|
|
| Re: Archer Avenue at 20 (717730) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
|
| (719698) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by WMATAGMOAGH on Sat Dec 13 14:38:45 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R42 4787 on Thu Dec 11 17:32:09 2008. And also because the B ran 7 days a week whereas the Q only ran 5, but the Q had the newer equipment. |
|
|
| (719725) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sat Dec 13 16:56:32 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008. That's different. What I meant was that we don't need expensive new subways replacing existing, viable el structures. Like having a New Utrecht Ave subway replacing the West End line. |
|
|
| (719849) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 13 22:37:02 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008. 1. Archer Avenue to 168 St. (and beyond)2. Second Avenue THat's fine. . Conversion of LIRR Lower Montauk Branch to the Penn Station/Grand Central trunk line, conversion of the LIRR Main Line to subway. Impossible. Just about 100% of Long Island's (Nassau, Suffolk, Brooklyn, and Queens) freight service uses, and needs the lower Montauk Branch. And even forgetting that, the LIRR needs four tracks between Jamaica and Penn Station. There is no way to do that on Lower Montauk. Dead in the water. 5. 3rd Avenue el in the Bronx Yes, that should never have been abandoned to begin with. 6. J train to Valley Stream, via Merrick Blvd The LIRR needs that line. You can't just take trackage away from a commuter RR, and give it to the subway. Alongside, sure. Converted? No way. 7. 7 train to Port Washington Perhaps. But I don't think they would need "subway" headways east of about Great Neck, and I don't even know if it would be necessary all the way to Great Neck to have "7 train" headways. Not to mention that the 7 trains are packed just coming from Main St. Imagine adding all those more people to it. No way to add that amount of people to the current 7 train. 4. G Train to Broadway-Myrtle How and why? The line crosses the Bway el at Union Ave (near Lorimer St). The Crosstown line would need to be severed if it was to diverge fo Myrtle and Broadway. I'd love to see the BMT Eastern Division infrastructure in the Downtown be put to good use. I'm just not sure what one would use it for. Maybe there is some way to route some of the Queens trains over to use the Willy B crossing instead of the congested Queens Blvd trunk. Maybe a junction between the BMT el and the IND at Lorimer St./Broadway The Nassau line is terribly underutilized. Two tracks (the side currently unused) should have been given over to the second Ave subway. A shame they decided on the Water St alignment. As for better use of the Williamsburg Bride....extend the V to Metropolitan Ave, and discontinue the M. The J could handle Nassau just fine, and the Myrtle line would run to 6th Ave and Queens Blvd to Forest Hills. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (719857) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Dec 13 22:42:46 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 13 22:37:02 2008. Your point about the 7's capacity is well-taken. extending it would redistributec some bus passengers to be sure, but additional folks would hop on too.Since this is a part fantasy list, why don't we add this: Add a fourth track to the 7 train all the way to Manhattan and then extend it outbound. Let's see, a lower level to the Steinway tunnel, add tracks to the elevated, widen or deepen the Roosevelt Av tunnel and completely rebuild the 41 St line in Manhattan. Is $14 billion enough? |
|
|
| (720010) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Dec 14 04:12:43 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 13 22:37:02 2008. The Nassau line is terribly underutilized. Two tracks (the side currently unused) should have been given over to the second Ave subway. A shame they decided on the Water St alignment.Agreed. Hopefully they will revise their plans since it will be a while (if ever) before they put the first shovel into the ground for SAS Phase IV. I would personally rather see the (T) splitting into two services at Chatham Square with one service (the T) turning into Park Row to Nassau St and on to Brooklyn (replacing the M) and another (let's call it the (U) train) continuing down Water St. The latter would be joined by a Queens SAS service south of 63rd St. The (U) train could then also be extended to the Bronx and become a new Third Avenue Subway there. |
|
|
| (720012) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 14 04:34:45 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by SMAZ on Sun Dec 14 04:12:43 2008. There's still plenty of time to consider alternatives, and communicate your views to MTA. |
|
|
| (720079) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Dec 14 12:18:29 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sat Dec 13 22:37:02 2008. The Nassau line is terribly underutilized. Two tracks (the side currently unused) should have been given over to the second Ave subway. Would anyone use an SAS train from Brooklyn via Nassau St? Few use the Broadway local from the "tunnel" to access midtown. Most would simply take the B/D to Grand St. and x-fer to the SAS there. However, connecting to Nassau St. south of Grand would be considerably cheaper than building a new line all the way to Hanover Sq, even if the Water St. alignment provides more direct subway service to the most extreme western portion of the southern tip of Manhattan. |
