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.
EE Broadway Local

Department of Subways - Proposals/Ideas

Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

If you are running multiple lines along a corridor, the only time you are able to operate a train every 5 to 6 minutes is during the Peak Hours. During Off Peak Hours, you are more towards an 8 to 12 minute headway - leading to a 4 to 6 minute headway when there's two lines sharing a track along the corridor. Even if you add CBTC, you will not be able to operate more than 30 trains per hour along a corridor and the (MTA) is not going to operate more than 25 trains per hour along the corridor. Let it be know, although with lesser capacity, buses will run much more frequently along street corridors.

Get out of your New York City bubble and you'll realize that this is totally wrong.

Lets look at the Victoria Line in London...

Quote

On weekdays the early service is 34tph, both peaks are 36tph, the early evening services are 30tph, and the midday and late services 26tph. On Saturdays it is 24tph before 08:00 then 26tph, with 30tph between 13:00 and 19:30. On Sundays it is 20tph to 24tph before 10:00, 26tph from 10:00 to 21:00, then gradually decreasing back to 20tph as trains return to the depot.

That's right: 36tph at peaks, 26tph middays, 26-30 tph on Saturday and 20-26 tph on Sunday. The (L) doesn't even run that frequently.

https://www.davros.org/rail/culg/victoria.html#services

And before you say "but that line is completely isolated" lets look at the subsurface network...

SSR-current-off-peak.png

24 tph in the core off peak and 12 tph pretty much everywhere else even with 8 merges...

 

The only thing preventing the MTA from operating frequent off peak service is the MTA being stubborn.

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

Eh. Even if they can eke out 40tph, they're still only at 39000 people per hour, whereas a fully loaded set of 160s * 30 tph gets you 73,000. Also keep in mind that for reasonable dwell times (and thus consistent service speed/delivery) you don't want to be operating anywhere near your capacity limit. That's the lesson of pre-63rd Queens Boulevard -- you *can* get 50k people per hour under the river on a single pair of tracks, but your dwell times will give system operators a heart attack. 

All of that said, I tend to agree with your assessment of the 'optimal application' scenario for LRT, or at least core-bound LRT. LRT lives and dies on its ability to move in core congestion, which is essentially the purpose statement for an isolated or otherwise separated line. 

The question that a lot of America has been dealing with when applying LRT is, do you want to wait around for the perfect textbook solution that you might not be able to afford? Because of LRT as the mode choice Seattle is basically building BART of the North but far cheaper. Not everywhere needs full on 10-car trains hurtling down the track; 39K pph is still way more capacity than even the busiest of the bus lines. Build it like Brussels or some German cities have done, and you can even convert to subway later on as demand calls for.

It makes a lot of sense in Queens, where you might want to serve multiple parallel corridors with a shared trunk (Kissena, Northern) or where past a certain point doesn't need for every single ten-car train to go (say, past 188th on the HHE)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

At this point there is no way that the (MTA) will eliminate a popular service (current (M)) to make room for a service that won’t be popular (the Culver express service). Let’s face it: the Culver Express plan is not really a great idea. It helps one neighborhood (Southern Brooklyn) but hurts another (Carroll Gardens, Boreum Hill), and entailing the elimination of the current (M) will make things worse. There needs to be a plan that works for everyone, but doing this is not it. Maybe one or two (F) trains an hour can run express from Church Avenue to Smith-9th Streets would help a bit, but other than that, i may be out of ideas.

Well they may have to make a new study for that, that is if the people up north are okay with it. The impact of the (N) renovations definitely  made an impact on the (F) ridership in the area.

