|
|
| Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av (1224218) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
|
| (1224447) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:05:30 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 12:00:14 2013. That would be something that is more "fixable" in the near term, at least. |
|
|
| (1224448) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:06:26 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 24 13:03:04 2013. Ah, ok, got it. |
|
|
| (1224449) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri May 24 13:09:25 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 24 13:02:32 2013. Geez, and to think I actually believed him to the extent I thought about it. And I've even been there - the architecture is not 1960s style. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1224450) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 24 13:10:30 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 24 13:03:04 2013. Actually, I think it is phase 4. Phase 3 ends on Houston IINM. |
|
|
| (1224451) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri May 24 13:11:23 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:03:53 2013. But 1) is not a bottleneck at the moment. The roughly 15 As and 8 Cs in the peak hour meet the demand with room to spare. |
|
|
| (1224452) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Fri May 24 13:20:31 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by AlM on Fri May 24 09:37:09 2013. Not on the tracks to 63Rd, but on what would have been the 7Th Ave Local tracks or track way extended north of 57Th to 59Th street.There are or were side walk grates for ventilation. The westward turn I was questioning about would have been on the 6Th avenue extension north of 6Th Ave. and 57Th St. |
|
|
| (1224453) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:22:15 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by AlM on Fri May 24 13:11:23 2013. I'm not sure about that. The C may have room to spare, but isn't the A packed? |
|
|
| (1224454) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:25:26 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 24 13:02:32 2013. Chrystie was widened during that era (like Allen St). The park was created when it was dug up to build the connector. I did read it somewhere. |
|
|
| (1224456) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 13:26:33 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:03:53 2013. As noted by AlM, the current merge of the A and C does not result in a bottleneck: the Cranberry tube can handle both lines with room to space (for the record, it's 18 A trains at 7 C trains at peak). However, even if that were to become a bottleneck, there is ample capacity in other existing tunnels that should be used first (namely, Rutgers and Montague), before sinking billions into a new under river tube. And if a new under river tube were to be built, it should be between Queens and Manhattan, not Brooklyn and Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1224457) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Mark S. Feinman on Fri May 24 13:27:19 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by MainR3664 on Fri May 24 07:14:16 2013. Here's what I wrote about it, from my NYCTA in the 1980s..--Mark |
|
|
| (1224458) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri May 24 13:27:33 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri May 24 13:10:30 2013. Correct. |
|
|
| (1224460) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 13:36:55 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:22:15 2013. From my daily PM peak observations, no, the A is not excessively crowded. The Rock Park specials in particular usually have seats at Fulton st. I have numbers from the most recent 'cordon count', but not with me right now. |
|
|
| (1224461) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:44:42 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 13:26:33 2013. Rutgers would be of little help since the local would still have to merge with the express. It would be nice if the local could merge with the F without touching the express, but that's already been ruled out.You might be able to connect something with Montague St, but you're going to have to work past the IRT as well. |
|
|
| (1224462) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:53:35 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:03:53 2013. 1. Cranberry St provides sufficient capacity for the entire Fulton St/Rockaway line.2. You don't build a new tunnel when 3 East River crossings to Brooklyn operate at 60% or less of their capacity (Willy B, Rutgers St, Montague St). |
|
|
| (1224463) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:56:20 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 13:26:33 2013. I agree. It's the Bronx and Queens that need more capacity into Manhattan, which is why I think Phase III of the SAS should not be south to Houston from 63rd but north from 125th, under the Harlem River to the Hub. |
|
|
| (1224464) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 14:01:30 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:44:42 2013. Locals merge with the expresses all over the place. |
|
|
| (1224466) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 14:05:40 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Avid Reader on Fri May 24 13:20:31 2013. If such provisions existed, they were obliterated when the 63rd St line was constructed in the 70's. |
|
|
