Rockaway Beach Branch

[officiallyliam]

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Costs do need to be controlled, change station designs maybe that will bring costs down but how do u do that when it costs u 2 billion per mile (correct me on that if wrong)

Changing station designs could do a lot, especially if the stations in the shallow existing tunnel are designed more like old stations and less like the Phase 1 stations. The problem, though, is the $2b per mile cost. This simply should not be; we should demand that prices for a short extension mostly in existing tunnel be far lower before we let work continue on the second phase. $2b per mile is not normal for a subway extension and should not be accepted as such.

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I can agree with keeping the to nostrand  and keeping the  to utica and new lots, i take when utica subway could be built who would go down there the or (5)? Should also extend the nostrand ave lines and they split at flatbush 1 goin down nostrand and one going to kings plaza

The should take New Lots, simply for the sake of leaving it unchanged. The to New Lots is a common thing that people are used to, so the should take Nostrand and Kingston Avenues, then the Utica line. I've thought about the idea of splitting the Nostrand line, sending one branch to Kings Plaza via Flatbush and the other to Sheepshead Bay via Nostrand, but am unsure if that would be justified. Also, building a junction to get trains back to Flatbush Avenue south of Brooklyn College station will be complicated given the width of Nostrand Avenue and the presence of the LIRR tracks.

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Adding tunnel provisions will jack up the cost 

Not really. It would just be a bellmouth, and maybe a couple hundred feet of trackway. Even with design and engineering, it shouldn't cost much.

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

In order for lrt to be successful in nyc u have to seprate its row

In order for LRT really to be successful anywhere, it needs its own ROW. Physically, this would be possible on the whole route from Inwood to Pelham, but re-purposing the necessary road space on the western section of Fordham Road to allow this to happen may be controversial. But maybe there are enough Bx12 users, considering what a busy route it is, that a project to speed surface transit on that corridor (as well as for the other bus routes that use stretches of Fordham Road, as they'd be allowed in the LRT lanes) would be popular.

[RR503]

37 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

In order for LRT really to be successful anywhere, it needs its own ROW. Physically, this would be possible on the whole route from Inwood to Pelham, but re-purposing the necessary road space on the western section of Fordham Road to allow this to happen may be controversial. But maybe there are enough Bx12 users, considering what a busy route it is, that a project to speed surface transit on that corridor (as well as for the other bus routes that use stretches of Fordham Road, as they'd be allowed in the LRT lanes) would be popular.

Why deal with all these street space issues when the corridor can easily justify a subway? Yeah, it'd be more expensive, but in the long run, it'd be more beneficial.

The Bronx is also mad hilly when going crosstown -- not an optimum environment for a transit mode whose contact surface with its guideway is less than the size of an espresso saucer. 

[officiallyliam]

43 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Why deal with all these street space issues when the corridor can easily justify a subway? Yeah, it'd be more expensive, but in the long run, it'd be more beneficial.

The Bronx is also mad hilly when going crosstown -- not an optimum environment for a transit mode whose contact surface with its guideway is less than the size of an espresso saucer. 

The problem I see is that there's no subway that a Fordham crosstown line would easily connect to. The is easiest, but any extension of that line would make it far too long. The could work, but requires a long extension from Lenox Avenue to Fordham Road in a corridor that doesn't need a subway. The would require a junction to be retrofitted to the Concourse Line; this would also likely involve a sharp corner off the Concourse with no streets to follow easily to get the line back to Fordham Road.

Of course, it could be built as an extension of SAS, but that would leave out the western portion of Fordham Road, and is also predicated on the completion of a long subway extension that seems years off.

That's why I support LRT for the corridor, at least in the interim. Does that preclude the subway being built at some point? No. But we can have transit improvements in the short-term.

[RR503]

21 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The MTA should rebuild Rogers Junction as part of it using Alternative 4 of their 2009 study, sending the and to Nostrand, the to New Lots, and leaving the to serve the Utica branch.

Wholly unrelated to the current discussion, but if possible, can you repost the link to that study? I've lost it, and we (my part of the MTA) are looking for it. 