South Brooklyn isn't one neighborhood and is used as a generalization for the neighborhoods along Culver (Kensington, Mapleton, western Midwood, etc.) These neighborhoods do have other lines nearby ( (N) and (B)(Q) ) , but they aren't really very close. 1-2 tph for Culver express is a joke as people will stumble upon it rather than wait for it. Elimination of the (M) would be far less of a problem than the elimination of other services as there are plenty of transfers with a brown (brownM) ( (F) at Essex, (B)(D) one could be at Bowery, (6)(N)(Q)(R)(W) at Canal, etc.). Bumping the (M) also allows for a chain reaction to bring benefit to many more people ( (V) can take over for the (E) , which can then help reconfigure QBL, which then allows the (E) to get 30tph and will allow it to separate from the (C) and have it be express). The (M) is also an operation thorn in the MTAs side as Jamaica is a shitshow and whenever something happens there the (M) is gone which crushloads the unreliable (R) and then ruins QBL. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

The only way a CULVER EXPRESS will work is with a <F> EXPRESS which is PEAK DIRECTION EXPRESS South of Church Avenue and Bi-Directional EXPRESS North of Church Avenue.

and what are the Headway’s of this <F> Express on Culver? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a Fulton-Seaport and South Ferry station/connection are built on SAS, we can possibly leave Brooklyn SAS service to the long term. That being said, it is necessary, and if we were to do this, I would have service to Staten Island and Willamsburg.

On the topic of light rail, I am very much on board with a Brooklyn Bridge and Kissena lines, and I think any LRT should be used as bus relief, not subway relief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 hours ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

Let's shift over to this Utica Avenue Subway thing that is being talked about (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing?fbclid=IwAR03YM611S3bVybCJZIod4qXdUD98q3t9g8nPNn9weELjZPTX-qjPCocNDc). Unless the (MTA) starts a new Breezy Point to Kings Plaza (where the (4) is slated to terminate) bus line, you can pretty much say that a Subway line would be too much for the corridor, yet a Light Rail may be more feasible.

 

"So how are we going to accomplish a Utica Line?"

"yes."

  • LMAO! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, R68OnBroadway said:

South Brooklyn isn't one neighborhood and is used as a generalization for the neighborhoods along Culver (Kensington, Mapleton, western Midwood, etc.) These neighborhoods do have other lines nearby ( (N) and (B)(Q) ) , but they aren't really very close. 1-2 tph for Culver express is a joke as people will stumble upon it rather than wait for it. Elimination of the (M) would be far less of a problem than the elimination of other services as there are plenty of transfers with a brown (brownM) ( (F) at Essex, (B)(D) one could be at Bowery, (6)(N)(Q)(R)(W) at Canal, etc.). Bumping the (M) also allows for a chain reaction to bring benefit to many more people ( (V) can take over for the (E) , which can then help reconfigure QBL, which then allows the (E) to get 30tph and will allow it to separate from the (C) and have it be express). The (M) is also an operation thorn in the MTAs side as Jamaica is a shitshow and whenever something happens there the (M) is gone which crushloads the unreliable (R) and then ruins QBL. 

Actually eliminating the (M) will cause more problems than it solves, especially since the service is really popular. It’s elimiation will cause crowding to go worse on the (F), (6), (R), and other lines, especially the crumbling (L). It also sets us back 30 years, especially since the North Brooklyn area is changing. North Brooklyn isn’t what it was 20-30 years ago, and with ridership on the (L) growing like crazy, coupled with an increasing population in the areas the (M) serves, there needed a better way to serve the area. The old service to Lower Manhattan won’t do, so the orange (M) was created. Remember, 22,000 riders used to transfer to reach Midtown, while only 17,000 enjoyed the direct ride to Lower Manhattan. Almost nobody was going into Southern Brooklyn.

A possible compromise would be to have the (M) run to 96th Street on the Second Avenue Line at 9 tph full time, and have the (V) use Queens Blvd at 6 tph. This way, the 22,000+ riders can continue to enjoy their favorite one seat ride to Midtown from the popular North Brooklyn nabes, and Culver can have an express service without adverse impacts.

Another option is to keep the (M) on Queens Blvd, and have the (V) go to 96th Street, as the express service beneficiaries are only going to Midtown Manhattan anyway. Again, it would allow for all the same benefits the first compromise allows for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Actually eliminating the (M) will cause more problems than it solves, especially since the service is really popular. It’s elimiation will cause crowding to go worse on the (F), (6), (R), and other lines, especially the crumbling (L). It also sets us back 30 years, especially since the North Brooklyn area is changing. North Brooklyn isn’t what it was 20-30 years ago, and with ridership on the (L) growing like crazy, coupled with an increasing population in the areas the (M) serves, there needed a better way to serve the area. The old service to Lower Manhattan won’t do, so the orange (M) was created. Remember, 22,000 riders used to transfer to reach Midtown, while only 17,000 enjoyed the direct ride to Lower Manhattan. Almost nobody was going into Southern Brooklyn.