| (1224468) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 14:10:17 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 13:44:42 2013. The Lower Manhattan JFK Access plan always proposed an alternative of the A sharing Cranberry with LIRR/AIRTRAIN and rerouting the C via Rutgers, which would have required a connection of the Fulton Local tracks to the Rutgers tunnel. It's possible, and certainly cheaper than building a new tunnel.The connection to Montague is not that difficult to build, especially if one is not deadset on keeping the Transit Museum where it is. |
|
|
| (1224469) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri May 24 14:18:21 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by SelkirkTMO on Thu May 23 18:39:15 2013. The NTT's accelerate pretty nicely though... they simply use the software to determine the maximum acceleration rate / speed rather than preventing the motors from running at their full potential.At the very least, getting stopped at the bottom of the 53rd st tube due to a train ahead no longer guarantees a top speed of 10 until entering Lexington... |
|
|
| (1224470) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 14:21:39 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:56:20 2013. Phase III is an important piece of the line. In order for the SAS to really relieve Lexington, it needs to pass through east Midtown. Do remember that south of 42nd, the Lex runs under Park Ave south, and East midtown remains underserved.The Bronx is not as underserved with tunnels as you might think. The Lexington's 4 track tunnel, the 149th street tunnel to Lennox, the 3 track Concourse tunnel and the Broadway Bridge mean that the Bronx has a peak capacity of 168 tph (assuming maximum capacity of 25 tph). Contrast that to Queens' capacity of 112 tph, and you begin to see that Queens remains underserved. |
|
|
| (1224471) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 14:22:58 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Fri May 24 14:18:21 2013. Yep. Should be interesting to see what the Flushing express is like once CBTC is installed. |
|
|
| (1224472) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:24:15 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 14:01:30 2013. And thereby limits the original 4-track line to a maximum of 2 tracks. That's a wasted resource. |
|
|
| (1224473) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 14:34:38 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 14:21:39 2013. But it's never going to be built. |
|
|
| (1224474) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 14:36:16 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:24:15 2013. Fulton St doesn't need any more capacity than that provided by a single river tunnel. Queens Blvd has 3. |
|
|
| (1224475) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:41:49 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 14:10:17 2013. Considering that AIRTRAIN is a totally different system and LIRR is under FRA jurisdiction, I would say that option is remote. Plus there is this, which explains that project was meant to be a dedicated subway line. Admittedly, it's thin ground, but I don't have time to research further.As for the Montague St connection, I would think you would have to cross under the IRT before the latter makes its run to the Joralemon St tunnel. If that's the case, you can still keep a single track connection to Court St. |
|
|
| (1224477) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:57:42 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:53:35 2013. Willy B. has nothing to do with downtown Bklyn. Rutgers is not in a good position to alleviate the bottleneck west of Hoyt, unless they can somehow link the local tracks directly to the F. Also, the route of the Rutgers St tunnel is part of the reason why it's underutilized. Montague St., maybe, if it's possible to run a connection past the IRT and meet up with the tunnel. |
|
|
| (1224479) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:02:45 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by AlM on Fri May 24 12:50:26 2013. Say I wanted to get from Eastern Queens to somewhere around 86/3? |
|
|
| (1224480) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri May 24 15:05:34 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:02:45 2013. OK, I get it. |
|
|
| (1224483) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 24 15:20:02 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:25:26 2013. it wasn't even suppose to be a park! it was a clearing for the MASSIVE ROADWAY/SUBWAY project under 2nd Avenue from the Manhattan Bridge that never panned out.it was a project that just could not be built without incredible disruption all along the east side. As we all know,the furthest THIS VERSION got was the massive land clearing[so called URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT to clear out what Robert Moses called the slums] when the TA decided to build the connector,along with Moses' LOMEX short tunnel segment..there really wasnt much to clear away since it was done earlier.tunnels were built..but the road was cancelled..leaving provisions for the SAS tunnel north and south and west to Nassau st line. |
|
|
| (1224488) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 15:32:18 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:41:49 2013. Regardless of what vehicles it utilized, using Cranberry for Lower Manhattan access would've resulted in relocation of the C to a new Fulton local/Rutgers connector.As for the connection to Montague, it doesn't have to be made south of Borough hall. There's no reason it couldn't be connected to Montague even north of Court st BMT, opening up the NYTM as a stop once again. It could pass over/under the IRT at any point. |
