Certain ones also tap much faster. My Future debit card/phone taps and posts very fast, Wells Fargo credit card, too, but Discover only works with the physical card and takes a second, Amex phone takes three taps with two denials, and Future only works on Samsung Pay not Google Pay (for OMNY only).
They seem to differ a lot on what card/device you use. Credit vs debit vs OMNY card, card vs phone, different banks, if it's a new card to OMNY.
No, not always
Sound Transit can halve the cost of light rail to Ballard and West Seattle by building them as a connected automated light rail line with slimmer stations, according to two transit experts who have launched the Sound Transit Now campaign.
Guest op-ed: www.theurbanist.org/op-ed-reconn...
There's really good street life in a lot of really hot places, though.
Fulton only works if a higher grade is acceptable, or if the AC are low enough there to go over them instead (and under the RW). Either way it's very difficult.
So the question is how to get to Fulton & Church, or where else you can thread the needle.
But to go under the AC and over the 23, you need to go at Vesey or north, as the AC descend from Chambers to Fulton. If you went further north at Barclay, you'd have a tight NB curve and I'm not sure you could get under the 45.
The difficulty is the tunnel itself, not the station. It needs to thread through the AC, RW, and 23 tunnels. This plan has it going under the AC and over the 23. It's possible that the AC are deep enough by Fulton to go over them instead and under the RW. It'd be incredibly tight if it did fit.
ðŸ˜ðŸ˜ Could the station go under Fulton instead? But the AC are lower there. Vesey could maybe work, but that's a tighter NB curve.
https://www.rrwg.org/path-lexa.pdf
Without the proposed BMT connection, you can go over the 23 on Beekman instead, still at a 4.5% grade, and preserve City Hall. I'm not sure why reducing the grade is that important. If it's construction tolerance, use a higher grade instead, as all the rolling stock is built for 5.5% anyways.
https://www.rrwg.org/path-lexa.pdf#page=9
What is this proposed BMT connection that forces PATH deeper? It's not in the post 9/11 proposal, which preserves the current City Hall station and its cross platform transfer.
I think the one seat ride preference on the subway is overrated for cross platform transfers to other frequent lines. I don't take Lex as much, but on 7 Av, usually like ~2/3 of people transfer from the 1 to 23, sometimes if it doesn't even save time. I've never seen good data on this, though.
PATH also used to run 39 tph into WTC in 1989, so 30 tph in the future with the 6 should definitely be doable. Trains can also be short turned at Journal Sq, as many are today.
The 6 can run 30 tph with CBTC and new switches south of Parkchester (ia601408.us.archive.org/15/items/irt...), but it only ran 18 tph in 2019. If you add a 10% capacity increase from open gangway cars, that's an 83% capacity increase on the 6, which should sufficiently handle PATH-Lex.
Union Sq is much busier, though, so it's much better to keep transfers here. Were they proposing to build a new City Hall station for the 6 underneath the existing one, so non cross platform?
>4.5% is done many times in NYC so I think it'd be fine. A bit slow maybe. The rate of change in grade under the RW seems tougher, but if these are official technical drawings I assume they checked it was okay.
The uptown 6 south of GCT does have capacity, and the CBTC that PATH got much earlier would also mean more frequent 6s.
The engineering schematic
Fun find this afternoon: In 1957, the Port Authority did the engineering work to link the downtown PATH to the Lexington Avenue subway local tracks.
Yes, but if it was narrow gauge, they couldn't have done that speed up without re gauging.
Narrow gauge, too. The legacy Chinese standard gauge network is generally much faster.
It's not too many people for Penn Station to handle, which sees 600k riders a day already, but they still want to close it.
What's cheugy?
ETA and other civic orgs are urging NY not to require two operators on every train.
One-person train operation (OPTO) is a standard practice used on every subway system around the world—including on the MTA.
This bill would hurt riders and lock NY's transit system in the past.
tinyurl.com/etatpto
I know China has recently built bridges with cars on one side and HSR on the other. It's probably fine with modern construction?
Whoa! As I've been pushing for/predicting for years now, it seems CAHSR is abandoning the underground BUR station (whose site has now been fully redeveloped). It looks like the plan is now for a site on the AV Line ROW at BUR instead... but I bet we can get them to push it to DT Burbank.....
I can't believe they're shutting down the DC streetcar.
And on Trams Day of Visibility, to boot.
Maryland and Virginia are not anywhere near the density of Flushing and Queens, and WMATA trains aren't full, unlike the 7. No one's asked for 15 tph VRE/MARC.
They're not close; RERified RR is way more important than a one-seat ride to the east side when they can transfer just fine right now, and capacity upgrades are incoming with CBTC and R262OGs.
We'll short-turn the trains within the city for the most part, so the city can pay for it, like how the city pays for CityTicket, could pay for fare integration with little cost (~$20M/yr), and can shift bus ops costs to RR ops + use the extra ridership revenue.