agar io

Yep, foamers sound more like it...

No, I meant the Q21. Sorry, that was a typo I thought the Q21 was supposed to be higher frequency. If that's the case, the Q21 should not be extended unless it can provide at least similar headways to the Q52.

I see. But Whitehall really can't turn that many trains, and the next suitable terminal south of that is 9 Av like @Mtatransit said. Lack of rolling stock might lead some s to be sent over the bridge. However, that in itself turns these trains into trains, defeating the whole purpose. I suppose they can't divert a few rush-hour trains to 57 St-6 Av and then go on to 96 St? That may cause congestion on the QBL , but it duplicates the basically except for the Midtown sections. I really can't think of many other ideas besides sending some northbound trains to 96 St, but then there would be a lack of trains on the QBL local tracks. Oh, well.

I already knew about these maps, but thank you anyway. The problem is that the MTA and the DOT don't seem to have published any other WalkNYC maps.

I guess the island platform needed to be shut down too, just so passengers don't interfere with the "crime scene" (for lack of better words).

It could turn at Canal Street if needed. Whitehall has probably only 12 tph capacity at most due to the single-track layout.

It's always around the third week of April. Last year it was on the 18th. The year before, the 20th. I don't know why 2014 was an outlier, but they released in March that year. So, I'm guessing third Monday of each April, in which case this year it should be on the 17th. Unless the data comes in March like in 2014. Does anyone know where any WalkNYC maps can be found online?

That was semi-rhetorical. I knew why the Q52 was split (because the Q21 is now the short-turn) but I also thought it was unnecessary to split the Q21 and Q52. And I agree, maybe the Q52 should be removed and the Q21 be re-extended down to B 67 St. Also, thank you for the explanation as to why the Q52 is probably unnecessary. Wouldn't it be more convenient to just go down 92 St directly? Also, Elmhurst residents probably wouldn't much like dedicated SBS lanes taking up their parking spots. It's a good idea, but knowing how SBS installations are, there'll be bus lanes everywhere that there's traffic.

It doesn't take an audit to figure where all the money was wasted. Just look at the size and extravagance of the stations. In London, the TfL would have just put one entry point with two elevators and call it a day. Instead, the MTA wants to build huge column-less mezzanines and three entry points to each station. The multiple exits aren't bad, but why are the mezzanines so big? The depth of the tunnels is a factor too, because that's why the large mezzanines and long escalator shafts need to be built. From https://therealdeal.com/2016/12/31/new-yorks-incredibly-expensive-new-subway-explains-why-we-cant-have-nice-things-opinion/ With better construction practices, like a design-build contract instead of design-bid-build, the work could be done much faster. Safety regulations are also costly, but make the new line better than the older ones in the long run. Of course, we could also take a time machine back to 1900, when there were no considerations for safety or quality-of-life, and a 4-track line from City Hall to 145 St could be completed in 4 years... Now let's talk about the benefits of these huge costs. The two-tracks not only save money, but with the spacing of the stations and their exits, it also saves time. With provisions for new CBTC signaling systems, many more trains can use the line per hour, and with the huge station mezzanines and column-less platforms, there is much more passenger capacity. The A/C is also comfortable for riders who just want to chill (pun intended) after a hot summer day, or warm up during the frigid winter. Plus, the tracks are quieter and the rails aren't as bumpy. I know the cost is a big problem. It is more expensive than any other modern urban subway project on earth. There are problems with that, but they can be fixed with better management and coordination. I think you could shave $1.5 to $2 billion off Phase 2 just by building 116 Street as a side-platform station with no crossover, using design-build, and having better communication between the different construction firms on site. tl;dr version: Maybe half the cost is worth it. It will inevitably be expensive, but it's half worth its cost.

I think we could improve terminals at several locations before extending any lines or line capacity. Some suggestions: 95 St - make some storage tracks south of the station Jamaica Ctr - build double crossovers on both levels east of the station and relocate the switches on both levels to just west of the station Pelham Bay Pk - make some storage tracks north of the station 8 Av - make some storage tracks west of the station E 105 St - build an extra platform on the east side track, for trains that are terminating/originating from Canarsie Yard, and build a new switch from the two mainline tracks to that third track just north of the station Coney Island - relocate the switches to just east of the station 205 St - more storage tracks east of the station? Flatbush Av , Astoria Blvd , and 207 St could be improved later. Also, storage tracks east of Queensbridge can be built to store eastbound short-turning trains and possibly provide provisions for a Queens Bypass later. I know this'll probably not happen (especially the idea with Pelham Bay Pk storage tracks and the E 105 St platform) but we need to get these off the table before any real extensions can be proposed.

The fact that the Q48, M60, Q70, and Q72 run in mixed, on-street traffic basically negates the benefits that a busway would provide. All of these routes would be stuck in local traffic on Astoria and Junction Blvds or Roosevelt Av. The AirTrain is a boondoggle, but the underlying local-traffic issues need to be addressed first for the busway to be useful. ---- Anyway, back to topic... So maybe the Second Avenue Subway could get an airport connection elsewhere, this time to JFK. This might involve the RBB, or crazy plans like linking the Archer Av line to the JFK AirTrain. This will probably not happen though. I found an even more preposterous idea in http://library.rpa.org/pdf/RPA-Creating-a-One-Seat-Ride-to-JFK.pdf that suggests "Super Express with New Tunnels" running right under the middle of Queens. Yeah, right...

