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.


Senior Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Deucey last won the day on December 5 2018

Deucey had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,328 Excellent

Social Info

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • Location
    Staten Island

Recent Profile Visitors

1,667 profile views
  1. Rush jobs cause people to rush. Rushing leads to errors. Errors lead to...
  2. Aside from the fact that Manhattan has to have the brightest and shiniest just so elites and tourists are “impressed”, unless the RTS’ break down more often or the areas they serve have more people with mobility impairments that make high-floor boarding difficult compared to others, this is a manufactured controversy.
  3. To be fair, every place offering OWL service either short lines a daytime route or combines multiple routes, so @Lil 57 isn’t off the mark in concept with SI. It’s just on SI the market for that isn’t St George to below the SIE. It’d really be a nicer idea to have OWL circulators below the SIE - could reduce drunk driving down there. But north shore? Aside from S44 stopping at midnight, and S52 stopping at 1 and leaving Jersey St and points east miles away from a bus line, our service doesn’t suck all that much.
  4. But there’s already 24/7 bus service in the city, and on SI. Notwithstanding that: on SI practically everything of interest closes by midnight, and there isn’t a lot of travel by us North Shore folks to South Shore destinations, I don’t think an OWL network would actually work (even though your S378 would mean I wouldn’t have to walk up the stairs at St Peters to go home - which is a plus); and lest we forget, was/is looking at reducing overnight service to hourly. Now in Manhattan, if there was an OWL system duplicating subway service, that could work for both actual subway shutdowns and enhancing customer safety.
  5. Can I just something obvious but overlooked? If the only way maintenance can be done is piecemeal in abbreviated time windows like overnight hours, and service must still be run, mistakes and lazy maintenance like these train incidents will happen. And if this is happening on an above-ground viaduct, imagine what’ll happen with this half-assed years-long partial shutdown.
  6. In my mind, to Astoria and to Forest Hills could avoid a reorganized entire B division - since it’s essentially just swapping termini. Kinda feel like the whole “No Yard for the R” thing is an excuse to be lazy since if one actually was needed before the 1986 reroute, the BMT probably would’ve built one. But... Because doing the swap does cause a service reduction of sorts on QBL because is supplemental, and in this scenario a to Whitehall and 71st would need to be a primary... Yeah, I talked myself into agreeing with you somewhat more than in theory.
  7. Nice but unnecessary capital project: Replace the els with concrete viaducts that reduce noise and vibrations, and require fewer stanchions. Three birds with one stone.
  8. Notwithstanding Ed Mangano being horrible, NICE exists because was bad at running MSABA. It can’t even run NYCT well. So expanding its operations is a “No”. But it is nice that all metrocards work on BeeLine and NICE - even the unlimiteds.
  9. It’s a closed door thing - BeeLine only drops off once they enter the city, and picks up as they leave. i believe provides some funding for BeeLine, NICE and SCT, but don’t quote me on that.
  10. I cited SF for this. Unlike places that have done this, there is no direct route between South Bk and Queens that 1) doesn't go through residential areas and 2) separates vehicles from pedestrians. Dunno the truck usage stats, but there's enough big rig and box truck traffic on the BQE (and Canal St - for comparative sake) that a highway is justified. I don't think a Sheridan Bl or West St solution is a viable one, but on the same note, rebuilding the route as is isn't necessarily the best solution either.
  11. There aren't many that do in my experience. I've only done it on BART, Airtrain and WMATA. But excluding Airtrain, those systems that do tend to get decent local and/or state subsidy or reimbursement, so that would have to be factored in if distance-based fares are a "no." But aside from the real beggars, a "pay 40 fares and ride unlimited" scheme could reduce begging since now folks would be incentivized to use their own money to ride. What you'd have to worry about is pooling - occasional riders using the same OMNY to get unlimited quickly.
  12. But that 153k would be on streets trying to go to North Brooklyn and Queens - making congestion worse (especially since DOT will always find a reason to signalize as many intersections as possible). It was NBD to remove the Embarcadero Freeway in SF - the thing collapsed in 89, and the bulk of Bay Bridge traffic went south while the Embarcadero went to the SF north shore. And for folks that want to avoid SF local traffic, they can go on 101 to 280 and take Highway 1 to the Golden Gate Bridge, or bypass SF altogether and take 580 in Oakland to Marin. Brooklyn and Queens dont have alternate routes like that. BQE is a necessity for interborough travel. Tunneling it may be expensive, but it's an option that should be explored - even if it's a cut-and-cover. It reconnects the waterfront with the interior, and removes an eyesore.
  13. Is that the only part you read? (Intolerable means "unable to be endured", or "not able to tolerate" - ie the long waits for a train at 4th Av stations.)
  14. Not to mention that removing it really would make traffic worse - since there's no cross-Bk highway to Long Island, and it'd make FDR and Bk-Q roads worse because there'd be no "expressway" connecting the two boroughs. Great for congestion charges; bad for quality of life and air quality. I'd be okay if they put it in a tunnel like the Big Dig in Boston and that one in Seattle - Alaskan Way (?).

  • Create New...

Important Information

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