|
|
| Re: Design your own IND Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently (554375) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 20 |
||
|
| (557248) | |
Re: Design your own IND Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jan 21 14:28:12 2008, in response to Re: Design your own IND Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Jan 19 12:05:47 2008. I like your plans, especially the thoughts of integrating the Getty Square branch into the subway (though my thought was to connect it to Concourse), and connecting the SIR directly to Manhattan, by-passing Brooklyn entirely. (did you get that idea from one of my previous posts...hmmmm?).As I've posted before, I'd connect SIR via Whitehall St to both the Broadway BMT and a full length SAS. I'd send the existing South Shore Branch up one of those routes and a re-opened North Shore up the other. |
|
|
| (557249) | |
Re: Design your own IND Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by MainR3664 on Mon Jan 21 14:32:09 2008, in response to Re: Design your own IND Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Jan 19 15:08:40 2008. I agree with the post. It would have a better use of resources to build subways where none existed, and pretty much still don't. |
|
|
| (557250) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 14:32:54 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:25:21 2008. It's one of the fare increase promises, projected for December.Starting in June, we're also supposed to see M trains terminating at Broad St during weekday evenings. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (557251) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:33:56 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 14:32:54 2008. Excellent! |
|
|
| (557254) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 14:42:13 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:33:56 2008. Well, let's wait and see on this, first! Promises are, well, promises....The first set of service increases is due for June, so if they do all of that, that would be very positive. |
|
|
| (557256) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:43:54 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 14:42:13 2008. I think this M train thing though is the first step for the MTA to try and counteract the L train crowding. Now if only they would instead just combine the M with the V.... |
|
|
| (557262) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 14:50:26 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:43:54 2008. Probably we wouldn't see any move in that direction based on the current timetables for change, until at least June 2009, or more likely December 2009. |
|
|
| (557267) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:56:31 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 13:02:15 2008. Expensive. No provision for rail was made. (Robert Moses, quite deliberately).More expensive than building a subway? |
|
|
| (557272) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 15:29:54 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 13:02:15 2008. Can't go anywhere near parkland in the most politically connected areas, e.g., Central Park, of course.Can't go through parks in most other areas with els either. Expensive. No provision for rail was made. (Robert Moses, quite deliberately). That wouldn't stop a line from going through. They did it on the Van Wyck, and there was no provision there either. |
|
|
| (557274) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:39:05 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 08:16:52 2008. As said elsewhere, I doubt it will EVER actually happen, however, this is also a view I would have not have even thought of at all until the last few months, knowing the real problems with congestion and the congestion pricing plans and the like.It almost certainly WON'T happen, but it's like the door, once completely closed is now very slightly cracked open. I doubt it'll ever get more than that, but...... |
|
|
| (557278) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:46:02 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by R160 8818 on Mon Jan 21 12:46:59 2008. Well:My point did come across, and perhaps the MTA does need to re-visit the idea of making the SAS a two-level, four-track line after all with local and express trains then. The real issue is the fact the population in NYC, and especially Manhattan, is continuing to grow and expand, and pehaps now it's time to look at doing a four-track, two-level SAS, especially if the politicos would never allow a rebuilt 3rd avenue El to be done. I would never have expected a new 3rd Avenue El to become a reality, but it does show where we likely are headed with the population in New York over the next quarter century or so. |
|
|
| (557280) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 15:49:31 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:56:31 2008. Depends on how your proposed LIE el NYCT line would be constructed, I would think. You want to put it over the LIE, well, that's going to take a lot of money, I would think, and would even run the risk of closures on the roadway. Putting in stations would be very difficult, as well as the track connections to whatever trunk line/tunnels this line would use. Plus yard space, catwalks, signals, substations, power supply, etc. Look at the cost per mile of something like JFK AirTrain and then add on to that figure even further. |