38 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

The problem I see is that there's no subway that a Fordham crosstown line would easily connect to. The is easiest, but any extension of that line would make it far too long. The could work, but requires a long extension from Lenox Avenue to Fordham Road in a corridor that doesn't need a subway. The would require a junction to be retrofitted to the Concourse Line; this would also likely involve a sharp corner off the Concourse with no streets to follow easily to get the line back to Fordham Road.

6

The  would get bloody long, yes, but you could swap northern terminals with the , having the  run 8th/CPW Local to 168, and the  8th/CPW exp to wherever on Fordham Road. 

You could also conceivably link it to the . 

[officiallyliam]

13 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Wholly unrelated to the current discussion, but if possible, can you repost the link to that study? I've lost it, and we (my part of the MTA) are looking for it. 

The  would get bloody long, yes, but you could swap northern terminals with the , having the  run 8th/CPW Local to 168, and the  8th/CPW exp to wherever on Fordham Road. 

You could also conceivably link it to the . 

Here;s the study: http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IRT-Nostrand-Junction-Report.pdf

The could work, although we'd have to accept that the Fordham line be built as an elevated, which might not go over well. It's also a somewhat slow ride downtown. But of all the options, I think it's the easiest to construct.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/17/2018 at 10:32 PM, LGA Link N train said:

TBH. Fordham and Northern are almost NOT feasible whatsoever 

Why aren’t they? I don’t see how they wouldn’t be.

On 3/17/2018 at 11:38 PM, officiallyliam said:

Why couldn't Rockaway be a rail trail now? From what I understand, those are set up as a way to preserve the right of way, with a full understanding that it may eventually be converted to some from of transit.

As for SAS, Phase 2 and beyond should only be done when costs can come under control. Considering we're using mostly existing tunnel, the estimated $6 billion dollar price tag needs to be called into question; it is neither acceptable nor sustainable for future subway projects. SAS Phase 3 should be changed slightly - I'll mention this below.

Utica should be done concurrently with SAS; there's no reason it couldn't be. The MTA should rebuild Rogers Junction as part of it using Alternative 4 of their 2009 study, sending the and to Nostrand, the to New Lots, and leaving the to serve the Utica branch. Nostrand is somewhat harder as the LIRR tracks are right there, but the MTA should go ahead with past proposals to use that ROW as a small yard for Nostrand Avenue trains.

Northern should be built as a branch of SAS using a new river tunnel, as none of the current tunnels will be able to accommodate that traffic by the time the line is done. SAS Phase 3 should be altered to include provisions for a new Queens tunnel at either 38th or 50th Street; this tunnel can be the branching-off point for both a Queens bypass and for a Northern Blvd subway.

Fordham, though, is more difficult. I don't think it should be a subway extension - the is more than long enough as it is. The corridor is better suited to LRT; in practice, though, the width of Fordham Road may preclude this unless the city is willing to pursue physically-separated LRT lanes. The LRT line can run in its own right of way through Pelham Parkway relatively easily, though.

We’ve had a lot of abandoned rail corridors become trails. I have yet to hear of one reverting to rail.

You can do LRT on Pelham Pkwy/Fordham Road. But it would almost certainly require going underground once off Pelham Pkwy, especially on Fordham where it passes by the Zoo and the Botanical Garden and also between the Concourse and University Ave. But as LRT, riders would still have to make all the same transfers to the subway they do now from the Bx12 bus. Would the cost-savings of running on the surface on Pelham Pkwy be enough to offset that disadvantage?

For Utica Ave, I find myself more in favor of extending the IRT from Eastern Pkwy over the IND from Fulton St. It just seems like the easiest option that would still offer significant relief to the B46 bus. But I favor extending the  down Utica and having the  go to New Lots. This is because, going by the B46’s ridership, I feel the Utica extension will be have higher ridership than New Lots. Thus I feel Utica should have the 24-hour service, which would likely still be the , given that it’s the busier Lexington Ave express train.

