Deucey

I don’t think 32,000 people on Saturdays and 29,000 on Sundays are riding the Blue Line from Downtown Long Beach to 7th St Metro Center in Downtown LA for work...

In all honesty, with the way traffic goes on Fordham west of the Concourse, taking away the parking lanes to make it general traffic so pylons could be built for an aerial LRT would be a good thing. So would taking parking lanes away and making a Fordham LRT operate like the DC Streetcar, San Diego Trolley or Sacramento Light Rail - curbside service. Or, leave the parking, reduce Fordham to one general traffic lane in each direction and putting LRT on pylons in the middle - that would slow down the traffic via traffic calming, and make Vision Zero effective for once. (Cars race through between Jerome and the Deegan at close to 45 mph. So when this came up originally, I or someone else suggested doing RBB like it's part of Triboro Rx and connect it to the Bx and run the line down Fordham so it hits Manhattan.

I’m saying system ‘incompatibility’ is a poor reason to advocate subway over LRT in NYC since even the backbone - the subway - isn’t compatible with itself.

Not in San Francisco - which has steeper grades for its LRTs and cable cars than anything encountered in NYC. In NYC alone: • The subway isn’t a conforming operation. BMT east can’t hold 75 footers; BMT/IND can’t run on IRT lines • LIRR and MNCR can’t run on the subway • NJT can’t run through on MNCR or LIRR • PATH •HBLR Three different parent authorities, FIVE different operating agencies. Conformity is a non-issue. That doesn’t translate to an effective argument for a Fordham subway over a Fordham LRT - there already was a Fordham streetcar. And the issue along Fordham-Pelham isn’t access to Manhattan - it’s access to the access to Manhattan being extremely time-consuming before riding the local even when express variants are available (with emphasis on the 149th St bottleneck for ). Fordham-Pelham is just one line needed or useful. Cases could be made to restore the defunct streetcar lines with LRT at 145th, 155th, 167th and Tremont to give folks faster rides to than current bus service allow. Should be extended to do this too?

Hey, my thing since the beginning of this thread was build a Fordham LRT; the “foaming” is me saying “If you want a subway, here’s how I think it can be made useful for more than the Bronx and increase capacity/decrease loads in Manhattan.” But all that’s actually needed is a LRT from B-way to Pelham . Subway could be built, and with some actual planning could incorporate RBB AND be useful too. But with this extension stuff - de-interlined or not, I don’t see it doing anything except making excessively long and more unreliable while moving the SRO issue from Washington Heights to University Heights. And with , you now made a moderately reliable line less so because now it’s runtime has been extended AND it has a merge with because the 3rd track disappears after 145th and returns at Dyckman - at which point it’ll have a (likely level) junction to branch to Fordham OR, if it happens above 215th St, is now subject to more delays from two lines because of the Broadway Bridge. (And we haven’t even gotten to property destruction for these elevated junctions and tunnel portals.) But in the end, capacity hasn’t increased insofar as customer utilization, it’s only a capacity increase in regards to turning trainsets. Might be able to run more frequently with local between 145th and 59th, but on Fordham you just introduced more utilitization from Bronxites so now Uptowners are getting on to SRO trains or letting them pass until there’s space. (I used to live on 148th - three s would pass before I got on one because of loads at 175th and 168th.) Realistically, a stand-alone Fordham line is new capacity; linking it to SAS is new capacity. Extending existing heavily utilized lines is not.

