Jump to content

vanshnookenraggen

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Profile Information

  • Location
    Brooklyn

Recent Profile Visitors

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

vanshnookenraggen's Achievements

45

Reputation

  1. I think you are probably over blowing the second "flaw", which is that with more service, the transfer time at Franklin goes down. With trains running every 2 min or less, and so close to the starting point of their runs, transfers can be "timed" so that a local and express enter the station at the same time and can allow for the extra time for transferring passengers. The junction delays trains by minutes, not seconds, so the transfer won't be as bad as you claim. I also don't think this requires "years" of "public hearings". The MTA has made changes like this before and just told folks that was what they were doing. This isn't like a huge capital project that needs to shut down the city for a while. All the recommended proposals are relatively cheap, usually involving fixing/adding switches. The only true issue is that Kingston Ave would be reduced to, at best, 6tph. While it doesn't have the highest ridership, it is nowhere near the bottom of the list, so you're going to piss a few folks off.
  2. It works better north of the 7 train. You might have to abandon the 21st Av station (not a big loss) and have the crosstown line somewhere in the 40s rather than 34th St.
  3. Where you drew that new station is directly inside of the Queens-Midtown Tunnel. If you can figure out a way to weave between that and the East River Tubes, you might be on to something.
  4. This isn't true. There are NO bellmouths on this section. I used to live down this way and I've eyed the tunnels every chance I could. I've even seen schematics of the tunnels which show that there are no provisions. It's a myth. Most likely the IND was just going to reroute the express tunnels, which as you know are on a lower level.
  5. It doesn't matter if it's local or not. Locals aren't supposed to be for riding every-single-stop all the way. They are to distribute riders along the route which is exactly the market QueensLink is trying to serve. Even if a rider was to ride it local all the way to midtown it would still shave off 15 min. Realistically, they are going to transfer to the express. So what's the problem? You make merge issues sound like a zero-sum problem when they aren't. Yes, merge issues cause delays and reduce capacity. But the system still functions; it would just function better with these problems solved! You also make it sound all dramatic that "people are going to realize that service isn't really better" when if you ask anyone in Rockaway they'll tell you it can't get any worse. RBB works regardless of deinterlining, and it would work even better with deinterlining. All of these small issues don't disqualify the overall project.
  6. This is something you and others repeatedly bring up, but I question why you think this is the case. The is currently 18.26 miles long which ranks it 15th in overall length. The is longer at 21.84 miles and ranks 10th. So to claim they are already "too long" is... odd and incorrect. Extending the to Far Rockaway would make it 31 miles long. This would now rank 2nd overall after the to Rockaway Park at 32 miles (assuming the A is rerouted there full time). Is 31 miles too long? I think that is up for debate. Extending the would certainly make that the longest train in the system at 34.91miles. This is one of the reasons QueensLink proposes the over the . At least one sensible idea I've heard here is to reroute the along QBL and extend that instead. From Whitehall to Far Rockaway would be 25.95 miles, placing it 5th longest overall. My issue here is that the would be lacking direct yard access (although it certainly could use the Rockaway Park Yard) and the would have to be returned to Astoria (also lacking yard access). Another good reason for using the would be that the QueensLink is really only a time saver if you are coming/going to/from midtown and northern Queens. Therefore, the A will still be the dominant train to/from Lower Manhattan. It doesn't really add anything to have the serve both of these areas. The would at least swing off to Williamsburg. But the could be a better compromise. Merges are certainly an issue, but this is a separate problem entirely. I'm fully in favor of deinterlining to remove as many merges as possible. But to suggest that we can't extend the subway because of current merges is a pretty flimsy excuse. I guess we shouldn't extend 2nd Ave either since the Q merges with the N!
  7. Unrelated to this thread, but may I ask, is this really an issue? How many R riders are really taking it local all the way to Union Sq (and beyond)? Don't most of these riders transfer to an N or D (or another line) at the first chance they get? It would then suggest that the only people left ARE in fact riding to Lower Manhattan. Therefore, the J isn't really such a bad idea. I'm not saying it should be done, mind you, but just that people assume a lot of things without looking at how riders actually use the system.
  8. The only things actually on the ROW itself are parking lots. Everything else is separate and private and would no way interfere with the ROW. The section by Union Turnpike is, admitidly, close to homes. But this could be dealt with via a small box tunnel. It wouldn't cost anywhere near as much as a TBM since this is a ROW with no utilities. Shallow cut-and-cover. Heck, they even have special TBMs that would make it less disruptive.