|
|
| (720121) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 15:38:17 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by aem7ac on Sat Dec 13 13:16:07 2008. Archer Avenue to 168 St. (and beyond)As a former SE Queens resident, I never understood the theory on adding at 168th Street stop back. Ron usually gives the theory that it would boost the profile of the Jamaica shopping district, but adding the station doesn't change much, IMHO, because outside of the Gap/Old Navy store, there are no other large national chains at the mall, and they're accessible at other malls like Queens Centre or Green Acres. If anything, the Jamaica CBD should be pushed westward to allow for easy access from the Jamaica LIRR station. Conversion of LIRR Lower Montauk Branch to the Penn Station/Grand Central trunk line, conversion of the LIRR Main Line to subway. Seriously, why? I've never understood the theory behind turning a line parallel to the Queens Railway into an express subway. G Train to Broadway-Myrtle Streetcar. If you're bored, we can always build a Stadtbahn. :) 4 train via Utica Avenue to the Flatlands Somehow, I'd rather see a variant of one of the IND Second System plans... 7 train to Port Washington Given the isolated nature of the Port Washington Line, I've considered an idea that it feeds into 63rd Street and comes out somewhere on else on the Southern Division or turns at 2nd Ave or Church. Sadly, the FRA won't let us have subway trains and commuter trains mixing together despite the fact that the ASC system essentially ensures that the nasty high-speed collisions won't occur. Running subway levels of service into Port Washington or even Great Neck seems semi-absurd, IMHO, but I feel it's highly absurd to build a subway parallel to the LIRR in that area. If anything, the 7 should have a "mini-extension" from Willets Point to 20th Avenue. Of course, this theoretically in the future could be extended onto a new cable stayed Whitestone Bridge in the future or sent deep bore in a straight line to 14th Road & the Cross Island Parkway station. J train to Valley Stream, via Merrick Blvd One needs to ask if the riders will all abandon the J at mass for the E at Jamaica Centre, and if the LIRR will dump their local stops due to the cut in patronage... I am sure there are others in Queens that others can think of. Eastern New Queens Trunk to serve Queens College, Fresh Meadows, Oakdale Gardens, and Long Island Jewish and a Western New Queens Trunk serving Maspeth. As for what to do with it in Manhattan, one could run towards Greenpoint and aim for a 23rd Street Line, or aim southward for Williamsburg to aim for Houston Street and the IND Sixth Avenue Line, or swing northward towards Sunnyside and 63rd Street. Of course, I should draw a map one of these days... |
|
|
| (720124) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 15:47:16 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 13 14:35:38 2008. re-locate Hollis station to Francis Lewis BlvdWhile Q77 riders get a station to transfer to, Q2/3 riders lose their LIRR connection. Mind you, it's still clunky to have both stations unlesss Hillside is moved slightly eastward as a combined Hillside-Hollis station, but with somewhat long walks to the platforms for HMF or passengers. Basically, the far cheaper solution is to (1)...(2)...(3) 3.0mph/s, 3 doors, 2 X 2 seating à la WMATA, 65 to 80mph MAS? Otherwise, I concur with your sentiments for LIRR & MNRR... |
|
|
| (720127) | |
Re: The truth comes out: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 14 15:56:32 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Dec 13 14:35:38 2008. (1"increase current service such that every bit of track and terminal capacity is used during peak hours (Roberts, Ravitch, Bloomberg, et al, are just lying when they say that we are already there),"And you know this to be true because (check off the appropriate answer): 1) You studied OP's operational plans and tested alternatives 2) You've been a Line Superintendent for 5 years and collected and analyzed operations data 3) You're just naturally much smarter than everyone at the TA and so you naturally know what's going on. |
|
|
| (720137) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 16:34:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 15:47:16 2008. While Q77 riders get a station to transfer to, Q2/3 riders lose their LIRR connection. Mind you, it's still clunky to have both stations unlesss Hillside is moved slightly eastward as a combined Hillside-Hollis station, but with somewhat long walks to the platforms for HMF or passengers.Hollis isn't exactly convenient to any bus routes, although the Q2/3/110 are within a few blocks. Being that's it's a 4-car platform, no station house, and walking distance to Hillside, it seems like the odd man out. Buses could be rerouted a few blocks perhaps. If Q2/3 proceeded west on Jamaica Av, and then went north on 179 Pl and then back east again, that would shorten both routes, and still allow access to NYCT at 179 St and LIRR at Hillside. 3.0mph/s, 3 doors, 2 X 2 seating à la WMATA, 65 to 80mph MAS? The electrical system may need to be upgraded, but there's actually reason to think that even higher acceleration rates in the 4-5mph/s would be feasible if the jerk rate were smoothed out by computer control. If we're serious about doing Really Rapid transit in this way, it might also eventually be a project to have Belmont Park become a park/ride facility, re-doing QUEENS interlocking with ramps; or to take advantage of the large amount of LIRR property near Queens Village to turn that into the Really Rapid transit terminal, which would afford bus connections to many of the routes in the area, which if I remember right are Q1/27/36/88 and N24. |
