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.

Caelestor

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

237 Excellent

About Caelestor

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

792 profile views
  1. The J Church is probably gone from the subway forever because it runs only one car and doesn't serve half of the busy Market St / Twin Peaks Tunnel stations. Plus with the delays at Duboce Portal, transfering to the underground station at Church and Market isn't a huge time difference overall. I can see the L Taraval returning to Market St when ridership rebounds because transfer volumes at West Portal may be too much. The K Ingleside, which runs only one car trains, really shouldn't be entering the subway but trains can't easily turn near West Portal; hence why the K and L will be interlined when really the J and K should be the ones combined. The swap is an interesting idea that I hadn't heard of, but it trades the problem of too many merges along Queens Blvd for a 40 percent capacity cut along the 63 St line, which really should be avoided. I think the only real solution is to take the off QBL to add more trains through 53 St and 63 St. As for the , there's a deinterlined Astoria - Bay Ridge line (with QBL - Whitehall St short turns) just waiting to be used...
  2. The trains are still running from 1 to 5am, so it's not as if the lack of late night service actually saves any money. The real issue is the homeless, but that should be fixed through another social program to get them off the trains. The solution to construction woes is more FASTRAK-style complete shutdowns on select lines, whether it be weekday late nights or entire weekends. Othersise, lagging and poor practice will cause service to degrade to unacceptable levels. As for cleaner subway cars, better utilization of rolling stock would do wonders. Overnight train cars could be scheduled to run on an afternoon peak - late night - morning peak shift and be maintained at the yards during midday hours.
  3. The ESA to Atlantic proposal is politically convenient because it preserves LIRR's "territory", but I have to agree that connecting MNR with LIRR will have bigger benefits for regionral rail riders. The line that really needs to be built is GCT to Atlantic; reconstructing and electrifying the West Side Line would also create a second line would be the Hudson Line to Jamaica via Penn. (Once MNR is extended downtown, it could even connect to SIR via a long underwater tunnel, but I rank that very low in priority given Staten Island's aversion to upzoning). On the NJT side, through-routing the NEC line with the LIRR Port Washington Line and the MNR New Haven Line via Hells Gate should be done ASAP while the Gateway Tunnel to GCT via Penn is built. The Morris & Essex Lines should be connected to ESA via Union Square and Hoboken. Lastly if the Erie lines ever get electrified, they can be throughrouted with the Atlantic Ave LIRR via Downtown Manhattan, but that would require the aforementioned long NY harbor tunnel to be built so that the Harlem Line can be rerouted towards SI.
  4. Out of all the proposals on the table, the only trunk line that could be 4 tracks is 2 Ave, mainly in order to accommodate the additional capacity that would come from the Jamaica Line / 6 Ave express, Manhattan Bridge North / 2 Ave Phase 3, and the Broadway Local / Fulton St local via a new East River tunnel, and Nassau St / Bay Ridge local via Montague St tunnel takeover. Even then, it might be better just to build a parallel line under 3 Ave to not disrupt the , when/if ridership demands it. As a potential bonus, the 3 Ave line would have just as good or even better transfers at 14 St, 42 St, 53 St, and 60/63 Sts. Also, the ideal stop spacing for all-stop metros is ~1 km (0.6 miles), because stations can and should have entrances / exits at both ends. In NYC, this would be ~10 blocks, as seen in the IND local stop spacing. Express stations should typically be every 3 km (2 miles), equivalent to 1 in every 3rd local stop. In NYC, this would be about every 40 blocks, as seen in the IRT express stop spacing. Outside of NYC, regional rail such as Paris RER, London Crossrail, the non-local Tokyo commuter lines, typically serve as the "express lines" since the metros typically cover an area equivalent to just the length of Manhattan and the regional rail system serves as a suburban / express overlay to relieve crowds on the older metros.
  5. Unlike 2010, the can't run to Astoria so the will stay put for now. Night service will probably be cut; namely the would all stop running earlier in the evening.
