Union Tpke

This has gotta be a new record for necroposting.

@B35 via Church @BM5 via Woodhaven It is now on the MTA website:

https://new.mta.info/coronavirus/overnight

Overnight service frequency will be adjusted to 60-minutes on these express routes: BxM4, BxM7, BM2, QM17
Service will start after 6 a.m. on the X68

Overnight service frequency will be adjusted to 30 minutes on the Q102 and B45
Overnight service frequency will return to pre-pandemic levels on these local routes: B24, B48, Q46, B1, B36
Weekend service frequency overnight will be adjusted to between 30-60 minutes on these local routes: Bx28, M2, M3, M4, M7, M20, M60-SBS, M102, M104, B45, B62, Q4, Q22, Q43

30 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

@Union Tpke Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't MTA suppose to build crossovers at Beach 105th St last year? I remember seeing it somewhere in a capital program PDF.

Yes. It is funded as a Sandy mitigation from the 2010-2014 program. Design is on track to be completed in December. I don't know why the project is taking so darn long though.

http://web.mta.info/capitaldashboard/allframenew_head.html?PROJNUM=et070311&PLTYPE=1&DISPLAYALL=Y

I got an email with the following update:

To make better use of our limited resources in these challenging financial times, we’re reallocating resources across our overnight bus routes to improve the reliability of all overnight bus routes.

To make this possible, we are reducing overnight service on some local and express buses with very low ridership. These changes will take effect beginning the morning of Wednesday, August 12, as follows:

Routes with reduced overnight frequency:
BxM4, BxM7, B45, BM2, QM17, Q102

Routes with overnight service discontinued:
X68

Routes returning to original overnight service frequency:
Bx24, B1, B36, B48, Q46

Routes with reduced overnight frequencies on Saturdays and Sundays only:
Bx28, B45, B62, M2, M3, M4, M7, M20, M60-SBS, M102, M104, Q4, Q22, Q43

On 8/9/2020 at 3:27 PM, RR503 said:

It's an example of intelligent value engineering.  demand is not likely to exceed loads that can be handled on trains running a ten minute headway, so to reduce maintenance costs they built the line's infrastructure to be sufficient for running a 10 with 2 car trains. Neither then nor now has a  to  connection been an at all realistic possibility -- which isn't to say it's not a good idea, merely that it isn't on any list. 

We must also keep in mind that the line would have been closed without the work of neighborhood activists and the Straphangers Campaign. The MTA did not want to keep the line open, and it is honestly a miracle that the line was even rebuilt.

14 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

The blue wall is down at Times Square shuttle platform, new tiles were laid and there's a fresh smell of cement.

 

 

Do you have any pictures to share?

@RR503 This could be a game changer. This is one of the things considered in the December 2019 study on speeds. This is some of the best news in transit I have heard in some time. I wonder how much travel times on the Culver express would be reduced.

3 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

When you get slapped by an R62A....

 

 

That is hilarious.

12 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Can the whole train segment from Whitehall to 95th accommodate 24-30 trains per hour or is it capped at a certain level? There could be a potential to bring more than 15-20 trains per hour down there.

The Broadway Line south of City Hall is capped at 21 TPH due to the curve. Whitehall terminal is capped at 15 TPH. Montague is good for 30 TPH with Nassau trains in the mix.

13 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

If you center Union Av station on the street proper then there is no need for either Hewes or Lorimer to remain.

The stop spacing improves further if you move Marcy to Williamsburg Bridge Plaza.

18 minutes ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

So would a line that runs on Northern Blvd and ease capacity on the  not improve service? 

The  is in need of many improvements. I would not reject a proposal that overall ties into the system and is cost-worthy even if there are other projects that should be prioritized.

A line along Northern would be up there, but you would need to construct a new trunk line for it. Unless the MTA can rein in construction costs, there will not be any major expansions of the system within our lifetimes. Having a transitway along Northern Boulevard would be transformational and would bring a lot of the benefits of a subway.

In terms of easing capacity on the , how about actually using the full potential of CBTC? 29 TPH run on the , and yet other systems operate 36-40 TPH with CBTC. Investments such as a short extension to Murray Hill for a new terminal, and expansions in station capacity, including additional exits, wider transfer facilities, and wider platforms, would do the trick. As Alon Levy often says, operations before electronics before concrete.

