|
|
| Re: Future expansion wish list? (876585) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
|
| (877770) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 17:00:48 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 16:01:57 2009. LIRR bleeds money so to try to implement a rapid transit network through them is to do something that first off, the commuter rail system isn't well suited for, and then to overpay handsomely to do it.The sad part is that in other first world nations, the commuter rail system is capable of such functions. In North America, even in cities with high transit usage, you get a big gap between commuter rail and metro systems. On the opposite side, you get highly suburban Australia where the commuter rail networks function sans metro systems with the exception of Melbourne which has the world's largest streetcar network to perform distributor functions. We have rail in SE Queens - the key is to use it to benefit the people there, to reduce their commuting time substantially I've jokingly said that the Southeast Queens LIRR rider during peak tends to pay the extra money to avoid what he or she considers undesirables on the bus or at Sutphin Blvd. I'm still wondering about the benefits given that I'm still being shunted into the same old, slow 35 mph MAS Queens Railway. Mind you, if we're going to turn the LIRR over to NYCTA, at minimum, I'd want wide station spacing, 65mph MAS, 3.0 mphs acceleration, and a redesigned Valley Stream station with platforms for Babylon services and transfers for riders coming from the subway. |
|
|
| (877778) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:16:26 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 17:00:48 2009. Mind you, if we're going to turn the LIRR over to NYCTA, at minimum, I'd want wide station spacing, 65mph MAS, 3.0 mphs acceleration, and a redesigned Valley Stream station with platforms for Babylon services and transfers for riders coming from the subway.All of that should be possible, well maybe 10 mph slower max speed, which is almost negligible. Keep in mind that you have several 50-60 mph curves on what's otherwise 80 mph MAS trackage so that limits running time even with M7s, and R160s seem to accelerate as well if not better than the M7s over the 0-30 mph initial burst segment after which the M7 does drop off precipitously, at least per their own otherwise reliable seeming speedometers. the same old, slow 35 mph MAS Queens Railway. It would be great to speed that up, but given the timed signals, I'm not sure how that could be done; hence my prescription that we should study how to bring acceleration rates into the 4-5mph/s range and take advantage of computer controlled smoothing of the jerk rate. |
|
|
| (877785) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Dec 25 17:30:56 2009, in response to Future expansion wish list?, posted by rbseabeach on Wed Dec 23 13:49:32 2009. I'd like to see the Q expanded to 72nd and 2nd. That would be a major step, and relieve a little bit of the overcrowding on Lexington. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (877786) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:31:29 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 15:58:34 2009. I'd like to see one on a number of crosstown streets as well.Indeed. But I like 34 St as a start. Actually I should add that much of Broadway is now a viable ROW, but best to break new ground with rail rather than duplicating existing alignments. Still, I mean you could have something like the M16/34 bus routes as surface running rail. The 34th Street Crosstown streetcar would probably be a better bang for buck for connecting those coming from Penn Station or Herald Square to Javitz and the mythical office developments projected for that area. That was part of my thinking, yes. I've always felt that a line should be slightly to the North around Jewel Avenue since Hillside is too close to Union Turnpike. Jewel Av is so residential though. Unless you end the branch under Queens College somehow, it's tough to see the point, especially with the branching problem. Mind you, I've viewed turning over the branch to NYCTA to be a complete abortion given that by the time the M-1s arrived, we'd probably have an 80 mph MAS in lieu of NYCTA's "scenic route" to Midtown at 35 to 45 mph. I think that one has to take into account of LIRR's own scenic route and low speeds as being the relevant comparison though, at least in the present day. We're talking about 30-40 mph MAS on the LIRR Far Rockaway Branch. And I think that LIRR had no intention of running a service for NYC, certainly not at the service intervals that we see NYCT bring. On your comparison, I think it's also arguable whether, even assuming that LIRR treated the Rockaway and Rockaway Park Branches no worse than its Far Rockaway Branch, that we'd be talking about 80 mph MAS. E.g., I live on the Port Washington Branch, and almost all of the time, the trains that I ride never even break 59 mph, and are actually far below that in between most of the stations. |
|
|
