LGA Link N Train

I remember some group pushed for all day 6 minute service or something, but wouldn’t that create an imbalance of how Subway capacity is used systemwide under the current network?

Simple Proposal to improve the Line. One that's been discussed before

- Rebuild Essex Street Station, either to ease the curves on the Eastern End of the station coming from the Bridge or build over J3-4 to create one big Island Platform.

- (Optional) Widen the curve by Marcy and relocate the station a bit to the West so it sits on top of the Bus Terminal

- Extend the Platforms of Marcy (if the curve remains the same), Hewes, Lorimer, and Flushing (no Union Avenue Stop because the It in between Flushing and Lorimer even though I like that idea)

- Rebuild Myrtle Junction and widen the platforms (self-explanatory)

- Extend all Platforms between Myrtle Upper Level and Metropolitan

- Rearrange Yard tracks so that it can store more 10 car trains (maybe even 5 Car Trains) 

- relocate X-over to just north of the bridge in order to allow for a Metropolitan Avenue Station Extension and relocation of the dispatch tower. 

- Might as well upgrade stations that are not already ADA-Accessible to ADA standards and leave provision for CBTC in the process.

Benefits: 10% Added Capacity on QBL, 6th Avenue and Myrtle Lines. 

14 hours ago, BrooklynBus said:

https://qns.com/2022/05/op-ed-mta-queens-bus-redesign-frequent-reliable/?fbclid=IwAR0L39dxASDB0_vu7ZkSegtpa5ckvYYJ4SpUwsx5VpsjxGXAw9UY3tbdoYY

The Union makes many of the same points I made a few weeks ago in my Queens Chronicle article. So why isn’t the MTA listening and just pursuing its own agenda trying to convince everyone without any discussions that they know what is best?

Given what you said in the Brooklyn Bus Redesign Thread, it might be cause  see's most of its Queens Bus Routes as money losers, so for them cutting service to "save" on operating costs is the goal in the name of Faster Speeds. I could be wrong though. 

On 5/18/2022 at 3:11 PM, trainfan22 said:

Summer fan trips are back using the museum cars, Low V for the one IRT trip, and the Arnines for the two B div trips

https://www.nytransitmuseum.org/nostalgiarides/

 

Priced tickets for NYTM Rides? This is new but anything to stop Foamers from Ruining these trips

On 5/13/2022 at 10:10 PM, DaPr03 said:

Transit Tech High School kids (and surprisingly, 85% of them are railfans who has pages on Instagram), they come out of school everyday around 2:30 PM to do stuff like this.

On 5/14/2022 at 12:04 AM, Around the Horn said:

How they haven't shut the school down by now is beyond me...

As someone who graduated from there, I wouldn't even consider those kids to be railfans by a long shot when they're doing stupid shit like this, not to mention when I went, 90% of the students didn't give a shit about transit at all. Also from what I've heard, Transit Tech has been moving away from the "Transit" part of the name as of recently. IDK how true this is cause I haven't been there in a while

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

Clearly that isn't what they're going for. Honestly, the MTA has been making some weird service changes, I'm still in a way confused as to why they sent the  along Concourse and not just have a simple  swap.

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

or they could do what they did back in 2019 - just run the  from Coney Island to Times Sq-42 St, and replace the Astoria service with shuttle buses. 

Man those G.O.’s were pretty nice to fan. I grabbed my pictures/videos and dipped on those weekends 

8 minutes ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Question if the   Skip stop service is so “useless” then why didn’t the MTA get rid of it like the ? Why did the community oppose its removal in 2010 but in all seriousness would having the  by peak way express all the way from Jamaica center to Marcy Avenue or at least from Broadway Junction be more realible 

Infrastructure 

8 hours ago, MTA Researcher said:

Please don't roast me for sharing this weird idea, but

 

Is there a way for Broadway Express trains to go via 60 st tunnel and Broadway Local trains go via 2 Av? Can't the provisional tracks north of 57 st - 7 av that are local be connected to lex av 63 st, and then go to 2 Av?

 

Since SAS has no express tracks and the design is flawed, I coined this idea...

So a 57th Street Flip. Such an idea is not out of the ordinary

Something I've noticed with CBTC recently is the lack of signals. 

Going Manhattan Bound between Jackson Heights and right before 36th Street. I counted only one or 2 signals

Upon Leaving Jackson Heights and before entering Continental, I counted only 6 Signals

and between Steinway and Northern Blvd, I only saw 1 signal.