|
|
| (720143) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 14 16:49:06 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 16:34:23 2008. "The electrical system may need to be upgraded, but there's actually reason to think that even higher acceleration rates in the 4-5mph/s would be feasible if the jerk rate were smoothed out by computer control."Another example of a preference for understanding objects and not understanding people. |
|
|
| (720148) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 17:07:25 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 15:38:17 2008. If anything, the Jamaica CBD should be pushed westward to allow for easy access from the Jamaica LIRR station.Already happening. See here and here too. Sadly, the FRA won't let us have subway trains and commuter trains mixing together despite the fact that the ASC system essentially ensures that the nasty high-speed collisions won't occur. Even if FRA looked the other way, so to speak, NYCT doesn't want FRA regulation over it. If anything, the 7 should have a "mini-extension" from Willets Point to 20th Avenue. A bit more ambitious, but the extension might as well be from Main St-Flushing to once and for all eliminate that terminal difficulty. Of course, I should draw a map one of these days... Yes! |
|
|
| (720171) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 18:37:49 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 16:34:23 2008. Hollis isn't exactly convenient to any bus routes, although the Q2/3/110 are within a few blocks. Being that's it's a 4-car platform, no station house, and walking distance to Hillside, it seems like the odd man out.Hollis is IIRC, one short block from the intersection of Hollis Ave & Farmers Blvd. If an additional second entrance near that intersection could be opened, it would work wonders for transferees and just general community awareness of the station. Admittedly, it is a bit inconvienient to the Q110, but admittedly, that bus seems to have really low ridership for some reason... Buses could be rerouted a few blocks perhaps. If Q2/3 proceeded west on Jamaica Av, and then went north on 179 Pl Unless you're willing to tear down the warehouses and other industrial structures on Jamaica Avenue, Hillside is still an isolated station with no street access to the north. Plus, your routing involves sending the buses down what's essentially a narrow one-way street, and it makes tranfers to the Q17/Q75 a bit more annoying. If we're serious about doing Really Rapid transit in this way There's a part of me that wants to curse the LIRR for not designing a flying junction at Floral Park and creating a legit four track-two platform station design there to allow for proper transfers. As I once discovered, it's reallying annoying to use the LIRR from Queens Village to go Eastward. Belmont would be an interesting point for a P&R and it would end up making the commutes of the LI Bus riders rather shorter in the case of the N1/2/3/6. Queens Village makes the N24 slightly tolerable... |
|
|
| (720173) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 18:42:27 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 17:07:25 2008. Even if FRA looked the other way, so to speak, NYCT doesn't want FRA regulation over it.I've jokingly said that FRA regs would rid NYCTA of the employees that create the need for the timers... The FRA regs in a hybrid NYCTA-LIRR environment are pretty much the main stumbling block in such an operation, and the only thing that may save us is a waiver... A bit more ambitious, but the extension might as well be from Main St-Flushing to once and for all eliminate that terminal difficulty. Of course, but for the purposes of simplicity and realism, the cheap-ass extension from Willets Point makes some sense... Yes! As for my map, maybe I'll get around to it tonight or tomorrow night. Depends if the friend-girl calls up... |
|
|
| (720184) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 19:18:52 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 18:42:27 2008. The FRA regs in a hybrid NYCTA-LIRR environment are pretty much the main stumbling block in such an operation, and the only thing that may save us is a waiver...Not sure what kind of a waiver you have in mind, but I just don't see something that's going to allow DM30s, M7s, and R179*s to co-exist. I've jokingly said that FRA regs would rid NYCTA of the employees that create the need for the timers... Probably a big pay raise for many NYCT employees too. The boys and girls on LIRR make a lot more than their NYCT colleagues. Of course, but for the purposes of simplicity and realism, the cheap-ass extension from Willets Point makes some sense... It would require running more trains on the Flushing Line to sustain both the Whitestone/College Point Branch and the Flushing Branch. Given that there has been unwillingness to do that, it's hard to see that happening. Depends if the friend-girl calls up... That's a term I have not heard in a long, long time.... |
