|
|
| Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express (582530) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 11 of 12 |
||
|
| (585240) | |
Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 13 02:36:09 2008, in response to Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Mar 13 02:06:28 2008. Above 63rd I would have it as 68-72th, 77-80th and the rest as plannedBelow 63rd I'd have a 57-60th, 49th-53rd and the rest as planned with an additional station at St. Mark's Place. |
|
|
| (585241) | |
Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Thu Mar 13 02:43:12 2008, in response to Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express, posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 13 02:36:09 2008. What's at St. Mark's? |
|
|
| (585242) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Mar 13 02:43:17 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops, posted by SMAZ on Thu Mar 13 01:56:18 2008. Except again, you are overlooking a potentially serious issue with the SAS north of 63rd:There being no entrances between 72nd and 83rd streets on the SAS given how the stops are there. This is what having the Rockaway-Super Express line run via 79th street (on virtually a straight line from Roosevelt Avenue if what I read is correct) would alieveate a lot of, as again, I suspect such a station would be among the heaviest used in the entire system, at least aside from the CBD stops given the population density in that area (which is also why I would make it a three-track, two-island platform station so that some service can in Manhattan if necessary be short-turned at that point). |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (585598) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu Mar 13 21:42:53 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Mar 13 02:43:17 2008. Then that's a problem for them to fix with SAS, not by building an entirely new tunnel under the east river and new bellmouth when all that already exists at 63rd St. I agree, the station spacing is rediculous, and perhaps the MTA can be petitioned on this. THAT is the most realistic solution. To expect anything else would actually be done(such as what you're proposing) is ludicrous |
|
|
| (585635) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 13 22:05:34 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Mar 13 02:43:17 2008. Hey, 83rd Street isn't that far from 79th Street. Why divert an already usable route to a new tunnel to save a few people a walk that's only four blocks? I could understand the need if it were a forty block walk, but certainly not four! |
|
|
| (585670) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 13 22:36:55 2008, in response to Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Fri Mar 7 18:00:11 2008. My plan is very extensive, and includes a two-track ROW from the Rockaway Line which, after branching from the Liberty Avenue spur, stops at 101st Avenue, Atlantic Avenue, Jamaica Avenue, Union Turnpike, and Metropolitan Avenue. From there, it joins the LIRR ROW all the way to where the line crosses Queens Boulevard. It then joins up with a 4-track RLRT ROW for a brief stretch, then dives underground, while the RLRT Row divides and straddles the Flushing Line Viaduct, with a fourth express track from the Flushing Line joins the group, making the line between 48th Street and about 32nd Place a 9-track elevated line with two additional tracks underground. (Who says Queens Boulevard doesn't have enough train traffic?) It will then straddle then climb above the LIRR ESA tunnels to join the existing 63rd Street Line tracks.As for the extra RLRT tracks, they're for Rapid Light Rail lines which are intended to replace many of the Queens-Manhattan express routes, and include a 4-track ROW along Northern Boulevard (complete with an additional routing via Astoria Boulevard and LaGuardia Airport), a trolley service to replace the Roosevelt Island Red Bus service, and connect the island to points off the island using a set of stationary bridges. This also includes an intermodal terminal in Downtown Flushing, which will also serve AirTrain Queens (a modified and renamed version of the current AirTrain system, which will provide service within and between the two airports), an extension of the 7 line to College Point and the Broadway LIRR station, and essentially the complete replacement of LIRR Port Washington Branch service with subway service. It will also include an intermodal transit terminal over the intersection of Queens Boulevard and Woodhaven Boulevard, so buses don't have to fight with gypsy cabs in order to access the stop. It may sound crazy right now, but wait until you see the map! |
|
|
| (585779) | |
Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Mar 14 01:07:43 2008, in response to Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express, posted by RonInBayside on Thu Mar 13 02:43:12 2008. What's at St. Mark's?Lots of fun and games. A major nightlife and "alternative shopping" destination. I would say its the center of the East Village lifestyle. Out-of-towners would go there in greater numbers if there were a subway station. |