| (877789) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:41:14 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 15:58:34 2009. Sorry, I simply forgot about the last part of your always thoughtful response.If you view transit as simply a policy tool, and your goal is simply to reduce commuting time regardless of the costs and ridership counts, then yes, but if you demand some degree of efficiency, then it remains to be seen if there's any real payoff in construction a multi-billion dollar tunnel for 485,000 residents. That's the main issue for me. I think this is one of those issues that requires professional studies to what alignments, routings, and schedules lead to the increased ridership away from cars, express buses, normal buses, and the ferry to achieve maximum ridership to justify the tunnel. I think that without land use and zoning changes and/or a cross-harbor freight tunnel on which to piggyback/share, it's just not feasible. As for the situation with express buses, given the subsidy rate, I think that the fares have to be increased quite substantially. It wouldn't be politically popular, but the NYCT's job is not to use scarce funding to provide a few people with one-seat rides at great opportunity cost. Otherwise, extend HBLR over the Bayonne Bridge to Staten Island, and consider a bus over to Perth Amboy NJT... The main obstacle to extending HBLR to Richmond County, NY is political: why should NJ open up its labor market? No clue on how you'd go about that. No doubt NJT would only proceed DBOM and I'm also tending to think that MTA's labor would see that (rightly) as an intrusion on to their turf. |
|
|
| (877791) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Dec 25 18:03:06 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 01:28:07 2009. The main issue is that the bus transfer should be moved elsewhere to minimize congestion in Flushing (and minimize the number of bus transfers). |
|
|
| (877829) | |
Re: Future expansion pipe-dream list? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 25 19:09:55 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion pipe-dream list?, posted by BrooklynBus on Thu Dec 24 23:00:20 2009. The original MTA PLAN FOR ACTION had the L line plus the Cross Brooklyn Expressway use the LIRR Bay Ridge ROW east and west.The L line was route east to City Line..west to Flatbush Junction where a intermodel transfer station was proposed near Avenue H...where riders could transfer to the Nostrand Avenue subway[it was to be extended to Avenue W].. Transfers were located at ENY[where a new station under the Fulton Street subway would be built]..Utica Avenue,where another new IRT line was proposed... When the expressway plans were cancelled,the L line reroute was cut back to Rockaway Parkway...soon after deferred. Soon after..all new subway route slated for Brooklyn were placed on the back burner. |
|
|
| (877834) | |
Re: Future expansion pipe-dream list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:31:12 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion pipe-dream list?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 25 19:09:55 2009. After dealing with BQE traffic repeatedly recently on my bus, I'm at the point of saying the Cross-Brooklyn Expressway needs to be built...either that or some how upgrade the Belt to interstate standards. I'd say all that's needed for a Cross Brooklyn Expressway is elevate the middle portion of Linden Blvd (with the outter local lanes remaining at ground level) until Kings Highway, and elevating Kings Highway middle lanes (again, outter local lanes remaining at ground level) to the Bay Ridge branch, and then run it above the Bay Ridge to the Gowanus. If needed, Kings Highway could continue elevated to Avenue P. |
|
|
| (877836) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Dec 25 19:33:12 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 24 06:02:33 2009. Meh, I'll accept service to Phillipsburg. I don't think you can justify a commuter line going into PA at this point. |
|
|
| (877841) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:37:30 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 16:13:37 2009. If 3rd track is built I think we'll still see the majority of those "east of Babylon" trains operating via the Babylon line. The main line will fill up the 3rd track with reverse commute trains and the remaining two peak direction tracks will probably fill up with more Ronkonkoma (Farmingdale?) and Huntington trains. Planning for the distant future, once the Ronkonkoma line is double tracked you'll have even more trains taking up space, and G-d willing a better diesel fleet allowing more service from diesel territory on the PJ and OB line, I'd say it'd be foolish to cut capacity. However...if the RR had balls and would build CRRLI instead with 2 tracks, I'd be all for giving up one of the 2 alignments in SE Queens since with 2 tracks you've got more than enough space for everyone. |
|
|
