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.
Sign in to follow this  
Fan Railer

MTA Capital Assesment Needs 2010-2029

Recommended Posts

http://www.mta.info/mta/pdf/CP/NeedsAssessment.pdf

NYCTA:

has some interesting stuff

apparently, we should assume all future B division car purchases will be 60 ft.

on page 27(document)/31(acrobat reader)

 

also, "Much of the IND, which is backlogged, will receive CBTC by 2029... By 2027, all revenue cars in the NYC Transit system will be CBTC-equipped, except cars serving the G, J, M, S, and Z lines."

 

LIRR:

approx 250 M-9's to be ordered (170 M-3 replacement, 84 fleet expansion for East Side Access)

 

MNRR:

looks like they will go with the remaining 38 car option in 2010-2014 cap plan

surprisingly, no mention of remaining M-3 railcars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They think that even New York's sketchiest don't deserve CBTC. Sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there being realy dumb thats why they dont never put things on the eastern div.j,m,z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you would think the (J), (M) and (Z) would get CBTC because the lines barely interact with other lines. Notice how the (M) only goes to South Brooklyn during rush hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And you would think the (J), (M) and (Z) would get CBTC because the lines barely interact with other lines. Notice how the (M) only goes to South Brooklyn during rush hours.
agreed there lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CBTC is going to lines which...

A. Run cars equipped for it.

B. Need the capacity improvements provided by it.

C. Need signal replacement anyway.

 

A is the only one which applies to the JMZ. Such is why they do not have CBTC.

 

The QB line and the 7 both fit requirements B and C, and both have at least some plans for A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pg. 89, line 1

Rebuild Nostrand Junction and Brooklyn College/Flatbush Terminal to

eliminate a capacity choke point

OMG!!!! This is the light of day, flow of (2)(3)(4)(5) trains would be relieved and why not extended the (2) and (5) further down Nostrand Ave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pg. 89, line 1 OMG!!!! This is the light of day, flow of (2)(3)(4)(5) trains would be relieved and why not extended the (2) and (5) further down Nostrand Ave.

 

Probably the instability of the land further down for a subway tunnel. And an el is obviously out of the question.

But I agree rebuilding Nostrand-Flatbush station would be great. Preferrably with an island platform and with some tail tracks that is half a train length past the platform so the train doesn't have to slow to a crawl to terminate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pg. 89, line 1 OMG!!!! This is the light of day, flow of (2)(3)(4)(5) trains would be relieved and why not extended the (2) and (5) further down Nostrand Ave.

 

Probably the instability of the land further down for a subway tunnel. And an el is obviously out of the question.

But I agree rebuilding Nostrand-Flatbush station would be great. Preferrably with an island platform and with some tail tracks that is half a train length past the platform so the train doesn't have to slow to a crawl to terminate.

 

If Rogers Junction gets rebuilt that will be the greatest thing that will ever happen. As for the terminal at Flatbush Avenue, I really don't know how the MTA will pull that off as there is no intermediate mezzanine. The only way this could be done is to have a mezzanine under the station, just like the configuration at Bowling Green. If this is done, expect Church Avenue to be your new terminal! :eek:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Rogers Junction gets rebuilt that will be the greatest thing that will ever happen. As for the terminal at Flatbush Avenue, I really don't know how the MTA will pull that off as there is no intermediate mezzanine. The only way this could be done is to have a mezzanine under the station, just like the configuration at Bowling Green. If this is done, expect Church Avenue to be your new terminal! :eek:

 

That's true, Church would have to be the terminal. It would be nice if there was an underground corridor from the n/b platform to the s/b one at Flatbush. It's such a pita to have to go around from one side to the other. I would much prefer an underground corridor like at nevins and if they demolished the crossover at the end to make way for the tail tracks.

As for replacing the current entry at the end, have two HEETs installed on the s/b platform, and it might mean the s/b platform would have to be shifted north a bit.

I'm not sure if they need another exit/entrance at the end of the n/b platform since it would need stairwells to connect to the street, but it would be nice if that was built as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you would think the (J), (M) and (Z) would get CBTC because the lines barely interact with other lines. Notice how the (M) only goes to South Brooklyn during rush hours.

 

If Rogers Junction gets rebuilt that will be the greatest thing that will ever happen.

 

Be careful what you wish for. Look how long it took for CBTC to run on the (L) with all of those weekends of suspended service and shuttle buses. Even after all that, the results haven't exactly been spectacular. CBTC installation on the (J)(M)(Z) lines would undoubtedly mean years of headaches for riders. Also on that list of lines that get CBTC, you could add that it is to help trains run closer together, which would be useful on the (E),(F), and (7) trains. I don't know what headways are like on the (J)(M)(Z) during rush hours, but i don't think they're in need of increased capacity.

 

Rebuilding Rogers Junction? I could only imagine what that would mean for the IRT in Brooklyn during the years of construction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rebuilding Rogers Junction? I could only imagine what that would mean for the IRT in Brooklyn during the years of construction.
Yeah it would be years of headaches but at the end i'll be better service flow for the (2)(3)(4) and especially the (5) which crosses the local tracks to go to Brooklyn College or to Manhattan

 

page 89, bullet 3

Accelerate implementation of CBTC to best route trains and increase

throughput

I wonder if this means Jerome's R142 will be going on the (3) since they're capable of CBTC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah it would be years of headaches but at the end i'll be better service flow for the (2)(3)(4) and especially the (5) which crosses the local tracks to go to Brooklyn College or to Manhattan

 

That said, how much of a service disruption is acceptable by telling riders that it'll be better "in the long run". I don't know if they could continue to run trains through it during a complete rebuild. It may be like saying to shut down the entire Lexington Av Line for a few years while the tunnels are reconfigured to accommodate B Div cars. In the long run, it would be better, but too many people depend on it to close it for any period of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if this means Jerome's R142 will be going on the (3) since they're capable of CBTC.

I highly doubt it. We're talking about implementing CBTC here after the Flushing and Queens Blvd. lines have it already. By that time it will be the R62's time to retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I highly doubt it. We're talking about implementing CBTC here after the Flushing and Queens Blvd. lines have it already. By that time it will be the R62's time to retire.

 

yeah, the'll probably get new stock in the R19x or the R2xx series. lol:confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but no telling what's gonna happen though. I was thought the (4) was gonna be half R62 and R142A but politics got it to be R142/R142A. By time the R62/R62As new tech replacement cars comes politics is probaly come play a role once again and put the new tech cars on the (4) and put Jerome's R142s on the (3). If they think about doin that then they mind as well just send R142s to the (3) now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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