|
|
| Re: SAS termini questions (126072) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (126637) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Sun Aug 14 08:17:52 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Aug 14 07:25:21 2005. "And IIRC Brixton (London, Vic) was designed for something crazy like 42tph"It takes about 97secs for a train to leave one of Brixton's platforms, and the next train to arrive . So taking into account, trains being able to leave on the NB side track sooner than that, as there is no conflicting movement, then the maximum capacity would be around 42tph. However, when you add green light to door closing time (10-15secs), and the fact that departing headways should be fairly even, then realistically the terminus cannot handle much more than 30tph. It presently handles 30tph, and should handle 33tph after the lines upgrade. Strangely, the lesser used terminus at Walthamstow can actually get a train in and out of the platform in just 90secs. Quite why the slightly more modern Brixton has an inferior run out run in time I don't know! |
|
|
| (126777) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Sun Aug 14 16:36:37 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Rail Blue on Sun Aug 14 07:25:21 2005. Here is a link to my idea for creating a very high capacity but compact 2 track/island platform terminal.http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/27424718/ It simply replaces the scissors crossover with a flying junction. The inbound and outbound tracks would enter the flying junction in a vertical arrangement. It would also allow for flexibility in island platform size (as with a scissors crossover, the further apart the platforms, then the further out the end of the crossover will be, with negative impacts on capacity). This would be very suitable for the 125th St terminus. It would require a narrower construction site, and be able to handle just as many trains as a 3 track terminus with just 2 tracks. It could also mean that the tracks running through the curve from 2nd Av to 125th St could be positioned vertically, again reducing surface impact during construction. |
|
|
| (126805) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Aug 14 17:50:55 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Sun Aug 14 16:36:37 2005.  my idea for creating a very high capacity but compact 2 track/island platform terminal. Looks exactly like my plan:  Say, are you sure you are not part LION? 
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (126806) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Aug 14 17:53:37 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Aug 14 17:50:55 2005. A very nice design on your part! |
|
|
| (126807) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Sun Aug 14 17:55:50 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Aug 14 17:50:55 2005. Glad, that I'm not the only person who thinks that flying junctions are a good idea at termini. If it's generally thought that flat junctions where lines split are a bad idea on metro systems, then why do planners still use them at termini! If only transit planners thought along the same lines. |
|
|
| (126843) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 14 19:27:33 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Aug 14 07:23:54 2005. >> The cost of increasing rush hour services levels by 20% (to previously operated levels) is just too high. <<But is this cheaper than a whole new line (SAS)? If so, then-- other than the convenience of service closer to where people want to go-- is the SAS a giant rip-off? I love to see new lines, but I also like to see existing lines used to full potential. |
|
|
| (126922) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Aug 14 21:13:44 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Aug 14 17:50:55 2005. Won't work for Hanover Sq. I have not checked it out for 125th yet.Can you guess why not? |
|
|
| (126924) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Aug 14 21:17:25 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sun Aug 14 19:27:33 2005. But is this cheaper than a whole new line (SAS)?A whole new SAS is obviously more expensive. However, the designers, project managers, et al will be safely retired by the time anybody figures that out. is the SAS a giant rip-off? Considering that New Yorkers have already paid for two of them with bond issues starting in 1950, I'd say so. |
|
|
| (127060) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 15 04:44:15 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Aug 14 21:13:44 2005. Too close to the Seaport? Clearance is the only real drawback I can see with the flying crossover, aside from cost. |
|
|
| (127064) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 04:51:03 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Aug 14 21:13:44 2005. Probably the Clark St tunnel would be in the way. |
|
|
| (127065) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 15 04:52:30 2005, in response to SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Fri Aug 12 16:41:34 2005. I'm surprised there isn't a bigger stink about Grand St. I know it's been mentioned before, but wouldn't a cross-platform option make it much easier for people from Brooklyn/DeKalb Ave. to get to the SAS? Hell, the B/D tracks were even built to accomodate an SAS connection north of the station, where the tracks separate slightly. |
|
|
