|
|
| Underbuilt IND? (1139594) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
|
| (1139594) | |
Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012 Threads about examples of IND overbuilding such as mezzanines and extra bellmouths and the thread about reactivating the Rockaway Branch lead me to wonder. Was the Queens Boulevard IND underbuilt? Should the city have built a 5th track for rush hour super-express service or even a 5th and 6th track for all day super-express service. It seems to me that there is plenty of room under Queens Boulevard for more tracks. |
|
|
| (1139596) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 14 19:04:58 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. Should the city have built a fifth track for rush hour super-express service or even a fifth and sixth track for all day super-express servicePlease tell us what NYC subways have that. If the IND under Queens Boulevard were missing a fifth track compared to other lines, then you could say "underbuilt". If you want "super-express", ride LIRR. |
|
|
| (1139597) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Feb 14 19:21:37 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. I would say yes, it is underbuilt. It could really stand to have express services which reach deeper into Queens, yet take advantage of the system to make convenient connections with other subway lines as well as bring passengers closer to their destinations (hence the LIRR in inadequate for this role). |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1139598) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Tue Feb 14 19:25:33 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. The Flushing line should definitely have a 4th track, but that'll never happen. |
|
|
| (1139601) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 14 19:35:55 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 14 19:04:58 2012. Why do you always need to be a dick? |
|
|
| (1139608) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 20:08:17 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. Should the city have built a 5th trackNo, instead, a two-track only Queens Boulevard Subway should have been built combined with LIRR service feeding into what becomes the 6th Avenue Line with a diverge off the LIRR into what has become the 63rd Street Line. |
|
|
| (1139609) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 20:09:16 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by 3-9 on Tue Feb 14 19:21:37 2012. hence the LIRR in inadequate for this roleThen modernize LIRR and fare collection so it can become adequate as done in other countries... |
|
|
| (1139612) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 14 20:20:58 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. No way the initial IND planners could have guessed the demand that would be put on the line, assuming other lines would be built to share the load and that the increase in population density around Queens Blvd would not be so severe (few high rise apartment or condo complexes in the 1920's). |
|
|
| (1139619) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 14 20:27:40 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 14 20:20:58 2012. Queens was still largely empty when it was built, and let's not forget that the Concourse line is only three tracks ... |
|
|
| (1139623) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 20:34:51 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 14 20:20:58 2012. Good point. A poster mentioned that the Flushing Line should have been built with 4 tracks but if you have seen photos of Qns Blvd and Roosevelt Av when the line was built, you will note that the entire area was just open lots with no housing of any kind built along the line. The IRT and BMT el lines built into Queens were more than adequate for the lack of population that existed there at the time and the IND Qns Blvd Line was more than adequate for the projected development based on what grew up around the other lines. If you want to talk underbuilding think Second Av subway. As originally planned, it was to have been 6 tracks along a portion of its route since it was intended to replace both the 2nd and 3rd Av els. Over the years plans were scaled down to a 4 track subway for its entire length and now it seems to be difficult for even a 2 track line to be built. |
|
|
| (1139624) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 20:36:44 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 20:34:51 2012. 4 track subway for its entire lengthYeah, let's blow money for a 4 track line that will never see more than 10 tph... |
|
|
| (1139627) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 20:47:39 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 20:36:44 2012. If the SAS could have been built as originally envisioned, there would certainly be more than 10 TPH, taking into consideration, trains from Queens going to the lower portion and trains from the upper portion going all the way don 2 Av as well as Bway and possibly even 6 Av. The service pattern would be comparable to the IND all the way down CPW and 8 Av especially if the line were connected to the Bronx at the north end and Bkln ant the South end. Of course at this point none of that will ever happen at least not in the lifetimes of most of us. |
|
|
