bobtehpanda

I've always thought the Q60 should be two routes, the Manhattan portion to Queens Center and Queensboro Plaza to Jamaica.

The notion that the LIRR can really just push back on everything and anything at MTA HQ is laughable. Ask Helena Williams how that went for Penn Station Access.

On 6/11/2023 at 5:02 AM, cony said:

Any reason why the rolling stock for the NTTs seem to always be manufactured by Bombardier/Alstom or Kawasaki? Why doesn't the MTA ever go with other manufacturers like CAF, Siemens, Stadler, etc?

In addition to the other comments
 

• Siemens doesn't really make metro cars in the US. Their existing plants are pretty much at capacity because they handle nearly every light rail and Amtrak order in the US.
• CAF has had some reliability issues with their sets produced in the US
• Stadler in subway equipment is relatively new in the US, their first and only order so far has been MARTA in 2019, and those have not been delivered yet

22 hours ago, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Honestly, the best thing I could do rn would be to get involved in an effort to turn get an initiative that restructures MTA on the ballot.

That would require either the legislature to pass a law allowing a referendum, or amending the state constitution to allow voter-proposed initiatives.

The recent transit expansions in the US are funded by voter-proposed initiatives, which is mostly a thing in Western states.

On 4/13/2023 at 11:13 PM, ABCDEFGJLMNQRSSSWZ said:

Anyone ever get depressed that it's very possible that in our lifetimes, only a few "megaprojects" we discuss will ever be completed?

The only 2 subway megaproject I feel confident will get done in my lifetime is SAS Phase II, perhaps a Utica Av subway as an extension of the , and a few of the more minor MTA proposals (extending the  1 stop or adding 10th Av on the )

Like it's just sad to think even I may never live to see some form of a full SAS, 10th Avenue subway, Rockaway Beach Branch, more coverage in Queens, ect, after constantly dreaming of them my whole life.

 

Honestly, it'd be my dream job to get to a high enough position where I can make a change however small on these fronts, the issue is that that's often hard unless you're previously well connected with politics and stuff. As I go into college and choose what courses I want to take (and my ultimate life path), some sort of job around the subway is something I'm considering, especially if I could be that person who people look to at work because I'm so passionate about this issue.

While I haven't committed officially, the college I plan to go to has a very good Urban Studies department, and you can sort of custom-build your degree among multiple areas of study. I also want math to be some part of it cause I'm good at math and at my current HS, I've invested so much into taking courses like Statistics, Multivariable Calculus, Linear Algebra, Math Research, and Number Theory; I wouldn't want to put those skills to waste.

To be quite frank, if that's your dream you probably won't achieve it.

Planners first, and foremost, are bureaucrats. They implement policies to fit officials' desires, but they do not have the mandate or the authority to start imposing their own ideas willy nilly. The primary problem with the MTA's building, is political, not technological, so if you want to fix that a better bet is probably to run for office.

CBTC is basically *the* modern standard at this point, there's not much reason to arbitrarily have not busy lines without it.

Also IIRC the IND currently has some of the oldest signals anyways, right?

On 4/4/2023 at 7:17 PM, LGA Link N Train said:

A thought occured to me while thinking about CBTC in relation to the R-211's.

With Culver and 8th Avenue nearly Wrapping Up and going online in the near future, and QBL East on the way, it not only makes a lot of sense as to why Fulton, Crosstown and 6th Avenue were chosen, but at that point, a good portion of the IND will already be CBTC Active by the time the 211 order is finished. Since the IND Rockaway Line was planned under Fast Forward, Installing CBTC there, along with the Concourse, CPW and IND Archer Avenue Branch (over 7th, Lex, Astoria and Broadway) would not only ensure the  and would be complete (the being 1 stop short of being complete), but would also ensure that the IND would be fully automated. Maybe that could make CBTC Installation easier for the rest of the system.

It probably just makes sense to complete the lines where there is already CBTC equipment, and try and minimize the amount of other lines and rolling stock that need to be upgraded as well. The only new trunk lines that get dragged into the current schedule would be and . and are getting 211s. And these lines should probably get them anyways so that they can continue to operate GOs where CBTC is active.