A possible compromise would be to have the (M) run to 96th Street on the Second Avenue Line at 9 tph full time, and have the (V) use Queens Blvd at 6 tph. This way, the 22,000+ riders can continue to enjoy their favorite one seat ride to Midtown from the popular North Brooklyn nabes, and Culver can have an express service without adverse impacts.

Another option is to keep the (M) on Queens Blvd, and have the (V) go to 96th Street, as the express service beneficiaries are only going to Midtown Manhattan anyway. Again, it would allow for all the same benefits the first compromise allows for.

The problem is, you're hurting someone in some way either way- whether it be W'burg or QBL. 

You can't run the (B)(D)(F)(M)(V) all on 4 tracks. 

Edited by KK 6 Ave Local
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

It's not about the NYC bubble, it is the (MTA) operations.

There's a train storage requirement during the Off Peak Hours (9 AM to 3 PM and 8 PM to 5 AM on Weekdays and All Times on Weekends) which will not allow frequencies higher than every 4 minutes (when two lines share a corridor, that is every 8 minutes along each line). This means that the (6)(7) and (L) will not run more frequently than every 4 minutes during Middays, Evenings and Weekends. While only the (E) exceeds the 8 minute headway during Weekday Middays with 7 minute headways due to the demand from Jamaica to Midtown, most of the other lines either run at 8 minute headways, 10 minute headways or 12 minute headways mainly because they share the corridor with another line. The main focus is to keep the trains maintained for both the AM and PM Peak Hours which leads to some T/Os beginning and ending their shifts at the Train Yard rather than at a Tower along a line.

This is nonsense and you know it. If such a ludicrous "requirement" exists, then prove it.

Edited by Around the Horn
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

It's not about the NYC bubble, it is the (MTA) operations.

If you ever find yourself arguing that something is true because the way NYCT operates is special, you should a) delete your post and b) reconsider your opinion, for it's exactly that sort of thinking that made the subway into the chaotic mess that it is today. 

1 hour ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

 There's a train storage requirement during the Off Peak Hours (9 AM to 3 PM and 8 PM to 5 AM on Weekdays and All Times on Weekends) which will not allow frequencies higher than every 4 minutes (when two lines share a corridor, that is every 8 minutes along each line). This means that the (6)(7) and (L) will not run more frequently than every 4 minutes during Middays, Evenings and Weekends. While only the (E) exceeds the 8 minute headway during Weekday Middays with 7 minute headways due to the demand from Jamaica to Midtown, most of the other lines either run at 8 minute headways, 10 minute headways or 12 minute headways mainly because they share the corridor with another line. The main focus is to keep the trains maintained for both the AM and PM Peak Hours which leads to some T/Os beginning and ending their shifts at the Train Yard rather than at a Tower along a line.

Sorry, what? We can't do maintenance overnight, or when trains are cycled out of service? You do realize, right, that cities like London and Paris maintain their cars too -- in fact, trains in London have to be inspected every 24 hours, or more frequently than in NYC. I really suggest that you read up on maintenance policies, foreign precedent, and NYC's current operational situation before you make claims like this. 

1 hour ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

 Outside of the United States, you have higher frequency of service on Metro Rail Lines (Subway Lines) mainly due to either (or a combination of) being more advanced in Technology, a higher demand for Rail service, or better trained T/Os to where they can operate trains closer together (with the CBTC in place). New York City is nowhere at that level as we are using obsolete equipment along lines and running high frequency of service just to stand out vs the other Subway Systems in the United States. MARTA in Atlanta generally runs trains every 15 minutes throughout the day. Miami-Dade generally runs trains every 30 minutes throughout the day. SEPTA in Philadelphia comes close to NYC with the Market-Frankfort line running every 6 minutes throughout the day.

Somehow, low off peak demand isn't exactly the first thing that comes to mind when talking about NYC. Try riding the (A) or (L) or (4) or (F) or (E) or (Q) or really any line during that time period. I think you'll be surprised.

