bobtehpanda

16 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Well no, the reason for the delay is for the cosmetics.

Gonna need a source. Here's one:

Quote

The MTA began operating test trains on the route last week, amNY.com reports. Sunday’s test train took about 27 minutes to travel from LIRR’s Jamaica station to Grand Central.

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I don't get why this has a completion date of Dec 2022 if all the required components are already online.

Testing everything together in service, probably.

They don't just flip a switch and hope and pray everything works at a full 24TPH out of the box.

2 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

OMNY is an open platform, but that doesn't mean that implementing some like fare capping is cut and dry.  Modifications still have to be made.

1 hour ago, rbrome said:

Maybe. But MTA officials have been talking more like OMNY was designed to support fare capping all along. It may support it already and only wide-scale testing is required. 

1 hour ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

It is, hence why I said it's an open platform.  Before OMNY even came out, circa 2019, I was chatting with some of them before a meeting and they said then that the system afforded them an array of options, from fare capping to passes and so on, but that doesn't mean that modifications aren't needed to implement such things.  Their focus has always been on security and reliability first and foremost, and they said then that they did not know what they were going to implement, and that was because they had no idea if the platform would be secure enough and reliable enough and they needed to time to work out kinks, and believe me, this platform definitely has some kinks.

A major complaint initially was that people were being charged erroneously, including bus operators driving the buses because the range to scan contactless cards and mobile transit enabled cell phones was too wide, so that was one adjustment that had to be made among other things.  Another issue is still being charged for rides not taken, and it seems that so far, they have not been able to resolve this problem.

IIRC, OMNY's lineage is from Cubic, who licensed it from TfL, and Oyster there has had both contactless bank cards and fare capping for over a decade now.

That being said, you'd be foolish to trust something this complicated just works out of the box, and American banks have only recently started issuing large numbers of contactless cards again, so I would imagine it'll happen when it'll happen, but it's not a huge lift like it would be on something truly not designed for it like MetroCard.

On 10/31/2021 at 8:18 PM, QM1to6Ave said:

This new style they are using for new stations (similar visually to the new line stops on SAS) is very strange to me...it looks like something out of 90's movies that were trying to depict what the 2000's would look like (ala Total Recall)

I mean, this thing was designed in 2004 and supposed to open in 2007. So that's not totally wild.

The panels are actually pretty interesting, I would imagine that they're the waterproof paneling system described here:

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

What is fascinating to me about some ideas is the complete disregard or ignorance about what the agency is doing to the Nassau line. Stations and trackage are being rearranged to eliminate the infrastructure down there but we have some posters ignoring that and advocating more service from the south . That’s a nonstarter. The only service I recall terminating from the south in the Nassau line was the  West End midday line. It only did that because there wasn’t any other place to turn trains back. IIRC the relay tracks north of Chambers are gone, perhaps removed now. The three terminals along Nassau were for the BMT Eastern Division trains coming from the north . Look at what’s being done to the LIRR Atlantic line to Downtown Brooklyn and the Lower Manhattan old time financial district. Nassau St is not a prime destination any more. All I ask is for some people to look at the big picture. The  is broadcasting their plans. My take. Carry on.

Indeed.

Some people will argue til they're blue in the face that Nassau-South Brooklyn service is useful because it provides an alternative, but the reality is that as an alternative it's not very compelling and probably negative for most riders to use that over the Broadway service they already have. If we were to run that again today, it'd probably carry air even if the was packed to the gills, because you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Is there a track diagram series for Metro-North the way that the LIRR today (used) to have track diagrams for areas like Penn and Jamaica?

On 10/20/2021 at 4:32 PM, R10 2952 said:

Here's a random thought: in the beginning, I was skeptical about Penn Station Access for both Hudson Line (via West Side) and New Haven (via NEC) trains, but after coming around to the idea of Hudson trains running down the West Side into Penn, I now also realize New Haven trains to Penn make sense because it would take pressure off of the Harlem Line, especially during rush hour.

Perhaps getting New Haven trains off the Harlem Line would open up the door for restoring commuter service to Chatham?

Only other major issue I can think of is what would become of the New Haven stub between New Rochelle and Wakefield.  Maybe a case could be made for extending that westward somehow, either to the Hudson Line or the Putnam Branch...

The NH line has four tracks and the Harlem Line through the Bronx has three, so it's not really a net loss for the NH line since there was a capacity bottleneck into GCT anyways.

The mobile wallet OMNY is not out yet, right?

36 minutes ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

I would say that in the suburbs, driving is the norm.