| (127067) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 04:56:23 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Sun Aug 14 16:36:37 2005. Here is a link to my idea for creating a very high capacity but compact 2 track/island platform terminal.http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenk1977/27424718/ It simply replaces the scissors crossover with a flying junction. The inbound and outbound tracks would enter the flying junction in a vertical arrangement. It would also allow for flexibility in island platform size (as with a scissors crossover, the further apart the platforms, then the further out the end of the crossover will be, with negative impacts on capacity). Very nice, Stephen. The only problem I see is that at least one of the following three will almost always be cheaper and have the same or better capacity: 1) Passenger Loop 2) Non-passenger Loop 3) Partial relay in station, partial relay beyond station I do, however, agree that flat crossovers at termini are often a nuisance. I've lost count of the times my District's been held going into Wimbledon because something was leaving platform 4, only then to arrive and find the other three platforms empty. |
|
|
| (127068) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 04:58:02 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 15 04:44:15 2005. Too close to the Seaport? Clearance is the only real drawback I can see with the flying crossover, aside from cost.Seaport could always be built Fulton/Nassau-style if that were the issue. I think Stephen (Bauman) is getting at something else. |
|
|
| (127075) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 05:25:47 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 15 04:44:15 2005. Too close to the Seaport?Correct. FEIS shows Seaport ending at Fulton St and Hanover Sq beginning "north of Pine St". That's a distance of 950 feet. The two tracks must attain a vertical clearance of around 20 feet and then come back together. Assume each track gains/loses 10 feet. This translates to a horizontal distance of 500 feet, assuming a 2% grade. Next, assume that the tracks come back together and it's another 500 feet. The switch should not be on a grade, so add another 200 feet. This means that the two stations need a minimum separation of 1200 feet. Jast a sanity check. The downtown 6th Ave tracks cross over one another between 50th and 42nd Streets. The distance between these two stations is approximately 1310 feet. |
|
|
| (127076) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 05:29:27 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 04:58:02 2005. Seaport could always be built Fulton/Nassau-style if that were the issue.Of course,they are now planning to use the overrun tracks to store up to 4 trains as a cost savings measure. That should be sufficient to kill any benefit that a flying crossover would provide. |
|
|
| (127084) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 05:51:11 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 04:56:23 2005. flat crossovers at termini are often a nuisance. I've lost count of the times my District's been held going into Wimbledon because something was leaving platform 4, only then to arrive and find the other three platforms empty.The "secret" to operating flat crossovers at terminals, or any merge point for that matter, is to adhere strictly to a schedule that does not have conflicts. How strictly? Suppose it takes 1 minute for a train to enter and clear a switch. If trains are operating at 3 minute headways, the switch will be occupied for 2 minutes out of every 3 minutes. The 1 minute that the switch is not occupied is the recovery time for late/early trains. Divide this time between the entering and leaving train, and a sufficient condition to eliminate switching conflicts is that trains must be within 30 seconds of their schedule. Want to raise service levels to 30 tph (2 minute headways)? It will still take 1 minute to clear the switch but the switch will be occupied for 2 minutes out of every 2 minutes between incoming trains. Oops, there is not recovery time. The trains will have to be operating within one second to guarantee no switching conflict. Solution. Cut the time that it takes for a train to pass over the switch. Overrun tracks at the end of the terminal mean that the train can operate into the station at near normal speeds. Also, switches can be designed to permit greater than 15 mph operation. Suppose this reulted in reducing the time over the switch to 45 seconds. Then 30 tph operation would require that trains be within 15 seconds to avoid switching conflicts at the terminal. |
|
|
| (127104) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 06:59:59 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 05:51:11 2005. Agreed. Wimbledon isn't that pressurised though - 12tph terminating on four platforms. The trick is to put an arriving train on the lowest numbered platform possible. Most conflicts could be avoided that way. |
|
|
| (127209) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Mon Aug 15 11:44:56 2005, in response to SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Fri Aug 12 16:41:34 2005. I think (hope) that the reason the SAS 125 St. terminal is perpendicular to the Lexington is because they will have the sense, one day, to extend it as a Crosstown 125 St. line, so everyone can transfer to it, not just Lexington Avenue riders. |
|
|