| (877848) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:47:41 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 16:39:04 2009. Again, lower montauk absolutely can not be turned over. Just about all LI rail freight operates via that line. And again, HELLLLLLL NO to taking over the Atlantic Av line west of Jamaica. You're destroying LIRRs capacity bit by bit. Any why on earth would you eliminate the el between 121st and Broadway Junction? You mean make it a subway or get rid of J service there all together? |
|
|
| (877854) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:54:34 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:31:29 2009. I have to check the rulebook, but I believe there are no 80MPH sections of the PW line, even between Flushing and Winfield. He is right though the LIRR would certainly be faster than a subway via Queens Blvd. Still, I mentioned tying it in with SAS and a super express via the LIRR main line.I'd put Union Tpke line at the LIE til Queens College, then dip down to St Johns and run via Union Tpke from there to Lake Success. |
|
|
| (877856) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 25 19:57:51 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:47:41 2009. The LIRR is removing the Atlantic branch from it mainline service on its own..turning it into some sort of shuttle service between Flatbush and Jamaica...even building the line it's own platform area. |
|
|
| (877859) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:07:13 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:41:14 2009. Hand over HBLR to PANYNJ? heheheI'm strongly against a tunnel. I think with HBLR via Bayonne Bridge and ferries to some new points around the island you could restructure the express bus system so that it's not as complex and costly to operate. |
|
|
| (877860) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:08:59 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Dec 25 12:42:02 2009. Yes and it's a general fact that a lot of people are now traveling from one side of the metro area to another for work. My mom lives in Port Washington and works in Newark. My friends dad lives in Roslyn and works in Greenwich. You've got Jersey City, White Plains, Stamford, etc. |
|
|
| (877861) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:09:44 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Dec 25 18:03:06 2009. That would be a good first step but I believe ultimately that the 7 should be extended to Whitestone |
|
|
| (877862) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 20:12:37 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:16:26 2009. It would be great to speed that up, but given the timed signals, I'm not sure how that could be doneI'm almost tempted to say that NYCTA should move to CBTC and aim for a moving block system on the Queens Railway. hence my prescription that we should study how to bring acceleration rates into the 4-5mph/s range IIRC, I don't think there's any system with rates above 3.2 mphs... |
|
|
| (877863) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:12:52 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 13:40:14 2009. Which line would it be, a branch off the 7? Perhaps have the airtrain line built with the ROW wide enough for 2 tracks until it reaches the 7 train, and from there, it gets wider and the 7 train runs on its own tacks next to the airtrain on the same ROW until LGA. I'm not sure it could share the same tracks with airtrain. |
|
|
| (877865) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:25:51 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Dec 25 15:55:30 2009. For NEC, why not just do that with MN to NYP? Much less costly and probably effective enough.NO SUBWAY TAKE OVER OF PW LINE!!!!!! No no and HELL NO! There's zero reason for it. The PW line doesn't need it for sure and you eliminate the entire north west Nassau County and northern Queens connection to regional services at NYP. Just leave SI alone with 2 rail lines and improved bus service to the ferry and have express buses to midtown ONLY (anyone going downtown can catch the ferry), and HBLR. |
|
|
| (877867) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 20:27:39 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Dec 25 15:55:30 2009. For pipe dreams, that's some strong stuff in that there pipe . . . |
|
|
| (877868) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Fri Dec 25 20:28:01 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Thu Dec 24 06:02:33 2009. Well, here is something that I can agree with you completely. And you don't have to go very far into Pa. either. Just end the NJ link at the Casino in South Bethlehem, right off of I-78. Plenty of land there yet for a rail terminus and parking with buses to the casino. Nice thinking. |
|
|
| (877869) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 20:28:31 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 15:33:02 2009. Dunno . . . innovation never sleeps . . . |
|
|
| (877870) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 20:30:18 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by 156n3rd on Fri Dec 25 16:57:20 2009. What is your problem dood?No problem. You're just not making sense, is all. I think the rolling stock is a bore If you were tired and needed to get off your feet for a ride home, you wouldn't care if the rolling stock was covered in pink polka dots and was as boxy as can be in design . . . especially if it got you there quick without breaking down . . . |