|
|
| (1224490) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 15:33:36 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 14:34:38 2013. It's far more likely to be built than a proposal to extend SAS to the Bronx. |
|
|
| (1224491) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:35:12 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by AlM on Fri May 24 15:05:34 2013. But really, I'd ride the LIRR to GCT for the 4/5/6, when it opens... |
|
|
| (1224493) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:36:00 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:56:20 2013. IAWTP |
|
|
| (1224494) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:36:19 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 13:56:20 2013. Better still, aim for Fordham. |
|
|
| (1224495) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 24 15:36:24 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:57:42 2013. linking the local tracks with the F is the best option in any plan..but the surface disruption would work against the recent developments in downtown Brooklyn.Im cool with it.. |
|
|
| (1224496) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:37:11 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by 3-9 on Fri May 24 14:24:15 2013. These days they wouldn't build the Fulton St express tracks. |
|
|
| (1224498) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:38:38 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 14:10:17 2013. It's a stupid idea running little stubby trains to Manhattan. They can transfer at Jamaica. |
|
|
| (1224500) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:39:54 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by J Trainloco on Fri May 24 13:36:55 2013. The Rock Park specials in particular usually have seats at Fulton st.Why am I not surprised? |
|
|
| (1224501) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:40:54 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 12:00:14 2013. Build the Flatbush Av El! |
|
|
| (1224502) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:42:26 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri May 24 12:02:53 2013. I hope they've learnt about how to treat parks whiners after the South Ferry sump... |
|
|
| (1224503) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 24 15:42:34 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:37:11 2013. correct..even though it would be an easy thing to do.look at second ave,a much wider street than Fulton..yet they went with the TBM type construction. the ground under Fulton was/is clay dirt..not rock. |
|
|
| (1224504) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:46:15 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Thu May 23 22:57:22 2013. Every rider on the SAS is one rider of the Lex. Even if they only build the "stubway" and it carries 150,000 riders a day, it means 10% lower ridership for the IRT.You're missing UES riders who currently don't use the subway for certain trips. Remember that this is an area that is densely-populated and rich. |
|
|
| (1224505) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri May 24 16:01:13 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:46:15 2013. Yes, I know a business owner who works at 1st Ave near 80th but livers in Philadelphia (though he also has a pied-a-terre in NYC). He probably takes a cab between work and NYP but the Q would be faster in the day time. |
|
|
| (1224506) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 24 16:11:19 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by R36 #9346 on Fri May 24 12:02:53 2013. parkland can be replaced or renewed... parks were taken for the last three subway projects,and replaced.SDRP is nothing special. |
|
|
| (1224507) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 16:11:58 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Edwards! on Fri May 24 15:20:02 2013. Right. I assumed the park was used to fill the space LOMEX would have occupied. LOMEX was dead by the mid 60's. |
|
|
| (1224509) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Fri May 24 16:18:11 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by MainR3664 on Fri May 24 07:12:43 2013. That was the case with the IND subway S/O Rockaway Av although that delay was due to WWII. Also look at some of the sections of the SAS. |
|
|
| (1224513) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri May 24 16:23:38 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by MainR3664 on Fri May 24 07:12:43 2013. yeah..its a shame that the projects were never finished. |
|
|
| (1224514) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 16:24:00 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:36:19 2013. That's the dream route. I'd accept just to 149th St, to take the pressure off the 2/5. |
|
|
| (1224517) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 16:29:39 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri May 24 16:24:00 2013. The thing is, the bit north of 149th is probably the cheap bit. |
|
|
| (1224520) | |
Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av |
|
|
Posted by Concourse Express on Fri May 24 16:33:04 2013, in response to Re: tracks after 57th St/6 Av, posted by kew gardens teleport on Fri May 24 15:36:19 2013. I agree 100%!visit my blog! |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 5 |
||