| (127253) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Mon Aug 15 13:31:20 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Rail Blue on Mon Aug 15 04:56:23 2005. "Very nice, Stephen. The only problem I see is that at least one of the following three will almost always be cheaper and have the same or better capacity:1) Passenger Loop 2) Non-passenger Loop 3) Partial relay in station, partial relay beyond station" Well, the flying junction terminus shouldn't be too much more expensive than a traditional 2 track/scissors crossover terminus. It would only need about 300-400m extra tunnelling. It would need 4 step plate junctions if in a deep level tube, but a scissors crossover would also need considerable cavern construction anyway. It would also need overruns (2x200m+), of which the length would be dependant upon the amount of train storage needed. Compared to the alternatives (all of which could handle 40tph):- 1) Passenger loop - would need approx 1000m+ of extra tunnelling for a 150m radius loop, more if 2 platforms are needed (which makes sense!). Also, passenger loops can cause further problems during service disruptions as there is nowhere to store trains off-line. Trains the wrong way round may cause problems. Building loops subsurface can also be problematic due to surface interference, and at deep level, the loops could be too sharp for TBMs! 2) Non-passenger loop - would need approx 1000m of extra tunnelling for a single track loop at 150m radius curve. More if two tracks were used (for off-line storage whilst the loop is in use, although alternately a crossover could be retained for quieter times). Also suffers from same construction problems as passenger loop, as well as potential problems caused by trains being the wrong way round. 3) Partial relay in station, partial relay beyond station - would need 3 platforms, and thus 50% or more station construction which would be very costly. It would also take up a wider site if built sub surface. Also, more difficult to operate than above options. * 150m radius curves used in examples, as that is the approx.radius needed to allow for 20-25mph platform entry exit speeds (which are the optimum speeds for the shortest possible headways through platforms) Of the three above terminus types, and the flying junction terminus, I much prefer the non-passenger loop for offering both high capacity, and flexible or reliable headways. However, where loop construction is not suitable (e.g narrow sites), I think that the flying junction terminus would be most suitable. Strangely, given the proven advantages of non-passenger loops, I know of none that have been built since the 1920s in heavy metro systems! ( Can someone correct me on this?) |
|
|
| (127260) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Mon Aug 15 13:45:56 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 05:51:11 2005. "The "secret" to operating flat crossovers at terminals, or any merge point for that matter, is to adhere strictly to a schedule that does not have conflicts. How strictly? Suppose it takes 1 minute for a train to enter and clear a switch. If trains are operating at 3 minute headways, the switch will be occupied for 2 minutes out of every 3 minutes. The 1 minute that the switch is not occupied is the recovery time for late/early trains. Divide this time between the entering and leaving train, and a sufficient condition to eliminate switching conflicts is that trains must be within 30 seconds of their schedule. Want to raise service levels to 30 tph (2 minute headways)? It will still take 1 minute to clear the switch but the switch will be occupied for 2 minutes out of every 2 minutes between incoming trains. Oops, there is not recovery time. The trains will have to be operating within one second to guarantee no switching conflict.Solution. Cut the time that it takes for a train to pass over the switch. Overrun tracks at the end of the terminal mean that the train can operate into the station at near normal speeds. Also, switches can be designed to permit greater than 15 mph operation. Suppose this reulted in reducing the time over the switch to 45 seconds. Then 30 tph operation would require that trains be within 15 seconds to avoid switching conflicts at the terminal." At 2 minute headways it is not realistic to schedule trains to arrive excatly on time for their parth through the crossover, as any train running late (which is quite common on metros!) will delay the departure of the next train out. So it makes sense to schedule the train to arrive at the crossover a little bit early, and wait for its path through the crossover. To the make the most of this, the signal protecting the crossover should be as close as possible to the crossover. This tends to require speed control signals, or ATO. Even with high speed crossovers and long overruns, the realistic capacity at 2 track termini with scissors crossovers is still circa 30tph. High speed crossovers require more space, due to the larger curve radii, which limits the advantages of having the high speed crossover in the first place as the train has to travel further to clear the crossover. |
|
|
| (127287) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 15:04:56 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Mon Aug 15 13:45:56 2005. At 2 minute headways it is not realistic to schedule trains to arrive excatly on time for their parth through the crossover, as any train running late (which is quite common on metros!) will delay the departure of the next train out. So it makes sense to schedule the train to arrive at the crossover a little bit early, and wait for its path through the crossover.There is a window by which trains will not encounter any delays. I also showed how to calculate this window, based on the time it takes to traverse the crossover and the headway. It makes most sense to make sure that all trains operate within this window. To the make the most of this, the signal protecting the crossover should be as close as possible to the crossover. This