|
|
| (585820) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Fri Mar 14 01:57:23 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 13 22:36:55 2008. It may sound crazy right now, but wait until you see the map!I look foward to it. |
|
|
| (585980) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri Mar 14 11:55:48 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 13 22:36:55 2008. It may sound crazy right now, but wait until you see the map!I can't wait! |
|
|
| (586157) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Mar 14 14:55:18 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Mar 13 01:58:48 2008. that being there being no entrance to the line between 72nd and 83rd streetsThat's not a problem at all. That's about a half mile seperation, which is the norm. |
|
|
| (586212) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 16:21:11 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops, posted by Russ on Fri Mar 14 14:55:18 2008. I grew up in that part of Manhattan. It has always been a problem with the 6, and especially with all the new buildings that have gone up in that area in recent years.There are a huge number of people (possibly in the six figure range) I believe who live in the area where they would have a considerable walk (especially from York and East End Avenues) to either of the SAS entrances at 72nd or 83rd. This is what a station at York-1st Avenues and 79th coming in on a Queens-Rockaway branch of the SAS would help out a lot with in what arguably is the single most densely populated area of all of New York. |
|
|
| (586238) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Mar 14 17:01:28 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express with Roosevelt Island and upper east side stops, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 16:21:11 2008. The problem with the 6 is not that stations are too far apart. The problem is that it is too west of the eastern part of the UES. The SAS will resolve that issue.Spacing stations closer than 1/2 mile was already tried, and many of those stations - including some in Midtown - are now permantly closed. Don't ever expect new lines to be constructed with stations at 1/4 mile spacing. As far as 79th St and York goes, it will never happen from the SAS. The SAS will already be at capacity in the UES. If another connection to Queens were to be made with an East/West alignment, and this will not happen in our lifetimes unless a breakthrough in construction techniques occurs that allows subways to be built for far less, 86th St is a more likely alignment. There are Lex and SAS stops at 86th, which would allow transfers. More importantly, using these existing stations would allow that the use of eminent domain will be minimized as station entrances already exist. As far as Roosevelt Island, no additional station is needed there. Once the SAS starts through the 63rd St tunnel, there will be 25tph of service for an island that has less than 20,000 residents. |
|
|
| (586239) | |
Re: Rockaway Line/Super Express/Manhattan |
|
|
Posted by Russ on Fri Mar 14 17:05:37 2008, in response to Re: Rockaway Line/Super Express/Manhattan, posted by R30A on Tue Mar 11 17:16:16 2008. 55th allows access to a transfer at Lex/53, and to be near 57th. |
|
|
| (586247) | |
Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 17:27:27 2008, in response to Re: Queens/Rockaway Super Express, posted by Russ on Fri Mar 14 17:01:28 2008. Roosevelt Island is the much lesser issue. While a new station there would be nice, it really isn't the thrust of this idea any longer.The main one is that particular part of Manhattan, which is extremely heavily populated. I suspect a 79th street station at York and 1st avenues would be among the most heavily used non-CBD stations in the entire city, if not the most, and that is even with the two SAS stations at 72nd and 86th. What this station would do is allow the Queens-Rockaway Super Express to branch into both the SAS and the Broadway line via the 79th street station and a lower level station at 72nd/2nd, from where half the trains would go with the T down the SAS and the other half (this likely being a rerouted N train, with the W becoming the full-time Astoria service) going with the Q to 63rd/Lex and then down Broadway and to Coney Island. I could see 24tph out of this 79th street tunnel in this format, as it would give the SAS below 72nd half its trains from 125th street or the Bronx (T) and the other half from the Rockaways to Hanover Square (probably a K train), likely the Broadway Express would get half its trains from the Q and the other half from the Rockaway line. As for 86th street, that would be good for a future east-west line, however, that to me would not be as needed as you do a have a dropoff in density north of 86th street that you don't have between 72nd and 86th (though that is subject to change given how that area is also becoming more heavily populated). |
