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.


Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

228 Excellent

About Caelestor

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

699 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Extending the QBL locals to 179 St benefits mainly the MTA by improving service reliability, which indirectly benefits the riders too. If deinterlining is implemented and QBL local tph increases above 20, then the 179 St extension has to happen because FH can't handle any additional trains. The tradeoff is the additional train sets and crews associated with them. Do the benefits outweigh the costs?
  5. Most relevant to NYCS, Seems way more confusing than just routing one of the down the RBB.
  6. The issue is that scheduling express trains during the peak of rush hour overcrowds the adjacent s because Bergen St to 7 Ave have headways double. I understand why the is a thing, and it honestly could work, but it requires combined to be more than the 15 tph it is today. That would only be possible with the replacing the , hence all the talk about reconstructing Chrystie St (again) in the other thread.
  7. There's no good reason to abandon Nassau St in any proposal. It can relieve the since it runs straight through the heart of Lower Manhattan and it hasn't been used to its full potential. If the Jamaica Line is routed onto the 6 Ave express tracks, then Nassau St has to be rerouted to SAS. There's two options to Houston St, via Grand St and the old ROW used by the Nassau St loop, or via Canal St and a new tunnel to Houston St. Bowery is abandoned but honestly Grand St is a reasonable replacement because it goes to uptown, downtown, and Brooklyn.
  8. Long-term I think SAS should be a 4-track line. Effectively it will be the last new NYC subway trunk line, with a future 10 Ave line being only an extension of the existing 14 St line. After that it will be more effective to build regional mainline trunks because the subway coverage will be very thorough around Manhattan. However, upper SAS local being an extension of the BMT Broadway express tracks complicates matters. Eventually, new construction needs to be done that turns 79 St into a 6-track transfer station with the being redirected into Queens via 79 St. This frees up the SAS local to run entirely down 2 Ave and into Brooklyn via the Manhattan Bridge. With the Williamsburg bridge tracks rerouted onto the 6 Ave express and the Broadway local tracks connected to the Fulton St local tracks, Nassau St can be reconstructed and sent up SAS as the express line. Water St in my opinion is redundant with the Nassau St as underutilized as it is today. All of this is super expensive of course - but it's the only way to maximize the existing Brooklyn - Midtown subway capacity.
  9. FWIW I do think the service can become viable in the future. In the long term, the QB (local + express), 63 St, 6 Ave local, and Culver lines can form one highly frequent trunk line with 15 tph between Forest Hills and Church Ave and the between 179 St and Coney Island. All the stops have quite high ridership, and BMT Culver has been designated for redevelopment (gentrification) by the city. The main impediment now is the - don't think it should return to Nassau St, but the ideal scenario of sending it to 6 Ave express and sending Chrystie St up 2 Ave is a serious reconfiguration project that would probably impose a decade of endless construction.
  10. Perhaps a simple light rail line between Woodhaven Blvd QBL and Howard Beach - JFK could be built in the ROW. This would also reduce the cost of the entire project, since light rail stops are way cheaper than subway stations these days.
  11. Sea Beach has two top 150 ridership stations at 59 St and 8 Ave compared to none on West End. Past that the lines are comparable in ridership, though Sea Beach is the faster train to / from Coney Island. That said, 59 St - Bay Ridge has more ridership per station than either West End or Sea Beach, and all 4 Ave local trains should stay on the local tracks.
  12. These ideas are great and all, but here's a proposal that's probably really pressing - stop running trains every 12 minutes because no one is willing to wait around that long. The solution is a bit harder to pinpoint but probably involves overhauling the existing work and flagging rules.
  13. Honestly, no service is better than poor service. At least with no service, there's some expectation that normal (relatively good) service will return. An eternal state of poor service just forces people onto the rideshares permanently. Also, a 4-track line with 15 tph has 25% the capacity of a normal line. That's almost as bad as the weekend (3 tph = 20% of normal 15 tph service) and everyone is calling for that to be shut down. As for outer lines such as QBL, LIRR + MNR have a lot of capacity and riders should be allowed to ride on them at much more discounted rates.
  14. One issue with the is that the and the LIRR Atlantic branch do a much better job at getting riders to Lower Manhattan and especially Downtown Brooklyn. However, what the can do is capture the latent ridership between Broadway Jct and Marcy Ave, which is relatively high given the low frequencies the non-transfer stops receive. But back to the point, a (brownR) train is a pretty good solution for Bay Ridge riders, given the spare capacity along the Bay Ridge + Nassau St lines. I don't have much else to say. According to the L train shutdown, the Bridge can handle 24 tph. Hence why I suggested 7.5 tph on the each.
  15. The real purpose of skip-stop is to run fewer train sets at the peak, but short-turning trains and providing more service, especially west of Broadway Junction, is a much better solution. The should all run on synchronized 8 minute headways at the peak. I'm not certain if any of these trains should be running express - lowering headways, especially west of Broadway Junction, is a bigger priority in my opinion.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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