|
|
| (720197) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 19:40:16 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 19:18:52 2008. Not sure what kind of a waiver you have in mind, but I just don't see something that's going to allow DM30s, M7s, and R179*s to co-exist.A waiver from the FRA that would allow the R179 and future NYCTA fleets to use FRA trackage without complying with FRA regulations. The theory is that the ASC system acts as enough of a safety system to prevent collisions. Of course, this would require a very permissive FRA which I just don't see ever happening without a massive change in the regulatory environment or a magical act of Congress. It would require running more trains on the Flushing Line to sustain both the Whitestone/College Point Branch and the Flushing Branch. Given that there has been unwillingness to do that, it's hard to see that happening. Admittedly, that's the problem with the Whitestone Spur. Can the Flushing Railway maintain high TPH (36 + 6 for the spur?) along with the ability to turn the extra trains from the spur. Of course, does Main Street need as many trains if riders from College Point and Whitestone are picking up the train on the Spur? That's a term I have not heard in a long, long time.... It's sometimes the second best and in other cases, the best option for a railfan. :) |
|
|
| (720200) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 19:46:00 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 18:37:49 2008. Unless you're willing to tear down the warehouses and other industrial structures on Jamaica Avenue, Hillside is still an isolated station with no street access to the north.Seems like it's ripe for development.... Plus, your routing involves sending the buses down what's essentially a narrow one-way street, and it makes tranfers to the Q17/Q75 a bit more annoying. True, although the present Q2/3 routing between Jamaica and Hillside Avs use one-way streets. Q17 still runs past 179 St/Hillside Av. Q75 runs two buses an hour, so I doubt that many people are planning a transfer that way, but 179 St is one of the timepoints for that route, so that should help in planning for those who are doing the transfer. There's a part of me that wants to curse the LIRR for not designing a flying junction at Floral Park and creating a legit four track-two platform station design there to allow for proper transfers. As I once discovered, it's reallying annoying to use the LIRR from Queens Village to go Eastward. LIRR is very NY-centric. To go east from Queens Village on LIRR, you almost always have to go west to Jamaica first. (The exception involves a change at Floral Park, if that's even possible without several hours of layover). Belmont would be an interesting point for a P&R and it would end up making the commutes of the LI Bus riders rather shorter in the case of the N1/2/3/6. Queens Village makes the N24 slightly tolerable... I would also hope that it might attract some SE Queens drivers. But I agree with your general point that it would reduce commuting times. At least if the merge with the Main Line could be made to work out. But feasibly, we're probably talking about a terminal at Queens Village, given the difficulties with QUEENS doing a merge across the entire Main Line. |
|
|
| (720205) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 20:00:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 19:40:16 2008. A waiver from the FRA that would allow the R179 and future NYCTA fleets to use FRA trackage without complying with FRA regulations. The theory is that the ASC system acts as enough of a safety system to prevent collisions. Of course, this would require a very permissive FRA which I just don't see ever happening without a massive change in the regulatory environment or a magical act of Congress.Yeah, don't see that happening. Other items are troublesome too. FRA brake tests would kill NYCT's turnaround time at terminals requiring a change of ends. And of course, I doubt that NYCT wants to increase the salaries of operating employees to what, say, LIRR employees make. Admittedly, that's the problem with the Whitestone Spur. Can the Flushing Railway maintain high TPH (36 + 6 for the spur?) along with the ability to turn the extra trains from the spur. Times Sq would be able to handle 36 tph, but the question is whether Javits Ctr will be able to. Then on the other end, will 111 St + Main St + Whitestone Terminal be able to turn 36 tph, and what the connectivity will be like at the Willets Pt interlocking. |
|
|
| (720206) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 20:01:44 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 19:40:16 2008. It's sometimes the second best and in other cases, the best option for a railfan. :)Best of luck with that! |
|
|