|
|
| (586251) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 17:35:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS on upper east side/Queens-Rockaway super express, posted by SMAZ on Fri Mar 14 01:07:43 2008. Exactly:St. Mark's is a very popular part of the East Village, where it would make sense to have a station, especially since for many it is a considerable walk from there to the Astor Place station on the 6 and 8th street station on the R/W (N in overnight hours), not to mention it likely becoming a tourist destination if a stop were there. What I would do there is re-work the stops so the 14th street station has exits at 14th-17th streets (plus a transfer to the L train) and a St. Mark's Place station has exits at St. Mark's Place as well as 6th street. |
|
|
| (586256) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Mar 14 17:55:52 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 17:35:31 2008. St, Marks is 8th St. As I recall, the Houston St. stop will have an exit at 3rd St. Plenty close enough. |
|
|
| (586320) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 19:52:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by italianstallion on Fri Mar 14 17:55:52 2008. Not for a lot of people:There is a world of difference as I recall down there between 8th (St. Mark's Place) and 3rd street, especially on 2nd Avenue. The more touristy part of that area is 7th-11th street as I recall, and even with the short distance, it would make much more sense to have the extra stop at St. Marks on that account alone. |
|
|
| (586361) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Fri Mar 14 21:59:51 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 19:52:31 2008. You obviously haven't been down there recently to see the multimillion dollar condos being built on East 3rd Street. |
|
|
| (586362) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 22:11:59 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Qveensboro_Plaza on Fri Mar 14 21:59:51 2008. Then that has changed a lot.Although I was in the more "touristy" part of the East Village quite frequently several years ago, I remember that part (East 3rd) as being very seedy, though obviously with what is going on at The Bowery, it should not surprise me that is changing. |
|
|
| (586366) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Mar 14 22:44:16 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 22:11:59 2008. I was just at the Second Ave stop on the F/V today. It was jammed. It used to be deserted. |
|
|
| (586397) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 15 00:19:22 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 13 22:36:55 2008. Good luck with PW subway service. They already tried that. I wouldn't even support it. The PW trains are packed enough by the time they hit Great Neck. I can't imagine what it'd be like if we had to make all those local stops in Queens |
|
|
| (586420) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 15 01:53:23 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 17:35:31 2008. OK |
|
|
| (586421) | |
Re: SPSS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sat Mar 15 01:54:19 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 14 19:52:31 2008. Has anybody stopped to consider that, for some people, that might be simpler and better?:0) |
|
|
| (586450) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Mar 15 03:47:01 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by AlM on Fri Mar 14 22:44:16 2008. I was just at the Second Ave stop on the F/V today. It was jammed. It used to be desertedThat's quite right nowadays. 15-20 ago it was only young crazy people like me that would go there. It was quite seedy indeed but that was half the fun. Tompkins Square Park was straight out scary. A station at SMP/2 Av would attract aging beatniks and punksters, especially since that area will probably be marketed for that crowd anyway and become another Disneyland. Old couples with hip replacements will be able to show there grandchildren the exact spot at St Mark's and 1st where they bought their first spiked collar before attending a New York Dolls show at CBGB. |
|
|
| (586482) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 15 08:57:05 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by SMAZ on Sat Mar 15 03:47:01 2008. Trust me. The area is becoming less and less attractive for aging beatniks and punksters. (Although it's fun to hang out with them at the kid's playground)Now people come to the Second Ave. stop to shop at Whole Foods. It's already Disneyland. I couldn't have imagined that fifteen years ago. With exits at 12th St. and 3rd St., I don't think a St. Mark's Pl. station will be necessary. |
|
|
| (586497) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 15 10:22:35 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 15 08:57:05 2008. With exits at 12th St. and 3rd St., I don't think a St. Mark's Pl. station will be necessary.Yep. No need to slow things down further, and even the line ever gets built that far, stations are quite expensive. |