Driving is the norm mostly because it is so much faster and convenient (since you're not waiting around for your own car.)

It doesn't have to be. As an example, Canadian suburbs are pretty much just like American suburbs in terms of how they are built, yet they have very high transit ridership because they actually pay to run bus services as frequently as every 15 or even 10 minutes throughout the day. You get what you pay for, and in terms of that NICE was a whole exercise to pay a lot less.

On 10/21/2021 at 8:29 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Years ago I was invited to a very expensive networking dinner at the Oheka Castle in Huntington. Since I was coming from my office, I took the LIRR out there and just got picked up to and from the event, but yeah in subsequent meetings I've had out there to meet clients, I didn't get the impression that they use NICE. You drive there and if you do transit, it's just driving to the LIRR. I don't even think I have seen a NICE bus in person all of the times I've been on Long Island to be honest. I'm just there going around by car.

That's probably (also) because in the immediate aftermath of the LIB transition the service cuts were so bad ridership collapsed by a third.

The bus has to be generally useful for people to consider using it during non-peak hours. It isn't even very frequent or fast during peak on most routes.

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

I was thinking the other day about how the MTA's tunneling costs are so out of control, and how full elevated line construction over residential areas is a political non-starter in NYC, which leads me to the question: has the MTA produced any in-depth studies at what the Bronx extension of SAS would look like? Specifically, was the NYW&B right-of-way north and south of East 180th ever looked at as a potential route for a Second Avenue extension?

I was looking at a map and came around to the notion that the path of least resistance for a Bronx extension would simply be an el connecting the Eastchester Line south from 180th, over the New Haven railroad tracks (similar to how the Culver El ran above SBK freight tracks), to the Pelham Line north of Whitlock Avenue.  That would limit tunneling to an SAS Phase 2 connection from Third-138th under the Harlem River to Second Avenue in Manhattan.  The Pelham Line west of Elder Avenue could then be extended six blocks west and tied into the /.

5 goes to 241st or 238th, T goes to Dyre, 6 runs along Westchester all the way to 149th-Grand Concourse.

Perhaps a case could even be made for a short trunk line branching off and running along the old Port Morris right-of-way?

Sure, it's all just a pipe dream, but even so, I think it's no more hare-brained than MTA Capital Construction's budget-busting, deep-bore tunneling projects... 

I would imagine that the plan to go up the Harlem Line would still be the plan.

Has construction on Junius-Livonia started yet?

It's a bit too early to say, since I don't know if Hochul is going to be a caretaker or if she's going to Gilibrand herself into being one of the most powerful politicians in the state overnight, but at least early indicators are not that she's not a egotistical maniac with something to compensate for (unlike two certain metro area governors)

22 hours ago, Gotham Bus Co. said:

After OMNY is fully rolled out, will Select Bus still need to be a thing? If passengers can board any bus through any door and tap to pay, then all SBS routes will effectively be "demoted" to Limited (or even local).

It kinda depends on if DOT wants to make the "red carpet" treatment of TSP, bus lanes and bus bulbs a separately named program.

11 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

The 39??? I've never seen that(I hope you're being sarcastic).

What I do know is that after the 39 got cut, Monroe Bus took over the stops in Manhattan.

that entire program was a mess. the drivers were complaining nobody was riding (which is why they were cut in the first place), the riders were complaining that the drivers were barely keeping to a published schedule if there was one and they didn't take Metrocard. I guess if you really wanted to decimate ridership you could make it so you could only pay $2.25 in exact cash. (I think that's what the fare would've been back then.)

15 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

The  was created because New York State was going broke trying to keep the LIRR running. That's why the TBTA was folded into the agency. The TBTA had money because of the toll money they collected. This way the state could avoid directly funding the railroad. Get the surrounding counties onboard as well as the City of New York with it's Transit Authority. It's similar to the NY Lottery gimmick where, IIRC, it's revenue was supposed to be added to the funding for education. Instead the state's funding was slowly reduced. Meanwhile the big player, the PANY&NJ, who had toll money wanted to be a real estate company, too. Remember they had to take on the PATH system, and it's losses, in order to build the WTC. Both states agreed and lo and behold the WTC was built. If it wasn't for government departments occupying much of the office space it wasn't a moneymaker. Throw in NYC and it's near bankruptcy and exactly whom was supposed to fund the  ? You answered your own question IMO. I actually don't see much of a turf war between the PA and the  because their core missions are not the same although there is some overlap. Both operate bridges but the  is a heavy rail commuter agency while the PA deals with the ports and airport portion. That's why I try to point out the LGA AirTrain difference compared to the JFK one. People debate the subway extension through a neighborhood but the JFK AirTrain doesn't run on a city street . It runs down the middle of a Federal Highway. The LAX situation is great in theory but I think both  NY and NJ because of the bi-state covenant which would seem to preclude a deal like that. Just my opinion. No argument intended. Carry on.