I hate dissecting, but... IIRC, SAS was originally supposed to be a 3 or 4 track express. 90 years later and it was going to be a 3-track, then right before they put a TBM in the ground, they disregarded the already-built structures and made it a 2-track. Point being plans change. Lest we forget 6 Av express tracks weren't used for 25 years after 6 Av was opened, and the express tracks were deep-bored under the H&M tube - even though the idea/plan was for BOT/NYCTA to buy H&M instead of Port Authority. So it ain't hard - it's just expensive because views taxpayer money as an Amex Black card to spend with profligacy and enrich themselves and the corrupt contractors they use because they're not footing the bill - NYCers are. So what's a better way to piss away a shit-ton of money for transit - build an actual rail line that'll benefit 75-250k people daily, or to build another modern art cavern that doubles as a train station? If we're gonna do it, may as well do it right instead of going half-assed and creating problems for us a decade later that won't get fixed for 50 years... Even with or to Pelham, you're still: Halving capacity and frequency on the B-way/7th Local Creating another stupidly long monstrosity that will have delays and gaps as bad as and even . Most rapid transit lines finish their runs in 80 minutes or less just to avoid these sorts of issues (How LA will do it when the Blue and Pasadena Gold Lines, and the Expo and East LA Gold Lines merge, I dunno). The best way to create a reliable and useful line is to not make it long and dependent on everything working perfectly. A crosstown Fordham-Pelham line isn't meant to be a Manhattan trunk - it's a feeder. Instead of folks shlepping on the 12, or any of those other buses in the BX for an hour to get to a train that stops every other block for 30-45 minutes before 125th St, they get a train that connects them to those trains stopping at every other stop WITHOUT devoting an hour on an overcrowded bus that stops at every bodega between their home and the subway. Which is why I said: Maybe this would get 250k riders daily, but more than likely it'll be 50-75k if it's just a connecting LRT. Most LRTs operate within similar catchment areas as a Fordham-Pelham line and don't get much higher than that in ridership. But it's not meant to be a backbone, Fordham-Pelham is meant to be an upgrade that improves connections, reliability and traffic conditions. Now if you want it to be a subway, sure IRT-spec would be okay vs IND/BMT-spec, but if you want it to be useful to more NYers and more areas, it's going to have to integrate into SAS, it's gonna need an express component because of the distance travelled - whether doubled back to 207/Broadway or out to Bay Plaza/City Island - to ensure reliability, and it can't be operated like a Banker's Special BMT - up 3rd, Down Fordham, merged into 8th Av Line. That's a waste of resources. The Express tracks could go from B-way/207 to Fordham/3rd as a local; the local could go between Hanover Sq and Bay Plaza (or stop at Fordham/3rd, and the local Fordham-Pelham line follows the Bx12 and the old Fordham Streetcar. BUT, if you're worried about 's stupid decision to two-track the IND SAS, run the expresses down 1st Av after 125th St and bring back via deep bore with the QBL junction. It can be done; the problem is that the IOS was built with shortsightedness when two-tracked the extension, and current "thinking" is just as short-sighted. Like I said above:

How did a Fordham-207th/Pelham Line morph into a or extension? I ask because while it'd be "cool" for the to operate in 4/5 boroughs, along Fordham would turn into a 2+ hour headache with delays and gaps worse than already has. So for map-making, it's a nice exercise, but operationally, I don't see the point. What I do see, if sAS is ever built again, is two potential lines along Fordham: west to 207th St via Fordham & Landing Rd under 207th Yard to 207th from Manhattan via 3rd or Webster Avs, and a (U) east from Webster/Fordham over to Pelham or all the way to Bay Plaza, with maybe a Cross-Bronx local. With both halves of the line being 3 track with peak express. And I'm only seeing it that way just to relieve the Bx12, Bx15 and Bx55 since those routes have the worst problems - in my experience - of ruining days trying to get across the Bronx. Feel free to decimate this.

How are you supposed to see those on a packed train??? Other bad ideas that seemed smart: https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexfinnis/the-worst-ideas-ever?utm_term=.fnw8YJdEvN#.ennJNE6n0Z

It's already 30 minutes from Fordham/University to 168th St on , so even having go to Fordham/Jerome or Fordham/Concourse won't do anything really. Now a crosstown line on Fordham between 207th or and over to at least Pelham would relieve congestion on Fordham by reducing the number of Bx12s needed, and tying it into SAS via 3rd Av would reduce crowding on Bx55 and save time dealing with getting to Lexington Av...