Pretty nice that QBL is slightly faster.

9 hours ago, biGC323232 said:

As much as i would love that i think those R211 Gonna go to the  or ... trains should get a piece of that order in my opinion...Only 24 hour line in the b division that havent yet receive any NTT...Also i do agree with the  running on weekends 145 st- Brighton Beach...  

 and share Concourse Yard and given that is installing CBTC along 8th between 59th and Hoyt-Schemerhorn, better off to be prepared by giving the  and  NTT's so 211's could appear on the Regardless, but alas, its still too early to tell.

22 hours ago, Amiri the subway guy said:

Need I remind you that in the IND second system map it shows that they were planning to sent 2nd Avenue routes to Williamburg?  Further more routes doesn’t need a thousand transfers to be realible. The culver  doesn’t have that much transfers yet it overused. The Fulton street  doesn’t have that much transfer yet it’s overused. Why does the 2nd Avenue need to have a lot of transfer anyway it won’t make a difference. PS East side demand is low on BMT Southern Brooklyn. The 2nd Avenue subway will certain be underused and empty. Because the  are extremely crowded and it will be idiotic to remove popular services for useless services. Want east side. The  are right there. The  via Fulton allows the  to be move to the express tracks and be extended to Lefferts Blvd. while all  can be diverted to Far  Rockway. 

Need I remind you that we're in 2022. The demands for what was needed from Transit in 1931 were WAY different back then compared to today. Not to mention, while Routes don't need so many transfers, having more transfer points between different routes increases flexibility accross the system that wouldn't otherwise exist. Want an example of a route that doesn't do very well at this, look no further than the  Line. Also, IDK about the term "overused" but due to the IND being built way ahead of its time, the  and do have a fair amount of ridership in spite of the fact that capacity on those lines are cut due to infrastructure in place. 

Having Multiple Transfer Points for the 2nd Avenue Subway not increases flexibility of the route but also makes it more attractive overall. Although with the current designs of Phases 3 and 4, I think we should reconsider SAS entirely for unrelated issues to the topic at hand. And while it can not be proven definitively, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss connecting SAS with South Brooklyn (and 6th with WillyB) because Routes and Ridership patterns are not static and change overtime. Besides, if you're worried about the and being overcrowded/empty, then Builing Transfers at Houtson/2nd (Already a given), Bowery/Grand and Broadway-Lafayette/Prince would be a way to mitigate that issue. 

As for  to Fulton moving the to the Express. Thats true, however, to Fulton would not only achieve the same thing, but is a lot more attainable and allows for a better integration with IND and BMT. 

Its clear that you have a bias against the - Williamsburg/ - South Brooklyn, but there's always 2 sides to the coin. While I'm personally conflicted on this proposal myself, I'm also not going to dismiss the benefits that it can provide to the system as a whole.

1 hour ago, Vulturious said:

Another dumb, but could be interesting to some of you guys, proposal:

This idea is basically the take over of the  by extending the . It would start going north along 9 Av after 8 Av station, which then makes a left curve running along 23 St with a new stop at 10 Av, could be called 23 St or 10 Av. Then finally, heading north again along 11 Av to meet with the  tracks and completely take over. Just throwing ideas out there.

You'd have to rebuild the Stienway Tubes and expand the tunnels below 41st/42nd Streets? Is it really with it. 

On 4/24/2022 at 3:47 PM, Amiri the subway guy said:

What about this. The  runs express on 2nd Avenue and runs via montugue street tunnel. And the  runs local to Bay Ridge 95th street. PS it also skips Chantom Square and Seaport.

#1 how would you connect it with the Montague Street Tubes with these hypothetical Express Tracks?
#2 There's no space for a 3rd Pair of Tracks around Grand Street.
 

On 4/24/2022 at 11:22 AM, Amiri the subway guy said:

If you wanna improve Williamburg than expand to 10 cars install CBTC and expand 2nd Avenue service to Williamburg. But the 2nd Avenue should definitely go to Fulton street

Upgrading the BMT Eastern Division to be on par with the rest of the system will help do wonders for the subway system as a whole although ENY, Fresh Pond and Canarsie Yards would need to be rebuilt/expanded although that doesn't seem like a priority at the moment for the . SAS has no business in Williamsburg. If you wanted that, I'd suggest looking into a Bowery-Grand Street Transfer between the  and Lines (granted that a Cross Platform Transfer is provided). As for SAS-Fulton Street, seems like the easy way out but I'm personally conflicted on that one given the IND's Bad connection and integration with the rest of the system. Something the certainly wouldn't help with all that much.

