P3F

So, will this prevent vintage cars from running via Rutgers? I don't recall whether the racking has the same issue as the Montague rebuild, where the reduced clearance prevents pre-R46 cars from going through the area safely.

The B68 has generally had a tendency to be overcrowded in certain areas, before and throughout the pandemic. I still see the buses stuffed full, all the time. The B68 doesn't really run that frequently, so flagging would simply force people to wait for the next overcrowded bus. Not to mention, I wouldn't really call the route reliable, meaning headways can be up to twice what they should be.

Ironically, this could be done without closing the station. Just have the museum trains on the inner two tracks, accessible from the central platform. All service would be on the outer tracks. The main drawback is that the relay would become inaccessible (although the station would still be able to terminate trains on the western island platform, as was done after Hurricane Sandy). The only case in which this would be of use, is if that recurring suggestion of connecting SAS to Fulton Street via the current Transit Museum happens. Otherwise, I don't think the Transit Museum needs more platform space (or to relocate).

They are referring to the B70's route in Bay Ridge. While the B37 was discontinued, the B70 had a ridiculous looking route, backtracking to cover 3rd Avenue between Shore Road and Bay Ridge Avenue. https://www.tourister.ru/files/busbkln.pdf

Think about it, when a car is standing on the road with this design, how are other cars going to go around it? They will go into the bus lane to drive around the double parked car, so the buses still have to deal with cars merging in front of them. Doesn't really seem like an incredible improvement. Not to mention, the design requires left-turning cars to cross the bus lane to get to the left turn bay, which is a mess from the standpoint of merging. What happens when the left turn bay fills up? The line will back up into the bus lane, meaning the buses will have to merge into the general purpose lane to get around them. Let's go over the most obvious ones, then. - As stated earlier, buses are going to get cut off whenever someone is double parked, or wants to get into the left turn lane. - If someone is on the sidewalk and sees a bus at the bus stop, they may be encouraged to run to the bus stop against the light, since they only have one lane to cross. This is quite unsafe. Compare to this to a more standard setup, where someone would have to be significantly more invested to run across a 6-lane road against the light. - What happens when a bus breaks down in a bus stop? Any further buses will have to awkwardly merge into the general purpose lane and block it, and when those buses make a stop, passengers would need to go all the way back to the crosswalk, and then walk the entire length of the bus in the roadway just to get to the bus. Then, surprise, you now have horrible bus bunching and congestion. - This lane is planned to be 24/7, which is frankly unnecessary at low traffic times such as overnights (when the bus is running once an hour). You're forgetting the most important part, which is an actual reason for the bus lane to exist. I have been on 164th Street on both weekdays and weekends, and it never appears to be particularly congested (on the wide part, anyway). If this is how 164th Street generally is, there is no point in having a bus lane, since most cars move faster than the bus, therefore the bus is not getting held up by them. What did "motorists" do to deserve such a fate? Road design should be equitable, rather than throwing one group in the pit to satisfy the other. There are many situations where driving is more practical than taking transit (hint: most of these trips don't involve an endpoint in Manhattan). Not everyone wants to be in the transit system 1.5 to 2 hours each way. If electric cars are going to be the norm in decades, the climate crisis argument falls flat. Don't ruin the roads if the cars aren't going to be causing a crisis in the future? This is idiotic. The vast majority of drivers do not think like this, and it would take much more than a few minutes' increase to get people to even consider changing modes for that reason, especially considering that switching to transit has the potential to add 30-90 minutes to a commute. This also seems to contradict your earlier climate crisis argument. If a non-EV car is running for longer, it will burn more fuel and contribute more to the issue. It's almost as if having a more efficient road network is actually better. It comes off as condescending for you to say that people who disagree with your very specific views on things, are not getting "the point", as if your views are only to be accepted and not questioned. May I just point out that I have never said that this road should not receive a bus lane? I simply think that the design presented by NYCDOT is poorly thought out, and a sub-optimal way to utilize the road space.

It really seems like they're trying to come up with "innovative" solutions, rather than designing the bus lane rationally. It's crazy how inefficiently the road is designed in this proposal. They somehow manage to remove parking and two entire travel lanes, despite already having a buffer to work with. What a mess.

Brooklyn History Quiz 1: #3: The route ended on the border of two neighborhoods, and both are listed, making the options unfair. #9: I dispute the notion that this route was the "only" route serving that station. If you look at Street View, there is an entrance to the complex less than a block away from the current nearest bus stop.

5th Avenue already has two bus lanes next to each other. Unless I'm mistaken, a "busway" means all the road's lanes are reserved for buses.

http://web.archive.org/web/20000823062216/www.lirr.org//nyct/maps/busbkln.pdf Look at where the B47 currently runs. Unrelated: it appears we have come full circle in terms of map fonts. Compare the font on that 1999 map, to the one on the latest MTA map: https://new.mta.info/document/12041

The revenue loss is severe because the way the does OOS transfers is quite open ended - swipe in literally anywhere, then get a free transfer at the OOS transfer station. Once OMNY comes around, I think they could make the OOS transfers a bit more closed in. Let's give Atlantic Av as an example: within fare control, have a "tap-out" scanner, with a big sign saying "Tap here to get a free out of system transfer at Lafayette Av or Fulton St " (with a map showing how to get to those stations). Then, the user gets 30 minutes after tapping out to tap in at the transfer station, so that the system can't be abused.