On 3/18/2018 at 11:28 AM, R68OnBroadway said:

Ideas for Fordham Road extension:

 train option:

To do this, I would do the following:

-fold 148th back into Lenox Yard

-lengthen the platforms at 145th to accommodate 10-car trains, also install elevators

- around the 148th st curve, the  will head deeper under the Harlem River Drive and connect with the  and  at 155th Street. The line will then run under the Harlem River to the MNR ROW, where it will resurface at the two junkyards by Highbridge. After the bridge, it will run over the Major Deegan to Fordham with stops at the MNR stations. Line will then run  either underground (cut and cover must be used) or as an elevated. Stops at Grand Concourse, Southern Blvd, White Plains Road, Williamsbridge Rd, Eastchester Rd, and Pelham Bay Pk. 

 train option:

 is extended east under Fordham to Pelham Bay Pk with same stops mentioned (minus ones west of Concourse)

 train option: 

 is extended over to Fordham Rd. Stop at University Heights replaced with a stop at University Av, then continues on with earlier stops mentioned.

I think the  option is probably the best compromise if you don’t want a line that’s too long like the  or if you don’t want to build a long north-south extension bridging the Harlem River like the  would require. The disadvantage to the  option is that it would leave out Fordham Road west of the Concourse and would require building a new junction at the Concourse and Fordham. But I still think it would be a significant improvement over the Bx12.

Edited March 20, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/18/2018 at 5:34 PM, officiallyliam said:

The problem I see is that there's no subway that a Fordham crosstown line would easily connect to. The is easiest, but any extension of that line would make it far too long.

You could actually do the  . Just split the Ozone Park services into the  . All services to Ozone Park run to Fordham Rd, all services to Rockaway end at Inwood.

It works out because the 207 St Yard tracks provide an outlet straight to the Hudson.

[officiallyliam]

4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

You can do LRT on Pelham Pkwy/Fordham Road. But it would almost certainly require going underground once off Pelham Pkwy, especially on Fordham where it passes by the Zoo and the Botanical Garden and also between the Concourse and University Ave. But as LRT, riders would still have to make all the same transfers to the subway they do now from the Bx12 bus. Would the cost-savings of running on the surface on Pelham Pkwy be enough to offset that disadvantage?

I would think so - very few people are going to utilize a circuitous one-seat ride from most places on the Fordham corridor to downtown going via Inwood, when there are numerous radial lines you'll intersect first that will get you to Manhattan faster (unless you're coming from the extreme western end of Fordham).

In that case, because I do agree about the grade separation on the western section of Fordham, what about an LRT line similar to a German Stadtbahn system like the Frankfurt Metro? A short tunnel could carry the line between University Heights and Bronx Park, where the line can have its own ROW in the median of Pelham Parkway. This would save quite a bit of money both in the construction of light rail tunnels, which are cheaper than subway ones, and in the use of a surface ROW for nearly half of the route. And because that section of Pelham Parkway has few intersections, the lack of grade-separation shouldn't slow the line down too much, especially if some form of traffic signal priority is in place.

If the Fordham line is built as a subway, most people will still be transferring to different lines - either the , , , or - as the majority of riders on the corridor would be west of Jerome Avenue, the last radial line before Manhattan. The only people truly benefiting in terms of the ease of their journey by a direct connection are people going from somewhere on Fordham Road to an station in Upper Manhattan.

[RR503]

13 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

I would think so - very few people are going to utilize a circuitous one-seat ride from most places on the Fordham corridor to downtown going via Inwood, when there are numerous radial lines you'll intersect first that will get you to Manhattan faster (unless you're coming from the extreme western end of Fordham).

In that case, because I do agree about the grade separation on the western section of Fordham, what about an LRT line similar to a German Stadtbahn system like the Frankfurt Metro? A short tunnel could carry the line between University Heights and Bronx Park, where the line can have its own ROW in the median of Pelham Parkway. This would save quite a bit of money both in the construction of light rail tunnels, which are cheaper than subway ones, and in the use of a surface ROW for nearly half of the route. And because that section of Pelham Parkway has few intersections, the lack of grade-separation shouldn't slow the line down too much, especially if some form of traffic signal priority is in place.