1 minute ago, Trainmaster5 said:

Obviously I'm a union man given my history but can anyone explain to me how OPTO improves service ?  I'm just looking at it from an operational point of view but in it's most simplistic sense it's slower than a two man crew. I come from an era when the BMT 16,  , train had 2 conductors on some rush hour trains, specifically for the Broadway Junction stop. My first rule books mentioned "the Conductor in Charge" duties as well as the Conductors duties. Let's not overlook the obvious elephant in the room either. Are you or anyone else suggesting that we pay the sidelined conductors to sit around until they retire ? Just wondering if some of my fellow posters have ever looked at the real world repercussions associated with these posts. Whether you,. I, or anyone else agrees or disagrees, there's no hard feelings coming from my end. Just realize that politics, the NYS Constitution , and Civil Service Law have the final say in whatever comes next. Carry on.

Triboro would have to change for OPTO to be possible.

1 hour ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

True, but this his proposal is definitely a long-term project... I agree that we should be prioritizing a busway first, though.

Second Avenue Phase 2 is a long-term project. I am so tired of all the utterly unrealistic subway expansion proposals here. All of us will be dead before Phase 3 is ever built. There is a pretty clear list of projects that would be in line if more funding was available (SAS, Utica Avenue, Hillside Avenue extension, Nostrand Avenue extension, and a few others). Anything past that list is fanciful. I really wish we had more discussions of ways to actually improve service, like strategic interlocking fixes, adjustments to stations to increase capacity, or other operational fixes that would have bigger impacts.

1 minute ago, Armandito said:

But that could only get you so far. As a matter of fact, existing crosstown subways have already reached capacity.

We do not have billions to spend. A subway under 34th Street would easily cost $15 billion as you would have to deal with tunnels for the Lexington Avenue Line, the Sixth Avenue Line, the Eighth Avenue Line, the Broadway Line, the Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line, city water tunnel No. 2, PATH, and the tracks to/from Penn Station. Maximizing the use of our streets is the best thing to do.

8 hours ago, paulrivera said:

Bx99 schedules are up on Tripplanner (no M99 schedules yet)

http://tripplanner.mta.info/MyTrip/ui_web/serviceinthearea/Timetable.aspx?PlusSign=plusSign=N&operator=NY&route=BX99&inputDate=08/04/2020&direction=N&type=W

http://tripplanner.mta.info/MyTrip/ui_web/serviceinthearea/Timetable.aspx?PlusSign=plusSign=N&operator=NY&route=BX99&inputDate=08/04/2020&direction=S&type=W

I just saved these on the webarchive.

On 7/6/2020 at 8:12 AM, checkmatechamp13 said:

@B35 via Church You use the "Service in the Area" feature: https://ibb.co/NpbkCDS

Once you've clicked on that, you type in a landmark (e.g. Queens Center Mall, Woodhaven Blvd subway station, or some address) and click "Search"

Then you click on the blue hyperlinked text for the route and direction you are interested in and you pull up the schedule.

You can also use it to get full subway schedules.

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As someone who lives in Whitestone and hates sitting in heavy traffic along the LIE, GCP, BQE, 6th Avenue and the crosstown streets in Manhattan - all routes taken by the QM20 express bus - I would welcome such a line with open arms (though given circumstances pre- and post-Covid, I probably won’t see it in my lifetime). It’s better that you routed it to 34th St since that’s a much more popular destination than Columbus Circle. By going along 34th, fewer people would need to transfer and you don’t have to underpin the existing CPW line, like in your original proposal.

Given the heavy Midtown car traffic that - unfortunately - seems to be making a comeback, we certainly could use more crosstown subway lines. A 34th St crosstown would have transfers to every north-south subway route, save the  and  trains. I get that having no physical connection to the rest of the system makes it harder to move equipment around. It does allow trains to run more frequently, though. He did say there would be a non-revenue connection to the QBL, though I would like to see a map to see where that would go. That would have to be the place where equipment is moved on and off the line to other lines in the system. 

There is no need to build crosstown subways in Manhattan when we can just ban cars on streets and have busways like 14th Street. A busway was originally planned for 34th Street before it was killed by NIMBYs.

On 7/25/2020 at 2:00 PM, 4P3607 said:

So I witnessed another mention that the R179 cars have some parts supplied by WABTEC including the link part that separated taking them OOS. Any more details on this? This would be quite alarming if true considering that now they're replacing all of their older reliable diesel work units with... WABTEC built hybrid - electric diesels

All cars with WABTEC couplers are being looked at.

The hours of the Jay Street Busway will be from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m..

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/jay-st-busway-tillary-st-livingston-st-cab2-jul2020.pdf

Screen Shot 2020-07-26 at 9.13.33 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-26 at 9.14.55 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-26 at 9.15.01 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-26 at 9.15.10 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

Screen Shot 2020-07-26 at 9.15.16 AM by Union Turnpike, on Flickr

John Santamaria, the Vice President and Chief Mechanical Officer, New York City Transit, believes that the R179s will be back in a matter of weeks, not months. This is from the currently ongoing NYCTRC meeting. The video of the meeting should be up within a week or so.