Just because it's there, doesn't mean it's logical to suddenly force thousands of people to use it. It's a long distance to walk with many stairs, and some of the passageways aren't exactly wide (so you can't direct infinite amounts of people into them). To answer your pointless loaded question, I'd say that the Atlantic Avenue transfer is best suited for BMT - IRT connections.

Trains stopping next to the art installation is caused by the antiquated signal system in the area, and not necessarily due to any other trains being there. I rode the every day before Coronavirus happened, and in my experience, most of the time the train pauses to get its lineup, and then moves right along without any issues. Sometimes we wait for a but that adds no more than a few minutes of delay. I'd much rather endure an occasional 3-4 minute delay, than be forced to wait up to 10 minutes for an entirely different train after making an unnecessary transfer.

Service is already fast and would not get more than a few minutes faster. The service is currently reliable, within reason. So you're still inducing extra transfers to gain minimal benefits. Atlantic is a horrible transfer because of how far the 4th Avenue platforms are from the Brighton ones. Transferring at DeKalb is useless because it only offers Broadway via Tunnel service, which is more than 10 minutes slower than Broadway via Bridge. Also, the is horribly unreliable.

I don't know about this one. It's possible that the capacity limiter for Brighton is terminal capacity, rather than interlining. If that were true, deinterlining would bring absolutely no benefit to Brighton riders while making commutes worse.

@Coney Island Av @trainfan22 I had some time to kill, so I decided to check out the GE R32s at Floyd Bennett Field. It turns out you can see them from one of the roads, and the cars appear to be in pretty decent condition on the outside. They still have their flipdots, rollsigns, and number plates.

to 47th & 50th Streets, then the uptown to wherever is desired. Transfer from the to the at 59th Street if you need Broadway.

Interesting. So an train could hypothetically start with: to Coney Island Hillside Av Local Queens Bl Express 63 St/6 Av Local and end with: to Coney Island 6 Av Local via Delancey St Culver Local

Hmm. Maybe with a really good zoom lens, someone could get a photo of the R32s? Floyd Bennett Field is quite flat, and it appears there aren't too many obstructions from certain angles.

Not much of a mystery, it seems to me. The cars are easily seen on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5908704,-73.884027,65m/data=!3m1!1e3 Obviously, since it's a private NYPD area, there's no Street View there. Also, none of the public roads in Floyd Bennett Field go particularly near that location, so you can't just get photos through a fence or something like that.

Has there actually been calls to shut down the subway? I don't have a need for it right now since I don't go into Manhattan anymore, but I still don't think it would make any sense to shut it down. There's still plenty of hospitals, grocery stores, take out restaurants, gas stations, and other businesses whose workers rely on the transit system, and shutting down the subway would make the situation much worse than it currently is. Edit: I posted this before reading which thread it was in. This is somewhat off topic, so I apologize for not noticing.

I don't mean pedestrian conflicts in the specific way of turning cars having to give way to pedestrians. At a broader scope, funneling more cars through an at grade intersection creates a higher probability of a crash with a pedestrian, than if the same cars were bypassing the intersection. It's why you never hear of pedestrians getting hit by cars on the Belt Parkway -- there aren't any opportunities for such a conflict to happen. Sure, Union Turnpike east of the interchange may be two lanes in each direction, but there are also the highway ramps which add two lanes (and are well utilized). I also don't see what's wrong with the turn lanes. Three of them might look excessive on a map, but if they get filled up during rush hours, they are serving their purpose.

What would be the maximum estimated capacity of the Broadway Line between City Hall and Cortlandt Street, with and without CBTC?

Dedicating four lanes to a single bus route would be quite excessive. A single bus lane (westbound) would solve the merging issue. Have it be active during PM rush hour and maybe AM rush & middays if traffic conditions warrant it. Part of the benefit of the underpass is that Union Turnpike thru-traffic doesn't deal with any pedestrians. Forcing all cars to cross Queens Blvd. at grade would cause unnecessary congestion and potential car-pedestrian conflicts.

I'm not sure where I read this, maybe Wikipedia, but apparently those exits used to be car drop-off areas; they were closed due to the delays caused by cars merging back onto the road. In theory, it wouldn't be too complicated to convert the westbound one into a bus stop. It's hard to judge size from Google Street View, but you could probably fit 2 to 4 buses into the area, arranged into bays. Q46 buses would pull in, drop off, pick up, and then pull out. Then, turn onto the other side of Union Turnpike at Park Lane, stop at the Q37 stop for bus connections, and continue along the normal route. In practice, it is doubtful the underground area could contain enough buses to make this operation work well, given the Q46's frequency.

The switch layout at 33rd Street PATH (a three track terminal) is much more compact than the one in Flushing, which in theory should increase capacity by reducing the time trains need to traverse the interlocking. However, I do not ride PATH often, so I don't know if it works well in practice.