| (1139628) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 14 20:54:42 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 14 20:27:40 2012. If you use this website and view the historic aerials from 1924, you'd confirm that easily. There wasn't much of anything along what became Queens Blvd between Woodside and Kew Gardens when IND construction began. |
|
|
| (1139631) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 21:09:47 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 20:47:39 2012. trains from Queens going to the lower portion and trains from the upper portion going all the way don 2 AvEven then, we're not going to see high levels of service from the Bronx or Queens combined. Again, we're probably going to see 10 tph combined, and a two track line can easily handle 20 tph, and a modern line with proper signalling can handle 30 tph and the 90 second theoretical headway is achievable once you take the human element out and run with ATO. Given development patterns, it remains to be seen if Second Avenue will develop high levels of density to even warrant such high levels of service... |
|
|
| (1139632) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Tue Feb 14 21:12:56 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Feb 14 20:54:42 2012. Seen plenty of old photos from the old head IND folks when I was on board there. Made construction easy, particularly the "Worlds fair" spur. :) |
|
|
| (1139641) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Feb 14 21:58:00 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 21:09:47 2012. a modern line with proper signalling can handle 30 tph and the 90 second theoretical headway is achievable once you take the human element out and run with ATO.The Third Avenue El ran 42 tph on the reverse track during rush hours with the human element and no ATO. It also had grade crossings and still managed 42 tph. |
|
|
| (1139643) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by J trainloco on Tue Feb 14 22:10:24 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 21:09:47 2012. The east side already has enough density to support far more than 10 tph. Are you referring to something else that i'm missing? |
|
|
| (1139688) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Feb 14 23:16:47 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Feb 14 21:09:47 2012. CTA's State St Subway was 90 sec headway capable in the 50s w/humans and PCC based 6000 class cars. We have time and again discussed MTA's unwillingness to operate frequent service w/the supposedly modern equipment which the predecessor NYCTA was able to do with less sophisticated cars. S. Bauman has previously posted links to a map showing much higher TPH. |
|
|
| (1139707) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by grand concourse on Tue Feb 14 23:54:07 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Tue Feb 14 20:34:51 2012. Should the MTA ever have enough money for at least another pair of tracks for 2nd av, would they build below the line (2 levels like Lexington av) or would they just build the additional tracks on the sides (all 4 tracks on the same level)? |
|
|
| (1139709) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Wed Feb 15 00:01:02 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by grand concourse on Tue Feb 14 23:54:07 2012. Much as I prefer four track local/express systems, what MTA needs to do is un-neuter the trains and amp up frequencies on the tracks they have. Dirty secret, if the damn trains ran faster they would get more mileage out of the crews. |
|
|
| (1139726) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 03:27:14 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. While the QB line does get heavy usage during peak hours, most of that is just during the morning crunch when everyone is trying to get to work and school at the same time. Other than that the QB line has enough capacity, and the trains aren't sardine packed like the Lex line. Contrary to popular belief among some posters, it is OK for a train to be SRO. Also, when the IND was built in Queens, they probably built an express stop at Roosevelt Ave to compete with the IRT. Now you have riders transferring from the 7, adding to the peak capacity issues. If the transfer between the IRT an IND were closed, the QB line would be just fine capacity wise.As a QB rider it would be nice to go from Hillside Ave directly to Manhattan, but the practical side of me knows that it's unnecessary. Though, If the QB line did go further into Queens and had all the miscellaneous branches as planned,then it would need the bypass tracks because there wouldn't be enough capacity with 4 tracks on the trunk line to handle all of the trains needed to provide a reasonable level service to the outer branches. Then again, 71st Contenental doesn't have to be used as a terminal, and they could have just had local thru trains serve various branches. Also, while there may be room under QB for more tracks, don't forget that the western portion of the line runs under Broadway(which is narrow) and Northern Blvd. Theoretically if they did a 6 track line, they could have made Queens Plaza like Hoyt-Schermerhorn, and ran a 4 track express line under Northern Blvd. When the express tracks rejoined with the Local Tracks at Broadway, they could have dipped the super express tracks under the existing express tracks until the route reached Queens Blvd where everything could have spread out. |
|
|
