LGA Link N Train

5 minutes ago, Lex said:

I guess you're not familiar with the propulsion systems of the railroads' rolling stock starting from the M7s...

I don't pay too much attention to propulsion systems from the railroad side of things so no.

On 2/23/2022 at 1:19 PM, Lawrence St said:

The does not have CBTC enabled north of 71st St, unless they expanded the program limits?

Some company called Mitsubishi Electric won a bid to install CBTC Ground Equipment between Union Turnpike and Jamaica-179th. I assume the Archer Avenue Branch would be included in this though thats a different topic for a different day, here if you want to read it:

https://railf.jp/news/2022/02/22/010000.html

Now in regards to PSD's, I guess they make sense for these 3 stations. The  and are entirely CBTC while the is still in the process of getting CBTC throughout its line and all run NTT's. The real question would be is if these trains get half height or full height PSD's. Either way, all of this seems to be reactive in typical fashion.

Small idea thats been on my head. Now while Whitestone is mostly Residential, what if we were to "restore" rail service to that area.

Line Branch to Whitestone. Trains would branch off at Willets Point and the Whitestone Expressway will be rebuilt to accommodate rail service while serving the neighborhood (and to relieve congestion at Main Street). Stops would be the following:

- Northern Blvd (could be an infill stop)

- Linden Place (handful of bus connections and businesses in that area)

- 20th Avenue 
- 14th Avenue

- Whitestone-154th Street.

Doing this could help better serve College Point and Whitestone and relieve a little bit of congestion at Flushing. I understand that Northeast Queens is more dense SOUTH of Northern Blvd but this proposal would be ONE way of filling in the gap of a Transit Desert.

Something that I've been thinking about recently is what impact would a fully realized IBX have on the rest of the system in terms of how we run service? (This includes both the Subway and Bus Network)

Today’s run went smoothly. I’m happy

20 minutes ago, Mtatransit said:

And these people wants to work for the  in the future?

what a way to start a reputaion from their end

3 hours ago, R32 3838 said:

 

These aren't Nerds, These are f**king low life thugs that belong in f**king jail.

 

Every god damn trip there was an incident, Couldn't even f**king enjoy the damn train.

 

But The reason why these f**king animals do what they do is because their parents and our politicians make f**king excuses for these a**holes.

Boot camp needs to be mandatory for these Bastards.    

 

 

Too easy! 

I’m certain that everyone is tired of these foamers ruining it for the rest of us and giving the Transit Community a bad name. And come to think of it, that is a trend with every trip… do these kids have nothing better to do?

What a mess. I’m planning to attend the 2nd and 3rd trips (if they happen). I hope things are more orderly in the next Farewell trips

12 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

There will be many elevator installations across the system over the next decade. I think the original plan was for passengers to not be more than two stations away from an ADA accessible station. 

Pretty Sure thats still the plan. By any chance, do you or anyone else here know which stations are set to become ADA Accessible within the next year?

3 hours ago, Lex said:

Was there a horse?

Maybe, although I still prefer building a flyover at Myrtle Junction given how popular the current day  service is. I just wanted to play with a new idea.

Werid idea I saw posted on a Discord server a few weeks ago and I thought of sharing here because it intriuged me.

Hypothetical: Metropolitan Avenue - Prospect Park. The idea here is to connect the Myrtle and Franklin Lines in order to provide a small circumfremental line throughout Brooklyn while simultaneously allowing for Jamaica Peak Express Service to be extended to Broadway Junction and increasing line Capacity. The Myrtle Avenue Upper Level would be rebuilt to accomodate heavier weight trains (just like in the Myrtle Flyover proposals). The Franklin line would be re-extended to 2 tracks with each Platform being reaccommodated to handle up to 8 car trains. Stops in between would be the following:

Gates Avenue

DeKalb Avenue (Maybe)

Marcy Avenue (to provide transfer with the line. (Is the demolition of the Myrtle EL why theres that empty space on both platforms at that station?)

Pros: - 2 Seperate Portions of Brooklyn are now connected by rail, with the providing direct links to up to 10 subway lines.

- Service can now be increased up to 24 TPH and Peak Direction Service can now run East to Broadway Junction. 

- Queens Blvd would get a 10% Capacity increase as the would need to be reintroduced, but with the Culver Express being a thing, I'd have it run to Church Avenue so that the could handle that service

Cons - Myrtle Loses Direct Manhattan Service

- Emininent Domain Required

- Essex Street would need an expansion to prevent overcrowding

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Has any consideration ever been given to reconfiguring Rogers so the  go to/from Flatbush and the  go to/from Utica/New Lots? This would require some construction, but pretty much the only option that wouldn't require any construction would be  to Flatbush/  to/from Utica/New Lots.

Well if you rebuild Rogers into a Y-Junction, sure. That isn’t a new idea (it is one that I’ve warmed up to) whatsoever as referenced here: 

http://www.vanshnookenraggen.com/_index/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/IRT-Nostrand-Junction-Report.pdf

also, I may be in the minority here, but I don’t see the Yard Issue being a big deal under a  to Flatbush,  Utica/New Lots alignment under the condition that the R262’s completely replaced the R62/62A’s. It would just be a similar case with the . 

