|
|
| Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? (486414) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (486422) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Thu Sep 6 02:15:10 2007, in response to Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 01:41:46 2007. 'Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?'yes |
|
|
| (486424) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 02:21:17 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by monorail on Thu Sep 6 02:15:10 2007. Ba-dum-ching! |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (486438) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Sep 6 06:50:47 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by monorail on Thu Sep 6 02:15:10 2007. Six-track would be even better. |
|
|
| (486439) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 07:00:40 2007, in response to Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 01:41:46 2007. Yes it would be of benefit. |
|
|
| (486449) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:36:52 2007, in response to Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 01:41:46 2007. 'You'd think that with the 9 train being canned that there would be much more frequent 1 trains running, but the headways are still annoyingly long (5+ minutes) and the trains are packed'The 9 wasn't a separate line, it was just a skip-stop variant on the 1, using the same trains as the 1. Its abolition didn't create any more trains, any more T/Os, any more C/Rs, or any more track capacity on the line. So why should anyone think that that 1 trains would become 'much more frequent'? In fact the service *did* become more frequent at the stops previously skipped - they now get all the trains, not just half of them, in the rush hour. New Yorkers' conventional wisdom is that expresses are always a good thing. But in largely residential areas of the city like the extreme north west side, there may not be some stops that are markedly less used than others. If they are all roughly equally used, how do you decide which ones should be express stops? The local stops will get *fewer* trains than now, remember, unless you are going to double the service overall! Finally - why is the existing third track not used for peak-hour direction expresses, as on other lines? Answer - because of the configuration of the junction north of 96th, which sends the express tracks towards Central Park North and the local tracks towards the Broadway line in non-conflicting moves. If investment is justified to provide some express service on the 1 north of 96th, spend the money on remodelling that junction before you think about putting in a fourth track. But the real solution to your problem is that NYCT should run a more frequent service on the 1. Five minutes is too long a rush-hour headway; 20 tph (three-minute frequency) should operate. Even the noew South Ferry should be able to handle 20. |
|
|
| (486451) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Sep 6 07:42:11 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:36:52 2007. Even the noew South Ferry should be able to handle 20.Don't count on it. |
|
|
| (486452) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:46:51 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Sep 6 07:42:11 2007. 'Even the new South Ferry should be able to handle 20.''Don't count on it.' That's why i said 'should', not 'will'! But the MTA claims 24 tph would be possible, doesn't it, though most people here don't believe it? |
|
|
| (486477) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 08:42:41 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:36:52 2007. Agreed. Very nicely written.I would also be in favor of extending the 1 line further north toward the NYC boundary, to shorten the bus routes which are run to meet the train (and reduce diesel fuel consumption), as well as provide another couple of stations to northern Bronx neighborhoods. |
|
|
| (486478) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 08:43:38 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:46:51 2007. "Most people here" who don't believe it aren't credible on the subject. |
|
|
| (486499) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 09:39:18 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 08:43:38 2007. And a lot of those who do blindly accept the word of the MTA without performing any analysis of their own.But we shall see who is right shortly… |
|
|
| (486500) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 09:40:26 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 09:39:18 2007. Early 2008, I imagine. South Ferry must be pretty well along. |
|
|
| (486506) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 09:51:48 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Sep 6 07:42:11 2007. It doesn't really make much of a difference if either version of South Ferry can handle 20+ tph - Van Cortlandt can't and so becomes the limiting factor. |
|
|
| (486525) | |
Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 10:22:03 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 08:43:38 2007. Why? The MTA's numbers justifying the South Ferry project have been questionable at best from the get-go. The comments for their EIS were clearly cherrypicked and filtered, so why should anyone listen to their assertions. I feel bad for the passengers and operators who will be stuck in this new conga-line, and the planners who will have to work around MTA Cap Construction's boneheaded decision.Yuri had an interesting idea that the MTA should have pursued the construction of the Water St Subway instead of squandering money on rebuilds of perfectly adaquate stations and glass eggs. Between the 400 million wasted to reduce capacity on the Broadway Local, and the 880 million spent on Kalikow's land deal there's plenty of money to build the 1.5 mile tunnel from Grand St on the MannyB northside access tracks to Hannover Square via the proposed SAS 'Shallow Chrystie' alignment. That way for the 1.3 billion Dubya-Fun-Bucks that are going to FTC and South Ferry, neither of which does anything to add to the subway, the MTA would instead gain about a quarter the full SAS length, place a subway convenient to the Front and South Street office buildings as well as the South St Seaport, and gain a very compelling argument for completing the SAS between 72nd and Grand St on a faster timetable than we're likely to see. Instead we got two rebuilds, neither of which is likely to do much but please a small number of foamers and politicos. Have fun with your pittance and just imagine what you could have had if Kalikow weren't in it for his own profit, you might have been riding a section of the SAS by 2010. |
|
|
| (486530) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Thu Sep 6 10:29:36 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:36:52 2007. I believe that the 3rd track on the Bway line isn't continuous to 242 St. Besides the most popular stations on the line are 137th and south. That's why in the old days half trains short turned at 137 St.As far as the A train is concerned, it is express to 168. How much more is needed? |
|
|
| (486560) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 6 11:41:45 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Red Line to Glenmont on Thu Sep 6 10:29:36 2007. With all due respect to previous message posters, I often wonder why too often folks make the statement: "There's problems on the #1 line, so let's build the Second Avenue subway as an improvement."Let's face it, the Second Avenue subway has its own set of issues and history. And while service to the Financial District and lower eastside of Manhattan are very important issues - what does any of that have to do with subway service on the Westside of Manhattan? If we are going to follow that logic - then all of the new housing and roads built in Petluma, California is a great help to the folks of New Orleans. (smile) Some have complained, moaned and groaned about the new South Ferry terminal being a two-track terminal, compared to the current loop terminal - with the loop terminal described as the best thing since sliced bread. As a practical user of said terminal - the current loop - I would not be so generous. Some want more frequent service on the #1 line - a fine goal - but some will always say that any improvements are never enough, because the #1 route is a local route. For those folks, anything that is less than an express route is by definition BAD. Frankly there just is not enough money to rebuild existing tunnels and other facilities - a sharp rebuke to the wildest transit fan's most favored fantasies. Just a few thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (486567) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 11:47:53 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 6 11:41:45 2007. "There's problems on the #1 line, so let's build the Second Avenue subway as an improvement."I'm puzzled. I've read all of this thread and I don't think anyone before you, Mike, had mentioned the SAS. No-one other than you has made the statement quoted above. The thread has all been about the possibility of building a fourth track on the 1 line north of 96th. No mention of the SAS at all. We all acknowledge that its contribution is to help the East Side, not the West Side. |
|
|
| (486576) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 12:00:56 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 07:36:52 2007. Five minutes is too long a rush-hour headway; 20 tph (three-minute frequency) should operate.I don't think El-Train meant rush hour. They do run 19 - 21 tph during rush. |
|
|
| (486599) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 6 12:15:18 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Fytton on Thu Sep 6 11:47:53 2007. Fytton - I was responding to the post by WillD. I quoted the relevant passage below.When one talks about the Water Street subway, the SAS 'Shallow Chrystie' alignment, and other words such "as a quarter the full SAS length, place a subway convenient to the Front and South Street office buildings as well as the South St Seaport" --- it sounds to me that it is about the Second Avenue subway. If I am mistaken I do not mind. This is the text of the message that I referenced: "Between the 400 million wasted to reduce capacity on the Broadway Local, and the 880 million spent on Kalikow's land deal there's plenty of money to build the 1.5 mile tunnel from Grand St on the MannyB northside access tracks to Hannover Square via the proposed SAS 'Shallow Chrystie' alignment. That way for the 1.3 billion Dubya-Fun-Bucks that are going to FTC and South Ferry, neither of which does anything to add to the subway, the MTA would instead gain about a quarter the full SAS length, place a subway convenient to the Front and South Street office buildings as well as the South St Seaport, and gain a very compelling argument for completing the SAS between 72nd and Grand St on a faster timetable than we're likely to see. Instead we got two rebuilds, neither of which is likely to do much but please a small number of foamers and politicos." It was posted by: "Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 10:22:03 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 08:43:38 2007." ---------- I agree that talk concerning actions that directly affect the #1 route should be the topic of this discussion. Mike |
|
|
