R68OnBroadway Posted September 16, 2018 Share #7076 Posted September 16, 2018 7 hours ago, RR503 said: Completely agree. And thank you! It's part of a much larger map set I'm working on... Option 1 is honestly a good idea under this plan -- the lost cross platform transfer between Essex and Jamaica Line trains is recreated at Bowery. I would have preferred to keep the north track open if only for simplicity's sake, but as I said before, that curve entering Manhattan-bound is a not-insignificant capacity penalty. I'm sure it could be traversed faster than it is today, but I can't imagine it ever being done at more than 15. With all the growth along the , I think those sorts of incremental improvements are going to be crucial to the line's future function. The terminal ops side of things doesn't bother me too much. Remember that a train terminating at Essex from the south and one terminating at at Broad/Chambers from the north will have to share track or at least cross paths at some point. Thus, unless you plan a high-density shuttle from Chambers to Essex, that capacity would never be leveraged. If I may make an addendum to my map, however, I'd add a double crossover between the two middle tracks somewhere between Canal and Essex to provide flexibility in the case something goes wrong at Essex middle, or its terminal function is needed for another service (eg: some shit goes down on 6th, requiring service to be kept off there). I'm sure for some indeterminate sum of money you could do it, but I think this goes to my above point -- it doesn't gain you anything. Trains will have to share a track or switch at some point -- there's no way you'd ever be able to truly leverage the built capacity. I mean I think its just what I said when I initially proposed it -- it's a relatively simple way of leveraging the strengths of Nassau, Fulton and Broadway Local while deinterlining. People from 4th Ave never stay on the unless headed to Lower Manhattan, thus it seems a shame to use its ample Manhattan-bound capacity on the corridor. At the same time, despite the line's excellent coverage of Lower Manhattan destinations/transfers, Nassau's Brooklyn capability lies completely unused. And on the IND side, Fulton's potentially high throughput is constricted by its caveman-like design -- a reality increasingly aggravated by area growth. The proposal is, of course, to link Whitehall's provisions with Fulton Local via a new tunnel approximately under State St. Before your friends freak out, I highly doubt that it's possible -- even on a 3% grade -- to dive from the NYTM to a depth sufficient for a sub-aqueous crossing, so I'd imagine such a tunnel would tap into A1/A2 somewhere between NYTM and Hoyt-Scherm. The would be rerouted through the tunnel, displacing the onto the express tracks to Lefferts, while a new service from Essex St to Bay Ridge takes its place on 4th (along with, possibly, service). And there ya have it, 25-30 new tph into Brooklyn with no more merge at Schermerhorn. Beyond these capacital benefits, placing the on Fulton would (finally) give 8th/Fulton riders convenient access to the BMT. Yes, transfers exist today at Jay and Chambers, but anyone who has traversed those passageways knows they are, frankly, hell. It's like that '80s song -- up, down, turn around, please don't let me hit the ground... Anyway, back the first time around, I did a time comparison between current alternatives to key Broadway line points and this expanded service. I'm going to quote it here: On a final note, moving the to Euclid makes deinterlining the north end of Broadway (ie local to Astoria, express to 96) a hell of a lot easier. s would have access to Pitkin, while whatever we call this new Nassau/4th Local service would have access to ENY and all the excess trackage along Nassau. Kills the CI/36/reverse issue once and for all... So this will be the new service pattern? RPK/FRock to 207 via Fulton/8th express 168th to Lefferts- local in Manhattan, express in Brooklyn stays same 96th/125th to CI same Euclid to Astoria/LGA FHills to Euclid Some new service like 95th-Canal, Essex, or Chambers Also, would it be possible to build a stop at State/Clinton or State/Henry? It would be rather deep and need elevators or long stairs to reach the surface, but if warranted, it could be built. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted September 16, 2018 Share #7077 Posted September 16, 2018 2 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said: So this will be the new service pattern? RPK/FRock to 207 via Fulton/8th express 168th to Lefferts- local in Manhattan, express in Brooklyn stays same 96th/125th to CI same Euclid to Astoria/LGA FHills to Euclid Some new service like 95th-Canal, Essex, or Chambers Also, would it be possible to build a stop at State/Clinton or State/Henry? It would be rather deep and need elevators or long stairs to reach the surface, but if warranted, it could be built. Yes, if some level of deinterlining is not pursued. A State/Clinton or Henry stop would probably be impossible. Remember that tracks in stations must be relatively flat, thus placing a stop on a downgrade going into a tunnel would effect the positioning/vertical clearances of the tunnel relative to the river and Fulton Local. I would worry that running the line flat for 600' or so under Brooklyn Heights would bring it under the river too high, but again, I'm not a civil engineer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted September 16, 2018 Share #7078 Posted September 16, 2018 (edited) 7 hours ago, RR503 said: A State/Clinton or Henry stop would probably be impossible. Remember that tracks in stations must be relatively flat, thus placing a stop on a downgrade going into a tunnel would effect the positioning/vertical clearances of the tunnel relative to the river and Fulton Local. I would worry that running the line flat for 600' or so under Brooklyn Heights would bring it under the river too high, but again, I'm not a civil engineer. Indeed. Currently, the only stop that far west in Brooklyn is Clark Street, which you can only access by elevator. That's not a great or affordable way to construct a station. Edited September 16, 2018 by bobtehpanda 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted September 18, 2018 Share #7079 Posted September 18, 2018 (edited) On 9/14/2018 at 9:27 AM, Mysterious2train said: It's been 50 years since revenue service last ran from Canarsie down Broadway in Brooklyn, right? I wouldn't expect any area politicians to know about such a service or advocate for it. I would hope none of them oppose this additional bus service. It’s certainly possible they wouldn’t know. But you never know. After all, how many area politicians in 2009-10 knew you could run a train service from Metropolitan Avenue directly to 6th Avenue? On 9/15/2018 at 2:18 PM, RR503 said: Bringing this discussion over from the 14th St thread... @Around the Horn, here are the maps regarding what I think should be done on Nassau. What's here now: What I'd do (includes tunnel to Hoyt Scherm.). Red means new/reopened/realigned stuff. The only reason I wish to abandon the north platform is to kill that terribly sharp (and heavily timed) curve coming off the bridge. If we're building new stuff in the area, we might as well address one of its capacity constraints.... This map, of course, neglects to show other changes I'd make in the area. I would, for example, invest in new passageways and increased mezzanine space at Canal St., more/wider stairs to/from the platform at Delancey, and a connection to the at Grand from Bowery. Excellent maps. It would be great to do away with that sharp curve. Edited September 18, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R68OnBroadway Posted September 22, 2018 Share #7080 Posted September 22, 2018 My proposal for a Fordham crosstown line to relieve the Bx12- this is a corridor busier than 2nd that the MTA seems to not care about (probably because the people there haven't pushed for a subway): Routing: The is extended from its current terminal at 207th to Bay Plaza or Eastchester Rd. After 207th, the line will run down Broadway until 215th, where it will curve under. After crossing either above or below the Harlem, it will run under about what is 190th in the Bronx until Grand Concourse, where it will merge onto Fordham. It will run down Fordham/Pelham Pkwy until the Hutchinson, where it will curve onto and then run over until the New England. After this point, it will run over the New England to Bay Plaza, where it will terminate. If this is infeasible, the line could end at Eastchester Rd. The reason for the 215th/190th routing is due to the 207th St yards, which while I am unsure of, might need to be temporarily closed if a direct Fordham routing was wanted- this seems too disruptive to do. Stops: Sedgwick Av (if possible) Grand Concourse , passageway to Fordham Plaza (3rd Av line) Southern Blvd WPR Willamsbridge Rd Eastchester Rd Bay Plaza-Co Op City ( transfer if it is extended) Construction: Between Sedgwick and Inwood, the line would be mined (minus the tunnel). Sedgwick to WPR would be TBM or mined. WPR to Eastchester would either be elevated over Pelham Pkwy or open-cut on the south side of Pelham Pkwy. Eastchester to Bay Plaza would be an elevated. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KK 6 Ave Local Posted September 30, 2018 Share #7081 Posted September 30, 2018 More of my ideas rerouted to Second Ave, runs to LGA and Rockaway Park via RBB respectively. local till Cresent St Express till ENY, then half of trins on Atlantic on Atlantic ends at Cresent will run to Brighton and SI via Kings Highway (B82 relief) then to Staten Island. It's a mix of two almost incompatible ideas but I thought both good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W4ST Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7082 Posted October 1, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, KK 6 Ave Local said: More of my ideas rerouted to Second Ave, runs to LGA and Rockaway Park via RBB respectively. local till Cresent St Express till ENY, then half of trins on Atlantic on Atlantic ends at Cresent will run to Brighton and SI via Kings Highway (B82 relief) then to Staten Island. It's a mix of two almost incompatible ideas but I thought both good. I think that the line proposed here is a little too indirect for Staten Islanders. Since they live so far, they will want the most direct route to the city, not going all the way out to Brighton. It would be great if a Staten Island connection could connect into 4th Avenue. There is no space on the express lines now, but I have an idea for it (it would require lots of other changes to occur first though). I like that you are looking at an extension to Staten Island though. Edited October 1, 2018 by W4ST 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W4ST Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7083 Posted October 1, 2018 Recently I have created a future subway map for the New York City Subway. It has numerous extensions to the New York City Subway, and other track changes. I am not very skilled with creating maps online other than Brand New Subway, so I drew the map on paper. I would hope that all of the extensions listed here could be built within 40 to 45 years - my year of completion was 2060 - however this is probably optimistic. Due to space constraints, I only added the IND and BMT Lines. I also left out the Triboro RX, although I would support building it between Bay Ridge Terminal and Jackson Heights. There are some IRT changes that I would make, but I couldn't add them to my map, so I have listed them below. The IRT changes I would make are: - down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza - with a Rogers Junction rework, down Flatbush Avenue to Flatbush Avenue / Brooklyn College, down Eastern Parkway to New Lots Avenue - extension to College Point Thank you for looking at my map! I would be interested in critiques you have, and I can answer any questions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transitfan111 Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7084 Posted October 1, 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, W4ST said: Recently I have created a future subway map for the New York City Subway. It has numerous extensions to the New York City Subway, and other track changes. I am not very skilled with creating maps online other than Brand New Subway, so I drew the map on paper. I would hope that all of the extensions listed here could be built within 40 to 45 years - my year of completion was 2060 - however this is probably optimistic. Due to space constraints, I only added the IND and BMT Lines. I also left out the Triboro RX, although I would support building it between Bay Ridge Terminal and Jackson Heights. There are some IRT changes that I would make, but I couldn't add them to my map, so I have listed them below. The IRT changes I would make are: - down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza - with a Rogers Junction rework, down Flatbush Avenue to Flatbush Avenue / Brooklyn College, down Eastern Parkway to New Lots Avenue - extension to College Point Thank you for looking at my map! I would be interested in critiques you have, and I can answer any questions. I am super against sending the 3 to Flatbush and 5 to New Lots. One because majority of riders on Nostrand use the Lexington line. I think the 3 and 4 can take care of New lots and Kings Plaza My random thought on the train but... I think the junction can be reworked a bit. Perhaps we can expand the junction area from 4 tracks to 6 tracks. The express tracks can be split into 2, one track for the 4 to Crown Heights and one as a holding track for the 5 to Flatbush and vis versa. The track for the 5 can then connect to the local tracks. That way the 5 does not hold back the 4. This way is much cheaper and easier than building flying junctions. How hard can it be to expand a few feet eh? 