|
|
| (557281) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 21 15:49:33 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jan 19 01:19:10 2008. The openly declared that they will NOT offer a J/M/Z/G Metero card transfer..nor any other kind of transfer...Nor any kind of Broadway Bklyn-6th avenue service. Links to the MTA and/or mainstream media sites substantiating this? Otherwise it's nothing but speculation or hearsay. |
|
|
| (557282) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:53:20 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 14:50:26 2008. Yes, but:That's about the one thing an Amtrak strike would have shown a lot of people, few of whom likely know that connection at Chrystie actually exists. The connection that would allow a combined M-V line is there and have such run from Metropolitan-71st/Continental (Metropolitan-West 4th during late night hours), since the "P" train would have used that connection. |
|
|
| (557287) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 16:07:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:46:02 2008. perhaps the MTA does need to re-visit the idea of making the SAS a two-level, four-track line after all with local and express trains then.The MTA has not built a major line in Manhattan in generations. They just need to build this two track line because: 1) 2 tracks will provide an enormous benefit 2) THERE IS NO MONEY FOR A 4 TRACK LINE 3) They need the institutional confidence that they can get a major project done 4) Completing the 2 track SAS will restore public confidence in the public sector's ability to execute major projects. especially if the politicos would never allow a rebuilt 3rd avenue El to be done. It is not that the politicos won't allow it, it is that their employers - the voters - will not allow it. Any Manhattan politician who actively works for the construction of an El will be voted out of office. Guaranteed. After the 2 track SAS, the next major project to help alleviate overcrowding on the Lex is not another subway line. It is to extend all of the platforms to 600', and buy 50' cars to run in 12 car sets. That won't be cheap, but it will cost a lot less than building two more SAS tracks or a 3rd Av El. |
|
|
| (557291) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:20:47 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 15:29:54 2008. Can't go through parks in most other areas with els either.It might depend on the circumstances of the particular route, but it's at least possible in some cases. Meanwhile, in terms of an el over 2nd Av, that's possible under any set of circumstances not involving, say, Romulan cloaking device technology. The difficulty, however, even where it's possible because opposition can be defeated, is that there's not much ridership in parks, so this is a game of picking useful endpoints. So it's arguably possible - although perhaps more likely impossible than not - that maybe a branch could come off from the Queens Blvd local tracks from Forest Hills, into Flushing Meadows Corona Park, go northeast on some minimally intrusive alignment via cut/cover or el toward LGA, with maybe a transfer station located at roughly Corona Yards. That's a project of let's say intermediate to lots of difficulty. But it seems to me that such a project, with good execution, is just barely within the realm of possibility. In the Bronx, maybe a Cross-Bronx Line would be easier executed via parkland. Use TBM methods from Inwood across Fordham Rd and then use cut and cover/el east of Southern Blvd across the park and using the parkway to continue east. Again, this would be very difficult, but not, in all honesty, absolutely impossible. (I concede that if you have buffoons pushing the plan, it's doomed, of course, but like all things, tact is required). They did it on the Van Wyck, and there was no provision there either. True, but the cost goes much higher, though. And compared to an operation like NYCT, JFK AirTrain, while it does its job, is like a fancy model railroad. |
|
|
| (557292) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:25:17 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:53:20 2008. There are lots of administrative hurdles to changing things around, and so I think the earliest possible times for M/V route merger given as June 2009 at the earliest is fair. |
|
|
| (557300) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:49:49 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 16:07:31 2008. I like what you have written here. A lot of very statute stuff.I should note that the reason the public voted for the bond issues supporting the current SAS project is in part because of the success the TA has demonstrated since 1982 in bringing the subways back to a State of Good Repair. The TA's successful completion of the 63rd St Connector project on-time and within budget also played a role. It took seven years because it was built largely on weekends and at night so that existing subway service could be maintained, but the TA kep[t to its announced schedule and was ready to open service as promised. The 63rd St extension itself was completed on budget, but New York's financial collapse and the circumstances i which MTA was operating overshadowed that. |