| (720235) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 20:27:05 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 19:46:00 2008. Seems like it's ripe for development....Admittedly, it does, but I'm hesitant about ripping up diminishing small and light industrial areas in NYC. The land may be valuable because it sits next to transit, but it's good to have these areas as they provide blue-collar employment to varying skill levels at varying rates of pay. True, although the present Q2/3 routing between Jamaica and Hillside Avs use one-way streets The problem is that you're turning two quiet one-way street pairs into a thoroughfare for buses, since that neighbourhood has limited parking spaces, I'd imagine that the locals would fear losing their spots to a bus stop or for a second lane of traffic. The limited parking is why I gave up on parking my car there to use the F when I used to live in the area. Currently, my brother parks further east around 196th Street or so and takes a bus to Hillside, or I'll park near my grandmother's condo around 215th Street, and that's only in limited cases such as no parking at my home station on the South Shore or if I need to do something in Queens, or if I'm lugging "tourists" with me. Q75 runs two buses an hour I had no idea about its low number of buses per hour. Hell, it approaches LI Bus levels of service, and the Q75 isn't running in the middle of nowhere. I would also hope that it might attract some SE Queens drivers. Supposedly, a good number of the SE Queens drivers are civil servants who lucked out with placards that give them a de facto ability to park anywhere in Lower Manhattan. One could argue that they'd never turn to transit willingly, but boosting service and providing for a park and ride could help along with seizure of their placards... Regardless, IMHO, a Belmont Park and Ride probably benefits Elmont residents who ride the bus or drive due to a lack of LIRR options along with some Franklin Square residents in a similar situation. In terms of Queens, the main beneficiaries end up being Cambria Heights as St Albans has its own LIRR station (which could use more service) with Rosedale and Laurelton being in the same situation. It would be interesting if a shuttle bus was run during peak hours to connect with either Belmont or Queens Village. But feasibly, we're probably talking about a terminal at Queens Village, given the difficulties with QUEENS doing a merge across the entire Main Line. That's the problem. How can we create a terminal at Queens Village when the world's clunkiest interlocking is behind it while not interfering with railway traffic while switching? One could always turn the Hempstead into a "rapid" LIRR line, but that may be overkill, so that leaves the Belmont spur with matching flying junction or re-designing the entire mainline to Jamaica. Three main line tracks, two tracks for the Hempstead/Rapid Service, and a correcting junction at Hillside or if one of bored, a separate platform area at Jamaica where afterwards the lines diverge appropriately for NYP or Brooklyn, and even that may require grades that LIRR trains may not be able to climb... |
|
|
| (720249) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 20:41:09 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 20:00:23 2008. Yeah, don't see that happening.Same here, sadly. Mind you, with a waiver, one wouldn't need brake tests*, and one would hope and pray that NYCTA could cheat its way out of paying LIRR salaries. NJT seems to be able to do so... :-P *Wouldn't it be nice if the commuter RRs in the Northeast could all get waivers? Times Sq would be able to handle 36 tph, but the question is whether Javits Ctr will be able to. Then on the other end, will 111 St + Main St + Whitestone Terminal be able to turn 36 tph, and what the connectivity will be like at the Willets Pt interlocking. Since I'm not a railway engineer or planner, and I'll refrain from making dangerous assumptions about interlocking design unless I feel like making an ass of myself. Otherwise, I would presume that the 111th Street short-turns would continue on the spur to Whitestone during peak hours. Hopefully 11th Avenue/34th Street will give us a useable terminal that can turn back appropriate amounts of train, and had the line been in the planning stages, I would have asked for a third track as a dumping ground for trains at either 10th Ave or TSQ. |
|
|
| (720253) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 20:42:40 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 20:01:44 2008. Best of luck with that!As long as we stay good friends, I'm happy. Being the boyfriend is decidedly the second best option in this case. :) |
|
|
| (720288) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Dec 14 21:45:25 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Thu Dec 11 14:01:51 2008. Sutphin "darkest station in the system"?Even the lower level of Parsons-Archer has to be ranked the darkest station. Why they don't use the same amt of lights for the lower level as they do the upper level? |
|
|
| (720295) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 21:51:44 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Dec 14 20:41:09 2008. Since I'm not a railway engineer or planner, and I'll refrain from making dangerous assumptions about interlocking design unless I feel like making an ass of myself. Otherwise, I would presume that the 111th Street short-turns would continue on the spur to Whitestone during peak hours.Should be interesting to figure out what the maximum number of trains that Main St can handle is..... |
