RR503

I agree with you on to LIE. This whole plan seems like a lot for nothing, Isn't it much simpler and much more direct to get N Queens capacity with an extension up 10th/86th/Northern Boulevard? Rearranging all these 6th avenue/SAS/South Brooklyn services just strikes me as overly complex and highly disruptive, not to mention illegal given you're appropriating freight ROWs for subway service... Now about the -- yes I did know that. You must remember though that these community groups exist for the sole purpose of elevating those who hate change. Regardless of whether the change would be beneficial, people will oppose it because they want things to be "the way they always were." I'm sure if you asked actual QB subway riders at the time, they'd be all for more Manhattan service. That is where the VAST majority of commuters on the corridor go, so designing service that goes, well, there, will always get points from them. The reason the wasn't cut back was that the MTA didn't want to run the nights and weekends, and needed a second service on QB. Then in 2010, when service cuts came along, they cut it due to low ridership. And the reason they extended it to church was to facilitate the Culver rebuild, and the reason they kept it is that more service is always better. I never said the didn't get used at all -- I said Manhattan services were more useful. Given that we can't add another Manhattan to Culver service, why not. Now a word on transfers from an extended . Queens Boulevard is one of the most chronically overcrowded corridors in the city. As such, to discourage the creation of unsafe platform conditions, the aim of service planning there is to create services that go exactly where people want without transfers. By going to Manhattan, the accomplish that. The does not.

express 96-145 trains in the tube reverse out, discharge at 149, and head back north. trains hold until the s clear and then terminate at 149. trains on the to 145, then terminate (there's a switch n/b exp->local between 137 and 145) runs with delays. service then from 180 to Dyre, Flatbush to Burnside. from Wakefield to 149, 110 to Flatbush. 96-Brighton in two sections: CI to Atlantic ( local), and 205 to WTC or 2nd avenue via CPW express, 8th ave local.

You can't run the on 8th ave without having to terminate it in Manhattan somewhere -- no way to access exp tracks south of W4

Yeah no. Lets do some addition. There are currently 15 trains per hour on Queens Boulevard Express. There are also 15 trains. That adds to 30. With the current signal system, only 30 trains per hour can run on the express tracks. They are therefore at capacity. Even with CBTC, you would not be able to provide any meaningful level of train service via express, to say nothing of the fact that the attachment provisions head to the local tracks. As for the bypass, its highest and best use is to provide the necessary capacity for second avenue service to the Queens Corridor -- including areas east of Rego Park. The RBB, while important, will never attain the same ridership numbers as the QC in general, so when building new lines to serve the area, we must plan accordingly. Local service will be more than adequate, and honestly isn't actually much slower. Ending QB Local - RBB trains at 2av or WTC will overfill WTC and lose the Jamaica/Myrtle - 6th ave connection. Just extend the -- the has 49 stops while the currently only has 35. It can be done. 1 stop on Queens Boulevard will lose useful train service -- 67th ave. No new local service needs to be added there -- the frequency can just be increased as the Forest Hills layups will finally have capacity to spare. Also the is a completely useless waste of track capacity -- it doesn't serve manhattan. You're asking for more platform issues at QP/Roosevelt.

I would also check out the book "Routes not Taken" -- gives a good overview of the line's history. If you want info on the current iteration, read the various EISs. They'll tell all.

A board member asked about cost reductions during the meeting. Lhota rambled and gave no real answer, talking about design-build, efficiencies, "cost control," etc. No big acceptance of the fact that we're a hot mess in terms of cap costs.

Speaking of, why is that project taking so long? Whenever I pass there, it seems like completion is still pretty far away. Late 2018 seems ridiculous for 2 low ridership stations -- the Culver renovations will be done in less time.

Whelp, there goes flexibility... Please dear god tell me they're putting crossovers west of the station also...

Stop with the LRT... You all do know that if you will take the time punishment of the loop in sunnyside, and reactivate the Montauk Cutoff, you can send trains directly into Penn (and GCT when ESA is done) from the branch, right?