| (1139730) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 15 04:14:13 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by 3-9 on Tue Feb 14 19:21:37 2012. If the IND is underbuilt, its because John Hylan primarily intended for it to put the BMT and IRT out of business, not to open up new areas for residential development and aid the City's proper growth. The money spent on the IND certainly could have been used more efficiently to reach more areas of the city than the IRT or BMT were able to reach, rather than concentrate in built-up areas that had already been long served by IRT and BMT subways. |
|
|
| (1139749) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Wed Feb 15 07:20:23 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 14 19:04:58 2012. The LIRR only takes you to Penn Station. A super-express feeding into the 8th Avenue and 6th Avenue lines would give a one-seat ride to most midtown and downtown destinations. |
|
|
| (1139757) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Feb 15 09:05:52 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 03:27:14 2012. As long as we are building SUPER EXPRESS TRACKS, they should havediverged at Woodhaven, made into an express stop, and remained under Queens Blvd, all of the way to Queens Plaza. The super express would even by pass Woodhaven. That way, the Super express would not dog leg through Northern Queens, but run a shorter direct route. |
|
|
| (1139758) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Feb 15 09:06:08 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 03:27:14 2012. As long as we are building SUPER EXPRESS TRACKS, they should havediverged at Woodhaven, made into an express stop, and remained under Queens Blvd, all of the way to Queens Plaza. The super express would even by pass Woodhaven. That way, the Super express would not dog leg through Northern Queens, but run a shorter direct route. |
|
|
| (1139780) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 15 10:35:03 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. LION did not read the thread, and so knows not what other answers were, but him can tell you of his own knowledge that NONE of those apartment buildings that you see along Queens Boulevard existed when the line was built. People built the buildings where the transportation was.Ergo, they did not know or even guess that they would need more service. ROAR |
|
|
| (1139782) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 10:37:13 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 03:27:14 2012. In order to handle the peak rush hour crowds on the QB line, I always wondered why the MTA didn't operate like they do on the LIRR mainline to Jamaica. During the AM, all Eastbound trains should be local freeing up the Eastbound express track to run towards Manhattan (wrong railing). There would be three tracks, two express, one local going into Manhattan with the E always wrong railing as to avoid the crossover right before Queens Plaza. The F would run on the regular West bound Express track with the R and M running normally on the local track. The line is already signaled to do this and it would enable double the trains to run on the QB line during rush hour. This would be reversed in the PM. |
|
|
| (1139791) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Feb 15 10:55:07 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. It may take a change in the Zoning laws in New York City (all Boros) to allow single dwelling neighborhoods to go to multiple dwelling neighborhoods.This may lead to claims of gentrification. The far eastern ends of the Queens Blvd. line have some apartment buildings close to the line and stations. The bulk of riders have two seat rides. A bus ride and then on to the subway. The high percent of these riders come from one and two family homes. |
|
|
| (1139793) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Wed Feb 15 11:02:11 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 10:37:13 2012. I think that is great, but wouldn't there be an eventual pile up of cars trying to get out of the CBD. There aren't yards in Manhattan to store this sudden influx of rolling stock. |
|
|
| (1139816) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 12:56:07 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Feb 15 09:06:08 2012. If they were to build a direct route under Queens Blvd, then they might as well had built stations, since that section is not served by any subway service.Outside of like 1 hour of the morning rush, I don't see the need for a super express. Try using the E or F any other time, they are not at capacity. |
|
|
| (1139822) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 13:04:49 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 15 10:35:03 2012. That's pretty much the gist of it, yes. |
|
|
| (1139823) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Wed Feb 15 13:06:19 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Feb 14 19:04:58 2012. Yeah the LIRR is super express alright, super express wallet drain. |
|
|