|
|
| (720307) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 14 21:57:24 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Grand concourse on Sun Dec 14 21:45:25 2008. Sutphin is better lit than the J platform at Parsons. Your question is a good one.In general, Sutphin is a much better more functional station and in much better shape than the Rockaways. |
|
|
| (720315) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 14 22:02:42 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Thu Dec 11 14:01:51 2008. I use Sutphin and Parsons on an almost daily basis, I would like to disagree with you. Parsons is much darker. |
|
|
| (720332) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Dec 14 22:20:55 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Dec 14 21:57:24 2008. Well from a few visits the lighting for Sutphin ll is better lit than Parsons for sure.I'm not going to go into detail about that, but obviously a 20-yr-old station's platforms should be in better shape than the Rockaways' platforms as those have been around for several more decades. The Rockaway Park platforms are in bad shape. |
|
|
| (720333) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Sun Dec 14 22:21:16 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 14 22:02:42 2008. Thank you. |
|
|
| (720357) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Dec 14 23:05:58 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 14 22:02:42 2008. I'm not sure whether Jamaica Center is actually darker than Sutphin Blvd-Archer Av or whether it's natural to perceive it that way because of the "earth tones".I am inclined to think that Jamaica Center is the less bright of the two. |
|
|
| (720391) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Dec 15 00:18:09 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 14 22:02:42 2008. Oh yes, that is certainly true.BUT... Parsons is dark by design. Sutphin is dark due to the deteriorated lighting system |
|
|
| (720395) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 00:29:14 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Mon Dec 15 00:18:09 2008. Meaning that repair/replacement of lighting is needed to correct the problem. |
|
|
| (720398) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Dec 15 00:37:13 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 00:29:14 2008. Except for one problem: If it were built properly, as most stations early on were, the problem would never have happened.Bad planning all around. |
|
|
| (720400) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Mon Dec 15 00:49:27 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 00:29:14 2008. They replaced the lighting over the summer. Unfortunately, I assume due to water seepage, by August, most of the new lights were out. |
|
|
| (720401) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 00:50:01 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by AMoreira81 on Mon Dec 15 00:37:13 2008. Possibly. All lights need replacing sooner or later. |
|
|
| (720402) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 00:51:28 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Mon Dec 15 00:49:27 2008. Damn Queens ground water. Agreed thsat inappropriate materials would be at fault. |
|
|
| (720413) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Grand concourse on Mon Dec 15 01:11:23 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by R30A on Mon Dec 15 00:49:27 2008. That's a shame. |
|
|
| (720489) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Dec 15 06:58:43 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 00:50:01 2008. Of course. But in less than 20 years? The lights were already breaking 10 years ago.The old lighting in IND stations was used for 50 years, and still worked (and that with old cloth wiring). The only reason they were eventually replaced was to get the brighter flourescent lighting in. Doesn't say much for the materials or workmanship when lighting needs to be replaced in just over 10 years. |
|
|
| (720490) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Dec 15 07:00:04 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Kriston Lewis on Sun Dec 14 22:02:42 2008. I think that has to do more with the dark tiling at Jamaica Center vs Sutphin than the lighting. |
|
|
| (720492) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Dec 15 07:04:12 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Sun Dec 14 12:18:29 2008. The Water St alignment doesn't go to Brooklyn at all in the plan. What's better, Brooklyn via Nassau St, or not at all? The Nassau alignment is ALREADY there, and would just become a part of the 2nd Ave line. Those who need to go to Brooklyn and are using the 2nd Ave line, will stay on. They are not going to get off and transfer to another train. |
|
|
| (720573) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Mon Dec 15 10:02:07 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Dec 15 06:58:43 2008. Agreed. |
|
|