|
|
| (557301) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 16:50:16 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 15:49:31 2008. The problem with any highway median line is that it's a PITA to get to the stations. Even if it had been built years ago, it's still in the middle of a highway. An airtrain like line would be able to fit in the middle with minimal space, and I guess stations would have to be over overpass road bridges. If it were to be done in the median (and you would have to widen the road in many spaces to do that, and that won't sit well with many people along the route. Think of the LA metro in the middle of the I105 (or is it (110?). Whichver, I mean the Green Line. |
|
|
| (557305) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 16:54:05 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 15:46:02 2008. A two track SAS is better than NO SAS. The biggest problem with the projects over the years is that they bite off more than they can chew. At least with this, we can actually get the line built. There is no money for a four track line. And if they begin it, we will go into som 4th incarnation of this route, as it too will never be finished.It's important that it gets built, and now. It's better to have a 2 track line, than plans for a 4 track one that never gets built. |
|
|
| (557307) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:56:32 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 16:54:05 2008. Hey, there's always Microsoft Train Simulator. Let's not be wimps. A six-track SAS, I say... 8-) |
|
|
| (557312) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by TunnelRat on Mon Jan 21 17:04:56 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 15:29:54 2008. Actualy there was.the ramps going from van wyck to hillside ave.were orignal BOT intended to go to 116ave& van wyck blvd.this is probably the only phase 2 ind construction that was actualy used,although not for its original design.these ramps were built in 1937. |
|
|
| (557313) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 17:05:57 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:24:28 2008. Not everybody currently getting off at Wyckoff want Sixth Ave. I'll believe what I believe.We need PROFF on this one... |
|
|
| (557322) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 17:16:35 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 16:25:17 2008. Unlike the M evening and weekend extension, a M/V merger would require a public hearing since it will be a service cut for Nassau Street line riders. Wall Street and LMDC will quickly shoot this one down. |
|
|
| (557335) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:34:02 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Jan 21 16:49:49 2008. Thanks. I'm hoping that when the SAS is completed, and I believe that it will because the economic pressures to do so will be very strong, that the public will begin to say, "hey, if we can do this, why can't we build one by me?" I believe that the MTA must be ready to manage expectations if and when this day comes. Hopefully the MTA will release something like a hundred year plan. Nothing written in stone. Just something that the public can look at so that they can understand where money is going (how some projects don't yield an immediate benefit, but are needed to make the next major project work,) and how priorities need to be used so that we eventually get the subway to everyone. |
|
|
| (557364) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 18:39:11 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by TunnelRat on Mon Jan 21 17:04:56 2008. Are you talking about the connection to Archer Ave subway? Or are you talking about something AirTrain used? |
|
|
| (557366) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 18:41:53 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 17:05:57 2008. But THIS goes beyond 6th Ave! The connection goes WAY beyond direct 6th Ave people. Here's the copy and paste again. I typed this in another thread, so the wording may be directed to someone, but the basic idea is the same:By you perhaps. But first off, you only need to stand at Myrtle-Wyckoff or Essex-Delancy to see that there is a really demand for midtown service. The transfer at Delancy is obvious, but as an M rider for 20 years, I can tell you that the only reason anyone uses all those stairs at Myrtle-Wyckoff is because they want MIDTOWN. Currently, the L is bursting at it's seams, and is the fastest growing line in the system each year for the last decade. The MTA needs to be looking at ways to keep M riders off the L, and on their own line, which would be done if it went where many of them want to go. This goes way beyond the transfer at Essex Delancey. The reason M riders abandon their train at Wyckoff (more than half of them, and there are even people that reverse ride from Knickerbocker and Central to Wyckoff to transfer too) is because the THREE seat ride with the M/L/and some other L transfer line on 14th St is faster than taking the M all the way down to Nassau for the M's corresponding transfer. The Nassau line connects to just about every line, however, you have to go all the way down just to come back up again, and that's where people avoid it. 6th Ave Line - M riders destined for the 6th Ave line have the obvious improvement, but let me tell you, it goes way beyond the Essex Delancey transfer. 