| (1139826) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 13:43:50 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 10:37:13 2012. Interesting idea, but the line is not signaled for bidirectional operation on D3 and D4.The other thing to consider is what to do when the main line splits off into two-track lines for 53rd, 60th, 63rd, and Crosstown. That would most likely require single-track operation for a portion of each two-track section. Given the current track layout, it would definitely include a station somewhere. Consider the following service pattern, with an E/F terminal swap and local service extended to the eastern terminals as follows: E PDX between 179th Street and Lexington/53rd F PDX between Jamaica Center and Roosevelt Island R local between Jamaica Center and Lexington/60th M local between 179th Street and Lexington/53rd Also assume the signal system is modified to allow bidirectional operation on D3 and D4. For all peak hours, the local services would be simple. The M would use D1 and D2 along the entire stretch between Queens Plaza and 179th Street, and D3 and D4 between Queens Plaza and Lexington/53rd. The R would use D1 and D2 between Queens Plaza and Briarwood, and D1A and D2A to Jamaica Center. For the morning peak... The Jamaica-bound F would use T2 from Roosevelt Island to 36th Street, D2 from 36th to Briarwood, then D2A to Jamaica Center. The Manhattan-bound F would use D1A at Jamaica Center, switch to D2A at Jamaica-Van Wyck, use D4 between Briarwood and 36th Street, then use T2 between 36th Street and 21st Street, switching to T1 at 21st Street. The Jamaica-bound E would use D4 between Lexington/53rd and Queens Plaza, then D2 to 179th Street. The Manhattan-bound E would use D3 between 179th Street and Lexington/53rd. And the evening peak... The Manhattan-bound F would use D1A from Jamaica Center to Briarwood, D1 from Briarwood to 36th Street, then T1 from 36th to Roosevelt Island. The Jamaica-bound F would use T2 between Roosevelt Island and 36th Street, D4 between 36th and Briarwood, and D2A between Briarwood and Jamaica Center. The Manhattan-bound E would use D1 between 179th and Queens Plaza, then D3 to Lexington/53rd. The Jamaica-bound E would switch to D3 at 23rd-Ely, and continue on that to 169th Street. In the morning peak, the conflict points would be between 36th Street and 21st-Queensbridge, and between Jamaica-Van Wyck and Briarwood, where T2 and D2A are used for trains of both directions. In the evening peak, D3 between 23rd Street and Queens Plaza, including both stations, would be used for conflicting bidi service. In short, the idea won't work. |
|
|
| (1139827) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 13:46:36 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Avid Reader on Wed Feb 15 11:02:11 2012. Doubling the number of F trains would not be a problem because they can lay-up in the Coney Island Yards. The E trains would have to run on the A/C line and lay-up in Brooklyn but the frequency of C trains could be reduced. Running trains like this would provide the flexibility of new service without investing billions in new infrastructure. |
|
|
| (1139828) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Dan Lawrence on Wed Feb 15 13:50:19 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Edwards! on Tue Feb 14 19:35:55 2012. That's what Trolls do. |
|
|
| (1139829) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Feb 15 14:00:12 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 10:37:13 2012. Doing that will force reverse peak E or F trains to wait at signals for the wrong-railing trains to switch back. And you'll still have the E/M merge at Queens Plaza to contend with. Only it will be worse because there will be more E trains for those switches to deal with. |
|
|
| (1139833) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 14:03:23 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 10:37:13 2012. They can't fit everything eastbound on the local track. You're talking over 50 trains. LIRR has unbalanced service, with exponentially fewer trains reverse peak that can fit onto a single track. |
|
|
| (1139835) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 14:04:22 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 13:46:36 2012. There is massive need for reverse peak E trains to get Penn Station commuters over to the East Side. It has to run at a minimum of 12 TPH. |
|
|
| (1139836) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 14:06:15 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 13:43:50 2012. I do not know enough about all of the track names to really comment on this (sorry) but what I envision is that there will be three track service from where the F comes in before 36th street and by the time the Manhattan bound E gets to Queens Plaza, it would have already merged back onto the regular Manhattan bound express Track and service will be operating "normally." At the other end of QB, I envision that three track service will commence at Van Wyck Blvd. The E and F trains will be back on their normal routing at Jamaica Van Wyck and Sutphin Blvd. respectively. |
|
|
| (1139847) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Feb 15 15:29:36 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 15 04:14:13 2012. Good point about Hylan. But also remember that Queens was not developed back in the 1930's, like it is today. I believe that the IND Queens line, like its Fulton counterpart east of B'way Jct, did not have definite final routings. So, they kept it to 4 tracks. Some people here ask why they didn't add a 5th or 6th track, when the lines were built. There was just no need for it back then! |
|
|
| (1139850) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 15:39:40 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Forest Hill Rider on Wed Feb 15 14:06:15 2012. What I was trying to get at is that given the current layout of the tracks on the Queens Boulevard line, three-track service in one direction would lead to one track handling traffic in both directions for a portion of the route once the QB line branches into two-track lines at Briarwood and in Long Island City.A notable point where such a conflict could occur is on one of the two tracks between Jamaica-Van Wyck and Briarwood, which one depends on which track the wrong-railing express service is running on. |