|
|
| (586500) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Mar 15 10:29:21 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat Mar 15 00:19:22 2008. Good luck with PW subway service. They already tried that. I wouldn't even support it. The PW trains are packed enough by the time they hit Great Neck. I can't imagine what it'd be like if we had to make all those local stops in QueensThe PW probably needs its own tunnel from Woodside to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (586501) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Mar 15 10:34:54 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 15 08:57:05 2008. With exits at 12th St. and 3rd St., I don't think a St. Mark's Pl. station will be necessary.The real question is whether shifting 14th St station north of 14th St and/or Houston St station south of Houston St would achieve anything. Assuming that they'd stay put with the addition of an intermediate station is just wrong. |
|
|
| (586507) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 15 10:45:12 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Mar 15 10:29:21 2008. Port Washington Branch trains are scheduled to be allocated fully 25% of the peak ESA capacity of 24 tph. |
|
|
| (586513) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Mar 15 11:03:15 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 15 10:45:12 2008. Port Washington Branch trains are scheduled to be allocated fully 25% of the peak ESA capacity of 24 tph.That doesn't alter what I said. Branchy service patterns aren't going to get enough utilization out of this line. |
|
|
| (586524) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sat Mar 15 11:36:37 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Mar 15 11:03:15 2008. True enough.My purpose was merely to note that western terminal capacity in New York would be increased, but not to the point where it equaled the capacity of the branch itself (or at least, the branch between the future WOOD and Great Neck). Western terminal capacity allocated to Port Washington branch trains will max out at 12 tph, and yes, surely the branch can handle more trains than that, indeed. But building more western terminal capacity is liable to very expensive. Maybe at some future point when it's decided to send the Montauk Line into New York too, that will permit more Port Washington branch trains to be run, but of course that's a very long time off, assumign that it ever happens. |
|
|
| (586550) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 15 12:41:40 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Sat Mar 15 10:34:54 2008. The real question is whether shifting 14th St station north of 14th St and/or Houston St station south of Houston St would achieve anything.Having an exit at 16th St. is probably more useful than having one at Stanton. But both cases likely require alterations to park space so don't count on it in NYC. Also the building space for the 3rd St. exit is already reserved. Having to add exits anywhere between 6th and 9th Sts. for a St. Mark's Pl. station sounds very very expensive. |
|
|
| (586863) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 16 01:47:28 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat Mar 15 12:41:40 2008. yeah it would be expensive indeed. I actually think that if the MTA were to add just one station under 63rd it should be at 57-60th while moving the 55th St station to 49-53rd. If money for a second station were to magically appear, St. Mark's would be nice. |
|
|
| (586980) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 16 12:24:48 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 16 01:47:28 2008. More stations would have been nice if the SAS was to be four-tracked with express service. |
|
|
| (587125) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 16 17:31:18 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by Wado MP73 on Sun Mar 16 12:24:48 2008. More stations would have been nice if the SAS was to be four-tracked with express service.Indeed. A 125th to 72nd St express run would have been great with more express stations below 63rd. Now THAT would definitlely get people off the (4)(5) trains. |
|
|
| (587130) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 16 17:35:15 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 16 17:31:18 2008. The SAS will get people off the Lexington if 2nd Ave is closer to where their destination is. |
|
|
| (587135) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 17:40:42 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 16 17:35:15 2008. SAS had better get more tph than it's presently slated to - sending only Q trains up to 96th St won't have sufficient magnetic effect, I think, to draw ridership. This should be the chance to re-evaluate the current awkward routing on the Broadway Line. |
|
|