I don’t see this coming to fruition anytime soon.

14 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

Some of the R179 cars (4-car units) are broken up with one of the two B-cars taken out from two train sets and inserted into another 4-car set to make a 5-car set and a 3-car set. If six 4-car sets are broken up, then you  could have the Franklin  cars and additional 5-car sets to make three more 10-car trains. 

 

This way, you can keep 164 cars are kept in 4-car sets for the  (104 cars for main service and 60 cars as spares), and you would have 18 cars left for the Franklin , and three additional 10-car trains to have 16 10-car trains.

 

The caveat I do see with this plan is that you would need to order 200+ R211 cars in 8-car sets to have a new  train fleet because the current R143 / R160A cars are only enough to run the  and  trains.

IMO it’d be more cost effective to just upgrade the Franklin  platforms from 180’ to about 310-320’ so that you wouldn’t have to order a special rolling stock for them (I mentioned this in the proposals thread). While your idea for splitting the 179’s sound interesting, wouldn’t it be more effective to send 207/Pitkin’s 4 car 179’s to ENY instead of ordering a 3rd Option of 4 car R211’s?

18 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

I honestly don't think it is a good idea for storm doors to be locked after last Tuesday's shooting and the MTA should not wait until 2030 to retire the r68's. The MTA is already behind schedule with the r62's. The order for r262's should have been included in this capital program.

Just with the 2nd Option order alone is enough to replace either a majority of the 68 Fleet or the entirety of the 68A fleet. Or half of both combined. 

Extend the Franklin Shuttle Platforms from 180 Feet to 310 Feet in order for the stations to be able to accomodate Half Length (300 ft Trains) and for better integration with the rest of the B Division in terms of Rolling Stock. 

2 hours ago, Joel Powers said:

Makes you wonder if this event pretty much caused the R211Ts to be Greenlit behind the scenes. I wouldn't be surprised if they include extra cars, possibly more options to get rid of the R68/R68A fleets as well.

Right now the base order is 535 R-211 Cars. Minus the 75 that are for Staten Island, 460 Railcars (46 Trains) is enough to replace 207th/Pitkin's Fleet of R-46's

Option 1 includes 640 Cars. (64 Trains) that on top of the 460 NYCT R-211 Railcars total up to 1,100 Railcars. There are currently 748 R-46 Railcars in service so this would be more than enough to phase out the 46 fleet plus introduce a minor fleet expansion. 

Option 2 includes 437 Railcars (89 Sets). This seems to indicate that there will be 4 Car sets included in this order. This part of the 211 order seems to indicate that it'll just be a fleet expansion unless (being ) decides to use this order as a chance to phase out the worst performing R-68/68A's. Not gonna speculate what will go where but with 8th Avenue CBTC being underway, it isn't hard to piece the puzzle pieces together.

https://new.mta.info/sites/default/files/2019-09/MTA 2020-2024 Capital Program - Full Report.pdf - Page 187 on the PDF
http://web.mta.info/nyct/procure/contracts/247471sol.pdf

As for wether or not the 211T's have been greenlit behind the scenes or not, doesn't make too much of a difference to me as long as I get from Point A to Point B to the end of the day. With regards to the incident that happened a few days ago, wouldn't be unreasonable to have Open Gangways for safety reasons.

1 minute ago, DCTransitFilms said:

I heard last night on the news something about the MTA were employing more security at stations as well and to combat homeless individuals on the subway I believe.

Good. its unfortunate the situation that the homeless are in, but the subways are not the place for them to stay. 

Is it just me or am I the only one who gets annoyed seeing homeless in the subway?

Disgraceful! Whoever was behind this needs to be caught and locked up behind bars. I don't care what the motive behind this was. The  and city already have enough issues as is and now another thorn on everyone's back.

I pray that no one lost their lives but if so, my condolences goes to them and their families.

.Something tells me that B62 proposal to Astoria is a ploy for incentivizing the (mostly dead) BQX proposal from a few years back.

