Jump to content

T to Dyre Avenue

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    3,100
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by T to Dyre Avenue

  1. That’s the alternative they chose ultimately. But there were other alternatives in the late 90s/early 2000s Manhattan East Side Access study which called for a subway only from 63rd to 125th with a connecting LRT or proto-SBS service continuing the rest of the way down 2nd Avenue, Chrystie St and Water St. Here is the summary report from October 2001 - http://web.mta.info/capital/sas_docs/final_summary_report.pdf I do hope, at the very least, they do run that kind of service. Because a Queens-SAS service would likely have connections to the lines that main SAS would cross over or under and the Queens service would be able to connect with them while still in Queens. This in turn could potentially eliminate the need for long and costly connecting passageways from the main line in Manhattan. But even worse is that it’s planned to be reverse-branched above 63rd St, so it will have more service uptown versus in midtown/downtown. In the MTA’s planning maps, it appears to be some sort of appendage instead of the trunk line it’s supposed to be.
  2. But then you'll have the merging with the past between 71st and 75th avenues. That will cause delays on both the and lines, especially given that you'll have 10 tph merging with 15 tph in that spot. That's why I've always felt it's best if QB locals turn at 71st Ave, regardless of which trains they are (the late night is an exception, because late night service is only 3 tph). A service pattern which has locals entering Manhattan via the 53rd St tunnel and expresses via 63rd with no service from Queens Blvd to the 60th St tunnel (except for emergency reroutes and non-revenue moves) would probably be the best way to run more trains on the QB Line - as well as on the Astoria Line - because there would be far fewer delays in LIC due to the previously mentioned three merges in that area.
  3. Columbus Circle at least has the advantage of all four tracks staying on the same level once the diverge for 53rd St then 6th Ave, unlike Eastern Pkwy where the tracks go to a stacked layout almost immediately after Franklin Ave. That’s the challenge with rebuilding Rogers Jct into a Columbus Circle-style design. I wonder if it’s really worth it to spend billions of dollars and tear up Eastern Pkwy for years just so Nostrand riders can continue to have a one-seat ride to the Lexington Ave Line. Like, is it really the end of the world to have to transfer cross-platform at Franklin for an express? Especially if the trains run more frequently than they do now? That’s why I kind of like this study done a couple years back in July 2020 by STV - https://ia601408.us.archive.org/15/items/irt-capacity-study-final-reportt-redacted/IRT Capacity Study Final Reportt_Redacted_.pdf Skip to section E to get the idea. Warning: It’s a huge document (917 pages!).
  4. The part about adding capacity in an absolute sense I agree with. Unfortunately, the current service pattern prohibits them from taking advantage of said capacity, even with CBTC, due to the multiple merges in LIC (36th St, QP and the / merge). The 's terminal limitations at both ends, (WTC's tracks end within the station, limiting the speed at which trains can enter and leave) are already a constraint on that line's service. The is constrained by Stillwell Ave due to a far away switch (like JC, but maybe worse because of the sharp curve trains must take upon entering/leaving Stillwell), but at least trains have multiple short turn options at 2nd Ave, Kings Highway, Church or 18th Ave. The and ‘s capacity constraints are already well known and brought up many times here.
  5. I suppose a limited number of trains can turn at 2nd Ave. It would have to be a very limited amount to not delay the .
  6. I fully agree that the service as proposed really sucks. I honestly think the MTA haven’t really given much thought to building the line south of 63rd Street and that they drew a pretty blue line on a map to placate politicians who want(ed) a line down the entire length of Manhattan by the East River. And they haven’t given any thought to SAS service outside of Manhattan, even though a Queens-SAS service could address what will be the two biggest Achilles’ heels of the SAS below 63rd Street, namely its lack of connections and that it will operate well under capacity with just the running there. I’m firmly in favor of running both the and via SAS once Phase 2 opens. Because the current plus the few and trains was a stopgap solution that just barely works for now with the current three stations. But I don’t think it will address the additional riders that will be using the three new stations. There’s got to be a better and more consistent pattern for when the line becomes longer than a stub. Doing what we’re doing now just isn’t going to cut it when the line gets longer and its northern terminal gets farther away from Queens. Now, if taking away the express train out of Astoria is going to cause riders there to riot, well sorry, but I have no sympathy for them. No, they are not entitled to both a Broadway Local and a Broadway Express service. Especially given how that express ties up the entire Broadway Line at 34th Street by switching from the express to the local tracks there and messes up the ride for everyone else down the line. I’m fine with the running crosstown on 125th. I’m not fine with the being connected into the St. Nicholas Ave and Concourse lines. Because all that will do is kneecap the existing and services. And it will force the to run less frequently too. Not to mention, as @Kamen Rider already has, that Concourse barn isn’t large enough to service two full time lines.