8th Ave Line - M riders currently get off at Wyckoff, for the L, (and a three seat Ride) and transfer at 8th Ave, as opposed to takint the M all the way down to Fulton St to get the A/C there. With the M/V combo line, they would have a very attractive, and easy transfer at West 4th St instead, thus making a convenient 2 train ride, as opposed to a three seat ride with the L, or the roundabout route all the way down to Fulton just to come back up. Lexington Ave Line - M riders currently get off at Wyckoff, for the L (three seat ride) and transfer for the Lex at Union Square, as opposed to the M all the way down to Chambers to get the Lex, and then have to take it all the way up agaian. However, with an M/V combo train, and once the Broadway-Lafayette-Bleecker connection is completely finished, they will have an attractive 2 seat ride option right there, thus making it more attractive than the 3 seat L/Wyckoff and Union Square option, and certainly more attractive than going all the way down to Chambers just to go back up again. Broadway Line - M riders currently get off the M at Wyckoff (for the L and a three seat ride), and transfer for the Bway line at Union Square, which is faster than going all the way down to Canal St just to go back up again.... But with the M/V combo train, in a one seat ride going to the 6th Ave line, many of those riders will stay on the M, as the Bway Line's destinations in Midtown are very similar to the 6th Ave line's destinations, and a 1 seat ride is certainly superior to the current 3 seat ride set up they use with the L involved. 7th Ave Line - M riders currently get off the M at Wyckoff for a three seat ride with the L to transfer at 6th Ave/14th for the 7th Ave line, as opposed to taking the roundabout Nassau line all the way down to Fulton (and a PITA transfer there). And they will still have to trabsfer at 6th Ave/14th to get the 7th Ave line, however, they will be able to do it in a 2 seat ride instead of the L's three seat ride. And this is GOOD for everyone, as the L is bursting at it's seams, and anything that keeps M train transplants on their own line, instead of abandoning for the already overtaxed L is a good thing. So you see, you are wrong. This goes WAY beyond Essex-Delancey. |
|
|
| (557378) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 19:15:05 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 14:13:30 2008. The SAS can never provide as good local transit as the els (think: cost of stations, and express pressures). With modern cars and the middle track gone, the substantive objections to their retention could have been overcome. |
|
|
| (557386) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 19:30:50 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 19:15:05 2008. Els are still very noisy. Especially with this bunch of R32 cars from Jamaica - I've heard three different trainsets in the past two weeks screeching like there are spirits in the brakes yearning to break free, i.e., very loudly. Plus, as others have said, there's just no way that politically powerful, very effective capitalists were going sit around and allow the els to continue ruining their days. |
|
|
| (557393) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 21 19:51:48 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 17:16:35 2008. since it will be a service cut for Nassau Street line riders. Wall Street and LMDC will quickly shoot this one down. BS. If the argument that M riders from the east want better CBD access over lower Manhattan holds water, then they just apply the exact same rationale for removing the G from Queens Blvd. Service is allocated where the greater ridership demand is. Period. M riders wanting the Financial District will have an even easier tranfer option than G riders at Court Sq: get off at Bway and just toddle a few feet, or get off at Essex and wait a few minutes for the J/Z. The J/Z (and undoubtedly some A/C) folks heading to the CBD would also benefit from this arrangement, since they won't have to switch to the L at Bway Junction. They get a slightly faster trip to Essex for a choice of trains (M/V or F) going directly to midtown. The L gets relief at its two big transfer points in Brooklyn. Many people win. NYCT needs some serious advocacy lobbed directly at them to wake them up to the logic of this. The economics of it should also be radily apparent to them: Two lines combined into one saves them money in the long run. They also score some good P.R. for "improving" service for the riding public....the grousing won't be coming from a significant number of passengers to matter. |
|
|