tends to require speed control signals, or ATO. There's a safety concern here. The signal system must be able to stop a train before it hits the crossover. This distance is essentially the same for a block system and systems with speed controls or ATO. The signal system was also designed for degraded operation - the possibility that the brakes might be disabled from the lead car. The IND designers never thought that their successors would be so stupid as to introduce operating equipment were a single brake system would control more than one car. Two passengers were killed at Roosevelt Ave because of this. Even with high speed crossovers and long overruns, the realistic capacity at 2 track termini with scissors crossovers is still circa 30tph. High speed crossovers require more space, due to the larger curve radii, which limits the advantages of having the high speed crossover in the first place as the train has to travel further to clear the crossover. The Times Sq. station on the Flushing Line operated at 36 tph for a couple of decades according to the TA's own published data. Try to get some perspective on how much a factor the switch is. Let's assume it is 200 feet long (including signal protction) and that we are dealing with 600 foot long trains. This means that a train has to traverse 800 feet to enter and leave the switch. If this train takes 60 seconds that means an average speed of 9 mph. Let's assume that the average speed is to be increased to 15 mph - hardly a "high speed" crossover. This reduces the 60 second traversal time to 36 seconds. How much margin did those Flushing trains have? They operated at 100 second intervals and spent 72 seconds in the crossover. That gave them a margin of 28 seconds. So each train was expected to be within 14 seconds of its schedule. That is reasonable. That is what Moscow does. |
|
|
| (127304) | |
Grand Street (Was Re: SAS termini questions) |
|
|
Posted by Dinky on Mon Aug 15 15:57:33 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by 3-9 on Mon Aug 15 04:52:30 2005. I'm surprised there isn't a bigger stink about Grand St. I know it's been mentioned before, but wouldn't a cross-platform option make it much easier for people from Brooklyn/DeKalb Ave. to get to the SAS? Hell, the B/D tracks were even built to accomodate an SAS connection north of the station, where the tracks separate slightly.Me too. Why isn't the cross-platform option being pursued? In poking around the MTA's 2d Ave subway site, my guess is that they've opted for a deeper route rather than one that would permit a cross-platform transfer because of fears that cross-platform construction would require too much disruption to the surrounding neighborhood (especially Sara D. Roosevelt Park). If that's the case, it would be a short-term gain but a long-term loss. |
|
|
| (127346) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by stephenk on Mon Aug 15 17:47:09 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 15:04:56 2005. "There is a window by which trains will not encounter any delays. I also showed how to calculate this window, based on the time it takes to traverse the crossover and the headway. It makes most sense to make sure that all trains operate within this window."But realistically, how many metro trains run within seconds of their schedule during the peaks? "There's a safety concern here. The signal system must be able to stop a train before it hits the crossover. This distance is essentially the same for a block system and systems with speed controls or ATO. The signal system was also designed for degraded operation - the possibility that the brakes might be disabled from the lead car. The IND designers never thought that their successors would be so stupid as to introduce operating equipment were a single brake system would control more than one car. Two passengers were killed at Roosevelt Ave because of this." With many modern ATO systems the trains can move up to about 50m from a crossover which is set against that train. However for safety reasons the train will move very slowly up to that mark so as to not compromise the overlap. One of the problems with Brixton crossover on the Victoria Line in London is that the ancient ATO system can only run trains at approx 0,25, and 50mph. Thus the overlap on approach to the crossover is well over 100m (for a 25mph overrun). Because of this a train waiting to get through in through the crossover (which is a pretty much guaranteed occurance during the peaks!) takes over 15secs to even reach the crossover once it route has been selected. This is one of the reasons why it takes 95secs+ to get a train out and in to a platform at Brixton despite a high speed (50mph) crossover. At Elephant&Castle on the Bakerloo Line, there is a 20mph speed control signal ahead of the signal protecting the crossover, thus the overlap is quite short (at a guess around 60m). The 20mph crossover is also very compact compared to the crossover at Brixton as the curve radii are tighter. Both of these factors allow for just 80-85secs needed to get a train out out and into a platform there, despite having a much lower speed crossover than Brixton. "Try to get some perspective on how much a factor the switch is. Let's assume it is 200 feet long (including signal protction) and that we are dealing with 600 foot long trains. This means that a train has to traverse 800 feet to enter and leave the switch. If this train takes 60 seconds that means an average speed of 9 mph. Let's assume that the average speed is to be increased to 15 mph - hardly a "high speed" crossover. This reduces the 60 second traversal time to 36 seconds." Not quite, as the more shallow curve radii of the higher speed crossover would lengthen the crossover, and thus the train would have to travel further to clear it. "How much margin did those Flushing trains have? They operated at 100 second intervals and spent 72 seconds in the crossover. That gave them a margin of 28 seconds. So each train was expected to be within 14 seconds of its schedule. That is reasonable. That is what Moscow does." However Moscow uses a different method of reversing trains, which is realistically better at running high tph's. Some of this may be because reversing in platforms always suffers from time being wasted from the departing trains getting the green light, to actually departing. By the way, is the reason why the Flushing Line now only runs 27tph, due to less demand, or TA cost cutting? |