Who says you need to abandon 50th Upper under an  Express;  Local alignment and vice versa? Wouldn’t that be shortsighted thinking because lets say a G.O. Or delay requiring reroutes happens. You’ll still need those platforms ready for use in case something happens.

Not his exact quote but thats what I interpreted from him.

Here's the article in question: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2021/07/29/mta-to-get-new--acting--chief-as-agency-undergoes-leadership-shakeup

Quote

MTA to get new 'acting' chief as agency undergoes leadership shakeup

By Dan Rivoli and Spectrum News Staff New York City

UPDATED 2:05 PM ET Jul. 29, 2021 PUBLISHED 6:00 AM ET Jul. 29, 2021

The MTA's construction chief, Janno Lieber, will become the agency's chief executive officer in an acting capacity on Saturday, Gov. Andrew Cuomo confirmed in a statement Thursday.

This decision follows a failed attempt by Cuomo, who controls the MTA, to overhaul the agency's leadership. Lawmakers in Albany did not act on Cuomo's proposal to split the role of board chair and CEO into two positions.

What You Need To Know:

• Janno Lieber, the MTA's chief development officer, will become acting MTA CEO and chairman
• Lieber replaces Patrick Foye, the current MTA CEO and chairman, who is stepping down to lead the Empire State Development Corporation
• Gov. Cuomo proposed to split the role of CEO and board chair into two posts, but Albany lawmakers did not act on it

Cuomo nominated Lieber, the MTA's chief development officer, to become its permanent chief executive. Cuomo then nominated Sarah Feinberg, currently the MTA's interim president of New York City Transit, to become chair of the board.

Feinberg told NY1 she is stepping down from her post, after leading the agency in charge of subway, bus and paratransit operations during the coronavirus pandemic.

"I was always actually leaving the transit presidency this week," she told NY1. "The hope was that I would go on to become the first woman chair of the MTA. That's in flux."

The governor's statement Thursday indicated that that split is still in the state's plans, as it said that Lieber will serve "while legislation to proceed with [Feinberg's] nomination as Board Chair awaits approval from the State Senate."

"For three years now, I've been advocating that that job should be split," Feinberg said. It should be a CEO and a board chair, and the reason is this: It's a multibillion-dollar agency. It's a 72,000-person workforce. On its best day, it is big, it is unwieldy, and it is multiple challenges on every front."

"I am excited to get to work leading the MTA's continued recovery from the pandemic, though I am disappointed I won't yet be working alongside my supremely qualified friend Sarah Feinberg," Lieber said in a statement. "We are still counting on the Senate to act on the Governor's proposal and approve her historic nomination as the MTA's first woman Chair."

It has not been announced who will take over the role of president at NYC Transit.

The current MTA chairman and CEO, Patrick Foye, is leaving the agency on Friday. He was Cuomo's nominee to become the interim chief of the Empire State Development Corporation.

Lieber, as chief development officer, oversees the MTA's capital spending programs, which includes subway signal upgrades, elevator installations at stations and projects like the extension of the Second Avenue subway to East Harlem.

The leadership change hits the MTA as it is trying to encourage as many people to take mass transit after the coronavirus pandemic caused ridership to plunge, hammering its finances.

Andy Byford, the last permanent president of New York City Transit, called the MTA's leadership void "a surreal situation."

"I'm sure it will work out, but it's certainly not ideal from where I sit," Byford said.

"The danger it brings is that it encourages, if not deliberately, it kind of encourages short-term thinking because you know that maybe you don't have the long-term tenure that a substanstive person would have," he added.

Byford, who now runs Transport for London in his native United Kingdom, says permanent leadership instills confidence in workers, riders and politicians who control transit funding.

His message to Albany lawmakers?

"I guess my advice would be, get through the politics and make a decision because the MTA is such an important part of New York," he said.

28 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

LMAO the B Division is an absolute mess today.

Today's Monday so that's probably why

None to be honest. 

I personally think that 21st Street as is does well for the Q69 and Q100 as those buses move very fast already, but that BRT-like Option (Option #3) looks interesting. What do you all think?

https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/21-st-bus-priority-safety-study-cab3-jun2021.pdf

With Ridership still being down as a result of the pandemic, Now is a really good time for the to rethink how the money is spent and to rethink what practices need to be reformed or eliminated in order for them to burn less money so that they stop proposing stuff like this:

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-mta-mulls-big-service-cuts-despite-fed-bailout-20210721-afkxnz5gjnggzn3e2zcpl4dasy-story.html

2 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

What would you propose doing to reshape the G.O. process? Because for so long the MTA have been allergic to running more than three services on any line on weekends due to their G.O. process and it often inconveniences a huge number of riders. It also makes branching off of said lines more difficult, such as incorporating the Rockaway Beach branch or a Horace Harding branch into the Queens Blvd line.  