Arguments about technology and competence need to be killed, too. We have ops issues, there's no doubt about it. But they are on the whole solvable, and they moreover do not today prevent 10tph on each line during the off-peak.

Finally, it worries me that you believe CTA, SEPTA, MARTA are good comparisons to make. Those systems are systematically underfunded, and their service levels reflect that moreso than a lack of demand. Remember, service creates ridership just as much as the other way around; if those agencies and the MTA ran decent off peak service, I can guarantee you that the effect of FHVs would be ever less pronounced. We should be looking to Europe for the future of transit, not to the sorrowful American present. 

8 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The question that a lot of America has been dealing with when applying LRT is, do you want to wait around for the perfect textbook solution that you might not be able to afford? Because of LRT as the mode choice Seattle is basically building BART of the North but far cheaper. Not everywhere needs full on 10-car trains hurtling down the track; 39K pph is still way more capacity than even the busiest of the bus lines. Build it like Brussels or some German cities have done, and you can even convert to subway later on as demand calls for.

It makes a lot of sense in Queens, where you might want to serve multiple parallel corridors with a shared trunk (Kissena, Northern) or where past a certain point doesn't need for every single ten-car train to go (say, past 188th on the HHE)

I'm all for incrementalism and pragmatism, but I don't think LRT is as widely applicable as you think. Let's look at Northern Boulevard. If you built a line there, I'd imagine it'd be a fair assumption that it could pull 20-25k peak hour riders along the corridor itself, plus say 5k of bus transfers. That would challenge the operational fluidity of even the best operated LRT, whereas a subway would have no issue with such levels. Building LRT ahead of subways may save some in upfront costs, but if you don't build subway sized station caverns you're gonna have to spend massive sums carving those out, at which point the exercise becomes futile or you just have to start out with subway caverns. There's also an argument to be made here that building capacity ahead of demand is good for developmental reasons. 

The fact of the matter is that the American LRT boom is so pronounced because American densities (both economic and demographic) and projected transit riderships are so low. The Londons and Parises of the world are building LRT, absolutely, but they're not relying on it for core capacity as you would suggest. I think we should be cognizant of the reasons why. 

19 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Actually eliminating the (M) will cause more problems than it solves, especially since the service is really popular. It’s elimiation will cause crowding to go worse on the (F), (6), (R), and other lines, especially the crumbling (L). It also sets us back 30 years, especially since the North Brooklyn area is changing. North Brooklyn isn’t what it was 20-30 years ago, and with ridership on the (L) growing like crazy, coupled with an increasing population in the areas the (M) serves, there needed a better way to serve the area. The old service to Lower Manhattan won’t do, so the orange (M) was created. Remember, 22,000 riders used to transfer to reach Midtown, while only 17,000 enjoyed the direct ride to Lower Manhattan. Almost nobody was going into Southern Brooklyn.

A possible compromise would be to have the (M) run to 96th Street on the Second Avenue Line at 9 tph full time, and have the (V) use Queens Blvd at 6 tph. This way, the 22,000+ riders can continue to enjoy their favorite one seat ride to Midtown from the popular North Brooklyn nabes, and Culver can have an express service without adverse impacts.

Another option is to keep the (M) on Queens Blvd, and have the (V) go to 96th Street, as the express service beneficiaries are only going to Midtown Manhattan anyway. Again, it would allow for all the same benefits the first compromise allows for.

(M)(F)(V) on 6th local would be a disaster; switching at 63 would reduce capacity on Broadway. There are arguments to be made for either pattern, but we have to choose one. 

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Actually eliminating the (M) will cause more problems than it solves, especially since the service is really popular. It’s elimiation will cause crowding to go worse on the (F), (6), (R), and other lines, especially the crumbling (L). It also sets us back 30 years, especially since the North Brooklyn area is changing. North Brooklyn isn’t what it was 20-30 years ago, and with ridership on the (L) growing like crazy, coupled with an increasing population in the areas the (M) serves, there needed a better way to serve the area. The old service to Lower Manhattan won’t do, so the orange (M) was created. Remember, 22,000 riders used to transfer to reach Midtown, while only 17,000 enjoyed the direct ride to Lower Manhattan. Almost nobody was going into Southern Brooklyn.