|
|
| (877871) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 20:30:59 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 20:28:31 2009. But bankers DO ... |
|
|
| (877873) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:32:29 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 16:01:57 2009. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=877841 |
|
|
| (877874) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 20:33:12 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by 156n3rd on Fri Dec 25 20:28:01 2009. Still got the remnants of the LVRR terminal in Allentown (just one platform). |
|
|
| (877875) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 20:33:35 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 20:12:37 2009. I'm almost tempted to say that NYCTA should move to CBTC and aim for a moving block system on the Queens Railway.I'm not sure that this wouldn't just be a tacit admission that the current MAS is set lower than it would be under CBTC as some kind of a guard against a suicidal T/O, e.g., the guy who is going to clear every yellow-S aspect at maximum speed and then wrap it while trying to generate enough speed to jump two blocks into the rear of the leading train. Otherwise, it's difficult to see why MAS should be set differently based on the signal system in place. If, say, some curve is rated safe only at or below 30 mph, I don't see how using a different signal system is going to make it safe to round that curve at 40 mph. IIRC, I don't think there's any system with rates above 3.2 mphs... PCCs are a classic example of 4 mphps, as I recall, albeit not smoothed, so the rate was practically reduced. Paris a contemporary one, I think, using the smoothing. |
|
|
| (877876) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:33:44 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by Edwards! on Fri Dec 25 19:57:51 2009. Say what? Definitely not a smart move. LIRR needs to western terminal capacity to boost services from the east. You got a link to this project? This sounds like a horrible idea! |
|
|
| (877879) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:37:54 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by 156n3rd on Fri Dec 25 16:57:20 2009. Hey, if it's one or the other, aesthetics must take a back seat to functionality. Puerto Rico screwed up and put aesthetics first and now there's no money to extend the train to where it really needs to go, so now they're stuck with a train that no one rides (and they're trying to use BRT to extend it, ugh) |
|
|
| (877897) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:00:40 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 20:07:13 2009. Hand over HBLR to PANYNJ?I'm not even sure what such a handover would amount to, given DBOM. I think with HBLR via Bayonne Bridge I view that as politically infeasible, for the reasons given in my prior post. you could restructure the express bus system so that it's not as complex and costly to operate. I really don't see that happening. It's a political thing. Most of the costs are relatively pegged: labor, buses, fuel. You can try cutting at the edges, on off peak runs and so forth; expect to be fought to the death though. But the point is that most, if not all, of the express buses operated are still bleeding money. Isn't that why MTA keeps putting off the NYCT takeover of the X23/24 routes from NYCDOT via Atlantic Express? The only real way to change the situation is to spike the fares to kill the service. |
|
|
| (877900) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:13:43 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:54:34 2009. I have to check the rulebook, but I believe there are no 80MPH sections of the PW line, even between Flushing and Winfield.That is correct. Highest MAS is 60 mph, and most trains never reach that. He is right though the LIRR would certainly be faster than a subway via Queens Blvd. Perhaps faster in terms of running time - it's debatable, for the reasons I gave in my prior post. Still, I mentioned tying it in with SAS and a super express via the LIRR main line. Not sure how you could get a NYCT service to go via LIRR Main Line, but I may well have a senior citizen's discount by the time that this SAS thing gets moving into the later phases anyway. I'd put Union Tpke line at the LIE til Queens College, then dip down to St Johns and run via Union Tpke from there to Lake Success. Seems to me like a line that hits a lot of parkland. Given only so big a pot of transit dollars, not the best idea. |
|
|