If the Fordham line is built as a subway, most people will still be transferring to different lines - either the , , , or - as the majority of riders on the corridor would be west of Jerome Avenue, the last radial line before Manhattan. The only people truly benefiting in terms of the ease of their journey by a direct connection are people going from somewhere on Fordham Road to an station in Upper Manhattan.

I actually think the  would get good direct ridership from Fordham Road. For those west of the , this  would be their most convenient means of accessing points on the West Side, and even for those near the , the  would get them there faster, and with less crowding. Remember that this version of the  would only make four stops in Manhattan before going express, and then it's 15 minutes to 59th.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

I actually think the  would get good direct ridership from Fordham Road. For those west of the , this  would be their most convenient means of accessing points on the West Side, and even for those near the , the  would get them there faster, and with less crowding. Remember that this version of the  would only make four stops in Manhattan before going express, and then it's 15 minutes to 59th.

It's already 30 minutes from Fordham/University to 168th St on , so even having  go to Fordham/Jerome or Fordham/Concourse won't do anything really. Now a crosstown line on Fordham between 207th  or  and over to at least Pelham  would relieve congestion on Fordham by reducing the number of Bx12s needed, and tying it into SAS via 3rd Av would reduce crowding on Bx55 and save time dealing with  getting to Lexington Av...

[RR503]

2 minutes ago, Deucey said:

It's already 30 minutes from Fordham/University to 168th St on , so even having  go to Fordham/Jerome or Fordham/Concourse won't do anything really. Now a crosstown line on Fordham between 207th  or  and over to at least Pelham  would relieve congestion on Fordham by reducing the number of Bx12s needed, and tying it into SAS via 3rd Av would reduce crowding on Bx55 and save time dealing with  getting to Lexington Av...

If I’m not mistaken, that’s the idea under discussion. 

[officiallyliam]

Having considered extensions of the , , , and lines, as well as a light rail system, to serve the Fordham Road - Pelham Parkway corridor, I think that the superior option is a branch of the Broadway-7th Avenue line, as a resurrection of the designation without the old skip-stop service.

The new line would branch off of the north of the 207th Street stop, with a new tunnel portal built in the 207th St Yard. The tunnels would pass under the river and follow 190th Street, with a station at University Avenue, and under Grand Concourse, connecting to the and and running underneath Fordham Road. From there, it would continue with stops at Fordham Plaza with a connection to MNRR and at Southern Blvd for the Bronx Zoo. The tunnels would run straight under Bronx Park, meeting Pelham Parkway where the line would then run elevated - stopping at White Plains Road for the , Esplanade for the , and Eastchester Road to serve the hospitals. Then, it would follow the ROW of the Northeast Corridor to a shared subway and MNRR stop at Co-Op City, where a station is planned as part of Penn Station Access. This is where the line will terminate; perhaps we could also examine a extension to a nearby location, creating a sort of transit hub to serve the area.

I think that this balances the need for subway-level capacity on the corridor with the cost-effectiveness of using elevated structures wherever possible. There are, naturally, a few disadvantages that I can think of: 1. The would likely be a faster ride downtown, though, as I said earlier, the majority of riders going further downtown would have transferred to faster lines such as the and already. 2. While track capacity should be fine on the , the terminal capacity at South Ferry raises questions. The new station can apparently support 24 TPH; balanced evenly between Fordham and Van Cortlandt, this only allows a maximum of 12 TPH to serve Fordham. It would be feasible, though, to increase southern terminal capacity by terminating some trains at Rector and running OOS around the loop, and/or speeding up terminal procedures at South Ferry.

The reason I choose the over the is because of track capacity and anticipated reliability. The already suffers from uneven headways and low reliability due to its merges, two or three branches, and Cranberry tube constraints. Because of that, I am wary of making the any longer than it is today. The has no track sharing with other lines, and is not terribly long. Also, under a totally de-interlined system, which would increase reliability and frequency, it would make sense to send the to Norwood, via CPW local. At that point, the ride downtown is just as slow as the , and the route would also be too long.