| (557394) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 19:52:08 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 18:41:53 2008. I believe we've always disagreed on this one. Why do riders south of Wyckoff have to be inconvenienced for the sake of the four stops in Ridgewood and Middle Village?6th Ave Line That's the obvious one. I don't disagree. 8th Ave Line - With the M/V combo line, they would have a very attractive, and easy transfer at West 4th St instead Two flights of stairs unless you're near the escalator. Is it very attractive when it may not be faster? Lexington Ave Line - However, with an M/V combo train, and once the Broadway-Lafayette-Bleecker connection is completely finished, they will have an attractive 2 seat ride option right there, thus making it more attractive than the 3 seat L/Wyckoff and Union Square option Even if the transfer is finished, it would not give transfer to the 4 and 5 expresses and the transfer is not there yet. Not so attractive, IMO. Broadway Line - But with the M/V combo train, in a one seat ride going to the 6th Ave line, many of those riders will stay on the M, as the Bway Line's destinations in Midtown are very similar to the 6th Ave line's destinations, and a 1 seat ride is certainly superior to the current 3 seat ride set up they use with the L involved. Some will, some won't. Many people riding from local stations don't stay on locals on four-tracked lines even though it's a one seat ride if they did. 7th Ave Line - And they will still have to trabsfer at 6th Ave/14th to get the 7th Ave line, however, they will be able to do it in a 2 seat ride instead of the L's three seat ride. The transfer from 6th Ave. is worse than from the L. Worse than the Fulton transfer. And this is GOOD for everyone It's not for Nassau St. bound people for sure. And J/Z riders will start playing the guess-which-platform game at Essex/Delancey even though the M/V combo service is an addition to current F service there. For reasons stated above, while it may take some slack from the L, I don't think the M/V combo riders will outnumber the Nassau St. bound people. On top of that, you have to convince the Financial District and LMDC that a service cut is good for them. Good luck finding a way to create an M/V combo service without cutting service there. BTW, I like discussing this. |
|
|
| (557396) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 20:02:33 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 21 19:51:48 2008. Service is allocated where the greater ridership demand is. Period.The greater demand for the M during morning rush is towards Nassau until that changes or somebody proves me wrong. And it's all about political power. Greenpoint ain't Lower Manhattan. :( |
|
|
| (557398) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Jan 21 20:12:55 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 03:59:01 2008. 'NEVER' is a long time!might be a different type of an elevated system or line |
|
|
| (557400) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by monorail on Mon Jan 21 20:14:40 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by TunnelRat on Mon Jan 21 00:19:09 2008. perhaps not an entire length of a linebut a small segment, maybe |
|
|
| (557411) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 20:24:12 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 16:54:05 2008. Absolutely:The first thing that needs to be done is get this two-track stub portion of the SAS built, and if possible tack on the part of phase 2 that can have it open with the line going to 116th street instead of 96th (which would not be that expensive an addition given the portion of track north of 96th already built and the fact it cut the cost of doing the remainder of phase 2 later on). |
|
|
| (557415) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 20:31:07 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 21 19:51:48 2008. That is all true:The M in lower Manhattan can be replaced by a new K train that can start at either Eastern Parkway or Rockaway Parkway (in the latter case, replacing the L from Rockaway Parkway-Atlantic Avenue) and run to Bay Parkway. That would quell those who would be upset about the M being switched to the 6th avenue line to run as a combined line with the V. That also improves service overall on the Broadway Brooklyn line with three different lines going over the Williamsburg Bridge as well. |
|
|
| (557425) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jan 21 20:55:03 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 18:41:53 2008. I used to think the M-V combination was an obvious good idea. I suspect what's preventing it from happening is that NYCT doesn't want to cut the V down from 600 feet to 480'. I suspect there could be a real mess at the ends of the platforms at 53/Lex, Queens Plaza, and Roosevelt. |
|
|
| (557429) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 21:04:21 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 20:24:12 2008. It would, however, be a good idea to design 72nd St station to allow for an extra pair of tracks. The rest doesn't really need much future-proofing. |
|
|
| (557431) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 21:07:16 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 20:02:33 2008. The greater demand for the M during morning rush is towards NassauThe "demand" for Nassau is only because it "goes to Nassau". That doesn't take into accound the exodus of people at both Wyckoff and Essex. And in addition, the vast majority of people that would be effected by this don't rally for the service, as 99% of them don't even know it's possible to have midtown service from the Broadway El. Most just accept that it just goes downtown as they don't know any better. |
|
|