| (877901) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:16:29 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:00:40 2009. I view that as politically infeasible, for the reasons given in my prior post.It depends on determining who can attract the pandering of local politicians, Staten Island residents with high voter turnout, or the sometimes despised transit workers. Ultimately, it's sad that regional transport is hampered by unions and their territoriality... While you do note the complications of the DBOM, the contract for its operation will end at some point (15 year contract, IIRC), and it remains to be seen if New Jersey Transit will self-operate upon the end of such contracts, or if O&M will be handed off again to a contractor. Regardless, there's always to potential for the slightly inefficient, but operationally feasible method of having NYCTA crews operate the MTA paid for branch, and NJT operations for the service north of whatever transition point is selected. Of course, given TWU, there's probably some other means of bribing them in exchange for the ability of NJT's crews to operate. The only real way to change the situation is to spike the fares to kill the service. Express bus riders seem to be in a demographic that's politically "noisy", and I don't see politicians interfering with the buses to sustain the votes of that demographic. Admittedly, there's a part of me that wonders about the effects on local real estate if the express network is killed off. Given your emphasis on efficiency, I don't see you planning a multi-billion dollar line to pander to such groups... |
|
|
| (877903) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:28:37 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:00:40 2009. Well if you can combine some routes so that you could kill off one set of runs, that's money saved right there. |
|
|
| (877904) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:28:57 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:47:41 2009. Again, lower montauk absolutely can not be turned over. Just about all LI rail freight operates via that line.There is an alternate route. And again, HELLLLLLL NO to taking over the Atlantic Av line west of Jamaica. Because it's bad to want to actually use the trackage instead of putting up with mostly the mostly empty 2 tph? You're destroying LIRRs capacity bit by bit. LIRR's capacity to do what, exactly? There's a 4-track Main Line, 2-track ESA, connection to HPA and LIC. LIRR commuters and everyone else is better off with cheaper, more frequent service that has higher ridership. Any why on earth would you eliminate the el between 121st and Broadway Junction? You mean make it a subway or get rid of J service there all together? It's the reason for the running time on the J route. Given that the proposal includes an alignment north thereof and south thereof, the el is rendered superfluous. |
|
|
| (877905) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:29:14 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:00:40 2009. Also, with eliminating all downtown express bus service you really have savings. |
|
|
| (877906) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:33:37 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:13:43 2009. It does hit a fair amount of parkland, but there's plenty of developed land to feed it. Plus you've got Queens College, St Johns University, and all of Lake Success (a MAJOR employment center in Nassau County) on the one line.As for SAS via LIRR main line, I'm saying put an express track alongside it. Only in Woodside is there really a space issue, and even then something could probably be worked out. |
|
|
| (877907) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:33:43 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:13:43 2009. It does hit a fair amount of parkland, but there's plenty of developed land to feed it. Plus you've got Queens College, St Johns University, and all of Lake Success (a MAJOR employment center in Nassau County) on the one line.As for SAS via LIRR main line, I'm saying put an express track alongside it. Only in Woodside is there really a space issue, and even then something could probably be worked out. |
|
|
| (877908) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:37:22 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:13:43 2009. Seems to me like a line that hits a lot of parkland.I preferred Jewel Avenue primarily to hit the Queens College, Pomonok Houses and the other apartment complexes in that area, Fresh Meadows and the mini-shopping centre, and Oakland Gardens. Once you're east of Oakland Gardens, it may make some sense to them aim for Union Turnpike, pray that the Creedmore grounds are converted into denser housing, and head for LIJ, build a P&R, and get Nassau County to pay for some shuttle buses to the office parks in the area and North Shore University Hospital... |
|
|
| (877909) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:44:28 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 17:31:29 2009. And I think that LIRR had no intention of running a service for NYC, certainly not at the service intervals that we see NYCT bring.I'm operating under the cokeheaded idea that the City of New York would subsidize the LIRR's operations. Given what happened to development in the Rockaways, I've suggested that the switch to a slow subway to the core made the area unattractive for development. that we'd be talking about 80 mph MAS As with all things it would certain depend on the station spacing. Mind you, given the operations characteristics of NYCTA over the Rockaway trackage, I'm still inclined to believe that LIRR at 65 mph is better than NYCTA at 45 mph. |