Well, to add a counterpoint, MWAA is both Virginia and DC and is paying for DC Metro to come in. (Well, to be more precise, they are building the extension for DC Metro to operate, which is working out interestingly since MWAA is not used to building rail lines.)

On 10/10/2021 at 10:25 PM, Jsunflyguy said:

 The problem was going to any link set beyond 2 cars is that it would require capital construction or a permanent reduction in consist size for a lot of key trains. For example you would be stuck with either 4 car trains 8 car trains or 12 car trains (4 car trains arent gonna happen). Basically all of the Brooklyn service And anything originating from the short branches on the South side will be limited to 8 cars due to storage constraints. So in all likelihood it would be a net loss.

I agree, which is really why I'd only ever expect an open gangway to happen to the married pairs. That being said, there is a fair amount of scope to increase standing room without doing it at all.

5 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

Q79 dollar vans?????  How sway.  Never saw those during my frequent travels to Queens. 

According to the ridership numbers, no one else did either.

23 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

I blame for letting these dollar vans get this insane in the first place, ever since the 2010 BKLYN cuts they let the dollar vans come in and wreak havoc on the discontinued bus lines.

18 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

Those short lived services you're referencing aren't the dollar cab/van services we're talking about....

somehow i don't think empty Q79 dollar vans were ever the problem. Man, I forgot about those.

On 10/6/2021 at 4:38 PM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Do yall think the LIRR would change car lengths down the line? Instead of 85ft cars, go down to 70ft cars to increase the number of doors per train, which would increase the number of cars automatically. Do you think we can see BART style cars running on the LIRR?

 

The LIRR can definitely use some articulated open gangway cars, probably linked in 4-5 car sets. Those trains get so crowded during rush hour and they are not designed for standees.

Car lengths going down, I don't really see happening. Unlike the subway, 85 foot cars can run everywhere, and when you make cars shorter that's more axles, more coupling, etc. No reason to add all those costs.

I can see the LIRR adding a third door, and maybe eliminating some row seating for a set of three seats immediately around the doors, but fundamentally LIRR riders are much longer distance than BART riders, so I suspect they would keep more rows in. (Pittsburg/Bay Point is 32 miles from Embarcadero, whereas Ronkonkoma is 52 miles from Penn Station.) That being said, if you wanted to make standing tolerable on the LIRR you would really only need to move to 2x2 seating and even that would be a massive improvement.

4-5 cars would require some capital work (definitely 5, 4 would be less since everything is already even married pairs and some stations are already neat multiples of 4). If you wanted open gangway, you could honestly start with the married pairs as they are, the center of the married pair could definitely be used for more space.

On 10/5/2021 at 11:19 PM, Wallyhorse said:

Now that Gov. Hochul has ditched the LGA Air Train:

I suspect what should be done is instead of the AirTrain would be a portion of what perhaps would be "Phase 2A" of the SAS that can be the LGA branch, turning off from the main route at 116th Street (116th Street Station on 2nd Avenue can be just north of 116th to 119th Street to allow for this) and making a stop on 116th Street either from 1st-2nd Avenue (possibly with a transfer point between the two stations) or if it's deep enough between 1st and Pleasant Avenue (there actually is a major shopping center next to the FDR Drive from 116th-117th Streets whose patrons in many cases would use such a stop if it had an entrance at Pleasant Avenue), then continuing underground to Roosevelt Island with a stop at Ichan Stadium and a second stop on Roosevelt Island before going elevated to Queens and through mostly non-residential areas of northern Queens to LGA, stopping first at the long-term parking facility and then at the various terminals.

This is unnecessarily long. Just hook out from 79 or 86 (which is actually straight due west of Astoria Blvd) and call it a day. (But also realistically not happening.) Why make a hook north and then south?

15 hours ago, paulrivera said:

They even financed a bus order for the , and I believe some Port Authority bonds were used to buy rail equipment in the 80's as well.

PANYNJ was quite the benevolent agency back in the day...