11 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Not necessarily.  57th-6th comes to mind as a station that served as a cut-cover temporary terminal and had all the features you just described; same thing goes for 21st-Queensbridge.  They worked reasonably well as interim solutions, and the MTA was still able to get the federal funding they needed to complete the 63rd Street Line.

All or nothing is just not a solution that works with public transportation (especially in NY), because you'll just end up with nothing at the end of the day.  The 1995 and 2010 cuts showed us that cut service rarely gets brought back, and the last thing passengers need to hear this time around from the MTA is "oh, and we also aren't going to add anything new, either".

Right now the best bet for East Harlemites would be for them to ensure they get that station.  Would be good for the folks in the Bronx as well if it means ultimately steering the Second Avenue project away from Lex and towards Mott Haven instead.

Except 57th and 21st Street were designed to be temporary terminals. The design for 116th will need to be completely redesigned.

9 hours ago, Cait Sith said:

They caught the person responsible for the fire.

I hadn't heard anything about this. Is there any public information on this?

9 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

Too many transitfans are treating this hobby like it's some sort of Tumblr fan-fiction. 

No, the train is not fine. Neither is the human who died in the fire, but sure, care more about the train.

Yes, it can be really annoying to be constantly DMed or messaged in private about the upcoming bus orders from the year 2045.

 

People have got to understand that buses and trains aren't some sort of cartoon or TV show. Most people who drive and operate them just want to work.

Thank you. The same goes for discussions on transit expansions and operations. A lot of people act as if the transit system is their personal train set, and that the employees and managers in the system should operate as they want. R32s on the B, complaining about the Coney Island subway swap, asking for insider information on subway car swaps, the inside scoop on bus swaps, the bus redesign, and so on. I am not going to name names, but I know people on here who have left or reduced posting due to the reduction in quality of discussions on transit issues on things that are more important than railfanning, like operational fixes to increase capacity. NYCTF and other transit boards have continued to decline as people go to Twitter and Facebook where they can discuss issues with an audience broader than foamers, but also with subway riders and advocates who just want to get to work on time.

A lot of people here claim to want to become transit planners or become the "next Andy Byford," but their comments do not suggest that. They get turned off by paragraphs-long discussions on actual ways to improve service, about discussions on the MTA's finances, and prefer to complain about a change in rolling stock assignments or propose asinine and unrealistic extensions to the subway system that do not contribute to any competent and insightful discussion. I get it, a lot of users here are railfans who are in high school and love the rolling stock. I do too, and I have grown past just foaming over R32s, and have learned more about transit operations, and other aspects of transportation planning. I love NYCTF for the discussions with knowledgable people in New York City Transit who have had first-hand knowledge about the operations of the system and who make poignant comments on the state of transit today, and with other passionate people on the forums who discuss issues with the subway and bus system and engage in thoughtful responses to my queries. These discussions have decreased in number since I came onto the forums, and it is very sad. As a result, I have been sending less time on here. I try to bring attention to information from the MTA Board books, the Capital Program dashboard, bus lane changes from the DOT website, and discuss proposals I have, or provide my two cents on an issue. Though I am something privy to inside information, those occasions are rare. There are ways to contribute without having to pretend to be an insider.

For a lot of users on here, when you go railfanning, see whether trains are on schedule, think about why that is. Are platforms crowded, are there accessibility issues? Is your train stuck at a location for a long time? If you just want to post here to talk about your observations while railfanning or discus which cars are best, fine. However, realize that the transit system was not made for you. It was made to transport people across the city efficiently and affordably. Don't feel entitled to information which you don't have the right to get. Don't complain or interrupt when people are having substantive discussions on ways to improve the system.

I could rant for longer, but I hope that many users her give this a read and think about it.

On 7/21/2020 at 4:17 PM, R10 2952 said:

This would actually make sense.  After all, the biggest money pits in Phase 2 currently are the deep-bore extension onto 125th and the extravagant plan for the 116th station.  Get rid of 125th, scale down 116th, build some bellmouths for a Bronx extension, and you get a project that becomes more salvageable cost-wise.

Except you would need to construct crossovers at 116th, adequate crewing and terminal facilities, storage areas, a dispatchers area, and other requirements for a terminal. Also, you would lose a lot of ridership by not going to 125th. Ending at 116th Street is not a good option. Also, doing that would put federal FTA funds at risk. You either do the whole thing, or none of it. 

3 minutes ago, RR503 said:

RE: OPTO, I'm no labor relations expert, but yes, that would seem like the conversation necessary to have. 

Do you think it is better to go further into debt to save existing frequencies, or cut service? They are both awful options.