|
|
| Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II (1321155) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1321167) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Tue Oct 28 03:55:41 2014, in response to Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 00:18:20 2014. More service than needed through Montague, and not enough to 6th Ave and/or Broadway? Unless, to avoid having a line without a southern Brooklyn terminal, the Brighton express should still go to 6th Ave and both Montague lines go to Broadway, but that means underutilizing the Manhattan Bridge, which would be inconvenient to midtown commuters. |
|
|
| (1321213) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 10:27:28 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Tue Oct 28 03:55:41 2014. Perhaps with the addition of SAS (if a connection to the current Chrystie St tracks is made), a new route could go over the bridge. Perhaps as another 4th Av local to, say, IDK, 9th Av? |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1321216) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Tue Oct 28 10:33:22 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 10:27:28 2014. SAS is only planned to have a foot connection with the Chrystie line. |
|
|
| (1321217) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Tue Oct 28 10:38:38 2014, in response to Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 00:18:20 2014. The only ones benefiting from such a pattern would be Brighton riders looking for Montague. And they would be forced to use a local train on the Brighton. Better to have a choice of local or express and then make the simple cross-platform transfer at DeKalb.Since there are so many options for Lower Manhattan, Montague really doesn't need that much service. |
|
|
| (1321265) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Tue Oct 28 16:09:12 2014, in response to Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 00:18:20 2014. Here's the basic problem with your current ideas.Both Montague Street Tunnel trains, and Brighton line trains (regardless of letter designation, or eventual destination) HAVE to STOP at the DeKalb Avenue station! ONLY Express trains along the 4th Avenue line (to whatever the destination in Manhattan, the Bronx or Queens) HAVE the choice to STOP or NOT-STOP at the DeKalb Avenue station! It really does not matter with whatever route combinations or letter designations that you come up with since there is the possibility of same or cross platform transfers at the DeKalb Avenue station. The stations/platforms/tracks are flexible enough in that way. Since one can make up any route (pathway and destinations) what becomes important are the needs of the riders, and the number of riders making the journeys. In recent times past, the "Brown-M along 4th Avenue/West End" was said to not be needed, while in the past the "Blue-M-train Along Nassau Street/Brighton" was needed. In recent times past, the "QB Broadway Express/Brighton Local" was not needed except rush hours, but now the "Q Broadway Express/Brighton Local" is needed/preferred by expressed by the desires/needs of the riders. It is similar with the needs/desires of the riders that the "Orange M" was created. Looking at the issues from the "larger map" point of view might neglect the real needs of the riders. Something to be careful about. It is fun to take out our magic markers and draw various train line routings, etc. It is fun, really, it is fun! But do not mistake that for real transit planning. Yes, it is fun to think of "what would be nice" - but it is also good to keep an eye on the real world at times. When you're having fun - all things are possible. That is not always the case in the real world. Is this exercise just to have fun? Mike |
|
|
| (1321331) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 03:54:32 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Michael549 on Tue Oct 28 16:09:12 2014. Gezz..what a killjoy. |
|
|
| (1321371) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 29 10:11:00 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 03:54:32 2014. Hey! I resemble that remark! (Smile)No, No! Seriously... Ha! Ha! Ha! Hi! LOL, ROFL! Mike |
|
|
| (1321390) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:08:55 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Michael549 on Tue Oct 28 16:09:12 2014. Hence why I ask the question, what would be the consequences. I never even knew there used to be a service from the Brighton line to Nassau St, let alone that it was well used. |
|
|
| (1321391) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 29 12:21:48 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:08:55 2014. The M was the main Brighton Local until the late 1980s! |
|
|
| (1321398) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:43:40 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by R30A on Wed Oct 29 12:21:48 2014. O ree-reee???? Hmm...Too bad Brighton doesn't really need 2 local services. |
|
|