  9. Every word of this is wrong. The price was inflated not because of construction costs but "soft costs" like contingency. Read the report itself http://thequeenslink.org/the-report/ Secondly, the ROW is ENTIRELY city owned and very little, if anything, has been encroached upon. There are a few businesses in the southern section which have month-to-month leases with the city that can be moved. And if there are any homeowners who have built garages on the land then the city is entirely within its right to kick them off. Finally, there is unused capacity on the QBL. The local tracks only run at most 20tph. The limiting factor is the Forest Hills terminal which can't turn more than that. If the RBB is built, up to an additional 10tph could run on the QBL local tracks since they wouldn't have to deal with the Forest Hills terminal. I suggest that the return to Forest Hills.
  10. In a sense, yes. However the design of the interlocking at Gold St is really what causes the problems. Operators are required to stop and physically switch their tracks and this requires all trains behind them, on both lines, to stop. The interlocking itself is designed like a mini roller coaster which slows trains too. Automating this process will speed things up. Deinterlining will speed it up even more since there are no merges. In the case of 2nd Ave/63rd St the merge wouldn't be as bad as Gold St but it would still be a merge none the less. The original 2nd Ave track layout (from the 70s that is) was supposed to account for this: https://www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?/img/maps/2ave-tr.gif With two sets of tracks at 72nd and 57th St stations you could manage the merges just fine. 72nd was then truncated to a three-track station (which would have also worked ok) but this was cut down to the present two-track station due to costs. Luckily we still haven't built Phase 3 yet and can still design it for a better merge. One issue with the 72nd St station was that it was too wide for the avenue. Building the 55th St station (location as proposed in the official Phase 3) with two levels, ala Archer Ave, would allow for much better merge ops and keep the station envelope safely under 2nd Ave. This is an alternative I've considered and one which might make more sense. I don't love terminating 6th Ave locals at 57th St but from a service level standpoint it'd be ok. By that I mean you aren't ever going to have nor need 30tph from Culver+Myrtle so 57th St can work fine capacity wise. Lets say 2nd Ave runs through Montague and down 4th Ave. Then the N/Q can be switched to Bay Ridge and Sea Beach (B/D via Brighton). 2nd Ave becomes a nice redundant trunk for these trains if there is a problem along Broadway. Same for if there is a problem along lower 2nd Ave, those trains can just run via Broadway. It's basically the same pairing as the and today. There still is 6th Ave redundancy with my plan, just a couple more moving parts. I'd say probably the only bad part of or to QBL exp is that you are sacrificing space on the trains. s use the longer IND cars while the or use the shorter BMT cars. If we keep to the QBL local this isn't much of a problem (as the is today) but it's a net loss for the express. I'm still a fan of having the and be the QBL exp via 53rd instead but there are arguments against this. 8th Ave local trains aren't as packed out as the express trains so you don't need 30tph to WTC. This is why I have the as a rush hour only train. The local will be plenty. It's another reason why I prefer and trains be the QBL exp so that they can take advantage of the extra capacity on Fulton St. Having 4 potential terminals (Euclid, Lefferts, Rock Park and Far Rock) gives you the flexibility to terminate more trains, and you need those more trains on QBL exp over anything else. Under this plan the would be cut off from a yard so it's a non starter. I'd argue the would still run to CI via 4th Ave local and keep 2nd Ave either terminating at Broad St or short turning some trains at Whitehall and interlining 2nd Ave down to CI. Obviously the last one is the least ideal. I gotta say, for all the time I've spent thinking about 2nd Ave and subway improvements, I hadn't come up with this. It's certainly not ideal but it is practical enough to be looked at. Assuming that a 2nd Ave/61st St station is built then the connecting mezzanine between it and the Lex/63rd St station would be about 800' This is less than the transfer between 8th Ave and 7th Ave at Times Sq so it's got precedent. The question then becomes just how many people are we now forcing to walk 1,600' every day? The Achille's Heel of 2nd Ave is that it doesn't really run through the heart of the CBD in midtown; rather it skirts it to the east. There are far more jobs between 7th Ave and Madison Ave than between Madison Ave and 2nd Ave so you really do have a sizeable demand for direct 6th or 7th Ave service from both the UES and Queens. So forcing more riders to make that long transfer seems to me to be a net loss. This is why, even after proposing to deinterline most of the subway network, I still see some benefit to reverse branching up 2nd Ave and into Queens. It ain't perfect but it solves the problem in the best way we can given our network limitations. That said, one thing I'm looking at is how to design Phase 3 with the right provisions for either express tracks to the Bronx or a new tunnel to Queens. At the VERY LEAST, for multiple reasons, Phase 3 must feature four-tracks between 42nd St and 63rd St. If you've got that then you future proof yourself enough to where we can put up with reverse branching while we watch how the future demand plays out.
  11. Theoretical limit? There are other factors involved in capacity like power, acceleration, and dwell times. So maybe we can't hit 36tph. I hope NYCT plans on stress testing CBTC on QBL to see what's possible.
