How would the subway be in 2013 if the IND Second System was built back then?

[realizm]

Wait you was part of the team? Props man. How did you and your team gain access to the tunnels then? I'm starting to go at as a photographer as planned  in mid August to contribute to the site so that's why I'm asking.

[LTA1992]

Looking at the pic with the shovel, that material looks pretty much like sand, which is what I was told the section of tunnel behind the wall was filled in with.

[Vistausss]

Wait you was part of the team? Props man. How did you and your team gain access to the tunnels then? I'm starting to go at as a photographer as planned  in mid August to contribute to the site so that's why I'm asking.

 

I wasn't part of the team. Like hell I wish I was. I said that there was a thread on this forum about 76th St in which I participated, which also covered the website+photos you linked to.

 

Looking at the pic with the shovel, that material looks pretty much like sand, which is what I was told the section of tunnel behind the wall was filled in with.

 

In that case one better finds another option to discover what's behind the wall. One doesn't wanna get buried in sand coming from behind the wall once access is gained lol.

[bobtehpanda]

Woodhaven should honestly be converted to an express stop, if only to relieve the overcrowding at Roosevelt. That station is packed.

[LTA1992]

But wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of getting people to "The City" faster like the IND wanted?

[Grand Concourse]

Depends on which group. For local bus riders transferring at Woodhaven, an express would help them greatly.*

 

*not that I think the should convert that stop to an express stop, unless there was another trunk line like the queens super express that would've been connected to the 63rd st tunnel to Woodhaven likely via the whole length of Queens blvd. And such line was branched off to maybe the rockaways.

[bobtehpanda]

But wouldn't that kind of defeat the purpose of getting people to "The City" faster like the IND wanted?

 

The time penalty on one additional stop isn't that big. Max, one, two minutes. Queens Blvd already has an extremely high average speed.

[LTA1992]

In the NYC Transport system, from the bus, to the ferry, to the subway, personal experience has taught me that as little as a 1 minute delay can delay you 8-10 minutes. If you're coming from or going to SI, anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour depending on the time of day. You leave accordingly and give yourself a little extra room to prepare for delays.

[Quill Depot]

To me it would be much more interesting. The City would rely much less on cars, but the 70's/80's would be much worse, and possibly some lines could of been closed down.

[mtattrain]

To me it would be much more interesting. The City would rely much less on cars, but the 70's/80's would be much worse, and possibly some lines could of been closed down.

 

You do bring up a helpful point... that finance crisis in 1975-1976... that could have hurt the subway lines.

[LTA1992]

I think he meant lines would have closed down because of the second system lines being built. Had the S4 Street Subway had been built along with one of the trunks along Bushwick Avenue(?), the Jamaica Elevated along Broadway was to be torn down.

[AndrewJC]

In the NYC Transport system, from the bus, to the ferry, to the subway, personal experience has taught me that as little as a 1 minute delay can delay you 8-10 minutes. If you're coming from or going to SI, anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour depending on the time of day. You leave accordingly and give yourself a little extra room to prepare for delays.

 

That depends on whether you miss your connection or not. If you don't miss your connection, there's no delay.

 

If you're transferring to a line that runs every 10 minutes, a 1 minute delay has a one-tenth chance of delaying you 10 minutes and a nine-tenths chance of not delaying you at all.

 

If you're transferring to a line that runs every hour, a 1 minute delay has a one-sixtieth chance of delaying you an hour and a fifty-nine-sixtieths chance of not delaying you at all.

[LTA1992]

*SIGH* You aren't taking into account the schedule of a line you're transferring from. You are also not accounting for possible delays or mechanical failure. That throws off what you just said completely. Because you then have to wait for the next train/bus/boat which interferes with you making said transfer. When it comes to the bus, it's pretty common for it to make a few more stops than usual which leads to you missing a transfer. In the case of the ferry, sometimes you miss it because it left a minute or two earlier than usual, or the bus/train was late. On the other side, someone was sick and the ferry had to stay at the dock. There are many many many variables that can occur. You also have to be in the right place on the train/bus/boat as well to get a head start in front of the crowds which can slow you down. There's an unconscious skill to this.