This is a map showing the alignment of the proposed line, and the new stations:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1_O77SCCsOavlDMY0YTP8GBhjyNNF2uhJ&ll=40.79594693211451%2C-73.91882120000002&z=11

Thoughts?

 

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

Having considered extensions of the , , , and lines, as well as a light rail system, to serve the Fordham Road - Pelham Parkway corridor, I think that the superior option is a branch of the Broadway-7th Avenue line, as a resurrection of the designation without the old skip-stop service.

The new line would branch off of the north of the 207th Street stop, with a new tunnel portal built in the 207th St Yard. The tunnels would pass under the river and follow 190th Street, with a station at University Avenue, and under Grand Concourse, connecting to the and and running underneath Fordham Road. From there, it would continue with stops at Fordham Plaza with a connection to MNRR and at Southern Blvd for the Bronx Zoo. The tunnels would run straight under Bronx Park, meeting Pelham Parkway where the line would then run elevated - stopping at White Plains Road for the , Esplanade for the , and Eastchester Road to serve the hospitals. Then, it would follow the ROW of the Northeast Corridor to a shared subway and MNRR stop at Co-Op City, where a station is planned as part of Penn Station Access. This is where the line will terminate; perhaps we could also examine a extension to a nearby location, creating a sort of transit hub to serve the area.

I think that this balances the need for subway-level capacity on the corridor with the cost-effectiveness of using elevated structures wherever possible. There are, naturally, a few disadvantages that I can think of: 1. The would likely be a faster ride downtown, though, as I said earlier, the majority of riders going further downtown would have transferred to faster lines such as the and already. 2. While track capacity should be fine on the , the terminal capacity at South Ferry raises questions. The new station can apparently support 24 TPH; balanced evenly between Fordham and Van Cortlandt, this only allows a maximum of 12 TPH to serve Fordham. It would be feasible, though, to increase southern terminal capacity by terminating some trains at Rector and running OOS around the loop, and/or speeding up terminal procedures at South Ferry.

The reason I choose the over the is because of track capacity and anticipated reliability. The already suffers from uneven headways and low reliability due to its merges, two or three branches, and Cranberry tube constraints. Because of that, I am wary of making the any longer than it is today. The has no track sharing with other lines, and is not terribly long. Also, under a totally de-interlined system, which would increase reliability and frequency, it would make sense to send the to Norwood, via CPW local. At that point, the ride downtown is just as slow as the , and the route would also be too long.

This is a map showing the alignment of the proposed line, and the new stations:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1_O77SCCsOavlDMY0YTP8GBhjyNNF2uhJ&ll=40.79594693211451%2C-73.91882120000002&z=11

Thoughts?

 

I don't think the  is that great because of how slow it is. Philosophically, I disagree with the notion of putting Concourse riders on the CPW local; that's a nonstarter since the line is so much longer than the 8th Avenue Line. And that Co-op City terminus is terrible for connectivity; the superior option would be a four track terminal at Baychester/Bartow (two tracks for Fordham and two for the ).

Like I said before, the is perfectly doable via the 207 St Yard tracks as long as you keep it to /  / / whatever trains to Lefferts. It's not all that ridiculous; the distance from Broadway to Baychester/Bartow is about the same as the distance from Rockaway Blvd to the Rockaway Peninsula.

 

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, Deucey said:

It's already 30 minutes from Fordham/University to 168th St on , so even having  go to Fordham/Jerome or Fordham/Concourse won't do anything really. Now a crosstown line on Fordham between 207th  or  and over to at least Pelham  would relieve congestion on Fordham by reducing the number of Bx12s needed, and tying it into SAS via 3rd Av would reduce crowding on Bx55 and save time dealing with  getting to Lexington Av...

I mean, building a tunnel for the to Fordham Plaza from Inwood would be the exact same as building a tunnel for some other subway from Fordham Plaza to Inwood. At the end of the day you get a train going between point A and point B, but the difference is that some people don't have to get up and move their tush onto a different train.