|
|
| (1139852) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Wed Feb 15 15:43:05 2012, in response to Underbuilt IND?, posted by merrick1 on Tue Feb 14 18:59:05 2012. I think the Queens Blvd IND was underbuilt because had all of those spurs (Winfield and Roosevelt Ave upper, for example) been built as originally intended, there would be a great deal more traffic on this trunk line than it has ever seen. I think this could have lead to congestion.--Mark |
|
|
| (1139853) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 15:47:36 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 14:03:23 2012. How about if the M and R are extended to Jamaica? |
|
|
| (1139862) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Feb 15 16:44:50 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Elkeeper on Wed Feb 15 15:29:36 2012. Saying that an area didn't get more subway service because it wasn't developed sufficiently makes no sense. Before 1940, subways were the very tool used to encourage commercial and residential development. By giving Queens fewer subways, they guaranteed that Queens would remain undeveloped.For example, upper Manhattan was largely undeveloped at the turn of the century and the original IRT was intended to open up outlying regions of Manhattan to residential and commercial development. The IRT was very successful in this regard. The IRT Brooklyn line and the BRT/BMT Dual Contracts lines did the same for the outlying regions of Brooklyn and the IRT Dual Contracts lines did the same for the Bronx. There are so many pictures of Dual Contracts elevated lines being built in wide open fields of grass and flowers. But if the populations of these outlying areas were taken in consideration when the lines were built, then the lines would not have been built, or least not as extensively. The truth is, Queens got screwed during the subway construction boom that took place between 1915 and 1940. While other boros (except Staten Island) either received extensions of existing subways or elevated lines or new lines, Queens only got the IRT Corona line, the IND Queens Boulevard lines and an extension of the BRT line to 168th Street in Jamaica. Everything east of 179th Street was ignored. |
|
|
| (1139867) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 15 17:36:49 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 14:04:22 2012. That service level probably won't be required once the LIRR starts using the ESA. The only passengers who might still have to use it are NJT passengers but not as many LIRR passengers. |
|
|
| (1139868) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 15 17:45:01 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 15:39:40 2012. There is also the problem with having the M use both tracks in the 53 St tube since there would be no way for returning Es and Ms to get back to Queens. Also having all the services return to the D1 S/B track at Lex really doesn't help since that would be the restricting location which would determine the actual capacity of the line. |
|
|
| (1139872) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 18:06:51 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Wed Feb 15 17:45:01 2012. Keep in mind that the south end of D1 and D2 tracks is in the Court Square station.Here's the idea I was thinking of now. E Jamaica Center Peak Express F 179th Street Peak Express R 179th Street Local M Jamaica Center Local During three-track operation in the peak direction, E trains would be on D4 (Jamaica-bound express) track, and F trains would be on D3 (Manhattan-bound express) track. All trains in the off-peak direction would run on the local tracks. No trains terminate at 71/Continental. The conflicts would be on: • D2A (Jamaica-bound) track between Jamaica-Van Wyck and Briarwood in the AM peak. • T1 (Manhattan-bound) track at 21 Street-Queensbridge in the PM peak. During the AM peak, Manhattan-bound E trains on D4 track would use D5 track (normally used for layups) between 36th Street and Queens Plaza, arriving at Queens Plaza on D3 track. |
|
|
| (1139880) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Feb 15 18:19:59 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by R36 #9346 on Wed Feb 15 18:06:51 2012. LION does not think much of your solution.The trains that you said are "off peak" are of course "Rush Hour Trains" from Brooklyn, and they need a place to go, not to mention that they are needed at the norther terminals so that they can become more southbound trains again. ROAR |
|
|
| (1139888) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Outside the Box on Wed Feb 15 19:18:06 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Tue Feb 14 21:58:00 2012. There is still the human element called passengers that can affect station dwell time. The old 3rd Ave El also ran shorter consists than current IRT. Running 10 car trains at 90 sec headways require very strict headway keeping. The Moscow Metro (40 tph operation) has clocks that allow crew to keep station dwell to a set time frame. |
|
|
| (1139900) | |
Re: Underbuilt IND? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Wed Feb 15 22:59:20 2012, in response to Re: Underbuilt IND?, posted by randyo on Wed Feb 15 17:36:49 2012. Still thousands of riders from NJT who have no ESA option. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 3 |
|