A possible compromise would be to have the (M) run to 96th Street on the Second Avenue Line at 9 tph full time, and have the (V) use Queens Blvd at 6 tph. This way, the 22,000+ riders can continue to enjoy their favorite one seat ride to Midtown from the popular North Brooklyn nabes, and Culver can have an express service without adverse impacts.

Another option is to keep the (M) on Queens Blvd, and have the (V) go to 96th Street, as the express service beneficiaries are only going to Midtown Manhattan anyway. Again, it would allow for all the same benefits the first compromise allows for.

The (brownM)'s goal is to shuttle Bay Ridge riders to express stops (since the (R) would be sent to Euclid) and send Willamsburg riders to transfer stops in Manhattan. Many (L) riders also currently transfer to other lines and despite that the line's ridership is growing. You keep on neglecting to see past the transfer situation and don't seem to realize what the (M) s elimination would do: 

An (brownM) service would allow the (R) to be sent via Fulton local and provide Lefferts with express (C) service and give the Rockaways/Ozone Park/Howard Beach area an increase in frequency. It also removes the Hoyt merge. 

With the (M) s removal, you can send the (E) from 179th to WTC via local and then run the (V) in its place; this gives QBL a reliable 25 tph local ( (C) express south of 59th; (N) would go to 96th; (R) to Astoria; (W) eliminated), allows express service on Hillside (speeds up some of the longest commutes in the city) and deinterlines QBL by sending 6th av locals/QBL expresses via 63rd and the 8th Av local/QBL local via 53rd. If you tried doing this with the (M) you would be unable to given the limitations of the WillyB and Myrtle junction and would be wasting capacity in all of Brooklyn and the LES. Culver express isn't really the main goal of the plan but is an added benefit. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just out of curiosity, does anyone remember the frequencies when the (B)(D)(orangeQ) all shared one track from DeKalb to Rockefeller Center?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RR503 said:

Bridge-Flatbush-Church/Linden could be interesting, too...

I had though of having the Lower Montauk use the Montauk Cutoff and go over the QBB. What do you think of this? You could also have a Northern Blvd route go over the QBB.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I had though of having the Lower Montauk use the Montauk Cutoff and go over the QBB. What do you think of this? You could also have a Northern Blvd route go over the QBB.

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Why are you confused? These are LRT routes that could be run over the Queensboro Bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I had though of having the Lower Montauk use the Montauk Cutoff and go over the QBB. What do you think of this? You could also have a Northern Blvd route go over the QBB.

 

12 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

@LaGuardia Link N Tra Why are you confused? These are LRT routes that could be run over the Queensboro Bridge.

Yea, I understand that, and both are good ideas! But I just want to Bring up a few points:

1. QBB-Northern Blvd LRT would have to Face with Constant Grade Differences. Particularly around th Queensboro Plaza area and Near the BQE/RX. This is assuming that this LRT is Elevated or at Grade Level. Second, where would this route terminate on Each End? I’m assuming either The Trolley Terminal or Columbus on its western end and somewhere past Flushing (Or a Branch to College Point on its East End) 

2. The Lower Montauk currently runs Freight and the LIRR during the Rush. While it sounds cool to Run a Montauk-QBB Route for an LRT, I don’t think this is feasible. But if this were to happen, it could open up some opportunities for development in the Lower Portions of Queens. (i. e. An overhaul of Atlas Park and a bit of T.O.D. By Glendale) Preferably, I’d keep most of Maspheth Industrial though. 

3. Don’t we already have a Thread for LRT? Why not discuss LRT ideas there instead as to not mix it with Subway Proposals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

I had though of having the Lower Montauk use the Montauk Cutoff and go over the QBB. What do you think of this? You could also have a Northern Blvd route go over the QBB.

If there’s some way to work out FRA-compliant stock that can also run in mixed traffic, I’m all for it. But if this means that we’re gonna hamstring freight ops, I dunno. There’s a lot of value in the LMB/Bay Ridge branch matrix in freight, not just to railroading but to the regional economy — dunno if I wanna mess with that.