The Q52 and Q53 are, in turn, supplements to the Q11 and Q21. On a related note, I really don't know why the Q21 is still a separate route, now that the Q41 and Q11 overlap it for its entire route, and the Q52 took its Rockaway portion. I remember when the Q41 went only between Rockaway Blvd and Beach 67 St . Shouldn't the Q21 be Q52 local, or the Q52 LTD be the Q21 LTD, or something?

It might work, since there is a connection to the at Roosevelt (taking off some of the pressure from riders transferring from the to the Q53 at 61 St-Woodside and 74 St). Also, it serves as another way to get to LGA airport from the .

I I see your point. But short of reactivating the RBB, the only real way to resolve this would be SBS on the Woodhaven corridor, which I won't comment on. This would help Broadway riders a little, but not much. Without SBS, the MTA won't really be incentivized to improve Q53 reliability, and bus lanes wouldn't work on Broadway like they do on Woodhaven due to Broadway's narrowness. What I'm saying is that the Q53 should at least get better service somehow. I'm just proposing some ideas, but no solution is perfect.

That, or it could be integrated within the new terminals and run at about ground level along the GCP.

Wasn't the original purpose of the Q53 to replace the Rockaway Beach Branch to Rock Park? (https://www.newspapers.com/image/53870282/) The Q52 does the same thing, except to Beach 67 St only. There are big problems with the perennially delayed Q53, but not with the Q52 from what I've seen. IIRC, the Q53 essentially replaces the Rock Park portion of the RBB, and the Q52 just has five stops in the Rockaways not served by the Q53. I proposed extending Q52 to 74 St to alleviate the crowds there, but I guess half of Q52s and Q53s could use Queens Blvd, 65 Pl, and Woodside Av to go to the Woodside-61st St LIRR station with no intermediate stops, with the other half short-turning at Woodhaven.

When the starts terminating at Bedford Av, will it still be CBTC operation, or will it be manually operated? I don't think high frequency is necessarily needed for ATO, but I'm just wondering.

Sorry Lance, I can't see the post. It's either private or has been deleted. I did see a poster about this in E Bway yesterday, though.

The MTA probably will convert at least some of the R160s before they retire, mostly because the all need a 100% CBTC-equipped fleet by the time the Queens Blvd and 8th Av CBTC projects are completed. The R211s won't be enough to provide all the CBTC fleet. Also, operating non-CBTC cars on a line with CBTC enabled and in active operation would cause major headaches for these lines. It's the reason why the doesn't have any R32s or R42s even though it comes out of a yard that does have these stock.

Actually, the el can still be extended, even onto Ditmars, if there is a sharp right turn like the one east of Crescent St . With a really sharp turn, only the TD Bank at the southeast corner of 31st and Ditmars would need to be demolished. Of course, with current sentiments, the el would never be extended, not even to the north to 20th Av.

I think that for this weekend at least, when they decided to extend the , they used ten-car R160s. I have a photo of the train: https://imgur.com/gallery/BeBml

My bad. Then the will have a huge 260-car surplus that ENY can't use for the most part. None of these routes are planned to be extended in the near future, and any bumps in service frequencies could be handled by 6 or 8 four-car sets of R179s, not all 40 or so of the 's 4-car sets (including spares). The rest of the B division could technically have enough R211 cars for a 10-car train if the MTA orders the expansion pack of 520 cars, but I doubt that the will get 10-car trains just because current ridership growth doesn't justify it. If the SAS Phase 3 gets built, which I doubt it will within the next century, there would be 330 R211s needed for the , and the 190 remaining cars would be just enough to cover the without any spares. It would be much cheaper to convert the R160s to CBTC then to create all-new B-cars for the four-car R179 sets (to lengthen the R179 s to ten cars).

I see your point about Hoffman Drive layovers. When I meant that the Q52 can help on weekdays, I was saying that crowding isn't as bad on weekends. Sure, there's crowds, but it's not the four-buses-long crowds seen during the PM peak. I guess extending the Q52 is a little unnecessary, since the Q53 makes all the Q52 stops except in the Rockaways. At the very least though, the Q53 needs better service.

Since Astoria is on an elevated structure, it could be extended relatively easily. Unlike other terminals like 242 St or Woodlawn, the tracks aren't obstructed by any station houses; only a billboard stands in the way. The tracks go right up to the billboard's edge. (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7756192,-73.9113722,3a,75y,48.13h,102.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdzunQPlci4ml0P0-V9PUYA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1) At Main St, there used to be trackways east of the end of the platforms, which were either covered up or filled in after the station was renovated in 1999 and the new Lippmann Plaza entrance was built.

OK, thanks. That would still mean that the southbound would need to either run via the to avoid conflicting with terminating trains, or operate a severely reduced service with S/B s and terminating trains running on the same track at Queensbridge's S/B platform. But I see what you're saying.