be noticeably less crowded entering Canal than ’s. I usually get a seat on the at Canal. But if the comes first, then it’ll be SRO leaving Canal (if it isn’t already).
  8. Until an actual, in-system transfer passageway is built, 63rd is not, and will never be an option for transferring from QBL to Lex.
  9. Under the current service operations, northbound and trains arrive at Canal Street in groups of two, so you get an followed right behind by a (or vice versa), followed by a longer wait before the next two trains. Even if the schedule doesn’t call for it, I see it every day. This isn’t something that should be happening regularly, yet it does. There is a delay because you’ve got an and a getting to the junction at the same time on the Brooklyn side, therefore one has to stop and wait till the other is a “safe enough” distance ahead.
  10. I was going to suggest simplifying things by swapping the and in Queens, but it’s still the same number of tph (though then it can be 15 and 10 ) and you’d still have to turn some ’s at Canal due to the sharp curve at City Hall limiting service to 21 tph, as @RR503 posted earlier. As for deinterlining DeKalb, I’m not opposed to it, but the increased amount of transferring at Atlantic or DeKalb for Broadway or 6th Avenue service it would bring, is a concern I have with it. It’s too bad there’s no way to build a new infill station somewhere between DeKalb station and the interlocking with cross-platform transfers between and . At least that would provide some relief for Atlantic and DeKalb. And provide additional service to the MetroTech area.
  11. I’ve taken the up and down the full Broadway express tracks. It is pretty amazing. If upper management would just break out of their bureaucratic inertia, then it would be the same with the . And with more trains per hour.
  12. Probably for the same reason they stopped running the to 179th in 1993. Hillside riders didn’t want to ride on a local all the way through Queens during rush hours, so they bailed on the at Parsons or Union in favor of the . Don’t get me wrong. I would be willing to give the a shot at 179 as a near-term option for relieving terminal ops at Forest Hills. Maybe it would be different with it being on the same trunk line in Manhattan as the . On the other hand, the is limited to 480-foot trains due to the shorter Eastern Division station platforms.
  13. This same thing also happens at Herald Square and 36th Street, Queens, all the time. Seems like the northbound almost always gets to 34th at the same time a northbound or gets there. Same with the northbound and at 36th Street. I’m always seeing northbound ’s and ’s run in bunches of two at Canal, so you get a behind an (or vice versa), then a long wait before the next two trains. Definitely related to dispatching shenanigans at DeKalb.
  14. Agreed. There should be only one line relaying at 71st-Continental if we do RBB. One of the proposal’s selling points is how it would reduce conga lines on the northbound QB local if one of the local routes is moved onto the branch. But if we still have two routes relaying at 71st (i.e., if the is extended or substitutes for a rerouted or ), then that goes right out the window.
  15. Previously, I too was in favor of sending the or down the rebuilt RBB. But over time, I’ve come to believe that extending either of those lines will make them even more unreliable than they already are. The has lots of merges with other lines and often gets rerouted to Chambers St when there’s a problem on QBL. The suffers more from being a very long local route (longer than the ), but has more than its share of merges too, all of which contribute to it being a very unreliable service. Really, any subway line that gets extended onto the RBB shouldn’t continue south of Manhattan. Fortunately, there are several ways it can be done. In the short term (assuming SAS only gets to Phase 2), I’d reroute the to the QBL in place of the and extend the down RBB. - Part of a deinterlined QBL. Runs via 53rd St tunnel and 8th Avenue local. Terminates at World Trade Center. ( V ) - Would function as the second SAS service when Phase 3 comes on line. Runs via 63rd St tunnel and 2nd Ave. Last stop to be determined, depending how far downtown they build SAS. trains on QBL would be carrying mostly air after most of its riders make a mass exodus onto the or at the first available express stop. Extending the down RBB would be like putting the Q53 bus on rails. And, unless one of the existing QBL locals is removed, you’d still have two lines relaying at Continental. And those lines wouldn’t be able to run frequently than now, because they would then have to share the local tracks with the , meaning less service once they merge off QBL. This is a major pitfall of reverse-branching.
  16. The can serve Astoria and the can remain on QBL. I’ve previously suggested doing this as part of deinterlining Broadway. It can still be done even after the and V services are introduced.
  17. I was responding to @Porter’s post about post-Phase 2 service. Of course, a lot of this can be worked on over time. Many of us would like to see the subway system be untangled so that it can run more trains per hour. However it has been said that the introduction of the into the mix, could totally mess it up, due to the ’s poor design of the SAS as a whole. Even if it’s only three or four of the proposed stops in Phase 3 that get built, it’s not such a bad thing to speculate how a (and possibly also a V service via Queens and SAS) would interact with the existing services. As for your plan to deinterline Broadway, the part is a non-starter. As has been previously explained, it will create a new merge at DeKalb and it will result in Brighton riders crowding the for Midtown service. There is really no reason to run the this way. Not when you can simply run both the and via 2nd Avenue, the from Bay Ridge to Astoria and the from Whitehall to Forest Hills (or possibly Howard Beach/Rockaway Park if RBB actually gets rebuilt).