I’m all for more transit on Northern, but really speaking what that corridor needs is a subway. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm all for incrementalism and pragmatism, but I don't think LRT is as widely applicable as you think. Let's look at Northern Boulevard. If you built a line there, I'd imagine it'd be a fair assumption that it could pull 20-25k peak hour riders along the corridor itself, plus say 5k of bus transfers. That would challenge the operational fluidity of even the best operated LRT, whereas a subway would have no issue with such levels. Building LRT ahead of subways may save some in upfront costs, but if you don't build subway sized station caverns you're gonna have to spend massive sums carving those out, at which point the exercise becomes futile or you just have to start out with subway caverns. There's also an argument to be made here that building capacity ahead of demand is good for developmental reasons.  

I'm just concerned about the timescale. Look at how long we're taking to deliver even the Second Avenue Subway. We've not even started construction on Phase II, and that's a grand total of three whole stops!

The nice thing about LRT is that you can limit where grade separation is. If you were to be really aggressive with it, you can maintain 55MPH operation on light rail tracks with grade crossings by using lots of four quadrant gates and limited separation where applicable. You don't have to build massive station caverns if you're not even underground in the first place.

(Are grade crossings disruptive? Yes. But it's worth noting that they are much more common in some countries, e.g. Japan, even where neighborhoods are densely populated and train traffic is extremely high.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

I had though of having the Lower Montauk use the Montauk Cutoff and go over the QBB. What do you think of this? You could also have a Northern Blvd route go over the QBB.

To be honest, I like the Lower Montauk better as a line for NJT to use to go and terminate trains in Jamaica (or somewhere that isn't Penn), because building a massive terminal like Penn South or Macy's Basement in the middle of the most expensive property in the country is dumb.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I'm just concerned about the timescale. Look at how long we're taking to deliver even the Second Avenue Subway. We've not even started construction on Phase II, and that's a grand total of three whole stops!

The nice thing about LRT is that you can limit where grade separation is. If you were to be really aggressive with it, you can maintain 55MPH operation on light rail tracks with grade crossings by using lots of four quadrant gates and limited separation where applicable. You don't have to build massive station caverns if you're not even underground in the first place.

(Are grade crossings disruptive? Yes. But it's worth noting that they are much more common in some countries, e.g. Japan, even where neighborhoods are densely populated and train traffic is extremely high.)

I mean, the way to fix exorbitant subway construction costs is to fix exorbitant subway construction costs, not to switch to a less capable mode... We shouldn't give up on the mode that really is necessary for future development because we're bad at it now. And what's stopping us from messing up LRT, anyway?

Street running LRT would be great for corridors in the outer boroughs, Nassau, Westchester, and inner NJ, but I just think the capacity price that comes with LRT -- one that isn't mitigable even with the most intensive of separations or crossing treatments -- really does means that we need to work with subways. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

To be honest, I like the Lower Montauk better as a line for NJT to use to go and terminate trains in Jamaica (or somewhere that isn't Penn), because building a massive terminal like Penn South or Macy's Basement in the middle of the most expensive property in the country is dumb.

A MUCH better idea is connecting it with GCT Tracks 101-105. Alternative G was deemed feasible. That alternative assumed the use of locomotives with 2% grades. Running trains with EMUs allows for a 4% grade, which means that modifications to the Lexington Avenue Line likely will not be needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RR503 said:

If there’s some way to work out FRA-compliant stock that can also run in mixed traffic, I’m all for it. But if this means that we’re gonna hamstring freight ops, I dunno. There’s a lot of value in the LMB/Bay Ridge branch matrix in freight, not just to railroading but to the regional economy — dunno if I wanna mess with that.

I’m all for more transit on Northern, but really speaking what that corridor needs is a subway. 

Correct me if I’m wrong but I remember the Lower Montauk as a line running at grade, except the Richmond Hill station. It’s been downgraded to a freight only line IIRC with the north end severed from the LIRR entirely. Carry on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Correct me if I’m wrong but I remember the Lower Montauk as a line running at grade, except the Richmond Hill station. It’s been downgraded to a freight only line IIRC with the north end severed from the LIRR entirely. Carry on.