[RR503]

Was thinking about this -- how're you gonna get adequate capacity with an  extension? The  has to share with the , limiting it to ~15-16 tph. Regardless of what you call it, you still have to serve both its terminals with that capacity, so 7.5 to each. If we're only using Lefferts, then we're pretty screwed -- 1/8 mins isn't gonna cut it on such a high density corridor. 

I'm leaning more and more towards the . If you increased termination capacity at SF somehow, you could run 15 Fordham and 15 VCP, giving you double the amount of service you'd get with the A. And if you're worried about speeds, you can send those 15 Fordham trains express from 137 to 96, which should save you 4 or 5 minutes. I'd actually keep it local though -- encourages people to transfer at 168 for expresses rather than 96, taking some load off of the  2/3

[officiallyliam]

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

I don't think the  is that great because of how slow it is. Philosophically, I disagree with the notion of putting Concourse riders on the CPW local; that's a nonstarter since the line is so much longer than the 8th Avenue Line. And that Co-op City terminus is terrible for connectivity; the superior option would be a four track terminal at Baychester/Bartow (two tracks for Fordham and two for the ).

The  isn't that slow, and the  isn't that fast. According to Citymapper, the  is only 2 minutes slower than the  from 207th to 59th, and 3 minutes slower from 207th to Chambers Street. 

Sorry, I wrote Norwood where I meant to write Inwood. Deinterlining would give you more capacity, but the logical solution in my mind is that the  take Washington Heights and CPW local, and the  take Concourse and CPW express; at that point you might have more capacity, but you'd have the same length problem on a  from Coney Island to Co-Op City as you do with the .

48 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Was thinking about this -- how're you gonna get adequate capacity with an  extension? The  has to share with the , limiting it to ~15-16 tph. Regardless of what you call it, you still have to serve both its terminals with that capacity, so 7.5 to each. If we're only using Lefferts, then we're pretty screwed -- 1/8 mins isn't gonna cut it on such a high density corridor. 

This is what I was thinking as well. Remember it's also capped to a combined 26 TPH with the  through Cranberry. You pointed out 7 TPH service to Lefferts going to Fordham as being inadequate, and that's just for rush hour (not to mention, those headways are often uneven due to the merges). Middays and weekends, the mainline  runs ten minute headways (6 TPH), and the branches only run every 20 minutes. A subway under Fordham that only runs 3 TPH won't do a thing to take pressure off of the Bx12. You could run trains that short-turn at Dyckman Street, but those trains would conflict with other services.

 

[bobtehpanda]

8 hours ago, RR503 said:

Was thinking about this -- how're you gonna get adequate capacity with an  extension? The  has to share with the , limiting it to ~15-16 tph. Regardless of what you call it, you still have to serve both its terminals with that capacity, so 7.5 to each. If we're only using Lefferts, then we're pretty screwed -- 1/8 mins isn't gonna cut it on such a high density corridor.

A ten car train is roughly 25x the capacity of a bus. A train every 8 minutes at 6AM would be a 8-12x capacity improvement over current SBS services. It's not all that crazy.

[bobtehpanda]

7 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

The  isn't that slow, and the  isn't that fast. According to Citymapper, the  is only 2 minutes slower than the  from 207th to 59th, and 3 minutes slower from 207th to Chambers Street. 

Sorry, I wrote Norwood where I meant to write Inwood. Deinterlining would give you more capacity, but the logical solution in my mind is that the  take Washington Heights and CPW local, and the  take Concourse and CPW express; at that point you might have more capacity, but you'd have the same length problem on a  from Coney Island to Co-Op City as you do with the .

This is what I was thinking as well. Remember it's also capped to a combined 26 TPH with the  through Cranberry. You pointed out 7 TPH service to Lefferts going to Fordham as being inadequate, and that's just for rush hour (not to mention, those headways are often uneven due to the merges). Middays and weekends, the mainline  runs ten minute headways (6 TPH), and the branches only run every 20 minutes. A subway under Fordham that only runs 3 TPH won't do a thing to take pressure off of the Bx12. You could run trains that short-turn at Dyckman Street, but those trains would conflict with other services.