Eh I like it. Reminiscent of route bullets. (Testing the new forum on my phone)

Then schedule trains to run in batteries of 2. Going NB they'll both be just leaving their terminals, so that shouldn't be too hard to do. SB, either build an xfer to rockaway blvd, or just wait. Remember also that the 5 RH trains to Rock Pk will go to Mott.

I am too. Politicians will want service that is at least superficially reliable. And I think even they will realize that the and exist to get people to/from Lower Manhattan. Trains don't have natural routes. They have sensible routes. The would be yardless if it runs to Astoria. So no.

Knock yourself out. http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tecur.pdf http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/tmcur.pdf QP to Roos via local: 10-11 mins Via express: 7 to 8 mins (remember that this doesn't take into acount the merge with the ) Really unless the exp is across the platform, you're better off local.

So agree. It's an elevated route so litttle digging required. This in 2017 is shameful.

The is local. So most of the riders that you say will flock to the will also flock to the because it's express and NYers love that. As for Northern, plans actually don't show it doing that. It is supposed to go under the Yard, and join up that way. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1412975 And you definitely can't put a station there, unless you want to spend untold billions working it between ESA, QBL, and the supports for the Astoria line. 1. Sure, but it's all about perception. Think of how little temporal difference vs makes QP<-> Roosevelt, yet which one is chronically overcrowded? 2. " " 3. And you expect that reality to continue if this is actually proposed/built? Infrastructure is ~90% politics. You have to remember that.

I literally just said that was illegal. Subway cars CAN NOT share tracks with freight. Subway crashworthiness standards are dictated by the FTA and freight by the FRA, and given the laws above, converting the tracks to FTA standards is out of the question.

They can't. As I said, they need to switch cars all day. And guess what. They have a legal right to do so. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/10907 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/10901 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/11/1170 https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/labor_law/2012/03/railway_airline_labor_law_committee_midwinter_meeting/mw2012rla_edelman.authcheckdam.pdf Gamble.....failed. I work on the LMB for the MTA (as a consultant). Perfectly legal as long as crash compliant.

The will be Eastern Queens's trouble-free route to Manhattan -- and a way for those very bus riders you mention on Woodhaven to get an express. If you think your will get ridership, the will too. Also: 3/5 of the stops between Forest Hills and Jackson Heights are top 100. I'd count those as both busy, and not served, no? As for nothern boulevard, you are once again making the bypass local, and therefore politically untenable. And FWIW, Northern Boulevard and the bypass don't intersect.

1 is impossible because of Fresh Pond Yard which switches cars for all of LI and therefore requires service all day. 2 is illegal. Disrupting commerce and forcing abandonment are 2 things that would not go over well with the STB. Any new owner of a rail line is required to serve customers on that line by law and the MTA obviously couldn't do that.

It's actually illegal to put light rail per se on the LMB -- you'd interrupt freight service because light rail vehichles can't share track with freight. Because of common carrier obligations, and the paramount nature of interstate commerce, any action to add non-freight compatible service to the branch would be prohibited by the STB. You'd have to do any Lower Montauk trainsit service as a true heavy-rail endeavour, run by the LIRR or something, and with no physical connections to the subway system. Your first is exactly what I'd do (except I'd send it somewhere on the N so you pick up 45 and 53rd). The 2nd-6th.......