  6. So QBL bypass doesn't rely on SAS. I just think SAS should be built first, because it's guaranteed to be heavily ridden at all times of day. QBL bypass is mainly there to relieve peak-hour QBL crowds and it would have mediocre ridership during off-hours. There shouldn't be any trains between 21 St - Queensbridge and 36 St; the purpose of the bypass is to deinterline everything and max the 53 St and 63 St tunnel capacity. So all 63 St trains run on the bypass to Forest Hills, and local to 179 St. All 53 St trains run QBL express between Queens Plaza and Jamaica Center or 179 St. The is re-extended to Forest Hills and the can keep running via the 11 St cut, but the future of the QBL local is to run crosstown under 50 or 57 St. I agree that the Sunnyside stop I suggested should be connected to Queens Plaza and the new LIRR station. Woodside should be an underground stop with an island platform, free transfer to the . There's a stop at 51 Ave for a future connection to the Triboro RX. Agreed on Woodhaven Blvd and Forest Hills.
  7. As a data scientist, you've convinced me against interlining 36 St. I was surprised to see that officially, the is only 3 minutes faster than the at rush hour, so increasing service and reducing delays along 8 Ave / 53 St should theoretically keep riders' total travel time unchanged. That said, I think sending all express trains via 63 St won't really shift ridership from QBL express to local that much, since many riders will just stay on the 6 Ave / 63 St trains (and Broadway via the transfer at Lex Ave / 63 St) because the line is already in walking distance of the 8 Ave / 53 St trains. I could also see transfer volumes at Jackson Heights - Roosevelt Ave increasing even more as riders switch over to the for Court Sq and Lex Ave / 53 St, so Woodhaven Blvd should be converted to an express stop. On that note, the only way to truly solve QBL's overcrowding is to build another line. The 63 St to QBL merge has always been very inefficient since it was never supposed to happen. The needs to be taken off QBL and put on the bypass line. With less tunneling and fewer stations (Northern Blvd / Sunnyside, Woodside, 51 Ave, Woodhaven Blvd, Forest Hills lower-level), the QBL bypass is the most cost-efficient subway expansion in Queens and should be built after modified SAS phase 3 is complete.
  8. I agree that the should run local because the 63 St line doesn't stop at Queens Plaza like the currently all do at 59 St. However, it's simpler to have only the run on the local tracks between 207 St and WTC full-time, and move the to 53 St / 8 Ave express. Then all the B division trunk lines Concourse / CPW express / 6 Ave express 207 St / CPW local / 8 Ave local - 53 St / 8 Ave express 63 St / 6 Ave local lines - Astoria / Broadway local SAS / Broadway express can be deinterlined from each other in Manhattan. This also standardizes the headways at 4 minutes on the , 6 minutes on the , 8 minutes on the so that continued interlining on QBL and at DeKalb Ave remain smooth.
  9. The Harlem Line should be extended downtown, connecting with Atlantic Terminal. Then ESA should be connected with the Morris & Essex lines. Lastly, build the SI and Hoboken to Downtown tunnels, and send the Harlem Line towards SI, once the Erie lines are fully electrified. In the meantime, SAS Phase 3 should still be built because the demand is clearly there. Build it as an extension of the Manhattan bridge north tracks, not upper SAS however, to remove the reverse branching.
  10. The is cut back to E 180 St, so the net result in Manhattan is that 7 Ave loses an express train for the weekend. On the other hand, Brooklyn gets to keep the (via Lex) when normally it would just be the running.
  11. If the Franklin Ave can remain in service until today, so can the Nassau St shuttle (call it the for clarity) after Williamsburg Bridge services are connected to the 6 Ave express tracks. Anyways, the future of the Nassau St line is to head uptown after Canal St as the SAS express, stopping at Houston St, 14 St, 42 St, 55 St, 72 St, 116 St, and running into the Bronx as the Third Ave line. As for 50 St / 8 Ave, the solution is pretty clear. Local trains should be stopping at the upper level, and express trains stopping at the lower level. Then the 6 Ave express tracks can fully take over the CPW express tracks, and simplify the Manhattan services into 207 St - WTC local, 24/7 145 St lower level / Bedford Park Blvd (rush hours) - 6 Ave express, weekdays Norwood - 6 Ave express, 24/7 53 St - 8 Ave express - Fulton express, 