😬 Edited October 1, 2018 by transitfan111 Misread 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7085 Posted October 1, 2018 17 minutes ago, transitfan111 said: How hard can it be to expand a few feet eh? 😬 hard. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7086 Posted October 1, 2018 18 hours ago, transitfan111 said: I am super against sending the 3 to Flatbush and 5 to New Lots. One because majority of riders on Nostrand use the Lexington line. I think the 3 and 4 can take care of New lots and Kings Plaza My random thought on the train but... I think the junction can be reworked a bit. Perhaps we can expand the junction area from 4 tracks to 6 tracks. The express tracks can be split into 2, one track for the 4 to Crown Heights and one as a holding track for the 5 to Flatbush and vis versa. The track for the 5 can then connect to the local tracks. That way the 5 does not hold back the 4. This way is much cheaper and easier than building flying junctions. How hard can it be to expand a few feet eh? 😬 The point you're missing here is that the world doesn't end at Franklin Avenue; there are the capacital/functional needs of a city here at stake. Yes, Nostrand would get screwed with (of all things) a cross platform transfer, but that loss means a massive throughput/reliability gain for the 2 million or so other people who use the each day. I daresay this is a cost-benefit analysis with a clear answer. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7087 Posted October 1, 2018 (edited) 19 hours ago, W4ST said: Recently I have created a future subway map for the New York City Subway. It has numerous extensions to the New York City Subway, and other track changes. I am not very skilled with creating maps online other than Brand New Subway, so I drew the map on paper. I would hope that all of the extensions listed here could be built within 40 to 45 years - my year of completion was 2060 - however this is probably optimistic. Due to space constraints, I only added the IND and BMT Lines. I also left out the Triboro RX, although I would support building it between Bay Ridge Terminal and Jackson Heights. There are some IRT changes that I would make, but I couldn't add them to my map, so I have listed them below. The IRT changes I would make are: - down Utica Avenue to Kings Plaza - with a Rogers Junction rework, down Flatbush Avenue to Flatbush Avenue / Brooklyn College, down Eastern Parkway to New Lots Avenue - extension to College Point Thank you for looking at my map! I would be interested in critiques you have, and I can answer any questions. Nice map! If I'm not mistaken, you incorperated the Canal Flip into this. Not gonna lie that's kind of genius. People would get upset if you put the and local in Broadway, but at least they're still express on 4th Avenue, and Broadway is Deinterlined. What I find confusing is that you have the and doing skip-stop in Brooklyn. Why keep it when you can extend the Thrid Track to at least Cypress Hills or Woodhaven Blvd? Then you wouldn't need skip stop at all! I see that you have the and using the Bypass. It's best to leave Port Washington be handled thorugh Regional Rail. As for the , I'm not sure what to say at all......... I don't think a tunnel can be built to connect SAS and 53rd Street (just saying) but I see how you made the the primary QB Local. All I can say Is "Interesting." Preferably, I'd go witht he following: - QB Express to Jamica Center - QB Express/Local to 179 - (I'd probably not use but) QB Local to FHills or Jewel Av - QB Local to Jewel Av or RBB to JFK or - QB Local to FHills. ( If you can manage TPH correctly, then you don't need 2 services going up Astoria) (I'll draw out my own version of this later) Edited October 1, 2018 by LaGuardia Link N Tra 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W4ST Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7088 Posted October 1, 2018 19 hours ago, transitfan111 said: I am super against sending the 3 to Flatbush and 5 to New Lots. One because majority of riders on Nostrand use the Lexington line. I think the 3 and 4 can take care of New lots and Kings Plaza My random thought on the train but... I think the junction can be reworked a bit. Perhaps we can expand the junction area from 4 tracks to 6 tracks. The express tracks can be split into 2, one track for the 4 to Crown Heights and one as a holding track for the 5 to Flatbush and vis versa. The track for the 5 can then connect to the local tracks. That way the 5 does not hold back the 4. This way is much cheaper and easier than building flying junctions. How hard can it be to expand a few feet eh? 