| (720968) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Tue Dec 16 03:30:44 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Dec 15 07:04:12 2008. Indeed. Not only would I connect it to Nassau St but to get the point across I would color SAS bullets on trains, stations and on maps brown. The SAS would simply be a northern extension of the Nassau St line to 125th/Park and perhaps one day to Queens and the Bronx. I would still build the Water St as part of Phase IV or as a Phase V if money is short. |
|
|
| (721008) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Dec 16 07:05:46 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by SMAZ on Tue Dec 16 03:30:44 2008. It would be either having the SAS become brown, or the nassau line (and hence the M, J, and Z) would be light blue..... |
|
|
| (721161) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 16 12:10:40 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Dec 15 07:04:12 2008. The question becomes: what's better, providing SAS subway service to Brooklyn via Montague St or providing service to the west side of the financial district in places like Chatham Sq, South St. Seaport and Hanover Sq? I'm not sure any SAS service from Brooklyn via Montague St. would be of much use if there's gonna be an x-fer between it and the B/D at Grand St, as proposed. I'm a much bigger supporter of routing J/M service up the SAS to Midtown than routing SAS service down Nassau St and into Brooklyn. Here's what I propose: J/Z: Jamaica Center to 125th/2nd all times M: Metropolitan Ave to Broad St/Bay Pkwy weekdays, Chambers St weekends Q: 125th/2nd to Stillwell all times except nights |
|
|
| (721165) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 16 12:15:21 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri Dec 12 16:51:27 2008. The line only ran to 21st/Queensbridge for 6 months (October 29th, 1989 to April 15th, 1990). This was at the height of the R46 overhauls. It's not impossible, but a safe bet that R44's were in use at this time on this particular line. |
|
|
| (721166) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 16 12:16:56 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 16 12:10:40 2008. If/when they ever complete the 2nd Av Line - you may all take time to finish laughing now - it would be nice to have a 2 Av-Queens Blvd T route. But it's not obvious how that would work out. It's easy to envision a 12 tph split between the R/T/V, but then things get tricky in terms of scheduling merges. |
|
|
| (721172) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 16 12:21:29 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 16 12:16:56 2008. I don't think they can fit another route on Queens Blvd, and if they try, G riders will go ballistic. With the proposed x-fer between the IND at Lex/53rd and the SAS at 55th St, I don't see the need for the SAS on QB. |
|
|
| (721181) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 16 12:41:53 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 16 12:21:29 2008. I don't think they can fit another route on Queens Blvd, and if they try, G riders will go ballistic.G riders and Queens Blvd riders have been defrauded for several years now, and if they've gone ballistic, it surely wasn't effective. MTA still raises the tax revenue and the fees revenue; they just stopped providing the service. Queens Blvd local is supposed to have two routes at all times. They could easily fit another route on the Queens Blvd local tracks; they just need to arrive at a solution to the fumigation problem. With the proposed x-fer between the IND at Lex/53rd and the SAS at 55th St, I don't see the need for the SAS on QB. It's not clear that will maximally assist the Lexington Av local. Only a direct train can do that. A long transfer passageway at a location where there is already an established transfer and routine seems less likely to succeed. |
|
|
| (721184) | |
Re: onspiracy theories; Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Tue Dec 16 12:47:11 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 16 12:41:53 2008. "G riders and Queens Blvd riders have been defrauded for several years now""They could easily fit another route on the Queens Blvd local tracks; they just need to arrive at a solution to the fumigation problem." And you know this how? You seem to know all kinds of things that neither Queens Blvd train crews nor Operations Planning people know. Perhaps you could hire a lawyer and sue OP in court for fraud. What would you use as data to support your argument? |
|
|
| (721196) | |
Re: Archer Avenue at 20 |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Tue Dec 16 13:15:53 2008, in response to Re: Archer Avenue at 20, posted by trainsarefun on Tue Dec 16 12:41:53 2008. They could easily fit another route on the Queens Blvd local tracks; they just need to arrive at a solution to the fumigation problem. But said problem isn't really fixable. Ever see the conga line into Continental during the afternoon rush? It's disheartening to see E's and F's pass you one after another as you wait to get into the station on an R or V. It's not clear that will maximally assist the Lexington Av local. Only a direct train can do that. A long transfer passageway at a location where there is already an established transfer and routine seems less likely to succeed. I don't think there's enough demand for an entire route dedicated only to the extreme east side of Manhattan to justify the amount of capacity it would take to run one. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 5 |
||