| (486610) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:40:52 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 09:39:18 2007. AndYour "And" is incorrect since Ron's assertion you are quoting is incorrect. Most of the people here who don't believe the 24 TPH figure ARE CREDIBLE on the subject, as is plainly obvious to most. This is why you shouldn't respond to any of Ron's posts. He doesn't post with honesty. But as long as you keep |
|
|
| (486611) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 6 12:43:25 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 09:51:48 2007. Exactly.Thus the LION's rather inexpensive solution IF NEEDED: Install a third track at Dyckman Street, just to the east of the existing tracks. The existing east platform would (after being rebuilt and repositioned) would become an Island Platform. The outside tracks, of course, serve the (1) train to Van Courtlandt Park. The Middle track becomes the terminal for a new (9) train service. The (9) train runs from Dyckman Street to Rector Street providing additional service as needed. Beyond Rector Street, the trains take the Loop at South Ferry without stopping there, and head back north to Dyckman Street. The use of the loop precludes the need to fumigate at Rector. This *could* put mucho-more service on the (1) line. ROAR |
|
|
| (486614) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:46:16 2007, in response to Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 10:22:03 2007. Why?You know why. This is how he was always been, and you won't change him by continuing to humor him with responses. I feel bad for the passengers and operators who will be stuck in this new conga-line Thank you. Yuri had an interesting idea that the MTA should have pursued the construction of the Water St Subway instead of squandering money on rebuilds of perfectly adaquate stations and glass eggs. Spend the money on something more useful!? No way! |
|
|
| (486618) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:48:08 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 6 12:15:18 2007. Mike, you need to read the whole subthread before posting. WillD's post was 100% accurate and on-topic in the context of the subthread. You are 100% wrong to conclude that WillD was trying to fix the (1)'s problems by building the SAS. And if you had made your reply to WillD's post, instead of Red Line to Glenmont's, you wouldn't have created this confusion of us trying to figure out what in the world you wee talking about. |
|
|
| (486619) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:49:47 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 09:51:48 2007. Yeah it makes a difference. Because if you increase terminal capacity somewhere north of 96 St sometime in the future, then it'd be great to already have the 20+ TPH capacity at the ferry. |
|
|
| (486624) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 12:53:47 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 6 12:43:25 2007. Sure it could, but it probably won’t happen, becuase it negates most of the reasons for rebuilding South Ferry instead of just extending the platform at the loop to 10 cars and adding more entrances/exits.If the TA did this, it would be an open admission that their SF design was wrong. |
|
|
| (486625) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 12:55:38 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 12:53:47 2007. Oh, and when we last aired this topic, we noticed that there was a big potential merge problem where the loop would join the tracks to the new station, limiting the line capacity. |
|
|
| (486627) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:57:07 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 12:00:56 2007. I think he did mean rush-hour, he just didn't know what he was talking about. I could be wrong of course. |
|
|
| (486628) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Sep 6 12:58:57 2007, in response to Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 10:22:03 2007. "The MTA's numbers justifying the South Ferry project have been questionable at best from the get-go. "Not really. The article does say that travel time claims from the new South Ferry terminal are questionable because they do not take into account the return of the Cortlandt St station. Otherwise, there's nothing in there that condemns the EIS. Agreed that MTA should not be emphasizing the 12 minute travel time. You're free to disagree, of course, even though you have nothing to base it on. My only other response to you is that you're free to call anybody a bonehead here on Subchat. Do it at work, especially when you're at very high risk for being discovered as not only wrong, but undisciplined and impulsive, and you'll find your professional career being, well, derailed. |
|
|
| (486629) | |
Re: It's called transfer at 168st...(Would 4-track express (1, A)?) |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Sep 6 12:59:16 2007, in response to Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 01:41:46 2007. It's called 168st. Use it! |
|
|
| (486634) | |
Re: It's called transfer at 168st...(Would 4-track express (1, A)?) |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Thu Sep 6 13:02:36 2007, in response to Re: It's called transfer at 168st...(Would 4-track express (1, A)?), posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Sep 6 12:59:16 2007. This is the worst transfer in the system. The elevator takes 5 minutes to come and it's always crowded. |
|
|
| (486635) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 13:03:23 2007, in response to Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 01:41:46 2007. but the headways are still annoyingly long (5+ minutes) and the trains are packed.Nope. Headways are shorter and the trains AREN'T packed in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx. Unfortunately local is the only way to go as far as Northern Manhattan residents go. Deal. Nothing up there justifies an express. In the short term it would hurt more people than it would help. What should be added are more trains on the local between SF and 137. |