Looking at everything upon first glance so my thoughts will be a bit all over the place:

- Combining the Q1 and Q6 seems like an odd combination but given that Jamaica Avenue has (or is supposed to have) a busway and Bus Improvements are needed on Hillside and Sutphin, I'd expect this route to be okay to say the least

- For the Q4, frequencies being cut in favor of an extension to Elmont. Not sure how Cambria Heights Residents will react to this?

- Q7. 75th-Elderts Lane seems like an odd place to terminate the bus but hey, more coverage I guess.

- At least the Q11 ain't a weird loop route below Rockaway Blvd

- Q14 is an interesting route. Better than the previous "QT82"

- Q18 is straightened. nice

- So the Q20 is cut back to Briarwood, then takes over the Q34 route.... I wonder whats serving College Point.

- I like this Q21 extension. might take advantage of it myself.

- Q24 is simplified but isn't the stop at Jamaica Hospital popular with Q24 riders or something or am I mistaken? At least the Q42 is serving it.

- Guess the Q31 simplification is alright but the current Q20 terminal in College Point seems odd to me.

- Nice to see the Q38 is finally getting split and that Middle Village wasn't screwed over too hard. Now that both ends between Juniper Valley South and Metropolitan Avenue are sandwhiched by buses

- This new Q39 route is interesting, I support it!

- At least the Q49 is preserved.

- That Q51 route is gonna get stuck in summer time traffic on the Belt parkway unless the  and DOT decide to do some Bus Priority project along the Belt Parkway. Either way, its a nice addition to the network

- Interesting how they keep both the Q52 and Q53 and extend the former to Jackson Heights. I guess that's one way to solve that issue.

- Guess the thought the Q110 and Q112 route combo was a good idea. Given the bus priorityh projects taking place in Jamaica, I don't take as much issue with this proposal as I used to. 

- Nice tht the Q59 was simplified on the Brooklyn end but on the Queens end it makes no sense. Given the DOT projects done on Queens Blvd, how are Q59 buses supposed to turn around in that specific section of Rego Park?

- The Q66 reroute to Hunters Point is a nice additon. Since that area has been rapidly developing, it'd be nice for buses to serve that part of LIC better.

- This new Q68 route has a better northern terminal as opposed to the QT2. Given that options for a Rail Link to LaGuardia Airport are being looked into and I heard that there's a landmark near Steinway/19th. This route could build a greater case for implementing the extension via 19th Avenue with a stop at Steinway.

- At least the Q73 covers the south portion of Forest Hills. I'm disappointed by the lack of a local route on Yellowstone Blvd.

- The Q78, Q80 and Q98 seem like nice additions to the Bus Network, the Q5/Q85 split is also a nice addition.

- The B53 is nice up until Williamsburg Bus Terminal. 

- Guess they might be pushing for some form of the BQX with that B62 proposal.

11 hours ago, Bill from Maspeth said:

New Chief of NYCT, not MTA.  There is a difference!

Whoops. Mb 

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/23/nyregion/nyc-subway-chief-richard-davey.html?referringSource=articleShare

New Permanent Chairman/CEO for the . NY Times Emphasized on the fact he doesn’t own a car….. guess they were trying to make a parallel to Mr. Byford. I wonder what we’re to expect from this guy.

also, how come I’m not able to quote the article from mobile?

On 3/7/2022 at 10:39 PM, R10 2952 said:

Don't want to derail the topic too much, but since people are bringing up the Rockaway Line, I honestly believe that should have been kept within the LIRR system.  The MTA almost admitted as much around 1980 when they were actually considering suspending/abandoning  service to the Rockaways.

Where can I read more about this?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Now on the topic of a LaGuardia Rail Link, I am still 100% for the extension north of Ditmars and for the folowing reasons:

- One Seat ride from the terminals to key locations in Midtown and Queens 
- LGA Extension would solve Astoria's terminal Capacity issues and allow for more flexible service patterns in the future (I don't see any reason why the terminal wouldn't be an island platform with an X-Over switch)
- There'd be incentive to build a yard/maintenance facility in Astoria (I know this one along with the proposal in general is controversial) in order to increase capacity although thats between and ConEd

Adding bus improvements to the M60 and Q70 would be Icing on the Cake. While I doubt the possibility of this, it would be smart for the  and Port Authrority to make negotiations if we were to reap any long term benefits out of a Rail Link for LaGuardia.