Jump to content

CBTC to be fully implemented on the (L) in 2012. What do you expect?


JubaionBx12+SBS

Recommended Posts

I was being a little sarcastic if it didn't show, I don't expect it to take *that* long, but it should have been finished already, and I wouldn't be surprised by more delays.

 

Ahh I see lol. Sorry about that. But yes, this project has been in the works for far too long, but that's to be expected as the MTA can't keep a schedule if their funding depended on it....

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Interlining makes implementing any sort of CBTC system incredibly difficult, especially with the amount of interlining in NYCT. Every line that interlines with another has to be compatible with THAT CBTC system, or the CBTC feature is of very limited use and scope (ie one section of shared track only, and trains must operate in CBTC bypass on all other sections of track).

 

Now we'll take y'all back to a logic class...

 

If, due to interlining, the following:

 

-A must be compatible with B, and B must be compatible with C.

-D must be compatible with E, and E must be compatible with F.

-C and D also interline, and therefore must be compatible.

 

Which of the following is true?

I)A, B, and C must be compatible with each other, while D, E, and F must be compatible with each other

II)None needs to be compatible

III)All need to be compatible

 

CBTC on non-isolated mainlines is a ways out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interlining makes implementing any sort of CBTC system incredibly difficult, especially with the amount of interlining in NYCT. Every line that interlines with another has to be compatible with THAT CBTC system, or the CBTC feature is of very limited use and scope (ie one section of shared track only, and trains must operate in CBTC bypass on all other sections of track).

 

Now we'll take y'all back to a logic class...

 

If, due to interlining, the following:

 

-A must be compatible with B, and B must be compatible with C.

-D must be compatible with E, and E must be compatible with F.

-C and D also interline, and therefore must be compatible.

 

Which of the following is true?

I)A, B, and C must be compatible with each other, while D, E, and F must be compatible with each other

II)None needs to be compatible

III)All need to be compatible

 

CBTC on non-isolated mainlines is a ways out.

 

I'll choose III as my final answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
According to a recently released Capital Program milestone report the remaining signal work necessary to fully implement CBTC on the Canarsie Line is targeted for completion in the first quarter of 2012. This means that starting next year ALL (L) trains will run automated with the motorman simply pressing a button every 10 seconds to indicate his presence. During any technical difficulties the motorman will take control of the train.

 

Is it good that trains are automated?

 

I dont like the idea of having a machine driving me on a subway train, after they get it systemwide, they probably wont have motorman. :)

 

I hope it takes them forever to do this, I want to be a motorman for sometime in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it good that trains are automated?

 

I dont like the idea of having a machine driving me on a subway train, after they get it systemwide, they probably wont have motorman. :)

 

I hope it takes them forever to do this, I want to be a motorman for sometime in future.

 

Don't worry. All automated heavy rail systems in the US still have motormen, albeit as backups to make sure the train operates smoothly and to take over in case of emergency. (WMATA, BART, to name a few systems that operate like that). So the T/O job at the MTA will still be a position for decades to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was being a little sarcastic if it didn't show, I don't expect it to take *that* long, but it should have been finished already, and I wouldn't be surprised by more delays.

 

"Progress" comes with a price.

 

Hah.

 

The L line is fully 100% CBTC and ATS. The last part is just removing all automatic signals from Bway junction to 8 ave. Which I think is a bad idea because they have computer problems your L service will be suspended instead of operating in CBTC Bypass.

 

The (MTA) had ten years to get its act together. Any further delays; and unexpected complications with the (7)'s signal conversion would be a disappointing indictment on CBTC in its current form. It would also show how bad the (MTA) is at modernization.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't worry. All automated heavy rail systems in the US still have motormen, albeit as backups to make sure the train operates smoothly and to take over in case of emergency. (WMATA, BART, to name a few systems that operate like that). So the T/O job at the MTA will still be a position for decades to come.