  12. The first point is correct but the second is wrong, and the third kinda depends. Or rather, the second is wrong if the first is true. What I mean by that is if you're through running all trains past Forest Hills to 179th then trying to regularly terminate some trains at FH is going to gum up the works. Hell, all locals already terminate there NOW *and it gums up the works. The whole point of sending locals to 179 is that you can turn them much quicker, thus more capacity. QBL local is limited by the fact that it takes 3 min for a terminating train at FH to clear the track. 179 offers more flexibility with an additional track but if an express is using that track it gets trickier. As for the third point, the poor switch location in the tunnel keeps capacity on Archer at about 12tph. So technically two lower frequency lines could use it, but most likely just one could. If you really wanted to use FH as a terminal and through station you'd want to build a new set of tracks outside the local platform. Terminating locals would use the current tracks while through runners used the outside. Is that really worth the extra few tph, idk? But to answer the overall question: each track is theoretically capable of running 30tph * 2 tracks = 60tph. The terminals at 179 (60tph) + Archer (12tph) = 72tph. Luckily with CBTC bosting track capacity to 36tph * 2 tracks = 72tph!
  13. Yes but there is a caveat here: Queens Blvd needs 10 cars @ 75' where the BMT side of things can only handle 10 cars at 60'. Upgrading the BMT to 660' would be expensive and unnecessary. With this in mind I much prefer the V to be a QBL local instead. Under this design the would have to be local as well. Alternatively the V could use 75' cars and terminate at the proposed Chatham Sq-Chambers St station which would have to be designed with either a third track or lower level. I'm a fan of at least a third track here *anyway* so it's not an outrageous plan. While we can argue for days which service would be best as the local or express, I think that the 41 Av/NB infill station at least offers enough transfer flexibility to render that argument less important.
  14. Once I get going I can't stop I got to thinking if the last plan could be made better and I came up with this. Culver and Jamaica/Myrtle are the same as they are now and the connects to the Montague Tunnel while the runs via a new tunnel to Fulton St. I have the :V: no longer branching in Brooklyn but instead has the option of terminating at Chambers St or continuing as the West End peak express. What I like about this plan is there are even fewer moving parts, less interlining AND now Brighton Beach Line riders have at least one place to now transfer to 2nd Ave where as before they couldn't. The trade off is that now Myrtle riders lose a 2nd Ave connection. However it might be possible to have a new mezzanine connection between Grand St and Bowery stations so that at least Jamaica Line riders could have a connection to 2nd Ave. Myrtle riders will have to have a 3 seat ride... or just take the L instead? The reason for the switch, or the switch in the first place, is that the famous Atlantic Ave provisions south of Whitehall station in the Montague Tunnel are in a tricky location from a construction point of view. This nifty schematic shows how the tunnels from Broadway and Broad St merge underwater. In the drawing to the right you can see the provisions in checked lines at the bottom left. The issue is that these provisions are sandwiched in between the two South Ferry Terminal buildings (old and new). I bring this up because it creates expensive technical difficulties. Engineers today want to build tunnels as easy as possible. This is why the current "design" of Phase 4 of 2nd Ave has a tunnel up to 100' below lower Manhattan so to simply avoid all off this above. The issue is that these proposed DEEP stations end up costing $1b or so. The whole point of rerouting 2nd Ave down Nassau St is to avoid all of this cost. But doing this eats up all the space in the Montague Tunnel, space which will conflict with the . The nice thing is that you still don't immediately need a new tunnel. But when you do it gets tricky. If you built the new tunnel off the Montague provisions you'd have to shut down Slip 3 at South Ferry and that miiiight be a problem. So the alternative is that a new tunnel connects to Broad St instead. As you can see there is nothing there so cordoning off the area for a cofferdam dam is simpler. But this forces all 2nd Ave trains to use Fulton St. Not the end of the world but having the run down 4th Ave gives the borough better balance in terms of Manhattan service. via 4th Ave allows transfers to every other downtown Brooklyn service ( - the of course ) where as the via Fulton gives riders fewer options to transfer. An added bonus here is that you can build new switches at Grand St and give the B/D a redundant connection to Brooklyn, one which they lack now. The reverse problem is true on the Brooklyn side: a tunnel off of Broad St then has to snake around the existing tunnels to reach Court St station on the Fulton Line where as a tunnel off of the Montague provisions has a more space to run straight into Court St. So, as I see it, the Montague provisions offer an overall better connection but have a tricky construction job at Whitehall. But you know, this is so far off in the future maybe we will have a new South Ferry building at that point and the whole issue will be moot.
  15. This could all work well for Brooklyn. But Queens has serious demand to Midtown East. This plan wouldn't even allow for a transfer to 2nd Ave unless it was run up 3rd Ave (which isn't the worst idea). Alternatively Phase 3 of 2nd Ave, at least between 63rd and 42nd, could (*should*) have 4 tracks. That way you can connect to 63rd St Tunnel first and then when you want to expand/deinterline you can thread a new tunnel into 2nd Ave south of 63rd St. North of there... do whatever? No clear, easy solutions here.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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