24/7 53 St - 8 Ave express - Fulton local, 19/7 As for Queens Blvd, the lines should be 53 St - QB express 63 St - QB express 53 St - QB local 63 St - QB local which does keep reverse branching on QBL but at least the problematic 53 St / 6 Ave and 60 St / QBL merges disappear. If the is cut off from Williamsburg Bridge, then it can be retired and the entire 63 St / 6 Ave / Culver line can be rebranded the lines. Then on Broadway, the can take over the entire Astoria / Broadway / 4 Ave local tracks, with short-turn trains between Queensboro Plaza and Whitehall St, and the can take over the entire SAS / Broadway express tracks. In a full-deinterlining scheme for the Manhattan bridge, the would run via West End and the would run via Brighton, but I'm not certain that's entirely necessary yet if the rest of B Division is fixed. If the 6 Ave express tracks are connected to the Williamsburg bridge and the Manhattan bridge north tracks run up 2 Ave, then the would take over Brighton.
  12. Station lengthening isn't as effective because there are just so many stations in the subway, even if it's only IRT division. Better signaling, select deinterlining, and better passenger distribution at chokepoints such as GCT would go a long way to achieving 30 tph, which is the practical limit of a heavily branched subway system.
  13. Lengthening one station and getting a 11.25 percent capacity increase on the sounds like great ROI. Getting the additional 11 percent capacity for the 10th car is frankly not worth it, seeing the more pressing capacity issues on Lex Ave and QBL that need to be addressed. I do see the appeal of a new Williamsburg tunnel for the so the don't get disrupted. The question now is how would the new reach Brooklyn? Presumably via the express platforms at 2 Ave, but in that scenario I can't imagine any part of the Chrystie St connection would survive. That might not be a necessarily bad thing though, as auxiliary connections between major trunk lines are a net capacity decrease and should be removed from normal service.
  14. I'm also of the opinion that another East River tunnel to Brooklyn shouldn't be built until the runs at least 26 tph - a 30 percent capacity increase is achievable with only electrical upgrades and no new tracks. As for the via Williamsburg Bridge, I've seen this diagram proposed but I'm not certain if this is actually buildable as drawn. My guess is that the existing tracks between Broadway/Lafayette and Grand St wouldn't be entirely removed, so some creative engineering is required to get the SB 6 Ave express track running towards Essex St. Nonetheless, sending Grand St trains up 2 Ave is probably the most feasible way to change SAS Phase 3 into an actual new two-trunk line that can actually relieve Lex Ave. After 55 St, the would take over upper SAS and the would be rerouted to new lower-level 72 St platforms. Then in the long term, the could be extended via 79 St into Queens under Broadway / Northern Blvd.
  15. As many have pointed out, the needs to stay on the express tracks and run up 2 Ave. Merging onto the local tracks, whether at 34 St or 57 St, is undeniably a theoretical capacity decrease for the entire Broadway Line because one train effectively occupies both tracks as it uses the switch. Also, if the isn't on time, it would only delay the if it stayed on the express tracks vs the as well. That said, changing the also requires changing the , which is currently scheduled as a branch of the . Basically the trains have two different northern terminals at 96 St and Astoria, two southern terminals at Whitehall and 86 St / CI, and even two different routes through Manhattan (Broadway local vs express). What really should happen is that the should be scheduled together, as they would share the same trunk line (Broadway Express tracks) and terminals, albeit along a different branch in Brooklyn. Then the from Forest Hills and the from Astoria could be scheduled together down the Broadway local tracks, with varying southern terminals at Whitehall, Bay Ridge, or Gravesend during peak hours if the other 2 terminals can't turn 25 tph. If DeKalb deinterlining becomes a reality, then the could even share the 4 Ave express tracks while the get Brighton to themselves, and route consolidation can propagate throughout the entire B Division. Long story short, deinterlining reduces the effective number of services that conflict with each other and potential delays, benefiting operators and riders alike.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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