|
|
| 2nd Ave Subway Setback (811502) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
| (811502) | |
2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009 Did anybody check out today's Daily News?7/21 NY Daily News |
|
|
| (811506) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 21 20:38:53 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. Sadly, I am not surprised about this setback nor am I surprised about the setback of bringing the LIRR to GCT |
|
|
| (811514) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by BMTLines on Tue Jul 21 20:56:47 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. ROTFLMAO - First 2012... then 2015... now 2017.... just waiting for the other shoe to drop - in 2010 they will say 2020 and in 2015 they will be projecting 2030.... |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (811515) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 21 21:00:31 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by BMTLines on Tue Jul 21 20:56:47 2009. Hey hell with them promising the SAS in the 2000's wasn't this supposed to happen IIRC in the 50's - 70's? |
|
|
| (811518) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:11:48 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. Well, that means that LACMTA still has a shot to win. |
|
|
| (811519) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Tue Jul 21 21:12:50 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. All this for a two track line with no express service. No way to bypass stalled trains or construction work and it’ll be maxed out with commuters a lot sooner.You’d assume that with our technology—compared to what William Parsons had to rely on in 1904—that we’d be building an eight track trunk line with a 100 years worth of anticipated growth in mind. Here’s hoping we’ll see a 2nd Avenue BRT route as a stop gap. Thanks for posting it b44nyc. |
|
|
| (811520) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Bzuck on Tue Jul 21 21:14:17 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 21 21:00:31 2009. What was the original date when it was first proposed in 1929? |
|
|
| (811521) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:22:00 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Tue Jul 21 21:12:50 2009. Two tracks with less frequent stops is the way to go. That way every train is a semi-express train. And there will be crossovers to allow stalled trains to be bypassed at least somewhat. 24-hour service may be tougher to keep up with. |
|
|
| (811524) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jul 21 21:26:41 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Think twice on Tue Jul 21 21:12:50 2009. All this for a two track line with no express service. No way to bypass stalled trains or construction work and it’ll be maxed out with commuters a lot sooner.Which is interesting given that two track subways are the de facto standard for subway construction and with the exception of London, Chicago, and Philadelphia, no other system has purposely aimed for an express-local set up. They just build another line for another corridor... Besides, it's not as if they're going to run the 40 to 60 tph at peak to warrant the expense of the additional tracks... You’d assume that with our technology The MTA could theoretically complete the line faster, that requires a reallocation of resources to do so. In other words, are you willing to pay $3.00 fare (or more) to pay to speed up construction? Besides, Parsons had the luxury of being able to rip up the street and basically tell anybody who complained to go away. |
|
|
| (811525) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Tue Jul 21 21:27:14 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Bzuck on Tue Jul 21 21:14:17 2009. TBH I don't know I thought it was proposed later than that, this is even more of a sad thing then. Maybe it will be done by the 100th Anniversary of it's first proposal? |
|
|
| (811527) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:31:06 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jul 21 21:26:41 2009. Isn't a big part of why NYC trains can get so slow and delayed is all of the express lines, along with all of the merging and diverging lines? It seems like systems that have dedicated lines without all of the complicated maneuvers run more steadily. |
|
|
| (811528) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:33:16 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:22:00 2009. absolutely backwrds! Two track widely spaced systems iike BART only work for limited origin destination pairs. The beauty of the NYC system is both short and long trips are quick and easy. |
|
|
| (811530) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jul 21 21:36:05 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:33:16 2009. The beauty of the NYC system is both short and long trips are quick and easy.I'm almost tempted to argue that the ideal network would be a light rail system and streetcar network backed up by a regional railway system with 3 to 4 tph off-peak. The streetcar and light rail handle short and medium distance trips while the regional railway/S-Bahn would handle medium to long-distance trips. |
|
|