|
|
| (486636) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by PATHman on Thu Sep 6 13:06:13 2007, in response to Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by El-Train on Thu Sep 6 01:41:46 2007. I always thought that something should be done with the middle track on the 1 line. I thought of two scenarios:1) Having the 1's from Van Cortlandt Park run express from 137st to 96st. A short turn 1 would start at 137st and make all stops to 96st. Both branches would run every 6 minutes, meaning that 1 train service from 96st-South Ferry would operate every 3 minutes. 2) Having every other 3 train operate via the 1 express track up to Van Cortlandt Park. Both options would vastly improve the quality of the service on the 1 line in upper Manhattan. |
|
|
| (486650) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 13:18:23 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by PATHman on Thu Sep 6 13:06:13 2007. 1) Having the 1's from Van Cortlandt Park run express from 137st to 96st. A short turn 1 would start at 137st and make all stops to 96st. Both branches would run every 6 minutes, meaning that 1 train service from 96st-South Ferry would operate every 3 minutes.That's a terrible idea! You're providing less service where MORE, NOT LESS, is needed! 137-96 would see one train every 6 minutes instead of one train every 3 minutes. And all so you can save some people 2 minutes travel time at most (it would likely be less, do to the merging, so say 1 minute)? The people at 125, 116, 110, and 103 would each be adding 3 minutes more to their commutes! So the overall time savings for everyone would be minuscule at best to very negative at worst! Please respond to this post to tell me that you understand this. OH, and I forgot, between 242 and 137 trains would be every 6 minutes as well. So you'd be adding 3 minutes to those people's commutes in order to save them 1 minute between 137 and 96. That makes no sense. Do you understand? 2) Having every other 3 train operate via the 1 express track up to Van Cortlandt Park. Terrible idea!!! VCP can't turn the additional trains!!!! And you'd be skipping so many stations!!!! Both options would vastly improve the quality of the service on the 1 line in upper Manhattan. No, as I have shown, they would be hell on earth for upper manhattan (1) riders. |
|
|
| (486651) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 6 13:19:49 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by JohnL on Thu Sep 6 12:55:38 2007. Nah... The (9) is an extra train, and it holds until it has a chance to get back on the mane without tying up the lions.ROAR |
|
|
| (486705) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 14:29:05 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Michael549 on Thu Sep 6 11:41:45 2007. The South Ferry project is a make-work project, it's there to gulp down the federal government's Dubya-Fun-Bucks that'll expire before too long. The same is true of Fulton Transit Center, practicality was no object, otherwise nobody in their right mind would spend nearly a billion dollars on a subway station. There were far cheaper and easier ways to get the same result in both cases with less potential for capacity reductions in the former case. Why is the MTA spending nearly half a billion dollars to potentially reduce capacity on the 1 line when their own projections show it as being over capacity in the next 30 years? It's not a local to the folks north of 96th, it's every bit as vital as the "important" express trains south of there. I know you SIers are smitten with your "new" station, since it's probably the closest you'll get to your own subway in the next 50 years, but the MTA should be looking to increase service into Lower Manhattan with the federal funding, not shunt riders into new versions of existing stations. The Water St Subway would have allowed the V train to run straight into Lower Manhattan rather than terminating at 2nd Ave. |
|
|
| (486709) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 14:37:02 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 12:49:47 2007. if you increase terminal capacity somewhere north of 96 St sometime in the futureAnd the likelihood of that is what - something on a par with the chances of the proverbial snowball in hell? |
|
|
| (486714) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 14:44:06 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 14:37:02 2007. And the likelihood of that is what - something on a par with the chances of the proverbial snowball in hell?Did anyone see the South Ferry boondoggle coming before the sudden appearance of Dubya Fun Bucks? I just wish they would have done something useful with that money rather than reducing capacity with one project and lining Kalikow's pockets with the other. |
|
|
| (486716) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 6 14:48:46 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu Sep 6 12:43:25 2007. There's not much room at Dyckman for a third track. Remember: the station is essentially built into a hillside, and there's a street immediately to the east of the station that would need repositioning.Perhaps a relay track north of Dyckman could be built, and your (9) could terminate at Dyckman and relay (similar to how the Rockaway Park Shuttle terminates at Broad Channel.) |
|
|
| (486717) | |
Re: It's called transfer at 168st...(Would 4-track express (1, A)?) |
|
|
Posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 6 14:50:49 2007, in response to Re: It's called transfer at 168st...(Would 4-track express (1, A)?), posted by shiznit1987 on Thu Sep 6 12:59:16 2007. Sure, let's take a crowded elevator and waste time! |
|
|
