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.

Nellko

Senior Member
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Location
    Kingsbridge, Bronx
  1. I was thinking a tunnel should be built, actually, since the Whitestone's orientation isn't exactly conducive towards moving towards LGA. Of course, this is entirely pie-in-the-sky, since no politicians seem to remember that the outer boroughs exist, save for western Brooklyn of course.
  2. Agreed. In-borough crosstown routes are something that desperately needs to be looked at, alongside outer borough-to-outer borough lines. It's a nuisance to have to go from the Bronx all the way into Manhattan and transfer just to get to Queens or Brooklyn, hence why lines like the Q44 and Q50 are so heavily used. I personally think a line roughly following the current Bx12 SBS route is an absolute necessity, with how jam-packed that line and that corridor are pretty much 24/7. Perhaps it could have an extension south from Pelham Bay Park into Throgs Neck to serve the relatively transit-scarce southeast Bronx, as well. The 6 could be extended a stop or two north to stop at Bay Plaza and a few times in Co-Op instead, since it would connect to the new crosstown line at Pelham Bay Park anyway. As for outer borough-to-outer borough, a line that runs from Fordham Plaza to Jamaica Center along the Q44 SBS's general route seems like it could work. It could connect to the aforementioned Inwood-Throgs Neck line at the southern end of the line (near Ferry Point Park). From there it could likely dip westward to stop at LaGuardia Airport instead of proceeding straight to Whitestone, and from there make a stop on College Point Blvd, and then near the enormous shopping center over on 20th Avenue, before turning towards downtown Flushing. This would allow it to serve both LGA directly, and JFK indirectly via the AirTrain.
  3. This guy should just get a neck pillow or something so he can sleep sitting up. I get that folks' commutes are tough, but if you want the sleeper car, take the Amtrak. Commuter rail shouldn't be the place to be sprawling out like that.
  4. Yeah, it's literally about 2 blocks away. Not exactly an easy run unless you're in shape, but it's still not a huge distance. It'd be like running from the north end of Bowling Green station to the south end of Wall Street station.
  5. They should dust that thing off and properly exhibit it somewhere... maybe attach it to a wall so it looks like it's popping out or something. Better than just putting it in the trash, and way better than letting some big corporate chain use it to desperately attempt to create a false sense of legitimacy. "hey guys, we're real noo yawkuhs, look at this train car with graffiti on it! just like the 80s, remember??? please buy our obscenely marked-up stuff"
  6. Pelham Parkway on the Dyre line is pretty crummy and dingy looking. Setting up the center two tracks as a pair of terminal tracks would probably be nice too, as a just-in-case thing like you mentioned, but it really doesn't look great down there. Not as bad as, say, BMT Chambers Street, but it's not exactly appealing either.
  7. My take on this: If they're really going to continue pushing this plan, they had better REALLY commit to it. They need to put aside all the petty interstate (and intrastate!) infighting, collaborate, and most importantly, find funding for ALL of the trans-Hudson stuff. The Jersey (and requisite capacity upgrades at TSq and GCT), serious upgrades to trans-Hudson commuter rail capacity (ideally a pair of new tunnels as well rehab of the old ones), and capacity upgrades to Penn (and GCT if necessary). If they can't make that happen, forget about it. (Also, ideally NJ would be on the hook for more of the bill than NY, considering they benefit most from NYC access in general. Just saying.)
  8. I'd also like to see service to the Bronx for full daytime on weekdays/weekends, instead of solely rush hour, being considered. The headways are so long on the these days that it's practically unbearable, besides for the paltry 1-2 hours each weekday of rush hour. I'm sure the MTA would like to frame the as an alternative, but they go to two different places and serve almost entirely different purposes outside of the Bronx. And on top of that, Lexington line services suffer badly on weekends, and west Bronxites who have to settle for the Concourse instead of the Jerome line should have better options than a paltry 5 trains an hour (at best; I have a sneaking suspicion that it's more like 4 in reality, despite being 5 on the schedule).
  9. Forget Flushing, I'm wondering how the hell they intend to get that bus in and out of the tiny, narrow roads it travels up on its way to College Point! 23rd Ave is already far too narrow for the current local/limited Q25... I guess they could route it up 20th or 25th Ave to avoid the narrow stretch of 23rd Ave and of 127th St, but then that kind of begs the question of why they don't already do that with the local/limited, when it would certainly speed things up and involve less climbing of drastic hills? (20th Ave is still a hill, yeah, but it's not quite as horribly steep as 127th and 23rd are.)
  10. I once caught a (well, a due to circumstances) at Parkchester one weekend that was something like half an hour late due to some mechanical problem somewhere down the line. This was the first train in after all the problems, and a lot of people had decided to just accept a block ticket and take the Bx4 to Simpson to catch the , but I stuck around because I was going to Canal, so the train was mostly empty. It ended up running express on the center track from Parkchester to 125, then sitting at 125 for a few minutes while awaiting a decision from the dispatcher, then making express stops in Manhattan all the way to Brooklyn Bridge(!). If I recall correctly, it even switched over to the express tracks. That was one hell of a ride, that's for sure; I don't think I ever felt an R62A go as fast as that one did from Hunts Point to 138. In the end, I just walked to my Chinatown destination from Brooklyn Bridge, since it's equidistant from there and from Canal and both stops have elevators.
  11. It sounds, well, way too terse. I'm all for shortening the in-station announcements and reducing dwell time, but the "this is" didn't need to be removed, and it makes it way easier to not notice your stop announcement happening. I get that the main purpose is to fix stuff like the "transfer is available to the F train" announcement at 59th Street overrunning the doors actually opening and messing up the route/next stop announcements, but it's a bit much. Also, there's a way they could further reduce dwell times: follow the Chicago L's lead, and announce the next stop after the train has started moving again. If you need to know more urgently, you can look at the strip map or the in-car LED signs. Also, it'd let them announce which side of the car the doors will open on at the next stop, like the CTA does, which could slightly reduce confusion for tourists and people riding outside of their usual areas.
  12. Okay, let's give this a try: : Two sections, 241st St-South Ferry and Nevins St-Flatbush Ave. : No service south of Times Square. : Two sections: Woodlawn-Brooklyn Bridge* and Borough Hall-New Lots Ave. : No service south of E 180 St. Transfer to the . : Local service. Runs via the between West 4th and Jay St-MetroTech. : No service. : No service south of Chambers St. : No service. Expect severe delays. Use the , , , , , , or access to transfer points in Brooklyn. * There's a one-way crossover that trains could reverse onto south of the station, so as not to clog the City Hall loop. If there's some technical reason they can't actually use that, Woodlawn-Grand Central instead.
  13. Right, here's mine. Should be fairly easy, even with the crop job I did.
  14. You missed a spot. It's 170th St. on the 4.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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