|
|
| Re: Horace Harding Subway (1636916) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > SubChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Horace Harding Subway |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Mon Oct 28 10:51:06 2024, in response to Horace Harding Subway, posted by Q65A on Sat Sep 28 11:52:39 2024. There has to be a complete change in mindset in the MTA and NYC transportation planners. Their object should be to extend grade separated mass transit to areas. The opposite is true.Currently, 46% of Queens buildings are within 800 m (~1/2 mile) walking distance of a subway entrance. (That's actual walking distance not straight line distance.) The figure for Manhattan is 87%. Naturally, the priority is to extend the existing SAS further uptown. BTW, the figure for Paris is 98% - but what do foreigners know. The MTA's current expansion priorities can be summarized as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Much of the current thinking stems from Bloomberg's Plan2020. The rationale was that buses could serve the new satellite business districts in Jamaica and Flushing. There are two problems with this thinking. First, the street grid in Flushing and Jamaica cannot handle the bus traffic alone. This is because the number of buses crossing key intersections exceeds their capacity. Second, the MTA's bus operations are incredibly inefficient. According to the latest (2023) NTD data, the MTA's operating cost is $272/vehicle-revenue-hour. This compares to $193/vehicle-revenue-hour for the average of bus operations in the US SMSA's with a population over 1 million. Unless, something is done to bring the MTA's service efficiency more in line with the industry average, no amount of capital funds (regardless of source) will prevent the system's eventual collapse. Given these factors, the MTA's expansion plans goals should be to expand grade separated rail transit into areas that depend on more expensive bus service, to reduce the required bus vehicle-revenue-hours. There are less expensive ways to incorporate the LIRR into this solution, than what was proposed in the video. Basically, the idea would be to operate LIRR shuttles (or scoots in LIRR lingo) between an existing end of line and points further east. These trains could operate frequently (~every 5 minutes) without impacting the East River tunnels. What's needed are suitable shuttle terminals that won't interfere with existing LIRR through service. Consider the Port Washington Line. Two such terminals already exist: Willets Point and Bayside. There are extra platforms at Willets Point that won't interfere with through operation to/from Manhattan. There is a yard east of Bayside, where east bound trains could relay. In addition, there is room for express tracks at Murray Hill to permit through trains to go around these slower scoots, should that be necessary. New construction is minimum - so is the cost. The passengers would transfer to the Willets Point IRT station. Service level capacity is limited at Main St because of the bumper blocks. Service levels on the Flushing Line are far from capacity. They used to operate 36 tph rush hour service before NYC's fiscal crisis in the 1970's. Perhaps, CBTC has not reduced the line's capacity from it's "obsolete" block system. Also, most of the riders would already be using the Flushing Line. It's just they would be getting on at a different stop. Trains routed through Jamaica are a bit more complicated. One possibility for the reversal terminal at Jamaica, is the abandoned Richmond Hill station on the Montauk Branch. Trains could stop at Jamaica and then proceed to Richmond Hill to turn around. There are 3 branches to the east. The obvious terminal for the main line is the Belmont Station on an unused spur. There is no obvious eastern terminal for the Babylon and Montauk Branches. A quick and dirty solution would be to deadhead to Far Rockaway to change directions. It's important that the additional and inexpensive service not attract riders from Nassau County. They would create severe automobile congestion at eastern Queens terminals. A direct one seat ride into Manhattan would be the justification for charging a higher fare. |
|
|
|