 

Thanks buddy! you made feel better about this whole automated thing! I love you! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest lance25
What the (L) needs is a skip-stop service.

 

No it doesn't. Out of the 24 stops on the Canarsie line, only a handful of them would work as a skip-stop service. Everything west of Broadway Junction and especially Myrtle Av is too crowded. Skipping a stop there wouldn't move the trains any faster or distribute the passengers any better. All you'd have is even more crowded platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it doesn't. Out of the 24 stops on the Canarsie line, only a handful of them would work as a skip-stop service. Everything west of Broadway Junction and especially Myrtle Av is too crowded. Skipping a stop there wouldn't move the trains any faster or distribute the passengers any better. All you'd have is even more crowded platforms.

 

What to me would work better would be to rebuild the partially demolished platforms at Atlantic Avenue so that can become the (L) terminal during most of the day, while a new service (70(K)?) runs out of Rockaway Parkway with (usually) a same or cross-platform transfer at Atlantic Avenue. That to me would allow the (L) to concentrate on the busier part of the line while the new line would join the (J) at Broadway-Brooklyn and operate to Manhattan, possibly to Chambers 19/7 (with the (L) overnights still running to Rockaway Parkway).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What to me would work better would be to rebuild the partially demolished platforms at Atlantic Avenue so that can become the (L) terminal during most of the day, while a new service (70(K)?) runs out of Rockaway Parkway with (usually) a same or cross-platform transfer at Atlantic Avenue. That to me would allow the (L) to concentrate on the busier part of the line while the new line would join the (J) at Broadway-Brooklyn and operate to Manhattan, possibly to Chambers 19/7 (with the (L) overnights still running to Rockaway Parkway).
In short:

You want to: spend millions upfront to reconfigure tracks and rehabilitate an entire station; spend more annually on a route ((K) to Lower Manhattan) that doesn't go where most people are going along a line that has less ridership than the Canarsie line; make people transfer to a line that they really want to use (which won't solve the train crowding); cause congestion problems for the (J),(M), and (Z) at Broadway junction and over the Williamsburg Bridge; give people worse transfer options by having the transfer points to the Manhattan trunk lines put people further away from Midtown Manhattan; and forgo the use of CBTC (along a portion the line) which has been installed along the entire Canarsie line and could be used to increase the trains per hour by 73% versus theoretically cutting a maximum of 25% off the ridership off the Canarsie line by having the (L) terminate at Atlantic Avenue.

 

Details:

  • The Jamaica line is not CBTC-compatible.
    Interlining makes implementing any sort of CBTC system incredibly difficult, especially with the amount of interlining in NYCT. Every line that interlines with another has to be compatible with THAT CBTC system, or the CBTC feature is of very limited use and scope (ie one section of shared track only, and trains must operate in CBTC bypass on all other sections of track).

     

    Now we'll take y'all back to a logic class...

     

    If, due to interlining, the following:

     

    -A must be compatible with B, and B must be compatible with C.

    -D must be compatible with E, and E must be compatible with F.

    -C and D also interline, and therefore must be compatible.

     

    Which of the following is true?

    I)A, B, and C must be compatible with each other, while D, E, and F must be compatible with each other

    II)None needs to be compatible

    III)All need to be compatible

     

    CBTC on non-isolated mainlines is a ways out.

