Brighton Express Posted June 17, 2012 Share #576 Posted June 17, 2012 Capacity is the issue, not even speed of service. And still, you can't compare 125 St 116 St 106 St 96 St 86 St 72 St 55 St 42 St to 125 St 86 St 59 St 42 St. The make fewer stops. Compromises don't work to well in this case. Easily cut FULLY LOCAL 125 St 116 St 106 St 96 St 86 St 72 St JOINS AS EXPRESS 72 St 96 St 116 St (Optional) 125 St 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DanTheTransitMan Posted June 17, 2012 Share #577 Posted June 17, 2012 Easily cut FULLY LOCAL 125 St 116 St 106 St 96 St 86 St 72 St JOINS AS EXPRESS 72 St 96 St 116 St (Optional) 125 St You can't have the Q skip 86th street, that is where a majority of riders for that line would come from. Additionally if the Q skips 106th and possibly 116th it would mess up the spacing between the trains. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted June 17, 2012 Share #578 Posted June 17, 2012 You can't have the Q skip 86th street, that is where a majority of riders for that line would come from. Additionally if the Q skips 106th and possibly 116th it would mess up the spacing between the trains. But the point is that the SAS needs it. I know the MTA doesn't have the money, but they need to consider it for the chance they get the money. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 17, 2012 Share #579 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) OK. The point of this post is not to discuss the monetary feasibility of the ideas to follow. It is to discuss how effective they would be in reducing Lex Avenue crowding. The combo formatting may be a bit much, but this isn't a foamer post either. If the SAS were to become a trunk, I would have the following lines run: : Full line express, from Sheepshead Bay to Bronx via Utica Avenue Line & Bronx Trunk Line... (I): Full line local, operates with in an (A)/© arrangement. : Full line local, from Avenue X in Brooklyn to 205th Street in the Bronx. : Half line express. : Half line local, via QB to Rockaway RoW. The services don't matter that much, but the stops do: Local stops are regular text, express stops are italicized. Second Avenue-125th Street 116 Street 106 Street 96 Street 86 Street 79th Street 72nd Street Splits Away 65 Street Joins Line 55 Street 42 Street-GC 34 Street 28 Street 23 Street 14th Street 8th Street Houston Street Line Splits Any comments? Edited June 17, 2012 by ThrexxBus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted June 17, 2012 Share #580 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Any comments? Foam is your post. 110%. We have to accept the arrangement as is. The reason The is sent there is not to be an express but the relieve crosstown crowding so not everyone from the UES transfers to the or at GC from the . The is for midtown and the is the east side, and I can't really say anything else. Edited June 17, 2012 by VWM 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 17, 2012 Share #581 Posted June 17, 2012 Foam is your post. 110%. Like I said, it's not a foamer post, I didn't want that to become the point. I understand what you are saying, but that again, wasn't he point! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 17, 2012 Share #582 Posted June 17, 2012 That's assuming there even is a transfer to the . The would be a good excuse to not have to bother building transfers to the . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Threxx Posted June 17, 2012 Share #583 Posted June 17, 2012 That's assuming there even is a transfer to the . The would be a good excuse to not have to bother building transfers to the . What's assuming? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 17, 2012 Share #584 Posted June 17, 2012 The map for SAS gives the noncommittal answer of "transfer under consideration" for most possible transfers to other lines. It seems the only transfer that's definitely going to be made is at Grand St. At Houston St, at least part of the station will likely be right underneath the station, so it's puzzling the only considering the possibility of it. At 3rd Ave for the train, the eastern end of the station is right around 2nd Ave, so again it should be a no-brainer to connect it to the . At 42nd St, I can understand the not wanting to build a tunnel, it'd be long, Times Sq to Port Authority long, if not longer. Depending on where the 55th St station is supposed to be, a transfer could to the could be long as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted June 17, 2012 Share #585 Posted June 17, 2012 Most of the transfers are "under consideration" because of funding or the lack thereof. The designs of the stations are also a determining factor as to what the Second Avenue line will be transferable to. Let's take 3 Av on the line with its potential connection to the 14 St station for example. If 14 St is built like a normal two side platform station with direct access to the street (either because of funding or short-sightedness), there won't be any way to connect it to 3 Av unless they Bleecker St a one-directional transfer later on. Now if they build a mezzanine for 14 St, it'd be much easier to connect 3 Av to 14 St. Naturally though, the passageway(s) would either have to flank the Canarsie tracks if it's at the same level or be below the tracks while still above the Second Avenue tracks to connect to that mezzanine I mentioned because we don't want this thing becoming the next Fulton St pre-renovations where riders have to break out the hiking boots just to get from one line to another. Of course, all that stuff above is based on the idea that the line gets built down to lower Manhattan in the first place. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted June 17, 2012 Share #586 Posted June 17, 2012 If I can recall, the 2 Av Subway is supposed to serve Lower Manhattan and help the right? Just clarifying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Far Rock Depot Posted June 17, 2012 Share #587 Posted June 17, 2012 It is. Thats the whole point of SAS. To relieve the Lex in Manhattan. You dont need express service, you dont need an extension to Bk.