| (811531) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:36:11 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 21 21:27:14 2009. yes 1929 was the year. go look at Second System over at nycsubway.org. This project has literally been stolen from us twice already--funds from two previous bond issues were used respectively for deferred maintenance/"saving" nickel fare, and the 1970's city bankruptcy. |
|
|
| (811532) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:40:21 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jul 21 21:36:05 2009. streetcar/lightrail systems only work well when on dedicated ROW. There is room to put light rail on 2nd Ave, but police state tactics would be necessary to complete the project. |
|
|
| (811538) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:55:33 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:33:16 2009. I don't mean quite like BART. I'd say that a station every 0.5-1.0 kilometer would be ideal for Manhattan and every 1-1.5 kilometers for the other three boroughs. |
|
|
| (811539) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Jul 21 21:57:12 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:36:11 2009. There were proposals in: 1929, 1939, 1947, 1967, and the current one.No wonder we are so cynical! |
|
|
| (811541) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:59:22 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jul 21 21:36:05 2009. Why light rail? Or maybe you mean different than what I'm used to. Light rail is relatively expensive to build (50% of heavy rail), with expensive equipment, and is expensive to operate. Then you have a system that has less than half the capacity of heavy rail. IOW it's much cheaper in the long run to build one heavy rail system than two or three parallel light rail systems to carry the same amount of passengers. Of course having more lines is better for passengers, but at a cost. |
|
|
| (811544) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by 7th Avenue Express on Tue Jul 21 22:05:14 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. they should just give it up |
|
|
| (811568) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 00:52:07 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:59:22 2009. Why light rail?What LA has, but without the absurd high floors and awful Bredas and non-off the shelf Siemens light rail cars. Light rail is relatively expensive to build (50% of heavy rail) That can easily vary due to construction needs. Salt Lake City and Portland are working on extensions in the near $50 to $60 million dollar per mile range, while Central Link in Seattle approaches $150 million per mile due to the deep bored tunnels. LA's Gold Line Eastside extension is approaching $150 million per mile, but one must take into account that has a nearly two mile deep-bored section with two stations in the tunnel. Mind you, you have to remember that a light rail system is basically for all intents and purposes, an IRT-sized subway that has the ability to run in the street. Given the choice between one heavy rail line and two or three heavy rail lines that can serve more corridors, I'd much rather take the latter to ensure better access in a region. Besides, at a later date, one can dig tunnels if necessary to bypass certain street running sections. Then you have a system that has less than half the capacity of heavy rail. Cologne Stadtbahn, a light rail system, has ridership near 507,000 daily riders and a system network of 119 miles which for comparison purposes would make it the largest light rail system in the United States, and the fourth largest heavy rail system in the US. Hannover Stadtbahn is a network of 75 miles with nearly 500,000 daily riders as well. Hell, even Calgary moves 300,000 daily riders on its 30 mile light rail network system. I'd argue it's a bit premature to claim that light rail can't meet heavy rail capacity... |
|
|
| (811569) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 01:09:59 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 00:52:07 2009. Then again, this is Manhattan. Wouldn't having an LRT be a waste if a car is blocking the tracks at an intersection?LRT might be good for say the Bronx or Brooklyn, but in Manhattan, a LRT would be no better than an SBS line. imo |
|
|
| (811570) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 01:20:38 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 00:52:07 2009. The capacity of street running light rail in the US is limited by the the length of the trains. In LA we can only fit three cars on a city block, but other cities can fit four and/or don't mind blocking intersections with the trains. Also, street running maxes out at about 10-12 TPH because cities don't want anymore than that. So when you compare light and heavy rail capacity you more or less have:Light rail TPH - 12 Cars per train - 4 People per car - 230 Total per hour = 230 x 4 x 12 = 11,040 people Heavy rail TPH - 20 Cars per train - 8 (75') People per car - 170 Total per hour = 20 x 8 x 170 = 27,200 |
|
|