 

If there's a capacity mismatch you can terminate some of these trains at an earlier terminus. If you're using 8th Avenue trains, you can run short-turns at Euclid; if you're using Sixth Avenue services, use the and terminate it at 2nd Av when it wouldn't run, and use the as the Washington Heights local.

[officiallyliam]

30 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

A ten car train is roughly 25x the capacity of a bus. A train every 8 minutes at 6AM would be a 8-12x capacity improvement over current SBS services. It's not all that crazy.

People value frequency more than physical capacity. This is the same argument against the MTA cutting service on a bus route when they employ artics; the ability to show up at a stop and get service quickly means more to the majority of riders than how long the train or bus is. Capacity increases from vehicle size and service frequency should go hand in hand, and are not mutually exclusive.

Also, a train every 8 minutes at 6 AM might work, at 8 AM, when the majority of riders are trying to use the system, it won't work as well.

26 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

If there's a capacity mismatch you can terminate some of these trains at an earlier terminus. If you're using 8th Avenue trains, you can run short-turns at Euclid; if you're using Sixth Avenue services, use the and terminate it at 2nd Av when it wouldn't run, and use the as the Washington Heights local.

The capacity crunch during rush hour exists before trains could get to Euclid; namely, it is between 145th and 59th where the  shares with the , and between Canal and Hoyt where the  shares with the . Short-turning at Euclid or 2nd Avenue could work on weekends or overnight, though.

[bobtehpanda]

35 minutes ago, officiallyliam said:

People value frequency more than physical capacity. 

This statement is only true if the travel time stays the same. SBS via PBP currently makes the 7.4 mile trip in 35 minutes. A subway not diverting to PBP would make this trip in about 20 minutes, assuming that the subway makes a rather conservative average of 18MPH (the scheduled speed on the Queens Boulevard Local). And in a world where this subway was built, the Bx12 SBS probably doesn't exist anymore, and this subway would beat the local bus with flying colors.

Average wait time would only increase compared to the SBS by about two and a half minutes. Improvements to travel time would almost certainly outweigh that.

[RR503]

9 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This statement is only true if the travel time stays the same. SBS via PBP currently makes the 7.4 mile trip in 35 minutes. A subway not diverting to PBP would make this trip in about 20 minutes, assuming that the subway makes a rather conservative average of 18MPH (the scheduled speed on the Queens Boulevard Local). And in a world where this subway was built, the Bx12 SBS probably doesn't exist anymore, and this subway would beat the local bus with flying colors.

Average wait time would only increase compared to the SBS by about two and a half minutes. Improvements to travel time would almost certainly outweigh that.

Let's talk off-peak though. You're really willing to kill them with 4tph? 

And even for peak. Sure, it may be adequate now, but when the requisite building boom takes place along Pelham Parkway, will that still be true? I think not. You need to design with that in mind, and for that, the  is best. The  just puts a very hard cap on line capacity, making the investment that much harder to justify. Yeah, it takes an extra 5 or so minutes to get downtown, but a. you can transfer, and b. you save some of that in not having to wait as much for the train itself. 

[bobtehpanda]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Let's talk off-peak though. You're really willing to kill them with 4tph? 

And even for peak. Sure, it may be adequate now, but when the requisite building boom takes place along Pelham Parkway, will that still be true? I think not. You need to design with that in mind, and for that, the  is best. The  just puts a very hard cap on line capacity, making the investment that much harder to justify. Yeah, it takes an extra 5 or so minutes to get downtown, but a. you can transfer, and b. you save some of that in not having to wait as much for the train itself. 

Oh please. I doubt a building boom would come of it; nearly all of the stops already has a direct subway connection to the core. The lack of high-rises or jobs is not because you can't travel to Inwood or Co-op City quickly enough. Even if we were to somehow build massive connectivity improvements like the RX, that doesn't get you anywhere near Fordham Road, and the fastest way from RX to Fordham Road is certainly not the scenic route via the A.