| (587147) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Mar 16 18:10:15 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 17:40:42 2008. I think that sending the (N) to complement the (Q) is inevitable to avoid a crush. At that point a full-fledged (W) to Astoria at the combined (N/W) TPH would be the only option. Some of these (W) trains would have to terminate at Whitehall while others would have to continue into Brooklyn. I say build a Court St Cut to the IND Hoyt Schermerhorn outer tracks and run some (W) trains to Euclid Av. Then make the (C) a Fulton express to Lefferts and make the Rock Park (A) 24/7. |
|
|
| (587158) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 16 18:22:55 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 17:40:42 2008. What's wrong with the present arrangement? It's only the first phase. 96th st will draw bus passengers from further north; stations at 106 and 116th will spur redevelopment. They'll come. |
|
|
| (587171) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 18:52:16 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by RonInBayside on Sun Mar 16 18:22:55 2008. It's just not enough frequency of service, I think. Together with the N route, the Q can do some decent service.All this money spent toward the useful end of SAS and we have to run decent frequency of service on it. 8 peak tph just won't cut it, in my view. If there's redevelopment north of 96th St, that might mean even more traffic. Plus, sending the N/Q route tandem to 96th St cleans up a lot of the present merging mess on the Broadway Line. We're not getting as much capacity from the infrastructure as is possible at present because N trains are doing the local/express crossover, which affects service on not only N but also Q/R/W trains. |
|
|
| (587177) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sun Mar 16 18:59:57 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 18:52:16 2008. You are right... |
|
|
| (587282) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 16 22:58:09 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 18:52:16 2008. It won't be a full length SAS yet. Once there is a full length SAS, the T will be there too. With only the northern end up and running, it won't have it's full ridership potential anyway. |
|
|
| (587329) | |
Re: SAS in East Village |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Mon Mar 17 00:34:24 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 18:52:16 2008. IAWTP |
|
|
| (587338) | |
Re: SAS Phases 1/2, Court Street cut to Fulton Street line and Queens-Rockaway Super Express |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Mon Mar 17 01:35:31 2008, in response to Re: SAS in East Village, posted by trainsarefun on Sun Mar 16 18:52:16 2008. That is true, however:Even if the N was moved to 96th/2nd and the W became the full-time Astoria service, it would only be for a few years until the line is eventally extended to first Houston Street and then Hanover Square, with the T coming on board at that point. That, however would be sufficient to clear up some of the mess on Broadway with the N by not having it come in on/out on the local tracks and have to merge, which would make service more sufficient on the Broadway line. The N I could see eventually, however, becoming one half of the Rockaway Line/Queens Super Express that I would do as previously mentioned, having it stop on a lower level of Roosevelt Avenue before then going basically on a straight line through a new tunnel that would wind up on 79th street in Manhattan and make a new stop there at York-1st Avenues, then go to a lower level stop at 72nd/2nd under the planned SAS station and from there split into two, with the N going with the Q to 63rd/Lex and then on its existing route while the other half (which I will for now designate as the K train) joining the T to make up the SAS. As said before, given the exteremly high density of the area between 72nd and 86th streets, especially east of second avenue, I suspect even with entrances to the SAS at 72nd and 83rd streets a station at 79th and York-1st Avenues would be among the most heavily used non-CBD stations in the entire system, which is why I would make such a station three tracks and two island platforms to allow for some trains on both the SAS and Broadway lines to short-turn at 79th/York-1st during rush hour if more trains than the 24tph I would anticipate such a new tunnel using are needed). As for the W, I do like the idea of it becoming the full-time Astoria service (at the current TPH of the N/W combo there), with if it can be the done there being a cut from the Broadway line once in Brooklyn at Court Street that can have the W join the C on the Fulton Street line as a local train, with the C becoming the main service to Lefferts while the A goes to Far Rockaway at all times and the W terminates at Euclid Avenue (but during the overnights is extended to Lefferts while the A becomes a full-time 24/7 express). |
|
|
| (588468) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Wed Mar 19 18:19:37 2008, in response to Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Fri Mar 7 18:00:11 2008. Tried to find the actual article online only to find this was a paid subscription link through probably March 21. |