“It’s the Miz-Zark chillin in the pix-zark” - earliest occurrence I can remember: https://g.co/kgs/Qja5N7

That’s what I thought - that the mid doors would have a more atrocious gap. I’ve been at stations with gaps (one of those Sea Beach stations uptown on almost got me one time), but this one at Bk Bridge was so surprising since I’ve made it off an R62 in the same scenario with no problem. That’s a helluva safety hazard though. Anyone think it possible to narrow that gap and have enough clearance for trains to operate?

So yeah, yesterday on a crowded AF , someone pushed me as I was getting off at Bk Bridge to let pax out, and my right foot got stuck between the platform and the train (car 7 of a 10-car consist). Is there some difference in R62 and R142 width or turning clearance that makes it to where the gap between the platform and R142s should be wide enough for a size 12 foot to fall and get stuck when exiting the train? Because it seems to me that should be making the gap narrower wherever possible. (I would've sued, but I walked it off after I got my foot out - took 20 seconds so I technically wasn't a sick passenger.)

A situation where Eminent Domain should've been used for what it was actually designed for..

I wouldn’t expect it on a poster, but I remember way back when Ben Kabak, and .info, would have the reasons posted with the service changes. For us transitheads, it was trivia but for the interested public, it was a window into what was meant by “Improving Nonstop.” (Although I don’t think changing the corporate slogan to something akin to ‘We suck but we’re trying’ did any favors.)

U I wonder if there’s a correlation between customer satisfaction and the period after stopped giving details of what’s being worked on when trains are rerouted for construction. That was like 2013 when they stopped explaining Weekend Services Updates?

The best thing they could do is connect the northbound track from Fulton St to the disused express track at Chambers and run the station as a 3-track/2-island - closing off the other platforms behind a wall like they did Bowery. But I gather they would’ve done that if it was possible and not expensive.

MTA board: “Alright, FINE Andrew!!! Put your lipsticks on pigs.” The City’s board members voted no. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mta-votes-cuomo-1b-plan-pretty-subway-stations-article-1.3836591

Hence the "May be" I posted originally. We all know that if RBB was worth it as a rail corridor, LIRR wouldn't have abandoned it and NYCTA would've activated it. That fact is lost on many. But in the idea of a crosstown to Jamaica, if it's an LRT from Coney Island through Canarsie to Jamaica and up to the Q/Bx Bridges, it MAY find some usefulness for folks that get stuck on the GCP/NSP and Belt/SSP and the Cross Island during rush hour going towards Garden City. But given at the bridges those folks already have an LIRR line, and at Coney Island it isn't that far a ride to Atlantic Terminal (plus this LRT would cross the LIRR after Nostrand Station), its usefulness might be 20k people a day. Still not worth building. But as a busway to prove that folks along the Van Wyck need a rail line, sure, why not? If It fails, we can turn it into a HOV toll road or get rid of it and build housing. Or build that park.

Which is why RBB may be better as a connector to the LIRR and transit deserts in Q and a Bay Ridge to Canarsie crosstown, since it'd relieve some traffic of the Belt and SSP, and the Cross Island. Going to Manhattan does nothing to enhance capacity, but orienting it towards people who commute to LI and to outer boroughs may make it worth the construction costs and reduce congestion and pollution - even if built as a LRT or busway. And by connecting it to Jamaica, all the Ozone Park folks have easy access to and to Manhattan, and both Sixth Av and Broadway via transfer.