  7. The decision to connect the 63rd Street Tunnel to the Queens Blvd Line didn’t really add capacity. It just basically moved some of the existing pre-2001 capacity (the ) to a different tunnel. Yes, there is now a fourth Queens-Manhattan service on QB (first the , now the ), but it’s a service relatively few people want to use and it has to merge with the other local service (the ) northbound and the southbound. And you can only run so many trains without truly impacting service. There is the potential to run more service than is currently provided, but the current service patterns with their many merges just don’t allow for it.
  8. Now see, this I like very much. Though if it were me, I’d turn those connecting tracks west of Essex from orange to teal and run the up 2nd Ave so we aren’t spending billions of dollars on a line that can only operate at 50 percent capacity (maybe 60 if we’re lucky). The easiest thing would probably be to turn the at Chambers during peak hours and then turn both the and at Broad other times. At least then the would have many more connections than as proposed in the MTA’s plans where it runs by itself all the way down with very few connections, sort of like an East Side train.
  9. I think extending the straight down Broadway would definitely be one way to get around that capacity-killing S-curve south of City Hall. But it would have to get pretty deep, not just to safely underpin the above, but also to clear the and tunnels. City Hall lower level might not be deep enough. It’s certainly an interesting idea. And it could connect back into the existing Lower Broadway Line just before Whitehall. Extending the to Bay Ridge? Not so much, especially because it would likely require tearing up a part of the Oculus, which the PA will throw a hissy fit over.
  10. Only in the northbound direction. The southbound track appears to go below both tracks as well as the tracks before connecting with them. Though I suppose it is still possible to connect a southbound from 2nd Avenue into the southbound Chrystie track, but it would require shoring up the existing Manny B-bound tracks and the southbound Willy B-bound track.
  11. Is it? I rode the Queens Blvd Line every day for three years (2012-15) and I seem to recall the having much greater ridership than the . Even in these post-Covid times I can’t see how the would be more popular than the other three QBL services, especially since it doesn’t run there on weekends and it’s almost always the first to get booted off the QBL whenever it has a meltdown in service and the last to get restored.
  12. Interesting how it shows the which isn’t a 6th Ave line at all. In fact I don’t think I’ve ever even seen the rerouted via 6th Ave during emergencies, both pre-2010 and post-2016.
  13. Well, that is one way for the M and V trains to coexist in Midtown Manhattan. Though I do wonder how popular a 2nd Ave would be versus the current 6th Ave . Not to mention that the Chrystie St connection would have to be reconfigured to permit trains to go north onto 2nd Avenue.
  14. Not all CBTC equipment is the same. The CBTC equipment on the cars is older and not compatible with the kind used on QBL. And the R143s and R160s currently assigned to the are in 4-car sets. So no, 8th Ave can’t just get the R143. It already has 5-car R179 sets on the and 5-car R160 sets on the . Why not R211s?
  15. I like it. This certainly is another way to eliminate the merge at Lafayette and the split at Rockaway Blvd. I can’t see how this connection would be harder to do than the connection between Lafayette and DeKalb that I’ve proposed in the past (the track map you provided suggests such connection wouldn’t be all that difficult), but then again, the track map isn’t geographically accurate like you said. It’s definitely easier and far less expensive than creating a new East River tunnel for the from the Transit Museum which would require building the entire SAS per the MTA’s current plan first. However, the would almost certainly have to go back to Nassau St because there would be no way for this service to coexist alongside the current and services and be able to run on acceptable headways (i.e., more than 5 tph at peak).