| (811572) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 01:35:34 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 01:09:59 2009. Wouldn't having an LRT be a waste if a car is blocking the tracks at an intersection?The car shouldn't be blocking the tracks or bus lane or traffic lanes in the first place. a LRT would be no better than an SBS line Except the LRT would move more people than the SBS line and do so without inflicting damage to the street, emitting noise and pollution, and it uses a fleet that's expected to last thirty years in lieu of fifteen years. Hell, NYCTA has enough years of maintaining an electric transit system that a light rail system shouldn't be too different. Even the trackage packages on the Siemens LRVs aren't too different than the traction packages on the R-160As... In the specific case of New York City, I would advocate for heavily used bus routes including major crosstown bus routes to be converted streetcars which are the true modern successors to the PCCs. They're roughly 65 ft long (in lieu of 90 ft light rail cars), feature smaller and simpler stops, and don't require the expensive street reconstruction and utility relocation costs and advanced signalling found in modern light rail systems while providing the benefits of electrified rail transit. |
|
|
| (811574) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 22 02:02:50 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by 7th Avenue Express on Tue Jul 21 22:05:14 2009. Why? |
|
|
| (811578) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 02:37:09 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 01:35:34 2009. Like I said, I think LRT would work better in the other boroughs like Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx. As they have plenty of areas that can support the LRT and replace the bus. But in Manhattan, I just don't see why you would need an LRT there especially given how congested some intersections like 59th-2nd Av, Canal-Bowery can be. |
|
|
| (811579) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 02:39:13 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 01:35:34 2009. I mean it's easy to say the car shouldn't be blocking the box, but they still do. Last week at Canal-Lafayette, it took over 20 min to clear that intersection because asshole drivers on Canal didn't yeild at the line and instead moved up and in turn blocked the box preventing traffic on Lafayette to move. |
|
|
| (811580) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 02:40:15 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 01:20:38 2009. In LA we can only fit three cars on a city blockSo in other words, you're going to inflate costs considerably to build a heavy rail system with full blown grade separation and tunnels that may never need 20 tph (trains every three minutes) because you're unwilling to cut off small side streets? The benefit of the light rail system is that you can build tunnels as needed, so one can use street running in low density areas while using tunnelling in higher density areas. There is no such flexibility for heavy rail systems which leave them with an all or nothing approach to extensions, which is important given the limited funding available from municipal, state, and federal governments. BTW, Light Rail: TPH - 30 Cars per train - 4 People per car - 230 30 X 4 X 230 = 27600 Of course, you can achieve thirty trains per hour with light rail since the savings from avoiding full blown heavy rail construction could be spent on supplemental lines and branches that serve other areas and prevent riders from enduring long bus rides to get to your solitary heavy rail line while providing for one seat rides to the core and minimizing transfers to other lines. Plus with four cars per train, the minimum spacing between trains is much narrower than in a heavy rail system due to the shorter length of the sets requiring less time to clear blocks and interlockings, thus allowing for more trains with a proper signalling system and well-designed switches at terminals. |
|
|
| (811582) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 02:56:23 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 02:40:15 2009. We probably agree somewhat. Light rail can be beneficial when done correctly, but trying to make light rail into heavy rail like in LA is a waste. But I disagree that light rail is a good idea for NYC. It'll be almost as expensive to build as heavy rail and more expensive to operate. But as a railfan I'd like to see it. |
|
|
| (811583) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 22 02:57:36 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 02:40:15 2009. So in other words, you're going to inflate costs considerably to build a heavy rail system with full blown grade separation and tunnels that may never need 20 tph (trains every three minutes) because you're unwilling to cut off small side streets?LA is not likely to "never need 20 TPH", not with a population density of over 21,000 people per square mile. You will never get 30 tph light rail on the street, and you won't get the volume of heavy rail even if you move the light rail underground (after which you may as well have built it as heavy rail). |
|
|
| (811584) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 22 02:58:56 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 02:39:13 2009. You're talking to the one who wants to convert PATH to light rail, remember. |
|
|
