Jump to content

7-express

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    414
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by 7-express

  1. The full RGB signs are probably too expensive to retrofit and require more reprogramming to get it to work right with an older computer system.

     

    I'm more curious if the MTA plans on rolling these new signs out on the R188 in piecemeal fashion, just replacing the ones that have degraded original signs.

  2. 17 minutes ago, aemoreira81 said:

    3 minor injuries. Now if items were thrown onto the tracks, could that be treated as a terrorist incident?

    https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-train-derails-after-unhinged-straphanger-throws-object-onto-tracks-20200920-gdtnd5ngkfcuhoeq566csuxx3i-story.html

    Daily News is reporting that wooden planks were clamped onto the tracks by a person who was apprehended at the station.

  3. 7 hours ago, Future ENY OP said:

    In addition maybe start working with some Brooklyn stations. Looks like Queens will be last for OMNY rollout. 

    I guess it kind of makes sense because much of Queens is reliant on bus-to-subway transfers and vice versa due to the lack of subway coverage.  Probably not going to get a ton of takers without transfers being an option yet with a lagging bus roll out.

  4. 23 hours ago, ViaWaterViaChurch said:

    I know the actual goal of the plan is to curb pedestrian deaths, but that aside, the Boulevard doesn't need to be closed to traffic, it doesn't even need a bus lane.  All they need to do speed up service on that corridor is sync up the traffic lights at all times and more importantly enforce the no standing zones on the eastern lanes for the PM rush.  95% of the slowdowns on Northern are due to double parked cars or trucks unloading when they shouldn't even be there in the first place.  If that right lane was kept clear, buses would be able to cruise up the right lane and they could go from Queens Plaza to the Whitestone Expressway in 15 minutes. That would be better than putting buses back on the LIE where they'd have to sit in traffic from Van Dam Street all the way until they get on the Van Wyck.

    Yeah but the DOT has seriously nerfed the signal timing on Northern Blvd and Astoria Blvd in an effort to reduce speeding.  But in turn, causing more congestion that delays buses.  It's a no win scenario here.

  5. 20 hours ago, jaf0519 said:

    I don’t live in this part of Northeastern Queens, but i could probably guess what the MTA was thinking with the QT48, QT49, and QT51 being rush hours only.

    • QT48 (Flushing-Fort Totten via Willets Point Blvd) riders already have either infrequent or limited service today with the Q34 being weekdays only and the Q16 being every 30 to 60 minutes during middays on weekdays and weekends respectively on the Willets Point Blvd branch, along with the Q16 having the 4th lowest ridership of all NYCT Buses in Queens. The MTA probably figures that most riders would take either the QT81, QT84, or QT85 to Flushing, or either the QT64 or QT65 to the QT17.
    • QT49 (Flushing-Beechurst via Utopia Pkwy) riders, while they would lose out of any service on Crocheron outside of the rush, Crocheron Ave is walking distance to Northern Blvd and the QT17, as well as Utopia Pkwy being currently covered by one of the Q16’s lower ridership branches. The only people who really lose out are those living in Beechurst near the Q15/Q15A terminal now, as they would have to take the QT65 and transfer or walk to the QT16 at Clintonville St.
    • QT51 (Flushing-Bay Terrace via Crocheron Ave) riders would still be within walking distance to Northern Blvd and the QT85 on Corporal Kennedy St. 35 Ave actually gains service between Francis Lewis Blvd and Corporal Kennedy now.

    Aside from these routes, I can actually see mysel using the QT65 more than i currently use the Q65. While i wont be able to catch the (7) in Flushing under the redesign, I avoid Flushing now anyway, and i would now be able to take the QT65 straight to the Broadway LIRR as opposed to walking up from 45 Ave. The only thing i would add would be a QT57 from Electchester (164 St/Jewel Ave) that would be a rush hours only purple zone express up 164 St and would follow the QT30 and QT31 to Flushing. Give the QT57 15-20 minute frequency during the rush, and cut the QT65 to every 20 minutes during the rush except for every 10 minutes between Jamaica (165 St Terminal) and Queens General Hospital), since patronage would not remain the same as Flushing bound riders would take a different route.

    Overall, the plan has mostly good ideas, aside from some of the frequencies being a bit lacking, but when there are bad ideas, they are quite terrible.

    The QT48 should at least run all day on weekdays mimicing the existing service span of the Q34/Q16.  The headways on the nearest alternative, the QT84, are absolutely atrocious and do nothing to encourage ridership.  It also needs a stop or two along Union Street in order to help reduce some load off the QT16, since that existing area is serviced by three lines today.

    The QT49 as a peak-only route is a big loss to the Beechhurst area.  That should at least run all day on a weekday at the minimum, since the Q15/15A no longer exist.  Another idea would be to extend alternating QT16's up 154th Street to service the Beechurst area, because the current proposed terminal on Cross Island is not terribly useful.  But it seems like the planners really don't like forked terminals, even though they would do a lot to expand service coverage and options to areas that are otherwise underserved with all of this consolidation.

    The plan as is is a big off peak cut to NE Queens.  Those who don't conform with the standard 9-5 worklife (which is increasingly becoming less common) just get shafted in the end with longer wait times and more transfers.

     

  6. They did find a way to mess up the announcements in the East River tunnels in both directions.  In both directions, the station announcements are way too early...the announcements conclude at least 15 seconds before the train even enters the station itself.

  7. 13 minutes ago, danielhg121 said:

    Why did the driver unlock his back doors too? I mean still no excuse but simple steps could've prevented rampant farebeating.

    Not sure why or if someone forced it open since I was too far back in line.  But it looked like a grand total of 10 people swiped in a bus full of 50+ people.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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