It's possible to shuffle around capacity to make it work. We already contort ourselves with the Broadway Line services; it's not hard to finagle some combination of Lefferts services and short turns to provide adequate service.

[officiallyliam]

15 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Oh please. I doubt a building boom would come of it; nearly all of the stops already has a direct subway connection to the core. The lack of high-rises or jobs is not because you can't travel to Inwood or Co-op City quickly enough. Even if we were to somehow build massive connectivity improvements like the RX, that doesn't get you anywhere near Fordham Road, and the fastest way from RX to Fordham Road is certainly not the scenic route via the A.

It's possible to shuffle around capacity to make it work. We already contort ourselves with the Broadway Line services; it's not hard to finagle some combination of Lefferts services and short turns to provide adequate service.

You're absolutely right about the Broadway Line - but is that really a precedent that future subway expansions should follow? The merges on the northern part of the Broadway line are nothing if not a massive inhibitor of potential capacity to Broadway's northern branches.

My logic in extending the is that it doesn't require us to shuffle around capacity immediately, only if a large service increase (above 15 TPH) to Fordham becomes a necessity. Even then, any changes in capacity are limited to the (and proposed ) lines, whereas the is already a delicate balance of capacity between its own branches, as well as the and lines.

Having discussed the merits (in my mind), above and in earlier posts, of the extension, why is the a superior choice? What would an extension of the (or ) line bring to riders on Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway that the / extension wouldn't?

[RR503]

38 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Oh please. I doubt a building boom would come of it; nearly all of the stops already has a direct subway connection to the core. The lack of high-rises or jobs is not because you can't travel to Inwood or Co-op City quickly enough. Even if we were to somehow build massive connectivity improvements like the RX, that doesn't get you anywhere near Fordham Road, and the fastest way from RX to Fordham Road is certainly not the scenic route via the A.

It's possible to shuffle around capacity to make it work. We already contort ourselves with the Broadway Line services; it's not hard to finagle some combination of Lefferts services and short turns to provide adequate service.

Sorry man, it’s just not possible. The  is pretty much maxed out because of it’s merges with the  and , so unless you plan on extending the former up (introducing another merge to both the lines), you’re maxed out at about 8 tph. 

I also ask you, why contort service patterns this much? What does the  gain you? Do we really want a new Broadway? 

Edit: I see @officiallyliam beat me to it! 

Edited March 23, 2018 by RR503

[bobtehpanda]

1 minute ago, officiallyliam said:

You're absolutely right about the Broadway Line - but is that really a precedent that future subway expansions should follow? The merges on the northern part of the Broadway line are nothing if not a massive inhibitor of potential capacity to Broadway's northern branches.

My logic in extending the is that it doesn't require us to shuffle around capacity immediately, only if a large service increase (above 15 TPH) to Fordham becomes a necessity. Even then, any changes in capacity are limited to the (and proposed ) lines, whereas the is already a delicate balance of capacity between its own branches, as well as the and lines.

Having discussed the merits (in my mind), above and in earlier posts, of the extension, why is the a superior choice? What would an extension of the (or ) line bring to riders on Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway that the / extension wouldn't?

For starters, a connection to the is lost, and the next ones down are at 168 St (which many people will tell you is not actually a reasonable transfer due to depth) and 59 St Columbus Circle.

The  is also B-Division to the  's A Division, which has poorer single train capacity as a result.

Most importantly is the availability of express service to Manhattan. Riders east of the Concourse may very well use the line as a connection to Manhattan. Even if Eighth and CPW were completely de-interlined, a change to express services would be available at 145th St. The CPW express is not actually faster, but right now that's the consequence of a timer-happy MTA and should not be considered something that might change in the future.

services, on the other hand, do not encounter express trains until 96th St. Not only that, but the original NYCDOT BRT Phase II study had a diagram of congested routes at capacity, and the Broadway Express at 96th St was one of them. I don't find shoving bodies onto an overcrowded trunk wise.