| (1321421) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 29 14:47:58 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:08:55 2014. In both this message stream, and the previous message stream, the basic question asked was, "Could I do ..."And the answer is "Yes!". Yes, you could do it! Now, just because you "could do it", does not mean you "should do it". ---------- On the question of, "Should I do it?" - There's a debate right there! There are both good or bad reasons to create (or not create) a certain train pathway or route. Nothing in the track/platform setup of these routes favors a decision in a particular direction, you "can do it". Questions like, "Should I ..?", and "Why ..?" - goes to your reasons behind your decisions, and the related implications of those decisions. There are trade-offs, and related issues with each of those decisions. Believe it or not, but that is where the "fun" comes from. You could easily make a fantasy train route setup that has very little in common with the current or recent subway map routes. Many proposed route schemes COULD be accomplished using the current arrangement of physical train tracks/platforms. The only consequences of your decisions are how they fit within the larger scheme of your proposed subway map. If you're proposing a real-life routing scheme idea, then the twin ideas of whether your should do it, why are you doing it, etc. come into play. Questions such as "should they do it", and "why are they doing it" come into play. Right now, I can't decide if I should have ice cream! I mean I could do it, but should I do it? Decisions, decisions! (Smile) Mike |
|
|
| (1321441) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 17:28:11 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:08:55 2014. The Bankers Special,the QJ and the M were all Brighton Nassau services, with most Banker trains marked "M/Nassau st Exp".Today,the Brighton line doesn't need such a service,but Fourth ave could use a through service from 95th to Jamaica via Nassau/Jamaica Ave. |
|
|
| (1321448) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 18:23:12 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Tue Oct 28 10:27:28 2014. If the SAS warrants a second line. But the side I'm concerned about is the southern 2 tracks, that lead to the Bway lines. Only a 4th Ave express would be using them. The SAS, as it stands now, will only have a link to the northern 2. Nah, I think the current service pattern is pretty good, unless demand for lower Manhattan picks up, or Brooklyn to 2nd Ave turns out to be unexpectedly popular. |
|
|
| (1321451) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 18:25:15 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by R30A on Tue Oct 28 10:33:22 2014. Unless they go with the shallow Chrystie option, and turn Grand St into a 4-track, 2-island platform station. |
|
|
| (1321479) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Oct 29 19:37:52 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 17:28:11 2014. Pre Chrystie, when the M was used for the Bankers’ Specials, both 4 Av and Brighton Specials carried the M. The M, however was actually intended to be used on Myrtle/Chambers in the event that the TA decided to use letters for the BMT Eastern prior to Chrystie which didn’t happen. |
|
|
| (1321492) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 20:19:15 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 18:23:12 2014. The problem here is assuming the SAS should connect with the downtown Brooklyn network.Why couldn't this route instead join the Atlantic Branch..or a new route? |
|
|
| (1321506) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 21:37:23 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 20:19:15 2014. Better not be the Atlantic branch. It will mean all the western capacity gained by ESA will be lost |
|
|
| (1321509) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 21:39:37 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 18:23:12 2014. Brooklyn-SAS is pretty much what this is banking on to succeed. Brighton local via Montague, Brighton local via SAS, Brighton express via 6th. The real question then is whether or not Brighton local warrants 2 services. |
|
|
| (1321513) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 21:52:24 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 21:39:37 2014. Brighton is pretty popular since the Culver kind of sucks, so it may not be a bad idea. Also, you'll either be cramming 3 lines on the northern MB tracks, having only 1 Brooklyn line going to 6th Ave., or having a 6th Ave line going to Hanover Square while an SAS line is going to Brighton. Hmmm...Oh, and that might be a pretty serious bottleneck north of Prospect Park. Eh, your idea of having the SAS go to 4th Ave is probably more feasible. |
|
|
| (1321524) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Wed Oct 29 23:11:31 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 18:25:15 2014. Shallow Chrystie is not an option under consideration. Deep Chrystie is what is slated to happen. |
|
|
| (1321534) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Gene B. on Thu Oct 30 00:26:09 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by R30A on Wed Oct 29 23:11:31 2014. It's still a long way off. Things can change by then, maybe several times. |
|
|
| (1321535) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Gene B. on Thu Oct 30 00:31:26 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Michael549 on Tue Oct 28 16:09:12 2014. There was a time, pre-Chrystie St, when the Brighton line had the same option as the 4th Ave line in that it could bypass De Kalb Ave. That connection was taken away when they reworked De Kalb Ave. |
|
|
| (1321538) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Gene B. on Thu Oct 30 00:36:50 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Michael549 on Wed Oct 29 14:47:58 2014. You are right. If we could do it, we might connect De Kalb with the Rutgers Street tunnel for even more route flexibility. Should we do it, no, because we do not have the funds and if we did, they would probably be put to better use elsewhere. |
|
|
| (1321539) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 00:49:19 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 21:39:37 2014. Nah..a well run service,with a healthy rush hour headway would take care of the Brighton Local.I've always said the Water st subway,from the Chrystie/Grand st to South Ferry,should be built before the midtown section...to provide the IND lines a temporary downtown terminal. A junction before or after Grand st would give any route the option of Manny B or South Ferry...with the future Midtown section both options plus Broadway Brooklyn . South Ferry would of course be the temporary terminal until the Lower Manhattan Access Tunnel is completed... if ever. |
