Jump to content

Threxx

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    5,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Somewhere.

Recent Profile Visitors

9,287 profile views

Threxx's Achievements

1.8k

Reputation

4

Community Answers

  1. I have seen it (and personally dealt with it) since I live relatively close to the route. The one seat connection between both halves of Ralph Avenue is semi-convienient but I can concede it does more harm than good overall for the route. A basic idea would be to realign the B15 to serve the northern half of Ralph Avenue (either ending at Woodhull or Gates/Ralph/Broadway in lieu of whatever Broadway route the MTA wants), and then just have the B47 serve the old B78 route from Sutter to Kings Plaza. This leaves a very obvious service gap along Lewis/Marcus Garvey which I don't have an immediate solution to. An easy brute force idea would be to extend the B17 up Troy and Albany but I don't think this is a good idea for multiple reasons (probably something the MTA would do though.) It does benefit both the B15 and B47 and would probably improve those two routes, at the very least. This is all better saved for when we get a real draft for Brooklyn though.
  2. As was mentioned before, turning all B46 service at Dekalb would turn that area into a zoo of buses and they specifically mention wanting to avoid ridiculous layovers as justification for some of the Queens changes, so I doubt they'd do that in Brooklyn. It would likely come sooner they cut the locals all the way back to Fulton or Eastern Parkway or even just get rid of them. I'm not really in favor of spitting the B47 back into two routes again, since I think they could do more to make that route a legitimate alternative to the B46 as a north-south option; it's mainly just too infrequent rather than unreliable. I also don't think the B39 needs to go all the way to Broadway Junction, but whatever proposal they make is probably going to insist on some kind of full-length Broadway bus route (likely as a cheaper alternative to making the Broadway stations ADA compliant), and sending the B39 down there makes infinitely more sense than that insane B53 super route. That thing has to go.
  3. Can't speak much to the Queens changes but the insane B53 makes me a bit more worried about the Brooklyn plan, especially given the context of how routes that currently use Broadway will be treated (we already know they want to kill the Q24 segment, and the B46/47 aren't probably going to survive either). Given that there are multiple better options here (B32 retained and covering that new B62 segment to Astoria, extending the B39 to Broadway Junction instead), I don't get the logic of making a super route with no limited/SBS service on an absurdly crowded corridor under an el.
  4. Are there any plans for other elevated stations to get the glass treatment like Astoria, or is everyone else just stuck with the somewhat ugly pre-fabricated station walls?
  5. Provided that someone at the MTA doesn't drag out something bonkers, if they actually want to attempt to fix anything I expect they'll propose some kind of stop-gap service between Nassau and 95th Street; they're probably not looking to turn the entire B Division upside down, as positive as it might be in the long term. It's incredibly unlikely any reasonable service changes will come out of this complaining though. Enjoy the garbage 3-borough local.
  6. Just played catch-up on this thread and the issues at hand. I'm not familiar with the Montague issue and I didn't see much elaboration on it so could someone explain? I assume it has something to do with the reconstruction work that was done after Sandy. After actually reviewing the issues and the proposals, I'd probably say the and the are the best options for the R32s/R42s, although the being a primarily underground route poses its own issues with HVAC failure, the relative isolation allows any disruptions caused from failures to remain isolated to the - not great for those riders but prevents widespread delay in the rest of the system. While these cars have run on the for years, I really don't think it's fair to say that was the best place for them in any remote capacity, considering the maintenance issues as well as the route being entirely underground.
  7. There is more than enough reason to make the connection, but I'd imagine it would be a difficult structural matter to pull off.
  8. Random historical question... any reason why Jay Street-MetroTech on the (formerly Lawrence Street) has no trackside tile? It's out of the Dual Contracts style to neglect this and there's no real documentation on why this station got passed over. It's especially weird when the mezzanine is completely tiled.
  9. for various reasons i think it is best to use a transit related avatar on this site, even if it doesn't reflect the one i use anywhere else

  10. With the Culver Express seemingly imminent as a new service, I was considering whether it could make sense to have a 3rd 6th Avenue local service to help supplement Culver Local service considering those stations are heavily utilized. Fleet expansion would likely be necessary for this, so it probably wouldn't be able to happen at all until the R211 order, but a possible service that could be implemented is a new route running between Church Avenue and 96th Street/2nd Avenue. This would provide the double service of providing East Side riders with more access to Midtown destinations while also boosting service on 2nd Avenue until the is implemented. After the is implemented however, it could prove to be problematic with 3 services running on a 2 track line. CBTC could help alleviate that. Another issue is the problem of having 3 local services on 6th Avenue. Service would ultimately have to be cut back on the line in order to support such a service as well, which could adversely affect Queens riders. Something to think about though, as the current plan of just splitting headways for Culver Local/Express probably is not going to last.
  11. Why do people continue to acknowledge Wallyhorse's ridiculous ideas when they've been consistently exposed as impractical and foamer-esque? It's bait at this point. Just pay it no mind.
  12. The station is just that: a transfer station. In terms of riders actually using the station to embark/disembark, the ridership doesn't compare with other Midtown stations. If it weren't for its status as a transfer station it'd probably be just another regular station.
  13. Didn't see that part of the post... sorry.
  14. Alright, I have the initial draft of my overhaul plans ready. I will likely add specifics about things or add more changes as discussion goes on. I've also made a map of some of the modified and new routes here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=13PZFo1cxoDWXAbJSOBpc1-zRTUI&usp=sharing
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.