|
|
| (588503) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor for ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Mar 19 19:58:40 2008, in response to Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by NEPONSIT2006 on Fri Mar 7 18:00:11 2008. Make a long story short.....NEVER GONNA HAPPEN!!!Too much NIMBY-ism from the snobs of Rego Park, too many operational issues would arise in doing any work on a service of this nature without significant effect on A Line service to and from the Rockaways, and too much $$$$$$ would be needed to repair, and in numerous instances, significantly rebuild or replace a great many portions of the right of way that used to exist, especially the badly crumbling structure running between 99th and 100th Streets in Ozone Park, new roadbed for the embanked portions running from Atlantic Ave. north to Whitepot, which a lot has been badly eroded away by nature, building of new infrastructure from the existing right of way to a new right of way leading into the airport itself, and not to mention the battle property owners would give if MTA wishes to retake the property many residences and business built on all along the right of way, especially a whole area north of Forest Park by Union Turnpike which was turned completely into a resident parking area at a nearby high rise apartment complex north of Forest Park right on Union Turnpike. It is a nice idea, and had it been thought of and more better considered say 20-25 years ago, I would have seen it happening. But now......never. Too much $$$$$$$ and even more politics involved.....all of which mostly contributed to the Air Train that now exists. |
|
|
| (589012) | |
Re-Opening LIRR White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Mar 21 08:04:10 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by Train Man Paul : Metro-North's Best Conductor for ALL 3 LINES!!! on Wed Mar 19 19:58:40 2008. Paul:What is mainly being proposed would more likely have service operate out of Rockaway Park with some trains out of Far Rockaway as well, with the A maintaining its split between Lefferts and Far Rockaway while the new line(s) would be the Rockaway Park service, eliminating the need for the shuttle to Broad Channel. The way I would do the line would be to have it go as others have suggested along the Rockaway Line, and then have it run as a subway as a super express, making one stop at Roosevelt Avenue, a MAJOR transfer point between the 7/E/F/R/V, either on a new lower level or using the existing but never used upper level platform station there, then running non-stop in Queens through a new tunnel that would possibly include a stop on the northern end of Roosevelt Island before coming into Manhattan on 79th street with a stop there on York-1st Avenues (that I think even with two SAS stations would be among the busiest non-CBD stations in the entire city), and then stop on a lower level of 72nd/2nd and then split up, with half the trains joining the Q to 63rd/Lex and then the Broadway line (which can be a new route for the N and also clear up the problems with the N having to run local north of 34th on Broadway) and the other half joining the T on the SAS. That to me is how I would do it, as this can also be the Queens SAS. |
|
|
| (591341) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 27 14:28:35 2008, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by R36 #9346 on Thu Mar 13 22:36:55 2008. …making the line between 48th Street and about 32nd Place a 9-track elevated line…Make that 8 tracks. Might as well give a bit of a spoiler, since I've worked on this map for a while. The local tracks of the RLRT along Queens Boulevard would stop at 33rd (34th westbound), 40th, 46th, 60th, 69th, Albion, and Grand, while the express would bypass all those stops, calling next at Elmhurst TC. As for the Subwaification of the Port Washington line, the route, which I've called the <11> would follow the existing alignment of the LIRR PW line until west of Woodside, where it would become an el line which would join the existing el briefly east of Queensboro Plaza, then turn off and go down Jackson Avenue along with the <7>. |
|
|
| (1107532) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 5 08:36:18 2011, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 9 11:42:00 2008. I take back some of my 2008 rebutles. Funny, when I read your post in the other thread, I sort of agreed with it, unlike apparently when I responded in 2008, lol.Let's re-evaluate my position of 2008... :) Forgive me if I sound like I am talking to myself, as I am really speaking to James as I speak here.... 66th Avenue - Fleet Street = Whitlock Avenue (Pelham) I can't comment don't know those areas. Well, I still don't know Whitlock that well. Metropolitan Avenue = Metropolitan Avenue (Myrtle) Absolutely not, Metropolitan Ave in middle Village is in the middle of no where. People can only either walk or take the bus to that location, you