While the AirTrain is dead (at least for now, the airports lobby is pretty powerful and LGA is like the darling airport of business travelers), one interesting thing to note is that this probably means the optimal route to LGA might actually be a surface light rail extension of the IBX via Junction Blvd/94th, jogging over on Northern.

1 hour ago, Lex said:

In that case, what are we waiting for?

I honestly question how much of an impact that would really have, as the increased connectivity -- especially with modern construction methods -- would, at worst, only slightly reduce property values. If noise is really that much of a concern, use Sapporo as a reference point.

At some point, we'll really need to get over this aversion to setting up elevated lines, and I say this as someone who doesn't exactly like heights.

3 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Exactly, nothing will ever get done here if they keep listening to people who don’t want a train in their backyard.

That's not the reason why the extension was rejected.

An LGA runway directly ends at the GCP. If you have ever driven in the area you'll notice very stubby streetlamps. Indeed, if you look at that neighborhood on Google Maps, there is a whole-ass clear zone where there are no buildings that are legally allowed to be built. Nothing can be in the general path of that runway and taller than those streetlamps. So you can't really build an elevated line from the west.

There's also a 90 year old storm and wastewater pipe that is apparently critical for serving hundreds of thousands of people in Queens that is also underground in this location, so it's not easy to build a tunnel either.

Here's the report: https://www.panynj.gov/content/dam/port-authority/press-room/press-kits/lga-mass-transit/2023-03-13-Full-Report%2bExecutive-Summary.pdf

2 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

Too bad they aren’t considering reopening the passageway between 7th Ave/14th street & 8th Ave/ 14th street. At least from there one can transfer to 6th Ave trains at the next stop and the  would still maintain its connection with the  and . 
However I do know that there would be some construction that would need to be done at 14th Street/8th Ave because the passageway was severed. 

I mean, it's not really shorter, and you already have the transfer, so why bother? There's not much point in transferring between 8th and 7th Av services either, plenty of places to do that throughout the system.

21 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

For street-running stops, yes. But it appears that the IBX line will be almost entirely off-street running (as it should be). And for that, I think high floor vehicles will work better. It seems like they can potentially resemble A-Division cars, but with bullet-shaped noses, pantographs and articulated joints. It might make it quicker to learn maintenance on them versus a low-floor car. And you still have the required accessibility pursuant to ADA because the IBX line stations will still have ramps and possibly elevators. 

FWIW, LA Metro, Muni and C-Train do have high platforms with long ramps at either all (Metro, C-Train) or some of their on-street surface stations (Muni). I’m definitely not saying we should copy them on that. I don’t know if any of the stops are planned to be on-street. If not, then I say go with high floor. Although there certainly are more options for low floor cars. 

 

It's worth noting the very specific case of "off the shelf". Off the shelf means that they're going to be pretty much exactly the same as all the other units in the country (which makes me thinks Siemens S70/700 is the obvious choice) and it means that parts are cheap. Also, all those agencies around the country using those vehicles already have spares, already have people trained, etc. so it's clearly not very hard. On the other hand we don't really have off-the-shelf high floor cars; LA Metro has been off doing its own thing for a while now, and the high-floor S200 has exactly two operators.

The NTTs are notable in that they are actually fairly expensive per car, and a good deal of that is because no one else really operates trains like NTT.

On 1/11/2023 at 6:48 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The vast majority are low-floor, it’s true. Mostly because low platforms in the middle of streets are seen as less unsightly versus high platforms in the street, like you see in LA and on Muni’s T Line on Third Street in San Francisco and the C-Train in Calgary (I think we can include Canadian cities as examples here). All three have recently ordered new high-floor LRVs for their systems - LA with P3010s from Kinki Sharyo and SF and Calgary with S200s from Siemens - so the MTA have at least a couple builders to choose from as long as they don’t let their bureaucratic baloney get in the way as they usually do. I honestly think high-floor LRVs may be a better choice for this project because it will run almost entirely off-street, so “unsightly” high platforms in the street will probably not be that big of an issue, unless they’re already planning to have some street-level stops.