|
|
| (877910) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:45:35 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 19:37:30 2009. If 3rd track is built I think we'll still see the majority of those "east of Babylon" trains operating via the Babylon line.OK then, take the 22 tph figure and add on 12 tph. That covers maximum south shore requirements at a fantasy AM peak hour and assumes that the Central Branch gathers rust. Remember that this involves the ESA service increase and no cuts. Likely, we're talking less service in reality than this, especially considering that LIRR likely won't purchase the cars to run the 74 total AM peak hour trains that they proposed to. The main line will fill up the 3rd track with reverse commute trains and the remaining two peak direction tracks will probably fill up with more Ronkonkoma (Farmingdale?) and Huntington trains. Under the ESA proposal, between DIVIDE and QUEENS on the Main Line, it's supposed to be 22 peak tph, an increase of 10 tph. Seems bogus, and if true, then totally unnecessary and wasteful. and G-d willing a better diesel fleet allowing more service from diesel territory on the PJ and OB line As I indicated, I favor completion of electrification on the Port Jefferson Branch. However, under the demand guidelines that would ensure that LIRR bleeds less money, much Oyster Bay Branch service should be cut. How they need extra service is beyond me, and the service already is underloaded. An examination of reality will reveal, I think, that LIRR by no means needs the 24 peak tph increase contemplated by ESA. LI population didn't grow by anything like that and most people on LI work on LI; taking here that LI means Nassau and Suffolk Counties. LIRR will, I predict, show this awareness by not purchasing enough EMUs to run the projected 74 trains in the AM peak hour, although I will also predict that they will retire and replace the M3s. |
|
|
| (877911) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:46:46 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:28:57 2009. What is the alternate routing for freight, onto themain line via the Montauk cutoff?I'm talking about LIRRs capacity to serve Long Island. Even with NYP and ESA, you're not going to have enough capacity for full use of the future infrastructure of the LIRR in Nassau/Suffolk counties (3rd track mainline, 2nd track Ronkonkoma, etc). LIRR needs the Brooklyn line and it is definitely not running empty or anywhere near that. And don't post 2tph as if that's all the line runs all day. Both AM and PM rush hour you have trains coming as often as every 5 minutes, and the longest time between trains I can find is 25 minutes, and that's only once. The line is VERY important for the LIRR and losing it is not a possibility. Please get an idea of what you are talking about before posting lies (Brian need not comment) |
|
|
| (877912) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:49:17 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:37:22 2009. Pipe dream.I don't smoke. :) Probably light rail might be better for some of these applications. I wouldn't expect density to grow the closer that you get to the Nassau County line. There is major growth, e.g., in Flushing, but not so much further east. Probably this people most need a quicker ride to the subway, since it's not viable to bring the subway to them. |
|
|
| (877913) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:53:31 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 21:37:22 2009. Those areas can be done via LIE, which can have a less expensive el. You could still get Pomonok Houses before cutting south for St Johns, and then after that it can run via the LIMP ROW which would allow it to still serve Oakland Gardens (also, it can run at grade on the LIMP ROW, greatly reducing its cost). The only thing you lose is Fresh Meadows, so its really just a question of St Johns vs Fresh Meadows, who provides more riders? |
|
|
| (877914) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 22:03:07 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:45:35 2009. OB line will get the ridership it should be getting with either more direct service or electrifying. Those people want a one seat ride. You had the ferry from Glen Cove years ago, now you've got Long Island Transit running direct to midtown and downtown. And how do you figure that 10 tph more on the main line is wasteful? I'd say it is definitely needed.LIRR will fill the main line even after 3rd track with reverse peak and boosted Ronkonkoma and PJ service, along with possible new MU service from Babylon if they electrify the central branch (and possibly more OB trains if they can get their act together in the distant future). That way, unfortunately they will need to keep Montauk service on the south shore (As much as I think we need to see some sort of service running between east of Babylon, Hicksville, and Mineola). We will have to see, but to cut down capacity when LI could have so much more in store for the future (IE office development in Nassau Hub to be served via the secondary) is a bad idea. That is why we no longer have intra-island rail infrastructure like we once did. |