  18. Why not run this V service in place of the ? Then you wouldn’t have to restore the old . Putting the on upper 2nd Avenue would force it, as well the and the to run on very low service frequencies even with CBTC signals. Having the V replace the on QBL would be simpler. And since the already are floating plans to stable trains at Jamaica, why not have a second SAS service coming in from Queens? Both would be stabled there. Well yes, if you keep the on QBL and run the up 2nd Ave, then that would make it difficult to deinterline Broadway. But you don’t have to. Better to have the V replace the on the Queens Blvd local. Then either reroute the to Astoria in place of the (at a comparable frequency), or run the the via Nassau like you suggested and run the as the sole Astoria service (again, on a frequency comparable to the current ). However, with a deinterlined Broadway plus an operational SAS Phase 3, fitting the , and on only two tracks above 63rd might be a tight squeeze. It’s likely that the and would have to run in Manhattan as if they were one service, which would limit the amount of rush hour service each of them can provide in Brooklyn. It’s true that the coming in, will complicate things with deinterlining. But it’s not totally unsolvable. And it would be a crime to spend tens of billions of dollars on SAS Phases 3 and 4, only to be forced into running that part of the line at half-capacity.
  19. Well, yes. But the lady did say she thinks it’ll become a reality “eventually.” She was probably just being nice. On the other hand, when there’s a will, there’s a way. Look how Bloomberg pushed hard for the extension and that became a reality. Though a extension down/alongside Utica would take more than just de Blasio pushing hard for it (which he isn’t, really).
  20. You know that will never happen. This isn’t the first time you’ve responded with this “(so-and-so) riders will have to understand this is about...” thing (I do recall you saying this with regard to Line riders who would see a substantial cut in service to their stations under a hypothetical full express service plan). Those words are not a justification for what will amount to service patterns that will inconvenience many more riders than will benefit. Telling said riders who will be inconvenienced that “they have to understand” sends exactly the wrong message. And that’s exactly the case with this whole setup you’ve proposed. We don’t need to create a new merge at DeKalb Avenue and inconvenience all of South Brooklyn to make the fit on QBL and RBB.
  21. Not exactly. How would the be running between Brooklyn and Manhattan in this setup? Via Montague Tunnel or Manhattan Bridge? If it’s the former, then I can guarantee you’ll experience major pushback from Brighton Line riders who will not be pleased about their primary service being rerouted to the tunnel when it’s totally unnecessary to do so. If it’s the latter, then you’d have to reinstate the Prince St merge in order to run the local in Manhattan. Neither is a particularly desirable outcome. You’d also have to run far more trains than are currently run if you’ve got the as the sole 2nd Avenue/Broadway Express, which would over-serve the Sea Beach Line. I think via Broadway Express to 96th/2nd, to Ditmars-Astoria and to Howard Beach/Rockaway Park is better. Fewer merges this way. The biggest merges would be the and at 63rd Drive and Queens Plaza and the and in LIC before entering the 60th Tunnel.
  22. I really hope Andy Byford stays. It is remarkable what he’s actually accomplished so far. The trains do feel they move better now than they did in 2016-18. Though I can understand if he does leave. Who would want to preside over cutting service? And Cuomo being a bossy little prick is really not helpful at all. Not for Byford and not for his potential successor.
  23. - Rockaway Park (Howard Beach during off peak hours) -> RBB -> QB Local -> 53rd St Tunnel -> 8th Avenue Local -> World Trade Center Problem solved. ————————— The RBB isn’t getting support from “certain outlets” outside the U.S. anytime soon, certainly not to the tune of 8.1 billion dollars. And I’m certain said “outlets” know just as much as “we” do where NYC’s center of financial activity is. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be doing business here, now would they? So stop pushing this theory, because it’s 100 percent untrue. I can't believe after all this time and numerous posters telling you you're wrong about it, you're still pushing this completely untrue theory. I would support a via the RBB and QB local. But not for the reasons you keep pushing. But because I don’t think the should be even longer and even more unreliable than it already is and I don’t think the should be subjected to even more merges than it already has. Not to mention leaving potential RBB riders at stations not also served by the high and dry if the has to be rerouted to Chambers St for whatever reason.
  24. But without having a long stretch of alleyway (NYC doesn’t have a whole lot of these, unlike Chicago with its many alley ‘L’ routes) or other ready-made non-public right of way, this won’t be a viable option in many places. My concern with doing this for Utica, will be that all those chop shops band together to sue the City and the . It seems like Chicago had a much easier time telling NIMBYs to go pound sand and taking the property required to build the new flyover for the northbound Brown Line where it branches off from the Purple and Red lines just north of the Belmont station.
  25. But the Rockaway branch is already outdoors and on an earthen embankment for most of its way. It’ll definitely need a new bridge over the Lower Montauk branch, but I can’t imagine that bothering people who live next to the branch. Maybe the massive old structure between Liberty and Atlantic Avenues is deficient and in need of replacement. But that’s not a steel el.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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