😬 I understand, but I think that it is important that the Nostrand Avenue and Utica Avenue Lines share more than 30 tph. (at least 40) To do this, Rogers Junction would have to be either rebuilt or what I recommended would occur. I wouldn't be completely against a full rebuild, but I don't think people along those lines would be too happy about that. 11 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said: Nice map! If I'm not mistaken, you incorperated the Canal Flip into this. Not gonna lie that's kind of genius. People would get upset if you put the and local in Broadway, but at least they're still express on 4th Avenue, and Broadway is Deinterlined. What I find confusing is that you have the and doing skip-stop in Brooklyn. Why keep it when you can extend the Thrid Track to at least Cypress Hills or Woodhaven Blvd? Then you wouldn't need skip stop at all! I see that you have the and using the Bypass. It's best to leave Port Washington be handled thorugh Regional Rail. As for the , I'm not sure what to say at all......... I don't think a tunnel can be built to connect SAS and 53rd Street (just saying) but I see how you made the the primary QB Local. All I can say Is "Interesting." Preferably, I'd go witht he following: - QB Express to Jamica Center - QB Express/Local to 179 - (I'd probably not use but) QB Local to FHills or Jewel Av - QB Local to Jewel Av or RBB to JFK or - QB Local to FHills. ( If you can manage TPH correctly, then you don't need 2 services going up Astoria) (I'll draw out my own version of this later) - For this, I was actually thinking about a 57th Street Flip instead of a Canal Flip. That way, the still go express on Broadway, and go to Astoria as well. This would allow deinterlining to be more efficient, since the two branches that need more capacity would be linked, and the two branches that only need 15 tph of service would be linked. I apologize that it was a little unclear on the map. - As for the , I have been seeing the discussion on this, and I really like that idea. I agree that having a third track would be better than skip-stop. - If there is space to put in the bypass without having it take over the Port Washington Line, I would be fine with its capacity being put to use in other areas. I'm not exactly sure where I would send the in that case, but there are many places to send it to. - I agree that a new tunnel would have to be built. The line would probably have to go under 57th Street to leave Manhattan. I was thinking about it going under 43rd Avenue and connecting into the 11th Street Cut. I like your idea too. Maybe some interlining would be better than complete deinterlining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7089 Posted October 1, 2018 6 minutes ago, W4ST said: For this, I was actually thinking about a 57th Street Flip instead of a Canal Flip. That way, the still go express on Broadway, and go to Astoria as well. This would allow deinterlining to be more efficient, since the two branches that need more capacity would be linked, and the two branches that only need 15 tph of service would be linked. I apologize that it was a little unclear on the map Its not entirety impossible, technically speaking, but you'd have to build a new tunnel to connect with the Second Avenue Line just before Lexington-63rd, though a Canal Flip would help just as much in this situation (though the only difference would be the Express/Local arrangement which shouldn't be too major since the in your map is being sent to Euclid). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted October 1, 2018 Share #7090 Posted October 1, 2018 27 minutes ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said: Its not entirety impossible, technically speaking, but you'd have to build a new tunnel to connect with the Second Avenue Line just before Lexington-63rd, though a Canal Flip would help just as much in this situation (though the only difference would be the Express/Local arrangement which shouldn't be too major since the in your map is being sent to Euclid). @W4ST's idea of a 57th Flip is actually completely doable with current infrastructure. The old CPW local trackways can be reused to connect the local tracks to the SAS-bound express ones without any interference from Astoria trains. There may be a relay room and a few columns that have to be moved, but that's a relatively insignificant investment. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGA Link N Train Posted October 2, 2018 Share #7091 Posted October 2, 2018 New Proposal!! Kings Plaza - Gun Hill Road via 3rd Avenue. The 149th Street bottleneck is removed and the is routed via 3rd Avenue to replace the old path of the EL. It would terminate at Gun Hill Road for Yard Access. The would go to Dyre Avenue and a shuttle service operates in its place. I was initially going to terminate it at Fordham Plaza until I realized that if I terminate it there, how would the access a yard? Stops (past 125th Street): * 138th Street/Grand Concourse (Dives into a new Upper or Lower Level) *3rd Avenue/149th Street (Turns onto Brook/3rd Avenues) *163rd Street [Bx6] * 168th Street [Bx35] *Claremont Parkway [Bx11] *E Tremont Av [Bx40] [Bx42] * 180th Street (Turns to Webster Avenue) *Fordham Rd [Bx12 SBS] *Bedford Park Blvd *204th Street ( comes out of tunnel and Turns to connect with the LL at Gun Hill Rd.) *Gun Hill Road Select trains continue to Neried Avenue Any thoughts? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T to Dyre Avenue Posted October 3, 2018 Share #7092 Posted October 3, 2018 On 10/1/2018 at 5:13 PM, R68OnBroadway said: In the future, I'd have an lower level built as express tracks for SAS where it currently is- in the end I'd have the trunk be like this: 3rd Av Branch: (this part 2 tracks) Fordham Plaza (extended to relieve Bx12) 182nd-St Barnbabas Tremont Av Claremont Pkwy 168th St 163rd St 149th St 138th St (line merges with 125th St branch to form 2nd Av line after crossing Harlem River) 125th St Branch: (2 tracks) - 125th St-Broadway - 125th St-St Nicholas Av - 125th St- Lenox Av MNR - 125th St- Lexington Av (line merges with Bronx branch to form 2nd Av line) 2nd Av Line: (4 tracks from 116th to Houston, 2 tracks afterwards) 116th St 106th St 96th St 86th St 79th St 72nd St (and another Queens service-albeit on a level below the , lets call it the ) (maybe) 60th St , passageway to Lex-59th 55th St (local so people are more incentivized to use 63rd/60th vs 53rd) 42nd St 34th St 23rd St 14th St-1st Av Houston St-2nd Av diverges to Metro Grand St-Bowery Chatham Sq Seaport Hanover Sq (potentially connection to Wall , but this could be a problem given the dangerously narrow platforms there) South Ferry (if possible) Governors Island Line runs to St George and continues down SIR (at an underground platform) . A portal would be placed between Stapleton and Tompkinsville. At first, I thought this would mean more service north of 72nd St versus south of 72nd (like the current MTA proposal once Phase 3 opens). I’m guessing that would still be the case because the would have to run less frequently than the , because it would merge with the after Houston-2nd. But at least it would be more than having just the as the MTA proposed. On 10/1/2018 at 7:16 PM, RR503 said: Sorta. The original plan was only Phases 1/2 -- 3/4 were tacked on after community asked. That'd have been fine if they'd provided a 30tph northern terminal or an additional pair of tracks for Phases 3 and 4, but they didn't. Today, the issue is that Phases 1/2 are a direct northern extension of the Broadway Express tracks with no turning facilities. Thus, any train that runs on them and on Phases 3/4 is a train that can't run on Broadway express -- and any train that runs on Bway exp is a train that can't run on Phase 3/4. Without the current design of SAS (and with a few spot improvements to transfers at Lex-63 and the Astoria terminal) something along these lines (degree of deinterlining/service patterns are completely up for debate) would be possible: But by merit of SAS's existence, we are all but forced back to this: _____________________________ (Again, sorry for the massive images) @R68OnBroadway's proposal solves this issue quite well, IMO. He sends lower SAS on its own set of tracks to the Bronx, allowing full capacity to be reached on both lines. Something like this is necessary for SAS to be anything more than a multi-billion dollar operational disaster. It’s hard to believe that we could be going from an optimal situation for capacity when Phase 2 opens back to a suboptimal one when Phase 3 opens. But that’s what it looks like from looking at your diagrams, which excellently illustrate that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobtehpanda Posted October 3, 2018 Share #7093 Posted October 3, 2018 I don't know that I like the Canal Flip. The Astoria Line, even extended to LGA, is not going to be very long compared to how far a UES/Bronx line would be. Longer lines need the express more, particularly if the SAS is ever intended to, you know, relieve the Lex. The curving as it does already doesn't do it many favors compared to the straight shot . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W4ST Posted October 3, 2018 Share #7094 Posted October 3, 2018 11 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: I don't know that I like the Canal Flip. The Astoria Line, even extended to LGA, is not going to be very long compared to how far a UES/Bronx line would be. Longer lines need the express more, particularly if the SAS is ever intended to, you know, relieve the Lex. The curving as it does already doesn't do it many favors compared to the straight shot . This is a good point. However, the reason I added my 57th Street Flip is also for capacity balance. The Broadway Line connection to SAS is limited to 15 tph unless we terminate trains at 72nd street (which wouldn’t be very far) which would mean that the Broadway line tracks on the Manhattan Bridge would be limited to 15 tph as well (without including some interlining) This is not ideal because that is the fastest way to get from Brooklyn to Manhattan. Also, the Montague Tubes have more flexibility due to Whitehall Street, which helps counteract the imbalance caused by interlining. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted October 3, 2018 Share #7095 Posted October 3, 2018 16 hours ago, bobtehpanda said: I don't know that I like the Canal Flip. The Astoria Line, even extended to LGA, is not going to be very long compared to how far a UES/Bronx line would be. Longer lines need the express more, particularly if the SAS is ever intended to, you know, relieve the Lex. The curving as it does already doesn't do it many favors compared to the straight shot . The point of the was never to directly compete with the -- rather it was to siphon west-Midtown bound riders off the Lex/ combo. In that, it seems to have been relatively successful. 19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: At first, I thought this would mean more service north of 72nd St versus south of 72nd (like the current MTA proposal once Phase 3 opens). I’m guessing that would still be the case because the would have to run less frequently than the , because it would merge with the after Houston-2nd. But at least it would be more than having just the as the MTA proposed. If you provide a short turn terminus capable of absorbing 15tph, then you're golden. You could also connect the to something that has a full track pair of capacity -- this is why I like Vanshnook's idea of the re-imagined Chrystie so much. 19 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said: It’s hard to believe that we could be going from an optimal situation for capacity when Phase 2 opens back to a suboptimal one when Phase 3 opens. But that’s what it looks like from looking at your diagrams, which excellently illustrate that. Tell me about it. This is honestly such an indictment of the way we plan. It's all about reducing cost -- there's no thought given to downstream effects on anything. I know I've said this more than the Donald has said the words 'fake news,' but I believe this bears repeating: transit is a circular business. The actions we take change the realities in which we appraised them. This is why I get so pissed when people try to justify service patterns/capital projects by saying "well, that's the route the ridership takes today." Yes, duh, it takes whatever path because that's where the infrastructure is -- induce demand through investment elsewhere, and the whole game changes. This is not to say that we should throw out current patterns when making plans, but there needs to be a recognition of the fact that a lot of the issues we face as a system -- and a city -- today stem from a misguided insistence on analyzing things solely within the context of themselves, as opposed to that of the region at large. The example I love to give here is that of the train. In the Bronx, the line picks up about 90,000 riders between Woodlawn and 161. Sure, some of those get off in the Hub or along Hospital row, but a sizable contingent of them stay on to Midtown. Given this, and given the massive crowding seen on the Lex, it mystifies me that the agency does not do more to encourage ridership on the -- even if we accept the limits imposed by Dekalb Avenue, those lines could run 5-9 more tph during the rush (+1-3 +4-6 ). Moreover, in many markets classically served by the Lex, the are competitive -- or even at a slight advantage -- in terms of travel time. But no, we can't add service. The ~~loading guidelines~~ don't find a need. Shoot me. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted October 3, 2018 Share #7096 Posted October 3, 2018 Ok, quick idea off the top of my head... If the combination of Broadway Express and 2nd Avenue is going to be a capacity issue on SAS, why not send the to a new "short turn" terminus at Columbus Circle and only have the and on SAS? Maybe then you can have an SAS-Northern Blvd service ( ?) to give Phases 3 and 4 30 TPH... so basically: Broadway/4th Av Express 24-30 TPH Columbus Circle 12-15 TPH SAS above 72nd 30 TPH SAS below 72nd 30 TPH 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RR503 Posted October 4, 2018 Share #7097 Posted October 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, Around the Horn said: Ok, quick idea off the top of my head... If the combination of Broadway Express and 2nd Avenue is going to be a capacity issue on SAS, why not send the to a new "short turn" terminus at Columbus Circle and only have the and on SAS? Maybe then you can have an SAS-Northern Blvd service ( ?) to give Phases 3 and 4 30 TPH... so basically: Broadway/4th Av Express 24-30 TPH Columbus Circle 12-15 TPH SAS above 72nd 30 TPH SAS below 72nd 30 TPH This would certainly mitigate the issue on Broadway — but it would leave 8th permanently underserved. For better or for worse, capacity issues in this system cascade. As soon as you plug a seventh B div track pair (SAS) into the six that exit the core to the north (2x CPW, 53, 60, 63, SAS) without any new short-turn facilities accessible by 30tph of capacity, you’re automatically in trouble. The most immediate consequence of this imbalance is a halving of service on Broadway Exp and Lower SAS. You mitigate the former by adding a short turn terminus at 59th and the latter by sending a via 63 to Queens — but as the terminus is but a third branch of Broadway (and is thus capped at 15tph), it doesn’t solve the underlying imbalance of capacity — you still have 15tph of ‘wandering’ throughput to deal with. The issue remains as follows: - the takes up the ~15tph of unused capacity on 63rd - the is then forced to remain on 53 - the ’s continuing presence on 53 allows only one 8th Ave service to be sent to Queens via 53, meaning that the trunk continues to be limited to three service equivalents (45tph). There are, of course, some important equivocations here — beyond even those in my post that @T to Dyre Avenue quoted. Right now, WTC can’t in all likelihood turn more than 20tph (under current terminal procedures, at least), meaning that the -related capacity loss only kicks in when the service runs over 10tph. 8th CBTC, however, will change that. If 8th Avenue is any indication, a terminal capacity of 26tph is completely possible — meaning the will only be able to run 4tph via its current route without negatively affecting capacity on 8th. That is the point, in my opinion, when a redesign of Queens service becomes crucial. But getting back to SAS, I think the key takeaway needs to be that it needs its own northbound tunnel. It could go to Queens or to the Bronx — but it needs its own outlet. Otherwise it is quite literally adding nothing. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted October 4, 2018 Share #7098 Posted October 4, 2018 So if I understand what you're saying correctly, SAS in its current state would require an additional underwater tunnel to Queens to use its capacity efficiently? And the separate isn't a good idea because it adds another merge? I do get your point about 8th Avenue... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wallyhorse Posted October 4, 2018 Share #7099 Posted October 4, 2018 4 hours ago, Around the Horn said: Ok, quick idea off the top of my head... If the combination of Broadway Express and 2nd Avenue is going to be a capacity issue on SAS, why not send the to a new "short turn" terminus at Columbus Circle and only have the and on SAS? Maybe then you can have an SAS-Northern Blvd service ( ?) to give Phases 3 and 4 30 TPH... so basically: Broadway/4th Av Express 24-30 TPH Columbus Circle 12-15 TPH SAS above 72nd 30 TPH SAS below 72nd 30 TPH You would likely have to build a new lower level of 59th/8th to make this work, though if you somehow do that AND make it so it can connect to the CPW line, then it may be worth doing because it would allow for additional flexibility, then it might be possible, especially if the could replace the on CPW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Around the Horn Posted October 4, 2018 Share #7100 Posted October 4, 2018 Just now, Wallyhorse said: You would likely have to build a new lower level of 59th/8th to make this work, though if you somehow do that AND make it so it can connect to the CPW line, then it may be worth doing because it would allow for additional flexibility, then it might be possible, especially if the could replace the on CPW. Yes the idea would be a new level that's perpendicular to 8th Avenue (and connected to the existing station mezzanine), probably underneath Central Park South and the Time Warner Center or underneath Central Park/60th Street, with tail tracks continuing to Columbus Avenue. 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.