|
|
| (127368) | |
Re: Grand Street (Was Re: SAS termini questions) |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Mon Aug 15 18:18:25 2005, in response to Grand Street (Was Re: SAS termini questions), posted by Dinky on Mon Aug 15 15:57:33 2005. Bingo. This also confirms the myth of the "trackways" behind the walls existing. |
|
|
| (127389) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 19:27:03 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Mon Aug 15 17:47:09 2005. how many metro trains run within seconds of their schedule during the peaks?Those that operate at service levels in excess of 35 tph. the more shallow curve radii of the higher speed crossover would lengthen the crossover, I'm not considering 50 mph switches, only 20 mph switches vs 10 mph switches. It provides sufficient margin for 40 tph operation. Your own analysis for Victoria and Bakerloo lines shows that 50 mph switches and ATO is not only overkill but does not work in practice. Some of this may be because reversing in platforms always suffers from time being wasted from the departing trains getting the green light, to actually departing. This did not happen, when Times Sq was operating at 36 tph. The reverse direction T/O was waiting on the platform at the T/O position when the train came in. The C/R knew that the closing lights would come on in 2.5 minutes. He did not wander far from his station. Personal breaks were on the other end with 3 different terminals making that direction reversal far more leisurely. is the reason why the Flushing Line now only runs 27tph, due to less demand, or TA cost cutting? A combination of both. Rush hour loads are not as high as the mid 1950's. OTOH, trains have been lengthened from 9 to 11 cars. Yes, they did operate 36 tph with 11-car trains. They also operated 34 tph on the Queens Blvd line with 11-car (660 foot) trains in the mid 1950's. |
|
|
| (127413) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Mon Aug 15 20:26:36 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Aug 15 05:25:47 2005. The two tracks in the station don't neccessarily have to be level for rhe entire length of the platform. |
|
|
| (127562) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Tue Aug 16 05:54:15 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Mon Aug 15 13:31:20 2005. Of the three above terminus types, and the flying junction terminus, I much prefer the non-passenger loop for offering both high capacity, and flexible or reliable headways. However, where loop construction is not suitable (e.g narrow sites), I think that the flying junction terminus would be most suitable.Actually, you probably have a point, at least outdoors. I'm thinking of a redesign of London Charing X... Strangely, given the proven advantages of non-passenger loops, I know of none that have been built since the 1920s in heavy metro systems! ( Can someone correct me on this?) Just shows we should build by the Belgian and Madrid methods. |
|
|
| (127565) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Tue Aug 16 06:01:16 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by Rail Blue on Tue Aug 16 05:54:15 2005. "...I think that the flying junction terminus would be most suitable.""Actually, you probably have a point, at least outdoors. I'm thinking of a redesign of London Charing X...2 A flying junction on Hungerford Bridge, over the Thames, would be an interesting sight! |
|
|
| (127579) | |
Re: Grand Street (Was Re: SAS termini questions) |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Junction on Tue Aug 16 07:56:06 2005, in response to Grand Street (Was Re: SAS termini questions), posted by Dinky on Mon Aug 15 15:57:33 2005. The irony of that is that the park was just ripped up in a rehab not too long ago... |
|
|
| (130176) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by rgmason on Tue Aug 23 23:53:34 2005, in response to SAS termini questions, posted by stephenk on Fri Aug 12 16:41:34 2005. >"Is it likely that the SAS could be extended (if it ever gets built in the first place) to run along 125th St and thus interconnect with all of the lines that cross 125th St?" Although the answer is not given explicitly in the SAS Project documents (.pdf's), if you review one of the MTA's other planning studies: The Penn Station Access Study, you will see that the answer is given indirectly because Alternative #1A has new Metro-North Station at 125th Street on the west-side. How else will the commuters connect to subway? Randy Mason |
|
|
| (130178) | |
Re: SAS termini questions |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Tue Aug 23 23:57:16 2005, in response to Re: SAS termini questions, posted by rgmason on Tue Aug 23 23:53:34 2005. Uh, let's see . . . a bus? |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