| (486730) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Sep 6 15:01:53 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu Sep 6 14:48:46 2007. There is already a relay track N/O Dyckman which can be effectively used to turn trains. It's called M track. |
|
|
| (486737) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Sep 6 15:16:41 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 14:44:06 2007. IAWTP. What actually would have been more useful, however would have been to extend the existing platform at So/Fy to hold 10 cars and use the remainder of the monies to rebuild the junctions at both 96/Bway and Nostrand/E Pky. this would enable both Bway and Lenox services to access both local and express tracks at 96 St and smooth out the access to the Nostrand Av Line for Lexington Av services operating in Brooklyn. Also, for the money beong spent on an entirely new station at So/Fy, the inside platform at that station could have been rebuilt to allow for Lexington Av access to that station without interfering with the 7 Av service a was the case in the past. Since there are already some rush hour Lex trains that terminate at Bwl Grn, these intervals could carry passengers in and out of So/Fy and during the hours when #5 service terminates at Bwl Grn, it could carry passengers to So/Fy and during midnights when #5 service isn't running, #6 trains could be extended there as was done in the past. |
|
|
| (486823) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 18:27:25 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 14:29:05 2007. The Water St Subway would have allowed the V train to run straight into Lower Manhattan rather than terminating at 2nd Ave.Using part of the Chrystie tracks to Essex? |
|
|
| (486836) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu Sep 6 18:59:30 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 14:37:02 2007. I'm not so pessimistic about it. I think it could happen. |
|
|
| (486844) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Rail Blue on Thu Sep 6 19:17:50 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by Alex L. on Thu Sep 6 14:37:02 2007. "if you increase terminal capacity somewhere north of 96 St sometime in the future"And the likelihood of that is what - something on a par with the chances of the proverbial snowball in hell? Rebuilding 137th Street would be relatively cheap, and the disruption would be limited to a small park. |
|
|
| (486854) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Sep 6 20:01:21 2007, in response to Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 10:22:03 2007. I'm the Yuri in question who proposed the idea to Will in a transitchat several nights ago: KEY Teal - Lower Second Avenue Subway to be built first Dark Blue - Upper Second Avenue Subway to be built in the future Black - Theoretical Line to Eastern Queens to be built in the future Orange - Sixth Avenue Line Alignments via Manhattan Bridge and Rutgers Street Tubes Brown - Nassau Street Line In essence, the idea is based on reviving the old Shallow Chrystie Alignment and using it for a lower Second Avenue Subway section that would have been paid for with the money that's currently being spent on Fulton Street Transit Centre and the South Ferry reconstruction with the possibility of additional federal, state, and local capital funds. This would be a temporary arrangement designed to allow for some type of Sixth Avenue service to connect to a Lower Manhattan segment of the Second Avenue Subway serving the Water Street area. Once the rest of the SAS would be built, the connection would be mothballed ready for use when needed. |
|
|
| (486855) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 6 20:04:28 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Sep 6 20:01:21 2007. too rational to consider |
|
|
| (486857) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu Sep 6 20:05:25 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 6 20:04:28 2007. Thank You, I'll consider that a compliment. :) |
|
|
| (486859) | |
Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)? |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Thu Sep 6 20:22:48 2007, in response to Re: Would 4-track express service be of any benefit for Northern Manhattan lines (1, A)?, posted by randyo on Thu Sep 6 15:16:41 2007. yet again rational, not sexy, few ribbons to cut, and lower % of available graft/waste |
|
|
| (486860) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 6 20:24:52 2007, in response to Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by WillD on Thu Sep 6 10:22:03 2007. WillD, I'm not sure if you've been down to South Ferry lately, but throughout August, during the height of the PM Rush Hour, there was almost always three trains below Rector St at any given time. One is usually at the station, and two are waiting behind it. This happened to me every weekday afternoon and caused me to miss quite a few boats. I'm not sure about those absurd numbers brought about, as the (1) is quick as-is, but it frequently gets clogged with a few trainsets outside of South Ferry. Then South Ferry, has the whole issue of the narrow staircases and the platforms becoming dangerously crowded as people hurdle to form single lines up the steps.One can now see the new SF Terminal lead tracks and the routing down there looks to be so much more direct than the current loop route. |
|
|
| (486901) | |
Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...) |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Thu Sep 6 21:35:38 2007, in response to Re: Water St Subway instead of FTC and SF rebuild? (was:Re: Would 4-track express service...), posted by (SIR) North Shore Line on Thu Sep 6 20:24:52 2007. Not because of SF, but the other end of the line. That won't change and it may get worse with the new SF. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