Unsightly is not the issue. ADA compliance is.

For the most part, low floor LRVs are basically flush with the curb, or a little bit higher. The ADA limits slope, so a high floor platform needs a longer, more expensive ramp. Not to mention the cost of the additional concrete and whatnot.

1 hour ago, JustTheSIR said:

Do we have any ideas on rolling stock yet? 
will it be high or low platform

my bet is on high platform because the N and L

It's probably going to be low platform. They specifically mention using off-the-shelf rolling stock, and all of that in the US is low-floor.

You can have flat cross platform transfers between light rail and subway, the light rail trackbed would just be higher.

6 hours ago, Vulturious said:

I'm very disappointed that the project is moving forward with Light Rail, I mean I shouldn't be surprised in the slightest. However, the project is on the more expensive side, yet another thing I shoudn't be surprised about, but it doesn't really make sense. That budget seems to be too high, cost per rider is much higher than the SAS iirc. A lot of the wrong steps are being taken here, only thing I'm hoping from here on is the MTA looks at other examples of Light Rail everywhere else. Still very disappointed, oh well.

5.5bn for 14 miles comes out to about $240M per km.

The cost per rider actually compares favorably with SAS; this is 5.5bn for 115,000 riders, SAS Phase II is  is $6.3B for 110,000 riders.

In general this is cheaper than a subway but at inflated New York costs

I assume, like that Rt 110 BRT I keep hearing on and off again, that it's died a quiet death like most Suffolk projects tend to do.

There is a huge gap between what we ended up building as part of Third Track/Elmont and what LIRR actually wants to operate, or is good for the long term operation of LIRR.

I think that the alternating between GCM+Penn is probably going to be a massive headache, when we could rely on "Change at Jamaica" for so long, and it wouldn't have been hard to set up schedules so that people just change trains across platforms. And now all these flat junctions will ruin service too.

Here's what my fantasy would look like, transfers with platforms on all tracks in bold

Port Washington - GCM

• All trains stop at Woodside

Main Line Local - Penn

• Woodside
• Forest Hills
• Kew Gardens
• Jamaica
• Hollis
• Queens Village
• Elmont
• Bellerose
• Floral Park
• the rest of the Hempstead Branch, or crossover to the Main Line Express

Main Line Express - GCM

• Jamaica
• Queens Village
• Mineola
• Carle Place
• Westbury
• Hicksville

Thoughts

• Mineola should have two platforms, and honestly maybe a specific fourth track for Oyster Bay services since having them terminate on the same track as Main Line services sounds like a disaster
• If Elmont is going to be an important events station it needs all tracks to have platforms like Willets Point
• I think the all-tracks station west of Mineola should be moved from Floral Park to QV. Floral Park has never been that busy, it's not a great place to make transfers today anyways, and on top of that if you're starting from anywhere in the Hempstead Branch you're better off taking the bus to the LIRR than to try and backtrack at FP anyways. FP should still have crossovers, but I think it would be more similar to how 74-Broadway operates on the than a full-time express stop

4 hours ago, NewFlyer 230 said:

I was at Mineola yesterday and to be honest the whole setup of the tracks and platforms is ludicrous.

They really should have remade the station with island platforms to make it easier to transfer between trains and what not. On top of that what is up with that extremely high overpass. You can never catch a train if you happen to be on the wrong side and have to run to the other side. Yesterday me and a friend were going to Penn Station and we. We noticed that the train was boarding on track 2 (Eastern Long Island side) so my friend and I, along with a few other people tried bolting to the other side but they closed the doors too soon before we even had a chance to make it down the stairs. It was infuriating because there were no signs in the station to indicate a track change, there were no MTA workers and a lot of people were confused in general. A whole bunch of people including my friend and I were waiting in the overpass above the tracks so we wouldn’t miss the next train which at that point was a good 40 mins away. Now I understand the complaints that some people have expressed about Mineola. It is a mess over there. Oyster Bay trains were only arriving on track 3 while Penn Station & Long Island trains were boarding track 2 but even the timers in the station were indicating the wrong track number for some trains so it was all around confusing. 