  • You already have the (J), (M), and (Z) running over the Williamsburg Bridge. Squeezing in a (K) that runs frequently enough to satiate the ridership demands of people from Rockaway Parkway to Atlantic Avenue doesn't seem possible.
  • I doubt most people from Canarsie would prefer a one-seat ride on the (K) to Lower Manhattan over 14 Street. As service currently stands, the (L) grants access to every single trunk line in Manhattan with a single transfer (excluding the (B) and (D), but all of their Manhattan stations are reachable anyway via the other routes). The new service pattern will not improve transfers as Lower Manhattan is further away from Midtown Manhattan, and does not offer more options compared to the (L). Ridership to transfer points along 14 Street total about 64 million annually while ridership to transfer points along the Nassau Street line in Manhattan total about 52 million.
  • From Bushwick Avenue to Bedford Avenue, the annual ridership total is 34,909,215. From Rockaway Parkway to Atlantic Avenue, the ridership is a mere 8,593,241. I think using CBTC to enable 73% more trains to run along the Canarsie line is more worth it than shaving 25% off the line's ridership (assuming that nobody uses the transfer to the new (L) terminating at Atlantic Avenue). Realistically, people would probably transfer to the (L) anyway, thus, removing far less than 25% of the ridership heading to Manhattan from between Rockaway Parkway and Atlantic Avenue.

 

Ridership figures were based on 2010 figures released by the MTA. The numbers stated assumes people are traveling primarily to Manhattan with a bias towards Midtown Manhattan. Stations with more than one route have their ridership figure counted towards the Canarsie line's ridership.

 

Annual Ridership by Station Data: (tab-delimited format)

Rockaway Parkway	3,806,903			East 105 Street	1,065,469			New Lots Avenue	1,231,257			Livonia Avenue	785,229			Sutter Avenue	1,280,175			Atlantic Avenue	424,208			Broadway Junction	2,767,838			Bushwick Avenue	398,834			Wilson Avenue	1,089,448			Halsey Street	2,019,248			Myrtle Avenue	5,399,769			DeKalb Avenue	3,343,666			Jefferson Street	1,740,644			Morgan Avenue	2,021,162			Montrose Avenue	1,951,066			Grand Street	2,103,847			Graham Avenue	3,028,830			Lorimer Street	4,394,498			Bedford Avenue	7,418,203					Essex Street	6,745,7911 Avenue	6,936,132		Bowery	1,044,3943 Avenue	2,060,364		Canal Street	16,007,057Union Square	34,730,692		Chambers Street	10,783,1286 Avenue	15,029,178		Fulton Street	18,303,9638 Avenue	11,795,495		Broad Street	1,636,627

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made your points, but something has to be done to help with what we know is a serious overcrowding problem on the (L).

 

Perhaps if the SAS ever reached Houston Street, there could be a connector via Chrystie Street from Essex that would allow the Broadway-Brooklyn line to access the SAS, with perhaps then in my scenario the (L) terminating at Atlantic Avenue while a new 70(K) train operates from Canarsie-Atlantic Avenue, then via the Broadway-Brooklyn line to Essex and then with the (Q) and (T) on the SAS to 125th.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You made your points, but something has to be done to help with what we know is a serious overcrowding problem on the (L).

 

Perhaps if the SAS ever reached Houston Street, there could be a connector via Chrystie Street from Essex that would allow the Broadway-Brooklyn line to access the SAS, with perhaps then in my scenario the (L) terminating at Atlantic Avenue while a new 70(K) train operates from Canarsie-Atlantic Avenue, then via the Broadway-Brooklyn line to Essex and then with the (Q) and (T) on the SAS to 125th.

Something has to be done, but it must be something less costly and detrimental to the majority ridership. Keep in mind that the Williamsburg Bridge handles 2 lines (technically 3 during rush hour, but the (J) and (Z) are the same anyway). No matter what terminal or line you build to make a home for the other end of a route, you will always be limited by capacity. Besides, 2 Avenue service down to Houston Street is far into the future; for the near future, CBTC does its job and relieves the (L)'s overcrowding problem without rebuilding or screwing with other lines.

 

And let's say by some miracle the 2 Avenue line is connected and working, you still forget that many folks getting on the train between Rockaway Parkway and Atlantic Avenue will have to make one or two transfers to get to their destination instead of 1 (or even 0). The (L) in its current form passes through stations with very high ridership in Manhattan and connects to every major trunk line. What does a (K) over the Williamsburg Bridge running up 2 Avenue connect to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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