Jump to content

Roadcruiser1

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    4,586
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Roadcruiser1

  1. How is it possible to construct a Queens Boulevard bypass along the LIRR tracks? You can't just build in subway connections onto the ROW and then start service. Also, an SAS service to Queens would sound like a better idea for usage of the bypass than rerouting current services.

     

    The R.O.W. is open cut so it can be built above it, and the 63rd Street Tunnel was built for it anyway. The (MTA) is just too cheap to spend the extra $400 million in building it :).

  2. (J)

     

    Plan A:

     

    (J) is now an express, (Z) is local. Express and local stops stay the same.

     

    Variants:

    • Rush Hours only.
    • (Z) ends at Crescent St.
    • (Z) ends at 121st St.

    Plan B:

     

    (J) service runs local north of Broadway Junction. Runs nonstop to Delancey St. (Z) service replaces the non-stop section.

     

    Variants:

    • Rush Hours only.
    • This pattern is extended to Crescent St.
    • (J) stops at Myrtle Av.

    P.S. The center tracks at Marcy Avenue are connected to mainline.

     

    Nope. You can't do this. Skip stop service is not similar to express, or local service, and would require the removal of the (Z). Not just that, but it wouldn't work out well for the (M) either. In fact a better idea would be to end skip stop service :).

  3. Here's an idea. Build that God damn IND Queens Boulevard Super Express, and move the (F), and the future Second Avenue service into those tracks, move the (M) into the express tracks, and then move the (G) into the local tracks which did allow for future extensions into Eastern Queens.

  4. I am more focused on the attention of finishing the Second Avenue Subway in the first place. Instead of just coming up with random ideas how about waiting till the Second Avenue Subway is complete first? Phase 3, and phase 4 hasn't even happened yet, and we are talking about expanding it already

  5. if the chunnel can built the subway can be built. 

     

    No. Why? Here are two real reasons this won't take place.

     

    1) The Channel Tunnel is a railway tunnel for high speed railroads. Railroads, and subways are different. Subway carry people to other local destinations however railroads are used to carry people from city to city, or country to country. Therefore your example is terrible.

     

    2) A tunnel between Manhattan, and Staten Island would be so long, and so expensive that it will never work. The distance between the two islands is around 8 miles. This means that the tunnel would be as long as the Second Avenue Subway. However what makes this even more expensive is that this is underwater construction. Constructing 1 mile of underwater tunnel costs $1 billion U.S.D. which means that the tunnel you are asking to construct would literally cost $8 billion U.S.D., and to be honest no one would pay all that just for something between Staten Island, and Manhattan.

     

    If you instead proposed a tunnel between Staten Island, and Brooklyn that did be more real, and would make more sense......

  6. The (T) should connect to the Fulton Street Line. Use it to back up the (C) to Lefferts. Afterwards reactivate the Rockaway Beach Branch, and extend the (G) down there. That would be my plan however it was originally proposed like this back in the Second System Plan. Of course this would only make sense after you construct the Queens Boulevard Super Express. It did make the system more efficient!

  7. The express tracks should be added to SAS at least when the line is extended to Chatham Sq or the line risks getting the wrap the (G) used to have of being a long useless local.

     

    One wonders how much ridership the (T) will even get, after all isn't the point to relieve some pressure from the Lex. How exactly will that be accomplished by a train that never leaves the borough and doesn't go to the lower east side?

     

    Also will the MTA ever directly connect the SAS to the outer boroughs?

    There is nothing wrong with the current two track plan. The (MTA) doesn't even have enough money to build four tracks if they wanted to. Besides most metro systems in the world have only two tracks. In New York City we are spoiled to have a four track system....

  8. If the money was there would it be feasible to run the (5) as the 3rd Ave line in the Bronx? Build a new line from 149th St up 3rd ave to Fordham Rd, then turn east along Fordham Rd to reconnect with the Dyre Line, continue existing service. Morris Park Station would be bypassed. Or the line could use E180th street to rejoin the line at E180th street or just south of Morris Park station.

     

    It would make more sense to just wait for the Second Avenue Subway (T).........

  9. I am not sure extending the QB line by itself is a viable solution. It will just funnel more customers into an already packed line during the rush hour. There is enough delays on the express, especially during the morning, due to the tight headways and adding more passenger is not going to help that. It will simply add to the dwell time as riders try to squeeze on and add to the delays down the line. The majority of riders already jump from local to express now at Roosevelt regardless of how much of a sardine can it can be. Can you imagine if this express/local arrangement was extended further. It will simply add to the delays entering Forest Hills and at whatever the designated express stops are.

     

    This will work if there is a way to convince rider NOT to switch. But GOOD LUCK with that.

     

    Just extend the (7)<7> down Northern Boulevard down to Queensborough Community College. It would help take some load from the (F) extension, and probably still solve all problems..........

  10. Here is what the (MTA) has to say about it. http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/documents/final_summary_report.pdf!!!!!!!!!!

     

     
    • Water Street Alignment (Grand Street Station Configuration): Several options were 
    examined to minimize environmental impacts during construction to the existing Sara 
    Delano Roosevelt Park and the surrounding neighborhood. Of the four Grand Street station 
    options examined, the leading option locates the Second Avenue station below the existing 
    Grand Street station. This option would tend to limit impacts on Sara Delano Roosevelt 
    Park and would maintain a consistent Second Avenue Subway station design with island 
    platforms.

     

  11. @roadcruiser1's proposal:

     

    Moving the (B) from Brighton Exp to Culver Exp would shove all of the (B) riders on the (Q) and that is not something you want to do. The (B) and (Q) are both crowded in the morning, especially the (B) because it's an express and many local riders transfer to it.

     

    TL;DR, the Brighton Line needs its express.

     

    That's why I planned to send the (T) down there, but forget it now due to the fact it won't work.........

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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