|
|
| (1321547) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 01:31:23 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by R30A on Wed Oct 29 23:11:31 2014. We don't know what they are planning since construction is dragging.By the time they get that far,you know the routine is going to happen. A refreshed EIS costing a million bucks..preliminary engineering Again ...blah blah blah..adding to the cost of this over designed..bloated obsolete, before it even finishes cash cow of a money pit. |
|
|
| (1321548) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 01:37:28 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Gene B. on Thu Oct 30 00:26:09 2014. Yup. IMO, the deep Chrystie option was something they threw out as a proposal which satisfied the people who didn't want the "new" Sara Roosevelt Park torn up. |
|
|
| (1321549) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 01:41:15 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 00:49:19 2014. Building the lower Manhattan section next? Sounds like a pretty good idea to me. |
|
|
| (1321552) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Thu Oct 30 02:03:11 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 12:43:40 2014. Not at all times of day, at least. Think another rush-hour-only local service to help distribute load. It seems pretty tricky with the current arrangements though (nowhere to short-turn, tight headways north of Prospect Park). |
|
|
| (1321554) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 02:13:06 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 01:41:15 2014. It makes the most sense.It would have direct track connections to the Sixth avenue subway.. with provisions to other lines..plus provide turnback facilities in lower Manhattan for quicker return uptown ,Queens or the Bronx. |
|
|
| (1321555) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 02:15:34 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Wed Oct 29 20:19:15 2014. I can't see why not, but a new tunnel under the East River or the harbor is even farther off. Hell, I'd like it if could connect to the Fulton St line or go to Staten Island. |
|
|
| (1321558) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 02:27:26 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Wed Oct 29 21:37:23 2014. It will be lost anyway you put it.The Atlantic Branch west of Jamaica will be nothing more than a subway shuttle when ESA opens..so Why Not run B Division trains on it,with a branch line to Howard Beach/JFK? |
|
|
| (1321651) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 14:48:57 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 02:27:26 2014. Word is now that rush hour may see some through trains. The branch is not being physically disconnected, just getting a platform built off to the side. Still overall a terrible project. |
|
|
| (1321662) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:20:58 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Wed Oct 29 21:52:24 2014. Yeah, that bottleneck would be a major issue unless you end up cutting half the current Brighton local service to make space for the additional service so the net result is same frequency of local service going to 2 different destinations, but that has its own detriments as well. Curious, are the MB tracks maxed out with the 2 services on each? |
|
|
| (1321663) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:22:13 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 00:49:19 2014. That's actually not a terrible idea... |
|
|
| (1321664) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:25:17 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 02:15:34 2014. SAS from Hanover will hopefully go to Court St and cover the Fulton St local to Euclid, allowing C trains to handle Lefferts express and A to be full time Far Rock express (or split Far Rock/Rock Park). Hopefully the new tunnel would be built as a double stack as well for LIRR to get into downtown |
|
|
| (1321666) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:28:31 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by R30A on Wed Oct 29 23:11:31 2014. Because that won't change a million times over by the time phase 3 and 4 are funded |
|
|
| (1321678) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Thu Oct 30 16:12:35 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:22:13 2014. It makes plenty of sense. |
|
|
| (1321715) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 20:34:13 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:20:58 2014. Dunno. Maybe not, but I have a feeling adding more will make the service crawl. |
|
|
| (1321716) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 20:37:09 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 15:25:17 2014. Hopefully the new tunnel would be built as a double stack as well for LIRR to get into downtownOnly if it happens before the LIRR cuts the Atlantic Ave branch from the system altogether. |
|
|
| (1321722) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 21:01:20 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 20:34:13 2014. Agreed...Hmm. How's that S 4th st tunnel coming along? |
|
|
| (1321723) | |
Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Oct 30 21:02:43 2014, in response to Re: Reworking routings through DeKalb Part II, posted by 3-9 on Thu Oct 30 20:37:09 2014. LIRR would be absolutely mental to do so. They're expanding capacity east of Jamaica and are going to need all the western terminal capacity they can get. Unfortunately, I wouldn't put it past them. |
|
|