[AndrewJC]

*SIGH* You aren't taking into account the schedule of a line you're transferring from. You are also not accounting for possible delays or mechanical failure. That throws off what you just said completely. Because you then have to wait for the next train/bus/boat which interferes with you making said transfer. When it comes to the bus, it's pretty common for it to make a few more stops than usual which leads to you missing a transfer. In the case of the ferry, sometimes you miss it because it left a minute or two earlier than usual, or the bus/train was late. On the other side, someone was sick and the ferry had to stay at the dock. There are many many many variables that can occur. You also have to be in the right place on the train/bus/boat as well to get a head start in front of the crowds which can slow you down. There's an unconscious skill to this.

 

Either you're missing my point or I'm not being clear.

 

If your train gets you to your transfer point with less than a minute to spare, then a one minute delay will cause you to miss the connection - but if it gets you to your transfer point with more than a minute to spare, then a one minute delay will only reduce your wait time at the transfer point, and you'll still end up on the same train/bus/ferry.

 

In the example of a connecting service that runs every 10 minutes, if your arrival time is random, there's a one-in-ten chance that it's within a minute of the next departure of the connecting service and a nine-in-ten chance that the connecting service is more than a minute away. If there's a delay of a minute, in the first case, you lose 10 minutes, but in the second case, you don't lose anything - you just have a shorter wait. at the transfer point.

 

If you find yourself frequently missing infrequent connections due to slight delays, might I suggest that you leave a few minutes earlier and catch an earlier train?

[CenSin]

Why don't we all run this stuff in a simulator and let the actual resutls do the talking? Don't need BVE or some other fancy programs: just some hard numbers for a program to crunch and roll a die against.

[bobtehpanda]

Why don't we all run this stuff in a simulator and let the actual resutls do the talking? Don't need BVE or some other fancy programs: just some hard numbers for a program to crunch and roll a die against.

 

Transport modelling either greatly underestimates, or greatly overestimates demand.

 

 

In the NYC Transport system, from the bus, to the ferry, to the subway, personal experience has taught me that as little as a 1 minute delay can delay you 8-10 minutes. If you're coming from or going to SI, anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour depending on the time of day. You leave accordingly and give yourself a little extra room to prepare for delays.

 

Odds are that if you're on the or , the lines you need to transfer to come so often that timing the transfers are pointless.

 

Roosevelt's westbound platforms are already crowded to the point where people could actually fall off during the AM rush. If subway ridership continues to grow, a Woodhaven express stop will be needed to relieve crowding. And, if that Rockaway Beach line gets reactivated, you definitely have to convert the station because Roosevelt would not be able to handle all of that.

 

(The platform at Roosevelt should also have more exit points, because the current ones can get extremely crowded.)

[CenSin]

Transport modelling either greatly underestimates, or greatly overestimates demand.

With the right numbers, it won't. That's the beauty of the scientific process. Eventually, hypothetical models will converge to a correct one that matches what is observed.

[realizm]

Why don't we all run this stuff in a simulator and let the actual resutls do the talking? Don't need BVE or some other fancy programs: just some hard numbers for a program to crunch and roll a die against.

 

Brilliant assessment on your part! That never crossed my mind until you mentioned it. +1 for that one.

 

I mean if architects and civil engineers can rely on AutoCAD or other software  to develop the blueprints for construction projects which is what I'm sure the MTA's construction project managers are encouraging for such massive projects today such as the extension or the SAS with the eventual debut of the  ( and of course, not forgetting the ) to the UES, downtown to Hanover Square and beyond then they can certainly take advantage of software simulators and 3D printers technology even to construct simulated scenarios and construct physical models for research in new projects of the future of mass transit in NYC.

 

Perhaps the MTA already are doing just that and we are not aware of this yet? I wouldn't be surprised if they already are if they can run high tech state of the art TBMs to perfectly construct tunnels for the new SAS in the works as we speak.....

[Wallyhorse]

You do bring up a helpful point... that finance crisis in 1975-1976... that could have hurt the subway lines.