I will bite, one last time. Even with Woodside and RP stations, most Queens Boulevard local riders still won't get nearby SAS service. People will take a 3 legged transfer over a 15-25 minute walk (which is approx what it is from QBL stations that are not Woodhaven Boulevard). So you still are denying these people access. I disagree with you on the . The stations west of 71st ave (incl. Archer) have massive riderships too, (4 or 5 in the top 100, I don't remember), and if given the opportunity to transfer to a Manhattan-bound train that avoids the crowds at Roosevelt, they by all means will. I also forsee a massive shift in ridership to the bypass -- people can take the express there, which will be a major plus for us speed-loving New Yorkers. Also, once again, it's a way to avoid Roosevelt (which is a local stop on the because it was built before the QBL line was even a dream, btw). Furthermore, the won't pull ridership from the , it'll actually pull from the , and . I also don't understand how you can claim both to be giving west-of-71sters service and that it somehow won't be "slammed" if it runs on the bypass. Finally, I just find your logic amusing. In essence, you are saying we should not give riders service because (god forbid!) they will use it. That sounds like something some stereotypically cynical bureaucrat would say. Yes, you have a stop in Rego Park and in Woodside, but unless you build the Bypass as a local line, you are still leaving the majority of west-of-71sters without SAS service. I find that unacceptable, especially given that so little would have to be changed to make this work. This isn't an operational or structural problem, it's a philosophical one. To you, the being crowded is an issue to be avoided, even if it means taking the service away from those who need it. I disagree. To me, good transportation is a right, not a privilege. If a service is being used heavily, that means success. We have created something people want, and use. Then we think of solutions -- whether that be squeezing more tph out of CBTC, removing seats, using open-gangway cars, or something wholly unconceivable to us residents of the present. We do not cower from problems, for if we do, we are not doing our jobs. The subway serves the people, not the other away around.

It is literally a 3 legged transfer. I'm sorry, but either you don't know what the term means, or you're hoping I miss you saying it. Leg 1 (QB local station) to Roosevelt via or Leg 2 Roosevelt to Queensbridge via Leg 3 Queensbridge to 2nd ave via The SAS will cover the stops west of 71st either way -- it makes zero difference to those riders whether it goes via bypass or QB express. You see, saying things like "But the bypass would greatly alleviate congestion on QB enough that there wouldn't really be demand to swap the and SAS because they think service is fine as-is, and wouldn't really make sense" is basically using the assumption that you're right to prove you're right. For the 1001st time, there will be demand for SAS on QB west of FHills as long as there is a subway line there. Manhattan's east side is being upzoned, and will soon see a spurt of commercial construction, precipitating job creation yada yada yada (the existing market between the two is already large enough to justify a service, but not the issue here). And even if Queens Boulevard magically becomes empty, free of SROed trains, more options does indeed still = better. Queens Boulevard congestion will not be relieved of its ridership burden in any meaningful manner by the Bypass -- those extra 15 tph will be filled quickly with commuters owing to the lovely principle of induced demand, along with the reality of job growth. But that isn't the point here. The point here is that you continually refuse to accept the stark reality that at NO COST TO ANYONE, we can provide commuters with better subway options. Putting the on Queens Boulevard itself gives riders at all Queens Boulevard stations access to every single B division trunk in manhattan without having to transfer more than once. And at what cost? Riders west of Forest Hills lose a redundant express service (big deal, local is 2 minutes longer), while those east gain an alternate route through queens, one that avoids crowding at jackson heights. So if this isn't a good idea, pray, cogently explain why. I'll be here, eating popcorn.

Where's the capacity?

Yes, but exactly because there is no Concoure/CPW bypass or connection to another trunk being considered, it makes no sense. If one of those was being considered, I would absoloutely be for removing one 8th or 6th ave service in order to give riders more options. Because that's what they want. See where your reasoning beyond that falls apart is here: "But I feel riders are only complaining about the OOS transfer at Lex-63, also riders can switch at Roosevelt Island or 21 St-Queensbridge for east side service on the in my plan. Riders from QB wanting east side service, should take the to the aforementioned destinations and transfer." If you ran the on Queens Boulevard itself, they would not have to do a 3 legged transfer to get to the , they would just make one, simple across the platform switch. No crowding, no pain, simplicity. Riders east of 71st wanting 6th avenue (or that area of midtown in general) would take the , reducing crowding there. West of there, 6th avenue riders have the , Broadway , 8th and 2nd . And it doesn't matter that the Bypass is parallel to QB -- it is a BYPASS. Note that bypass means few or no stations.

The number of people who use the and to get to the financial district from Jamaica is VASTLY outnumbered by the riders who get on at intermediate stations. Given that the needs of the many should be served over those of the few, I think it's time skip stop was ended. Riders will save vastly more in halved wait times than skipped stations.