Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

bobtehpanda

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    6,908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

bobtehpanda last won the day on October 5

bobtehpanda had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5,104 Excellent

About bobtehpanda

  • Rank
    Serial Poster

Profile Information

  • Location
    Seattle, WA

Recent Profile Visitors

11,192 profile views
  1. I'm just going to put my two cents in the general thread here. Making your font size bigger doesn't make anything else you have bigger, and it's super obnoxious. I don't think that easier access to Baychester , however you slice it, would actually "solve" the problem of Co-op City's transit. The main issue today is that you can serve the subway via PBP serve Co-op City in a direct, non-loopy way but never both. Substituting Baychester for PBP doesn't really "solve" anything, given that it's also not next to Co-op City, so you basically just exchanged PBP in the bullet point list. Today, the MTA tries to fit the square peg in the circle by having buses split in all manner of patterns to get buses that solve all the problems at every stop, but this is meh for frequency. The redesign plan was another solution that would've upped frequency massively in exchange for adding a transfer to a lot of trips, which didn't fly. In my ideal world, we'd extend the to Baychester/Bartow or Co-op City/Bartow, which would actually let you rationalize bus services in the area given that now there's a stop in Co-op City itself. It's also, politically speaking, a very easy el extension, given that its neighbors would be a bunch of parking lots and big box stores, and no one is going there for the ambiance.
  2. With anecdotally observed SRO loads at Kew Gardens on both and , I don't know that this is manageable. As a former daily rider, I fully expect even a deinterlined QBL to be fully subscribed; it's not as if trains have room because they go via 63rd. Queens is now the second most populous borough, I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes the first sometime soon, and much of that growth has been happening east of the Van Wyck. (Zoning may not reflect that, but anecdotally there are a lot of illegally subdivided houses in Eastern and SE Queens.
  3. There's no room for them. From the study, edited down and emphasised for clarity: This is, quite frankly, a completely unacceptable nonstarter.
  4. The LIRR Main Line is also full. It will be even more full when East Side Access opens. There is literally no room for more people anywhere going east to west in Queens on or alongside Queens Blvd. If you'd read the study you'd see that. An extension down RBB would also give you a one seat ride to an AirTrain stop, which these people already have at Jamaica. Extending the rail into JFK itself is a nonstarter because the JFK terminal layout prevents all the passenger terminals from being served well, let alone the cargo terminals and whatnot where most people are actually working. Also, this is a current map of where JFK and LGA employees live. You'll notice that the working class employees at JFK don't live in super expensive, gentrifying LIC.
  5. The entire point of hooking it up to the was to save money. How many people are actually doing this? Point or not, linking to QBL would just shove people onto E and F trains that have no room. The E and F are still the fastest way to get to Western Queens.
  6. That sounds extremely circuitous, and not particularly useful for actual commuters. The RBB reactivation has always been a solution in search of a problem.
  7. For all the talk of it being "cheaper" the LIRR option is $6.7B vs $8.1B. Ridership would be 11k vs 47k, respectively. And the LIRR option uses up slots from pretty much every Main Line service (duh) and they tried real hard to sandbag the NYCT option with the MX. $609K per rider for LIRR. $172K per rider for NYCT. We may as well just set the State Treasury on fire. That being said, I do believe the ridership stats. The current Q52/53 combo is 21k riders daily, so a bit more than doubling of current ridership sounds like a fine estimate.
  8. Parking protected, same way as every other bike lane in this city. The slip lane is pretty much designed for high speed merging. Painting some yield lines is not going to feel very safe.
  9. The bike lane is basically a Trojan horse to narrow the road to make it safer, because let's be real, crossing Queens Blvd was always crappy, and people were dying on a fairly regular basis. If it were truly supposed to be an effective bike lane, I certainly wouldn't have put it so that it intersects with every slip lane on and off the main road...
  10. Honestly, how many forum members are of drinking age?
  11. When would a 6 car B Division set even be useful?
  12. The whole thing is an overgrown embankment, isn't it? Whatever has ended up growing there may have well destroyed the integrity of the former structures.
  13. @Union Tpke JFYI but I believe Photobucket has a limit to how much data you can share for a time period.
  14. It's not super clear from the low-res pic, but each stop bullet also has the letters in the stop bullets if you prefer that. The nice thing about this is each individual color is slightly different, even the trunk hues, so "following the color" becomes much easier if you know what the color of the service is already. All the yellow-ish lines on this map go with each other, for example. While the service letters at each stop is nice (either in the bullet in my preferred map or under the station name in the current official map), the main problem is that at the size they're physically printed at, your face basically needs to be inches away from the map to actually read those, which sucks if you're on a train, there's a person sitting in front of it, and there's a chance you'll miss your stop as it's coming up.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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