(yet), nor all of these reroutes, extra lines, etc. for success in anything to work out, theres a simple acronym for it K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) SAS in its initial construction in the 70's was to be a 70+ MPH line. STations are still spaced apart to allow high speed service for a longer stretch (unlike traditional local service) but access most UES neighborhoods without the need for the Lex. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VWM Posted June 17, 2012 Share #588 Posted June 17, 2012 What I could see happening for SAS GOs is either: No south of 14 or 42 sts No north of 55 Street, to 57th. Or no at all, just the Actually, I think the transfers are being considered for if there is a GO and the is shut down. Like say no south of 42nd Take the 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 17, 2012 Share #589 Posted June 17, 2012 What I could see happening for SAS GOs is either: No south of 14 or 42 sts No north of 55 Street, to 57th. Or no at all, just the Actually, I think the transfers are being considered for if there is a GO and the is shut down. Like say no south of 42nd Take the Lets just do the construction phrase before we get into that matter 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted June 17, 2012 Share #590 Posted June 17, 2012 The line needs a center track. Atleast past 42 St for GOs and Work. I mean it would not affect service that bad if something were to happen, but it could serve the same purpose as the track up to Woodlawn and the to 180 St. The MTA should put a track in there atleast so we don't turn this line into the problems we get with the . Don't even put it to stop at stations. Just run it all the way up, maybe with a couple switches here and there. I will try to whip up something in Trainz when I get back to the US. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BM5 via Woodhaven Posted June 17, 2012 Share #591 Posted June 17, 2012 If anything jut close down sections where there are close transit options 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted June 17, 2012 Share #592 Posted June 17, 2012 The line needs a center track. Atleast past 42 St for GOs and Work. I mean it would not affect service that bad if something were to happen, but it could serve the same purpose as the track up to Woodlawn and the to 180 St. The MTA should put a track in there atleast so we don't turn this line into the problems we get with the . Don't even put it to stop at stations. Just run it all the way up, maybe with a couple switches here and there. I will try to whip up something in Trainz when I get back to the US. How about a third local track that would just provide double the service in peak directions (it would make the same stops)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NX Express Posted June 17, 2012 Share #593 Posted June 17, 2012 How would the trains get back to where they came from? There's no yard on either end of the line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mysterious2train Posted June 17, 2012 Share #594 Posted June 17, 2012 (edited) Two tracks only is understandable now where money is tight and the line is decades in waiting, but this lack of capacity could really backfire down the line. More Below 63rd than above it, since the will be limited by the . Might not happen, but then again, I doubt anyone thought the would be so used either. At the very least, they should leave provisions for express tracks to be built underneath if needed, like on 6th Ave. Edited June 17, 2012 by Mysterious2train 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted June 18, 2012 Share #595 Posted June 18, 2012 Slightly silly question, but if they need to, why can't they just build a second level below the currently constructed one to expand capacity in the future? A set of express tracks down there would work quite well I would think, not too dissimilar to the Lex Ave line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brighton Express Posted June 18, 2012 Share #596 Posted June 18, 2012 How about a third local track that would just provide double the service in peak directions (it would make the same stops)? What do you mean a 3rd Local Track? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Lance Posted June 18, 2012 Share #597 Posted June 18, 2012 Slightly silly question, but if they need to, why can't they just build a second level below the currently constructed one to expand capacity in the future? A set of express tracks down there would work quite well I would think, not too dissimilar to the Lex Ave line. It's not impossible. It's just a whole lot easier to do before the line opens than it would be after the fact. Besides, that's exactly how the Sixth Avenue express tracks came to be. The local tracks were installed adjacent to the PATH tracks between 34th Street and W 4th Street in the 1930s. The express tracks were built in the '60s underneath the PATH tracks as well as the local 6th Avenue ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSubwayStation Posted June 18, 2012 Share #598 Posted June 18, 2012 What do you mean a 3rd Local Track? I mean an extra track that makes all of the same stops. It would double the peak-direction capacity of the line, theoretically. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roadcruiser1 Posted June 18, 2012 Share #599 Posted June 18, 2012 I mean an extra track that makes all of the same stops. It would double the peak-direction capacity of the line, theoretically. That's not possible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tokkemon Posted June 18, 2012 Share #600 Posted June 18, 2012 Sure it is, you're just stuck in your boxes again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.