Werd. It's sad that folks are thinking that "If you build it, they will come" actually works, and that because there's capacity on a railine it'll be used, and used beneficially instead of efficiently. We all know that Express doesn't save much time over local for most trips. Especially now with the timers and dwelling delays, signal and switch problems and the ever present "Train traffic ahead." Yet to go from TSQ to 14th St we'll hop on before , or over because the formers have fewer stops than the latters even though the latters will arrive 1 minute before the formers. Factor in that anyone along RBB already has a long commute to Manhattan using NYCT services under status quo, those same folks will switch from the fantasy to as soon as they stop at an Express stop. Meaning the folks from Jamaica and Sutphin will now be packed worse and further delayed accommodating new riders - in the "Build it they'll come" fantasy. All these fantasists should be exploring, if RBB is that important, where to build new trunks to relieve QBL Express instead of hoping folks will opt to stay in seats on the trains that stop at every damn station. But they're not.

LRT on the Orange Line is a long-term thing for Metro - 2030s at the earliest. And they couldn’t build it as LRT because of laws and ordinances that prevented using federal and state funds and creating taxes for rail (because of the old RTD acting like and pissing away money on the Red Line) until they were repealed in the 00’s. Now they’re upgrading part of it to an elevated roadway to get more capacity for the buses AND semi-lobbying CPUC to allow 65 ft buses because of ridership/demand. So there’s that. RBB is a nice-to-have but won’t be utilized enough to justify rail because it doesn’t do anything more effectively than taking the or the QBL. But put a BRT on it so folks in Ozone Park can get to QBL, JFK or the faster, and you’ve now made it worth the construction cost. Let’s not ignore that if rail on it was a good idea, LIRR would’ve fixed it after the fire or NYCTA would’ve ran trains on it instead of letting it fall apart.

Finally let me have one, eh Bob? ;-}

I think the point is that current governance and operations of is not fit for purpose. i personally favor - as stated many times, an independent authority separately incorporated from the city and state and governed by officials either elected to the board directly or are ex officio members by being elected boro president, and with dedicated revenue streams separate from city and state grants-in-aid or grants-in-funding. Decisions about travel in these boroughs/counties should be made by people in these boroughs/counties, not by legislators and governors 3 hours away, since they’re not only not in the service area long enough, they’re also responsible to make sure Buffalo and Syracuse’s priorities are heard and fixed. State Legislatures and executives make horrible local planners in the US and Westminster systems.

Two people separated by a common language, we are.

California transit isn't privatized. Transdev/Veolia or whatever they're called and Laidlaw may franchise some routes, but except for small Muni systems and Amtrak California between the Valley and the Bay, all transit systems employ staff directly. The difference between the Northeast and California (and the West Coast at large) is that the state(s) doesn't control the systems - the localities do. The state may have a board member in exchange for providing funds, but the rest of the board is either elected by the cities and counties, or the city and county politicians are on the board ex officio, so their careers in their elected offices are affected by their efficacy in transportation planning - roads, transit, taxation, etc. The fact that , NJT and MBTA are state agencies doing local planning (ostensibly) means that doing what's right for the metro area takes a backseat to statewide priorities. It makes no logical sense that the guy who has to prioritize roadbuilding in Buffalo, Springfield or Trenton also has to day-to-day manage transit in NYC, JC or Boston. That "multitasking" does no one any benefit - but it was done I'm guessing to prevent an unelected Robert Moses from showing up again (notwithstanding the 5¢ fare). But instead of diffusing power like West coast libertarian progressivism did (which is a bipartisan thing), the "big boss" went from being a bureaucrat to being the governor. Just like with schools and water, the West Coast runs public benefit corporations/districts via commission with locals on the commission - since locals are more knowledgeable about local needs. I wouldn't expect Jerry Brown or Führer Schwarzenegger to be intimately knowledgeable about traffic patterns on Crenshaw Boulevard or in San Diego and make smart decisions about what to fund just like the Duke of Albany wasn't regarding capacity when he decided to build his AirTrain from Flushing to LGA instead of from LIC or Astoria. But I'd expect the LA and San Diego county supervisors and city council members to be - just like I expect Bill DeBlasio and the Borough Presidents to be - and that's reflected in the planning and lobbying. It's not about privatizing - it's about local control and elected accountability.