That's correct. They've cut the Cutoff where it begins to swing south over the East River Tunnel approaches, removed the (ancient) ABS system along the Lower Montauk entirely, and now protect all of the line's many crossings with island circuits. They also seem to use the north track as an extension of Fresh Pond... 

Edited by RR503
Thanks to TM5 for catching my gaffe! I had written Hudson tunnel not E River tunnel
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RR503 said:

That's correct. They've cut the Cutoff where it begins to swing south over the East River Tunnel approaches, removed the (ancient) ABS system along the Lower Montauk entirely, and now protect all of the line's many crossings with island circuits. They also seem to use the north track as an extension of Fresh Pond... 

The Montauk Cutoff is still connected between Dutch Kills Bridge and Jay. The Bridge north of Dutch Kills Bridge by old Bliss Tower is disused and the track is out of service just at the Bridge approach. The Freight overpass, the Arch St Shops and connections at Harold should all be removed now or very soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

You're facing the NIMBY community of Laurelton and Rosedale plus the LIRR community who wants their 35 minute ride to Midtown. Bye bye (E) train. See you along Guy R. Brewer.

Let's shift over to this Utica Avenue Subway thing that is being talked about (https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2019/04/06/utica-avenue-subway-extension-mta-to-study-if-it-is-worth-pursuing?fbclid=IwAR03YM611S3bVybCJZIod4qXdUD98q3t9g8nPNn9weELjZPTX-qjPCocNDc). Unless the (MTA) starts a new Breezy Point to Kings Plaza (where the (4) is slated to terminate) bus line, you can pretty much say that a Subway line would be too much for the corridor, yet a Light Rail may be more feasible.

Oh by the way: As congested the Queens Blvd line is, no one in Southeast Queens wants to be bothered with the (E) when going to Lower Manhattan. They would use the (J)(Z) trains with some transferring to the (A) at Broadway Junction. So that stands for my argument to extend the Lefferts Blvd (A) to Rosedale as well as the (Z) to Rosedale.

Regarding the rest, replies are in red.

I think NIMBYs would be far more likely to come out against an elevated (A) extension to Rosedale that would have to be built entirely from scratch than they would over an (E) extension to Rosedale mostly over an existing right-of-way that hasn’t been reclaimed by nature after 55+ years of non-use. 

And where is the huge demand for Lower Manhattan that would justify an (A) extension to Southeast Queens over an (E) extension? Why then do none of the local bus routes serving Rosedale/Laurelton/Locust Manor/St. Albans connect to the (A)? Seems like most (if not all) of them connect at Parsons/Archer, Hillside or the 165th Street Terminal. They certainly can get to Lower Manhattan now, but it has to be on the slower, skip-stop (J)(Z), not the express (A)

As for Utica Avenue, please explain how a subway extension would be too much for Utica Avenue. I fail to see how one of top five busiest bus routes in the entire city doesn’t justify a subway extension. And why the necessity of a bus shuttle from Breezy Point, of all places?

10 hours ago, Fredrick Wells 3 said:

It's not about the NYC bubble, it is the (MTA) operations.

There's a train storage requirement during the Off Peak Hours (9 AM to 3 PM and 8 PM to 5 AM on Weekdays and All Times on Weekends) which will not allow frequencies higher than every 4 minutes (when two lines share a corridor, that is every 8 minutes along each line). This means that the (6)(7) and (L) will not run more frequently than every 4 minutes during Middays, Evenings and Weekends. While only the (E) exceeds the 8 minute headway during Weekday Middays with 7 minute headways due to the demand from Jamaica to Midtown, most of the other lines either run at 8 minute headways, 10 minute headways or 12 minute headways mainly because they share the corridor with another line. The main focus is to keep the trains maintained for both the AM and PM Peak Hours which leads to some T/Os beginning and ending their shifts at the Train Yard rather than at a Tower along a line.

Take this outside of NYC, the CTA (Chicago Transit Authority) only operates high-frequency service along the RED and BLUE lines. The rest of the lines are mainly at 10 to 12 minute headways during the Off Peak Hours mainly due to the merging and cross-tracking in the Downtown Loop and some lines operating on Street Level. (MTA) New York City Transit only operates 2 lines on Street level, and that is the (A)(S) at Rockaway Park and the (M) at Metropolitan Avenue.