The overpass dates back to the parking garage so I don't think they really had "run over" in mind when they put it in.

Also, heights on the railroads do have to be higher, since the LIRR operates those double decks through Mineola on a regular basis. It would be better at this point if Mineola used an underpass. But also in general Mineola is a shitty intermodal transfer given that's what it was explicitly designed to do.

Even if they were less noisy, and I can believe that, most NYC roads are too narrow to host an el without doing at least some of the following

• blocking most of the sunlight from the road
• requiring ripping out street trees. This would get people really mad. People love trees (for good reasons!)

You'd basically be left with the highways and highway like roads.

The highways are mostly DOA because they were not initially designed to host rail lines courtesy of Robert Moses. The Van Wyck only really happened because the highway was simultaneously being widened for the better part of two decades, but anyone dumb enough to suggest highway widening in 2022 for, say, the LIE or BQE would be committing political suicide. Not even because of the recent green and bike pushes but because it would be physically impossible to do without displacing tens or hundreds of thousands of people and businesses.

There are highway like roads (Ocean Parkway, Conduit Blvd, Woodhaven Blvd, Pelham Pkwy, Queens Blvd etc. to name a few) but it would mostly be pointless;

• Queens Blvd already has subway lines for nearly its entire length
• Few people live near Conduit Blvd
• Ocean Parkway has two parallel subway lines not very far away.
• Woodhaven just rejected a rail line near it

Which, more or less, leaves pretty much just the western section of Pelham Pkwy as the road wide enough to have an el, that wouldn't piss off anybody, that has actual unmet transit demand. And I think the proposal to get the to Co-op that has always floated around would have to be a el in the highway median.

On 8/28/2022 at 5:12 PM, B35 via Church said:

Lol... This happened well after the metrocard was introduced & well before vision zero took place in this city, so no.....

Based on the timeline, my guesses would be either the massive post 9/11 exodus of jobs from Downtown (and the transformation into a more residential district) or the transit strike.

Pros and cons of embankments:

• dirt is cheap and we know how it works. To a large extent, a lot of the embankments were created before we had extensive concrete technology
• From a pure materials standpoint, dirt is still cheaper than concrete
• Embankments are wider than an equivalent concrete structure because they need to slope and drain properly. Their profile needs to look like a hill to be stable. This makes them too expensive in places where land costs too much; what are the suburbs today in the 1800s was very empty
• Embankments are more prone to certain kinds of damage over time (like erosion) and don't deal well with certain kinds of disasters (like earthquakes)

Unfortunately, the LIRR has never cared about intra-island or reverse peak travel, unlike Metro-North, which at least doesn't charge an arm and a leg for shitty non-peak oriented service.

On 11/11/2022 at 11:28 PM, Jsunflyguy said:

The person was struck at Flushing so there is nowhere else for the trains to turn from the NY end that won't energize third rail and endanger the people who are trying to clear the problem. 

Maybe they should consider adding a turning point at Willets Point. But then, you need the to get to Flushing anyways, so maybe that would just be pointless.

9 hours ago, Mtatransit said:

To be honest I would rather they extend the Newark Light Rail to serve more of Newark, than actively compete with PATH over wetlands. That portion of the 1 isn't even the busiest for NJT anyways

I think the bigger thing is that for some people this might turn a three seat ride into a one seat ride and be much more attractive. (Not to mention potentially eliminating an extra fare or two.) How much more, I'm not sure.

I don't think this would really solve any sort of issue widening the Turnpike would address, but I don't think widening the Turnpike would either, since the bottleneck is always going to be crossing the Hudson. Extra lanes would basically just become more waiting space if you've still got the exact number of lanes across the river.

21 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Am I crazy or did  use to mail timetables to your address if you requested? When did they stop doing it?

I have never heard of this.

I always just picked stuff up at stations or the library.

"near a subway stop" meaning two blocks away from any actual entrances?

You could technically call pretty much every crime in the area "near a subway stop" with that logic.