| (811586) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Wed Jul 22 03:15:46 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Olog-hai on Wed Jul 22 02:57:36 2009. You will never get 30 tph light rail on the street, and you won't get the volume of heavy rail even if you move the light rail underground (after which you may as well have built it as heavy rail).Plenty of trolley systems operated at more than 30tph once upon a time. I guess we're just admitting defeat now and turning our cities over to the automobile, eh? Incidentally Seattle's LRT is designed with that exact operation in mind. Their eventual plans call for thirty 4 car trains per hour operating from Northgate, with 12 tph to Tacoma and Redmond (thereby keeping it to 5 minute headways on MLK Way, and whatever street running ends up being developed in Bellevue), and 5tph to Issaquah. That's a single direction capacity of 24,000 riders per hour with their 200 passenger LRTs. If they ape Portland's unidirectional paired LRTs they could conceivably move more than 27,000 passengers per hour. The first few segments have been quite expensive, but that is going to pay off in the coming years as they will be able to expand to Tacoma, Everett, and other points for a relatively low price when compared to a heavy rail system. Even then, compared to heavy rail systems, which it really is closer to, the Sounder Central Link is a fairly cheap system. |
|
|
| (811588) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Wed Jul 22 03:54:00 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 02:56:23 2009. But I disagree that light rail is a good idea for NYC.As I've stated before, systems like New York City (and Washington DC) don't need full-blown light rail systems as a complement, but their less intrusive counterparts, the streetcar. You get all of the advantages of rail transport like electrification, no diesel fumes, rapid acceleration, smooth movement, less noise, lower vehicle maintenance costs, but like light rail networks, one doesn't require a signaling system or heavy street reconstruction* and utility relocation for laying tracks, and the stations are much smaller and simpler** compared the light rail. *It's shallow slab construction which is akin to simply slicing the street open to lay the tracks. Light rail systems general require ripping up the entire street which takes much longer and costs more. **Just imagine a bus stop with a shelter, but you know, cleaner and with a ticket machine. |
|
|
| (811600) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jul 22 05:44:48 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. It will never be finished. |
|
|
| (811603) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Wed Jul 22 05:49:29 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Grand Concourse on Wed Jul 22 01:09:59 2009. No, LRT >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SBS in Manhattan and everywhere. |
|
|
| (811605) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jul 22 06:25:50 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:22:00 2009. Two tracks with less frequent stops is the way to go.That's a prescription for reduced capacity. The number of people per hour a system can carry is the capacity/train x trains/hour. So, given cars and trains of similar size, the system that has the higher service level capacity (tph) will have the greater capacity. There are two determinants to service level capacity: capacity at the terminals and capacity at the intermediate stations. Consider two systems operating at near capacity with different intermediate station philosophies. The first system has frequent stations with fewer people serviced at each station; the second system has half the number of stations each servicing twice the number of passengers. The minimum headway (the reciprocal of service level capacity) for intermediate stations is essentially the sum of: braking time; acceleration time and dwell time within the station. The nominal times for these parameters are 30 seconds each for a minimum headway of 90 seconds or 40 tph. Reduce the number of stops by half and force the passengers to board the remaining stations. The dwell time will at least double. This will increase the nominal dwell time to 60 seconds and the minimum headway to 120 seconds or 30 tph. Want crowded trains? Decrease the number of stations. |
|
|
| (811607) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by arnine on Wed Jul 22 07:00:21 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Tue Jul 21 21:36:11 2009. Uggh ok then maybe but doubtful we will see the SAS in 2029 on the 100th Yr anniv of the 1st proposal |
|
|
| (811611) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 22 07:35:47 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by arnine on Tue Jul 21 21:00:31 2009. Actually, it was supposed to be built by the 30's! |
|
|
| (811612) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 22 07:37:46 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:31:06 2009. No, the diversions and extra tracks allow bypassing of the problems easier. |
|
|
| (811616) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Wed Jul 22 07:46:56 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. So what else is new? |
|
|
| (811618) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by terrapin station on Wed Jul 22 07:47:59 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Jul 22 07:37:46 2009. but there merges cause a lot of problems |
|
|
| (811626) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Jul 22 08:57:23 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. I don't know why they didn't consider an El. Yes. I understand the whole "Blight" argument, but 2nd ave is wide enough to where it wouldn't shadow the sidewalks. Plus, with concrete flooring, it would be much quieter as well. |