One thing that I'd suggest in order to redo the G.O. Process [and this is more of a draft idea rather than a finalized proposal] is to something similar to what was almost did with the Train shutdown. Have complete shutdowns take place in certain corridors within certain timeframes so that maintenancte crews don't have to worry about setting up and cleaning up every 4 or so weekends so that they can do the work they need to do right away then not have to worry about whatever corridor they did maintenance on for however many years to come. In some places would be easier to do this than others. If possible, FasTrack, CBTC Installations, ADA-Accessibility, and whatever Capital Plans could be incorporated into this new G.O. system so that crew does all of this work can be done at once instead of being spread out on weekends and nights. As a byproduct of this, other procedures such as flagging could be rethought or eliminated entirely so that the work isn't too disruptive. Basically, short term pain for a long term gain.

2 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

You’d still have to lengthen the platforms on the Manhattan side, too.

Isn't Bowery already long enough to fit 10 car trains though? Essex, Canal and everything below it I understand

10 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

But also potentially more costly and complicated than just building the dumb simple straight ROW down Water St with new platforms.

Like, if there wasn't a crapton of work involved, maybe Nassau would save money, but I really don't think it would, and it's also not a great ROW even if it has connections to Brooklyn; after all, you're then limited by the also going through Montague.

Thats true. Also it seems like I misunderstood as I thought we were talking about the BMT Eastern Division EAST of the Williamsburg

4 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

I mean, the platforms are also not 600 ft long, no?

No they're not, but I think we can both agree that extending them to 600' would be a good investment

4 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

 

PS And BMT eastern division cannot handle 75 foot long trains trains

By the time Phase 3 opens. The system will probably have phased out all 75 footers from passenger service. (I personally think that whatever replaces the 68/68A’s is going to be a 60 footer train model similar to the 143, 160, 179 and 211) The issue with a Williamsburg Extension is the lack of Connections to other subway routes. The most you’d get is the  and  trains and a few SBS routes whereas an SAS-South Brooklyn Connection provides much more from Atlantic Alone. I’m personally on the fence about a  Williamsburg  West End/Brighton idea but the network benefits of such an idea are undeniably present. 
 

Now to stray a little bit from SAS, what are your thoughts on upgrading the BMT Eastern Division to widen curves, remove bottlenecks and accommodate 10 Car Trains?

Thought about how Weekend and Overnight Service can be reshaped under a partial Deinterlining Plan. Please note that this does not account for G.O.'s as I personally think that the G.O. process should be radically be reshaped to cut down on maintanence costs. 

Weekends:

 Service is increased into the Weekends and runs from 168th to Coney Island

Service can be truncated to 145th Street on weekends as the will handle Concourse.

Service will be increased into the weekends and will run full route. 

Brighton Riders will gain an Express Service from the months of March-October in order to promote taking the train to the beach similar to how the Rockaway Park gets extended to Rockaway Blvd every summer.

Late Nights:

and Trains will Swap roles from 145th Street to 59th Street-Columbus Circle in order to keep things consistent. Trains will run to Norwood-205th During Late Nights to cover the lack of Service. Lastly, to make up for the Lack of Express Service,   and  Service will increase, and Trains will run Express in Manhattan Overnight.

Trains run either as a Sea Beach Shuttle or up to Atlantic Avenue-Barclays Center

Trains will be extended to Jamaica-179th Street overnight. Trains will continue to run local and Trains will be Express Full Route

Trains will Terminate at Prospect Park and run via Montague.

Service will be extended/truncated to Queens Plaza.

Just to focus on CPW for a bit. I noticed that any proposal that does the 8th Express/6th Local alignment (while optimal under the current system) seems to have a few gaps in them. One's that have been discussed before and some that haven't. But just to get the pros out of the way even though everyone here knows:

• They keep consistency with the current service patterns. 
• 10 car (600' length)  trains, thus resulting in a 10% Capacity increase for all lines on CPW
• 8th and 6th Service is evenly allocated to Washington Heights and Inwood above 145th Street wether that'd be an / or / alignment. The former keeps familiarity on both Branches.
• Removing the Merge at Canal Street with the and thus resulting in removing 2 bottlenecks instead of one.

And the Cons:

• 50th Street Upper Level loses service unless a G.O. or Delay were to happen
• Bedford Park Blvd Terminal Operations might mess with Service under this alignment. IIRC, it can only handle turning 6-7 TPH which is not good for West End Service assuming that we go with the Swap for DeKalb Junction.

I was discussing this with a friend of mine and this is a concern that @T to Dyre Avenue has brought up in the past is the fact that 50th Upper Level would see no regular service and could end up becoming like Bergen Street's lower level. I may be one of the people who sees this as a non-issue because of the stations very close proximity to 59th Street , 42nd Street and 7th Avenue but still something to take into account regardless. But say that this alignment is implemented, then wouldn't making 7th Avenue and 50th Street ADA-Accessible in addition to adding entrances at the 52nd Street end of 50th Street mitigate this issue?  Also, whats the most number of TPH that Bedford Park can Really turn?