| (557436) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 21 21:18:03 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Jan 21 20:31:07 2008. The M in lower Manhattan can be replaced by a new K train that can start at either Eastern Parkway or Rockaway Parkway (in the latter case, replacing the L from Rockaway Parkway-Atlantic Avenue) and run to Bay Parkway. There is no need for an additional Nassau Street service. Running from Bway Jct would make the line nominally useful only to passengers between Myrtle and Marcy, meaning it would have to originate at Rockaway Pky. Sending it to Bay Parkway would make the run long enough to not be of all that much use at the ends of the line unless it had enough TPH and corresponding car availability. However, that frequency of service would jam-up the line between Essex and Marcy, overserve the el along Bway, and then mess with the L at Bway Jct, even if half the L trains turned at Myrtle. No. Fawgeddabowt another line there. |
|
|
| (557445) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 21:56:47 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Dupont Circle Station on Mon Jan 21 21:18:03 2008. There is no need for an additional Nassau Street service.I agree, but don't cut service that's already there. |
|
|
| (557449) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 22:11:07 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Jan 21 21:07:16 2008. The "demand" for Nassau is only because it "goes to Nassau".???? The demand is there because the majority want Nassau over Midtown, below Wyckoff in the morning rush. Why do you think so many people moved there in the last ten years? If that changes, I'm all for a M/V combo. |
|
|
| (557453) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Mon Jan 21 22:22:06 2008, in response to Re: M-V combo, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 22:11:07 2008. I'm sure NYCT could settle this question by estimating transfer rates. |
|
|
| (557458) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 21 22:43:45 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by AlM on Mon Jan 21 20:55:03 2008. Again, no. So long as the V/M has the end [Queens bound] and front [Manhattan bound] on the Lexington Av side [corridor to the 6] rather than 3rd Av, then there should not be any problems compared to how it is now w/just the V train.Just because it is 480' doesn't mean the train has to stop in the middle - all that's needed would be another set of monitors at 53rd-Lex and maybe 5th Av. |
|
|
| (557482) | |
Re: 3rd Avenue El |
|
|
Posted by B47man on Mon Jan 21 23:39:58 2008, in response to Re: 3rd Avenue El, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 14:56:31 2008. Robert Moses didnt care. He was pro-auto all the way. To him mass transit was strictly for the lower class. Why do think a lot of the parkways have low bridges? To keep buses off them! |
|
|
| (557515) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 01:24:02 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Mon Jan 21 21:04:21 2008. That is a very good idea:I do believe 72nd/2nd is supposed to have three tracks as it is, but having four (with two island platforms) there would be a very good idea, since doing such would allow 72nd/2nd if nothing else to serve as a short-turn terminal when needed or warranted. It would also allow for instance having a branch of the Broadway Brooklyn line turn up and use the SAS in addition to any possible M-V merger aside from any possible addition of express tracks on the rest of the SAS down the road. |
|
|
| (557519) | |
Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 01:36:28 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Wado MP73 on Mon Jan 21 19:52:08 2008. Well:This is also why I would have a K train that would replace the M in lower Manhattan and South Brooklyn that would start either at Eastern Parkway-Broadway Junction OR in place of the L at Rockaway Parkway and running from there to Atlantic Avenue before heading to the Broadway Brooklyn line (allowing the process during rush hours the L to superserve the heaviest used portion of that line between 14th/8th and Broadway Junction). Such a train would placate those who would moan losing M service to Nassau and at the same time increase service overall on the Broadway Brooklyn line to Essex. |
|
|
| (557522) | |
Re: M-V combo |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 01:39:59 2008, in response to Re: G Train to be cut back to Court Square permanently, posted by Grand concourse on Mon Jan 21 22:43:45 2008. Exactly:And the V is from my understanding not exactly closed to overcrowded when it reaches 53rd/Lex anyway, so as long as the trains have the ends as close as possible to the Lexington Avenue end of that station. |
|
|
| (557549) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 03:54:42 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Russ on Mon Jan 21 17:34:02 2008. A chicken in every pot and a subway on every corner. I like it! |
|
|
| (557550) | |
Re: SAS/four tracks |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Jan 22 04:15:04 2008, in response to Re: SAS/four tracks, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Jan 22 01:24:02 2008. Allowing for four tracks to 72nd would also make it cheaper to one day build express tracks underneath the planned (and existing) tunnels. The express TBM would only have to run a straight shot after 72nd since the express tunnels wouldn't require station construction. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 20 |
||