|
|
| (811632) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 09:10:45 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jul 22 06:25:50 2009. I guess all of that is true, but dwell times aren't the only reason for delays in the NYC subway and from I've read aren't even the main reason. Often long dwell times are caused by other issues on the line.If you want to compare capacity in the real world, look at the Moscow Metro. It is slightly shorter than the NYC subway, and has far fewer stations, yet carries 50% more riders. And it carries them much more on schedule because they don't have all the delays associated with merging and diverging lines. And IINM it has the lines with the most TPH in the world. Their stations average about 1 per mile and I'm suggesting maybe 1 per 0.75 mile or so for NYC. |
|
|
| (811635) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Wed Jul 22 09:13:15 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:22:00 2009. I worry about long term capacity. To me the express tracks we have are more valuable for the capacity they provide (for more branches to the other boroughs) than the speed they allow. |
|
|
| (811644) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Think twice on Wed Jul 22 09:40:10 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Tue Jul 21 21:26:41 2009. It was the de facto standard in Parsons' time, but he foresaw that building another line will cost a lot more than the expense of additional tracks. |
|
|
| (811646) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jul 22 09:57:24 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by shiznit1987 on Wed Jul 22 08:57:23 2009. I would've loved to see an under-running monorail just like the one in the 64/65 Worlds Fair... |
|
|
| (811647) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by bmtlines on Wed Jul 22 10:01:00 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Tue Jul 21 21:22:00 2009. Two tracks with less frequent stops is the way to go.Except for people with bad knees who have trouble walking the extra distance |
|
|
| (811658) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 10:53:50 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by bmtlines on Wed Jul 22 10:01:00 2009. I mean only for new lines. I'm not saying to close any existing stations. People get upset when stuff is taken away. If a street gets built with 2 lanes for cars and one for buses people don't complain, but if an existing 3 lane street has a lane converted to bus-only people get upset. |
|
|
| (811663) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by vfrt on Wed Jul 22 11:32:44 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Mitch45 on Wed Jul 22 05:44:48 2009. ==It will never be finished.==With the 'completion' date constantly being pushed back, it's starting to look like you may be close to the truth. But there will come a day when the MTA has to decide whether the project is completable. Maybe the SAS is nothing more than the ultimate jobs program for the construction companies and unions. |
|
|
| (811669) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Wed Jul 22 11:41:59 2009, in response to Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by Easy on Wed Jul 22 09:10:45 2009. dwell times aren't the only reason for delays in the NYC subwayI was talking about capacity not operating delays. Increase the station dwell time by design and the maximum tph will decrease. If you want to compare capacity in the real world, look at the Moscow Metro. It is slightly shorter than the NYC subway, and has far fewer stations, yet carries 50% more riders. And it carries them much more on schedule because they don't have all the delays associated with merging and diverging lines... It's fairly difficult to extrapolate from gross ridership statistics to peak dwell time. When are the extra 50% of Moscow's riders carried? NYCT reports that 46% of the riders used the subway during the rush hours (6 hours) and 54% of the riders used the subway for the remaining 18 hours. If Moscow's numbers are less skewed, despite not operating at night, then the figure of 50% more riders is less relevant regarding its effect on peak period dwell time. Moscow's system has a simpler topology than New York. However, the factors required to operate merges/diverges on time are the same factors required to operate high service levels. New York's complexity is a red herring brought up by NYCT's management to excuse their poor utilization of the existing system. Here's another real world example. The BOT reported that the August 1949 peak AM service level on the Third Avenue El was 42 tph with 21 tph each going to South Ferry and City Hall. Northern terminals were: 129th St (7 tph); Bronx Park (25 tph) and E 241st St (10 tph). The section between Gun Hill Rd and E 241st St also featured subway service (15 tph) for a combined 25 tph. While the merge/diverge at Chatham Sq and Gun Hill Rd were grade separated, those at 129th and Bronx Park were at grade. |
|
|
| (811670) | |
Re: 2nd Ave Subway Setback |
|
|
Posted by straphanger9 on Wed Jul 22 11:46:34 2009, in response to 2nd Ave Subway Setback, posted by b44nyc on Tue Jul 21 20:25:13 2009. not surprising... |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