  16. I haven’t heard if any R211S cars are here yet. Though that video footage of one being under construction at Lincoln, Neb.
  17. This is such a lousy setup? Whoever approved this should be fired. At least they’re not also running the downtown express. Because that would make this even worse.
  18. I seem to remember northbound trains being delayed by a train leaving 2nd Avenue. Probably for the same reasons and procedures used at Whitehall done with the when a leaves for Astoria.
  19. Coney Island is where the was based when it ran to/from Astoria. Lots of / trains deadheading over the Sea Beach Line in those days. It would make the most sense to base any future Bay Ridge-Astoria service at CI.
  20. Shop capacity has nothing to do with what lines are based (not necessarily stored) in which yards?
  21. This is very much related to R211 talk. Yard shops have a major role to play with where lines and equipment are based.
  22. Kamen, thank you for your insight on why the shops can only base so many lines in the B Division. It’s most unfortunate that there are buffs who are acting like they know better, because they don’t. Even walking over the yard on the Bedford Park Blvd bridge many times, I could see clearly that Concourse had a very small shop. And I can’t see the bigwigs spending money any time soon on a new, larger shop on the other side of Bedford Park Blvd in order to service more than one line.
  23. If this forum about Ohio’s cities and this blog are any indication, then the S200 may have a third operator in the not-so-distant future. So why not have a fourth? https://forum.urbanohio.com/topic/705-greater-cleveland-rta-news-amp-discussion/page/287/#comments https://neo-trans.blog/2023/01/20/sneak-peek-at-gcrtas-new-trains/ But if they choose to go with low-floor LRVs, then I won’t lose sleep over it. After all there are more of them to choose from.
  24. It’s true that you’d be unable to terminate a more frequent at Whitehall and that’s why I’ve suggested extending the to Brooklyn in place of the , while running the like the old . This would actually facilitate extending the onto the old Rockaway Beach Branch, because then it wouldn’t be that long of a route. And with fewer merges that the , which is Queenslink’s proposal. But you’d still have to have a heavily interlined Queens Blvd line for that to be possible. I really like the proposal to send the and a revived ( V ) in a new tunnel to 34th Street (or to some other crosstown street in Midtown Manhattan). I really think a new rail tunnel between Queens and Manhattan is needed and this one also has the potential to be a relief line for the depending on how many riders transfer to go uptown from the at 14th Street. Though I do think it should continue further west in Manhattan (like to 10th/11th Ave). I prefer this over the Bronx proposal because I'm not sure how much of a demand there is from that corridor in The Bronx for Astoria/LIC. But given how busy the gets, even in these post-Covid times, it certainly could use some relief. And the ( V ) service would likely be a more reliable service than the current because it wouldn't be merging with the in LIC and would likely be able to run more frequently than the .
  25. To be fair, if the did connect to the Fulton St local tracks somewhere near Hoyt-Schermerhorn, it would solve two problems. One is the issue of having a bifurcated in Queens (and tri-furcated during peak direction rush). Because then the can get the Rockaways and the can get Lefferts (or vice versa; it doesn't really matter since both would be express). The other would be the lack of a storage/maintenance yard for Astoria trains. Because the could then be stabled at Pitkin Yard (which I'm sure is large enough to stable more than just the ). I understand the MTA not wanting to build a yard, given that Montague has plenty of capacity to spare with only the running there now. Maybe some sort of connection can be built between the DeKalb and Lafayette Ave stations. Can't see how it would cost more than a brand-new parallel Schermerhorn tunnel through Court St would (one that would also be running well below capacity). Maybe so, but there is a not-small swath of area above Rockaway Blvd that hasn't had any train service in over 60 years. An area that could benefit from a faster link to North Queens than the Q21 and the Q52/53 SBS, all of which are at the mercy of the car and truck traffic on Woodhaven Blvd that's both heavy and insane. With connections to the (at 104th St, which used to have a mezzanine at 102nd St) and the LIRR Atlantic Branch (reopened Woodhaven station), that could make for some new and faster connections within Queens and between Queens and Brooklyn that either don't currently exist or take long.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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