Outside of the United States, you have higher frequency of service on Metro Rail Lines (Subway Lines) mainly due to either (or a combination of) being more advanced in Technology, a higher demand for Rail service, or better trained T/Os to where they can operate trains closer together (with the CBTC in place). New York City is nowhere at that level as we are using obsolete equipment along lines and running high frequency of service just to stand out vs the other Subway Systems in the United States. MARTA in Atlanta generally runs trains every 15 minutes throughout the day. Miami-Dade generally runs trains every 30 minutes throughout the day. SEPTA in Philadelphia comes close to NYC with the Market-Frankfort line running every 6 minutes throughout the day.

What we can tell you is that the (MTA) is known to operates several bus routes at a higher frequency than the (7) and (L) lines (that includes the M15 and B46 routes) because street operation allows higher frequency of service than rail operations (just look at Seattle Washington's King County Transit).

What you call a “storage requirement” is probably nothing more than the “spare factor” that’s needed so that they have enough trains to make service during rush hours. And trains go out of service during middays because midday service doesn’t usually justify the same frequency as rush hour service. I don’t think there is an arbitrary limit of “no less than every eight minutes” during middays, the way midnight service on each 24/7 route runs no less than every 20 minutes.  

As for CTA, the Brown Line runs more frequently than every 10-12 minutes off-peak and it runs on the Loop (Brown runs every 7-8 during middays). Ridership justifies its higher off-peak frequency, not merging issues. If merging issues were as pressing an issue as you’ve made them out to be, then the Brown, Green and Orange (plus the Pink and Purple) lines would be forced into 10-12-minute headways during peak hours as well.  

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2019 at 10:14 PM, bobtehpanda said:

I don't know that I necessarily buy this. Light rail, despite the name, can be extremely high capacity - Seattle Link has at grade portions and is planning to run LRVs like this in a four-car formation. At 380 feet and 972 passengers that's a half-length subway train that's only really different by virtue of being mostly low floor and able to take tighter turns.

The model of successful trunk light rail in New York would probably be a less shit version of the Boston Green Line or the Philadelphia Subway Surface Trolleys; let's say, a grade separated tunnel from Columbus Circle up to Flushing via Northern, and then go a bit past Flushing's congestion and the line splits off into various branches (similar to say, the Q17/25/27/34/65 setup on Kissena). Four branches running every eight minutes combine to a two minute headway in the shared line.

Depending on how much you're willing to stick it to the driver you can even skip grade separation on Northern and just do four-quadrant gates like they have in Minneapolis. Though then that'd limit frequency.

 

On 4/6/2019 at 10:29 PM, RR503 said:

Eh. Even if they can eke out 40tph, they're still only at 39000 people per hour, whereas a fully loaded set of 160s * 30 tph gets you 73,000. Also keep in mind that for reasonable dwell times (and thus consistent service speed/delivery) you don't want to be operating anywhere near your capacity limit. That's the lesson of pre-63rd Queens Boulevard -- you *can* get 50k people per hour under the river on a single pair of tracks, but your dwell times will give system operators a heart attack. 

All of that said, I tend to agree with your assessment of the 'optimal application' scenario for LRT, or at least core-bound LRT. LRT lives and dies on its ability to move in core congestion, which is essentially the purpose statement for an isolated or otherwise separated line. 

Personally, I like the idea of several East Queens bus routes being railed and wired and coming together in Flushing to form a relief line for the (7). But it seems like for it to truly be effective, it will have to be underground starting in downtown Flushing in order to avoid the insane traffic in downtown Flushing and along Northern Blvd. Perhaps one way to cut down on costly underground costs would be to build a single-bore tunnel. LRVs are generally narrower than our B-Division subway cars, so I’d be surprised to read it’s impossible to bore a single tube with two tracks side by side. Then have single level side platform stations with elevators directly to the streets. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t that how Montreal built its Metro’s tunnels (the stations are a different story, as they’re much more elaborate).

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.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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