can't even park anywhere near there if you wanted to. You have a hard time even dropping off people in front, as it's a traffic lane in front of the place (very congested traffic wise), and you can't just stop there. While Metro on the M is just as, stated above, at least it even has the traffic from Christ the King there, Metro Mall, etc, which Metro on the Rock would not have. It has the same Metro Ave bus, but and it's near a cemetery on one side, and some shopping like Trader Joes, Home Depot, Sports Authority, Staples, Michaels, etc there, somewhat similar to having Metro Mall. Good comparison. Myrtle Avenue = Bushwick Avenue / Aberdeen Street (14-Canarsie) Absolutely not, Bushwick-Aberdeen is even more desolate than Metropolitan on the M. No it's not. Myrtle on the Rockaway would be about as desolate as Bushwick Ave on the L. Jamaica Avenue = 104 Street (Jamaica) Perhaps. Yes. It's in the same general location. Duh. Atlantic Avenue = 104 Street (Jamaica) Perhaps, but 104th St is less density I believe. I think Atlantic Ave would be busier than 104th, but not by much. 101st Avenue = 104 Street (Jamaica) Perhaps, but 104 St is less density I believe. 101 is somewhat similar. Liberty Avenue - Rockaway Blvd = Forest Avenue (Myrtle) I am very familiar with Forest on the M. I am not as familiar with Liberty Ave there, however, having lived near Forest on the M (which was once my home station), I often walked to Myrtle and Wyckoff as the M isn't a convenient line if you need most locations in Manhattan. So the L takes away a lot of the M's potential ridership. The M isn't as desirable because of where it goes in Manhattan. Liberty would have good Midtown access, and you don't have an alternative route like you do not far from Forest Ave. Forest on the M has come of age and is now a MIDTOWN line so that argument is out the window that I made in 2008. Now the M would go to the same place an extended Rockaway line route would, just from the opposite direction. This is a toughy now. I would have to think about this one. |
|
|
| (1107533) | |
Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction |
|
|
Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Wed Oct 5 08:36:51 2011, in response to Re: Re-Open LIRR 'White Pot Junction, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Sun Mar 9 11:42:00 2008. I take back some of my 2008 rebutles. Funny, when I read your post in the other thread, I sort of agreed with it, unlike apparently when I responded in 2008, lol.Let's re-evaluate my position of 2008... :) Forgive me if I sound like I am talking to myself, as I am really speaking to James as I speak here.... 66th Avenue - Fleet Street = Whitlock Avenue (Pelham) I can't comment don't know those areas. Well, I still don't know Whitlock that well. Metropolitan Avenue = Metropolitan Avenue (Myrtle) Absolutely not, Metropolitan Ave in middle Village is in the middle of no where. People can only either walk or take the bus to that location, you can't even park anywhere near there if you wanted to. You have a hard time even dropping off people in front, as it's a traffic lane in front of the place (very congested traffic wise), and you can't just stop there. While Metro on the M is just as, stated above, at least it even has the traffic from Christ the King there, Metro Mall, etc, which Metro on the Rock would not have. It has the same Metro Ave bus, but and it's near a cemetery on one side, and some shopping like Trader Joes, Home Depot, Sports Authority, Staples, Michaels, etc there, somewhat similar to having Metro Mall. Good comparison. Myrtle Avenue = Bushwick Avenue / Aberdeen Street (14-Canarsie) Absolutely not, Bushwick-Aberdeen is even more desolate than Metropolitan on the M. No it's not. Myrtle on the Rockaway would be about as desolate as Bushwick Ave on the L. Jamaica Avenue = 104 Street (Jamaica) Perhaps. Yes. It's in the same general location. Duh. Atlantic Avenue = 104 Street (Jamaica) Perhaps, but 104th St is less density I believe. I think Atlantic Ave would be busier than 104th, but not by much. 101st Avenue = 104 Street (Jamaica) Perhaps, but 104 St is less density I believe. 101 is somewhat similar. Liberty Avenue - Rockaway Blvd = Forest Avenue (Myrtle) I am very familiar with Forest on the M. I am not as familiar with Liberty Ave there, however, having lived near Forest on the M (which was once my home station), I often walked to Myrtle and Wyckoff as the M isn't a convenient line if you need most locations in Manhattan. So the L takes away a lot of the M's potential ridership. The M isn't as desirable because of where it goes in Manhattan. Liberty would have good Midtown access, and you don't have an alternative route like you do not far from Forest Ave. Forest on the M has come of age and is now a MIDTOWN line so that argument is out the window that I made in 2008. Now the M would go to the same place an extended Rockaway line route would, just from the opposite direction. This is a toughy now. I would have to think about this one. |
|
|
|
Page 11 of 12 |
||