|
|
| (877915) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 22:04:04 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:49:17 2009. Light rail only brings you to the subway though where you are forced to transfer again. It's like having the bus still. |
|
|
| (877917) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 22:07:37 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 21:46:46 2009. What is the alternate routing for freight, onto themain line via the Montauk cutoff?Correct. A replacement for Yard A is being built as part of the ESA work. Even with NYP and ESA, you're not going to have enough capacity for full use of the future infrastructure of the LIRR in Nassau/Suffolk counties (3rd track mainline, 2nd track Ronkonkoma, etc). I've used LIRR's own figures projecting 74 peak tph in the system. Now that is a pipe dream that assumes doubling peak service on some branches! But I'm saying use even those numbers and there is trackage far in excess that could be much better used by NYCT. LIRR needs the Brooklyn line and it is definitely not running empty or anywhere near that. And don't post 2tph as if that's all the line runs all day. Both AM and PM rush hour you have trains coming as often as every 5 minutes, and the longest time between trains I can find is 25 minutes, and that's only once. LIRR reports 10 tph in the AM peak. That's every 5 minutes westbound at height of the AM rush. The trains are not at capacity, not by a long shot, and they are shorter trains, generally, 510' to 680'. The 2 tph is the off peak frequency, and those are pretty empty trains. The line is VERY important for the LIRR and losing it is not a possibility. Please get an idea of what you are talking about before posting lies Where are the lies???? Face facts, facts taken from LIRR's own publications. LIRR is a bloated organization that moves thousands of people a month. NYCT moves millions. One can no more show that LIRR is more efficient than NYCT than he can show that 0=1. LIRR is a commuter rail operation not suited to short intervals of service without hemorrhaging even more money than it does on most trains. LIRR should stick to what it's designed for - commuter rail - and leave the severely underutilized parts of its system in NYC limits to rapid transit operation that would produce massive time-money savings for millions of people while generally improving service even for LIRR riders. |
|
|
| (877918) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 22:09:33 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 21:49:17 2009. Probably light rail might be better for some of these applications.If one was drunk, one could basically build a "C" division with the light rail* lines and build tunnels as needed and basically create a secondary network, but that's downright pipe-dreamish. I think the problem is that the express buses are a one seat ride, and we're trying to solve an expensive operations problem with an expensive capital solution. I think light rail in the mode of a Stadtbahn (full PROW, 45-55 mph MAS) is overkill and clunky for what we're aiming for, but I suspect others will fight tooth and nail against a cheaper, streetcar where riders transfer to the bus. Plus, there's the nasty political calculus of "why SE Queens gets a subway but Central Queens doesn't" and dealing with whatever fallout may occur from that. *A light rail car is basically a 95ft low floor version of an IRT car... |
|
|
| (877919) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri Dec 25 22:10:26 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 22:04:04 2009. Light rail only brings you to the subway though where you are forced to transfer again.Plus, you're shunting riders onto the same crowded railway. I view the new lines as a capacity building exercise... |
|
|
| (877926) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri Dec 25 22:47:24 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by trainsarefun on Fri Dec 25 22:07:37 2009. I'm bending on SE Queens, but you'll never get me on FBA. For one you've got people working in downtown Brooklyn. Second, the west end terminal capacity is needed now and will always be needed, end of story. 3rd, if you believe in magic, commuter rail to downtown would have to be via FBA. That line should never EVER be taken from LIRR. Sorry, but you've got the A, C, and J blocks away. Don't try to tell me that area is under served. |
|
|
| (877929) | |
Re: Future expansion wish list? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Dec 25 22:59:24 2009, in response to Re: Future expansion wish list?, posted by SelkirkTMO on Fri Dec 25 20:30:59 2009. Keep waiting for "bankers" then. The captains of industry don't . . . |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 9 |
||