Actually, that was the twin recessions of 1969-'70 AND '73-'75.  The two recessions combined would likely have been a big problem for the to overcome with so much more tracks, cars and so forth to deal with.

 

Of course, NYC might also not have been hit so bad by the two recessions with that since they could have rebounded quicker as well.

[Quill Depot]

I think he meant lines would have closed down because of the second system lines being built. Had the S4 Street Subway had been built along with one of the trunks along Bushwick Avenue(?), the Jamaica Elevated along Broadway was to be torn down.

 

Both actually.

 

Actually, that was the twin recessions of 1969-'70 AND '73-'75.  The two recessions combined would likely have been a big problem for the to overcome with so much more tracks, cars and so forth to deal with.

 

Of course, NYC might also not have been hit so bad by the two recessions with that since they could have rebounded quicker as well.

 

Still keep in mind lines would probably be abandoned and could be still abandoned to this day. I'd think with so much equipment, and no money, the system would be a hellhole. 

[LTA1992]

Actually, that was the twin recessions of 1969-'70 AND '73-'75.  The two recessions combined would likely have been a big problem for the to overcome with so much more tracks, cars and so forth to deal with.

 

Of course, NYC might also not have been hit so bad by the two recessions with that since they could have rebounded quicker as well.

It's funny you say that because the county as a whole is due for another, and worse, recession in a few years.

 

 

I do have confidence that no lines, outside of the ones that were meant to be demolished, would have had to be abandoned, With the lines stretching out further than they do today, the city would be more built up therefore there'd be way more demand. More demand means more public outcry to keep you from taking their lines ala Franklin Shuttle. On top of that, I continue to think 1970s style decay wouldn't have been worse than what it was in the current system.

[bobtehpanda]

It's funny you say that because the county as a whole is due for another, and worse, recession in a few years.

 

 

I do have confidence that no lines, outside of the ones that were meant to be demolished, would have had to be abandoned, With the lines stretching out further than they do today, the city would be more built up therefore there'd be way more demand. More demand means more public outcry to keep you from taking their lines ala Franklin Shuttle. On top of that, I continue to think 1970s style decay wouldn't have been worse than what it was in the current system.

 

Actually, the fiscal crisis would probably have been worse (and started earlier), for one reason, and one reason only.

 

Federal funding of transit only started under Carter. All lines built previous to that were built by the city, and the city took on debt to finance these expansions (especially in the case of the IND). The Second System would've made their debt a lot bigger in a shorter amount of time, so it would've brought the whole crisis forward a couple of years.

[realizm]

Let's say that the IND Second System gets hit with a hurricane as severe as Sandy. One can only imagine the long term damage and the resulting chaos, as well as, the astronomical thoughts of repairing the infrastructure. Even as with the extra fare collection areas in stations that the once proposed system would include, I would imagine the results from a financial perspective, not to forget the physical damage, would be disastrous and that's an understatement. Considering the state of the subway system as it is currently, which we are still reeling from, almost a year after the fact.

[MHV9218]

I think these financial "what-ifs" are a moot point. If we had that system, chances are it would have been constructed relatively efficiently and the massive increase in usage would probably have countered the extra costs. I highly doubt that having more subway lines would have meant less of a profit margin for the MTA, considering the subways are the most profitable thing they've got. Sure, recessions and disasters would have hurt it, but proportionally to the rest of the system. Increased service is almost always a good thing. 

[realizm]

I think these financial "what-ifs" are a moot point. If we had that system, chances are it would have been constructed relatively efficiently and the massive increase in usage would probably have countered the extra costs. I highly doubt that having more subway lines would have meant less of a profit margin for the MTA, considering the subways are the most profitable thing they've got. Sure, recessions and disasters would have hurt it, but proportionally to the rest of the system. Increased service is almost always a good thing.

 

Indeed because such a system vastly built will promote population growth, therefore increasing profits from revenue collection. I agree. But keep in mind, that again with the extra miles of infrastructure in theoretical need of maintenance will be higher. That's the argument presented at this point. Such an assessment is just simply too hard to predict if not impossible.