10 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

That's because some posters are unfamiliar with the history and the underpinnings of mass transit in the metropolitan area. They don't understand that the PANY&NJ, Via the two states and the bondholders, are the final arbiters of what gets built in the area because money talks. I remember walking around Livonia Yard and noticing that the PA, and not the MTA,  purchased the R62a cars on the line back then. Each car had a plate stamped with that information located near the undercarriage. I look at the present financial outlook of the MTA and wonder if some posters understand what the real situation is. We're getting new subway cars,  a new signal system,  and an additional phase of the SAS. Only if the Federal government provides most of the money. The PA PATH system is not as constrained as NYCT is. Some of my friends and older family members have seen this program before. Southern Queens,  Utica Avenue are still awaiting promised relief,  50 years for Queens and 70 years for Utica. Our consensus is that CBTC gets completed,  some new rolling stock is purchased on a stretched schedule and the SAS expansion is next generation,  if ever. BTW,  the CBTC project lets trains run closer but where is it guaranteed that more service will be provided ? That's because with flexible hours and WFH options taking hold the traditional rush hours aren't that necessary any more. Before the argument that these improvements are paid for look up the R11" fleet " history and get back to me. My people and I see history being repeated yet many posters and the press are ignoring the obvious.  My thoughts.  Carry on. 

 

This is also the impetus behind TBTA being included in the MTA, and future congestion pricing. The root problem though, is that for whatever reason you want to believe (not getting into the controversy), it is undeniable that MTA operating and capital costs are climbing beyond the scope of reasonable revenue increases and inflation; additional revenue sources are the equivalent of patching up the Titanic with duct tape.

This is why I moved somewhere shit is actually getting done.

2 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

THIS. Port Authority went off the rails on the crazy train once they started dabbling in real estate and other sideshows.  If I recall correctly, the Twin Towers themselves did not reach full occupancy until the early '90s or something.  Two decades after they went up, basically. 

To be fair, that is true of literally every record-breaking office development that has ever opened (Empire State Building, 30 Rock, the Sears Tower, 1WTC, the Burj Dubai, etc.), because the only time you can finance such developments is at the top of the market, and by the time construction is completed your economy is likely already well into recession.

But yes, the original deal with the devil was that the Port Authority would get the Hudson's Terminal property if it also took on the financially struggling railroad it was attached to, and PATH has not really gotten significantly better, nor have we actually finished building out all of WTC (and we probably won't, ever.)

On 10/7/2021 at 9:42 PM, Trainmaster5 said:

Because the states of NY and NJ signed covenants giving exclusive access rights to the Port Authority back in the day. It’s considered interstate commerce IIRC. That’s what we were taught in school. I happen to agree with you but it’s a federal issue not a local thing. Carry on.

This is half-true. Port Authority is the operator of the ports, but the legal landowner of Fiorello La Guardia Airport is the City.

In any case, it's not totally impossible.

• Cortlandt literally runs straight through the Port-owned Oculus
• The Dulles Airport authority is literally paying to build a DC Metro extension
• Neither the PATH nor JFK AirTrain are particularly profitable, and the latter has seen price hikes and service cuts for an automated train that make the MTA look like Santa Claus

That being said, the Port Authority is also not willing to extend their own goddamn PATH train to EWR's actual terminals, so it's not like sanity prevails over there.

On 10/5/2021 at 7:26 PM, Eric B said:

Why do so many people want the  and  extended? Then the airport service is subject to the delays from coming across three borouhgs, and it's making those lines longer further making them prone to delays. And everyon know no one wants more of an el through a residential neighborhood.

The Grand Central proposal should just be left alone, as it goes to both the and the LIRR, with space there for a platform for a dedicated service to the city, and the next stop would be Woodside with its connections. This is better than going the other way to Astoria Blvd as the parkway has many more overpasses from the streets going that way. People claim Willets Point is "going the wrong direction", but not that much; it's going more south than east, and would be fast and much shorter (as oppsed to a subway extension from the far west).

What I would also do is continue down GCP to Jamaica to connect with that hub, including JFK (which is probably the idea for the long run).

three words: "one-seat-ride".

if you are a tired traveler with luggage, the last thing you want to do is run around to find elevators, etc. The N/W pretty much hit all the hotels and offices in Manhattan.

Not to mention, the GCP proposal takes you *in the wrong direction* into already congested trains. If the first stop on the N/W is LGA, you're guaranteed a seat.

And speaking of fantasy, there is no room for additional trains into Manhattan from Willets Point, so a platform for dedicated service would be empty. And LGA-JFK would be pretty much useless; no one actually exits security and re-enters it for a plane journey in any sort of reasonable numbers.