Jump to content


Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

Lance

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    3,144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Lance

  1. I just remembered the physical connection that was built was done so primarily through private funds from Citigroup over their property with only a minor investment by the MTA. If we were to ever get a more efficient transfer there, it would likely have to be built by the MTA.
  2. To respond to the new development over the Court Square station, I'm not surprised Court Square City View isn't building a new transfer connection between the Queens Blvd and Flushing platforms. There's a big difference between replacing one subway entrance and connecting an aboveground set of platforms with an underground set. In order for such a transfer to be done like that, a new mezzanine would have to be constructed on the north end of the Flushing platforms, both of which would have to be extended as they just barely cross over 44th Drive. Then there's the matter of the connection. Valuable real estate would have to be sacrificed on the southwest corner of the lower floors of CSCV to connect the northern Flushing mezzanine to the Queens Blvd platforms. I think some of you are expecting way too much from real estate interests here. It's nice they are contributing to the effort to make the subway more accessible, which should continue and be expanded since the subway is the biggest draw to a lot of these projects. However, to expect them to go above and beyond the scope of their own projects is a bit excessive. If anything, the MTA should've built that connection between Flushing and Queens Blvd themselves instead of the one that was built between Flushing and the Crosstown lines.
  3. Just curious and because I don't feel like sifting through dozens of pages to find the answer: what is the exact proposal for Queens Blvd streamlined services?
  4. It was directly after the junction from the 60th Street tunnels, just west of the actual connection to Queens Plaza. It's shown on the older P. Dougherty maps on nycsubway.org if someone wants to go through the Wayback Archive to get them. I'll post it later if no one else does. As for its removal, it was probably justified like a lot of the removed crossovers, if it isn't used often enough to cover the costs of maintenance, it doesn't need to be there in the eyes of the MTA. Whether or not that's a correct belief is up to you, but ask yourself: how often does the westbound need to terminate at Queens Plaza and reverse back?
  5. I meant a Flickr photo album. I was blanking on the term for a minute.
  6. Nice. I'll have to take a look at this later, but if I can make a suggestion: perhaps you should think about summarizing the information from the docs here and linking to a Flickr or Imgur grouped post for the granular details. This is a lot of images to scroll through on a non-photos thread.
  7. Cost savings was the reason behind the switch. The old configuration required the two platforms at Bowery and Canal St to be maintained for normal service. Shifting everything to the former downtown local and downtown express tracks meant they could close off the now-unused Williamsburg-bound platforms at those stations. It also meant they only had to rehab the visible parts of those stations as well.
  8. Haven't had to do a multi-page purge in a while. Yay me. While the average member age leans younger, a certain degree of maturity is expected from everyone here on this forum. If that cannot be done, posting privileges can and will be restricted without warning. Civil discourse is very much welcome here; immature name-calling and other related nonsense is not tolerated.
  9. They would have to level the ramp from Times Square to Port Authority so it isn't as steep as it currently is. That's the major holdup there. However, is it such a worthwhile expense when there are so many other stations that have no accessibility at all? From the north, disabled riders can access Broadway via the B or D and from the south, any 6th Avenue train via a transfer at W 4 Street. It's less convenient for sure, but it's not as bad as it is outside of midtown.
  10. Better yet, repurpose the Weekender map to show affected stations. It's a quick visual aid that probably shouldn't take too much effort to implement. On the subject at hand, I noticed that both "Planned Work" and "Delays" are still appearing. I wonder if these will be merged into the other new blanket terms or if others will be created for them, especially for "Planned Work" since that can mean anything from a full line suspension to reduced service to a line extension. On a side-note, does anyone know when the MTA will fully move over to the new site? It's been in "beta" for over a year now and not only is it extremely sloppy to have pertinent information split between two separate and almost completely unrelated sites, it makes this whole effort above a bit meaningless since the service statuses on the main site are still grouped by trunk lines.
  11. We have the first official update to the car assignments since November. Here are the highlights and as always, remember the cars assigned to a line may not necessarily reflect what's operating in service at any given time. The 32s are now split almost evenly between the and lines. The 42s are presently not assigned to any line. service is being run by means of the 160s and 179s according to the latest assignments. What that means for the 42s' continued operation is unclear at the moment. The random 46s previously assigned to the have been shifted to other lines, as have the 160s, but everyone knows about that one. On the A-side, the only major change is a slight increase in the number of trains required for the line. Click on the link for the full car assignments for May 2019, along with historical car assignments dating back decades.
  12. I was talking about the ones found on the bulkheads of the 142s - 179s.
  13. Here's to hoping they'll upgrade those route bullets to full-color at some point. The cost of full-color LEDs has dropped significantly since the blood-red displays were first installed on the 142s back in 2000.
  14. Interesting post in itself. I didn't think they were doing bilingual service notices back in the early '80s. Learn something new, eh? Regarding that planned service changes notice, it's too bad they don't go that far out these days. I think we're lucky to have an entire month loaded onto the site nowadays. It probably made more sense in hindsight. If I recall correctly, none of the bridge closures, even the one from '86, were supposed to last long enough to warrant a more permanent change to the services at the time.
  15. That's not known yet. They haven't finalized the design yet, so it's a bit premature to determine how the conversion process will be completed.
  16. In regards to the amount of service proposed, I'm a little wary on those frequencies there. The frequency imbalance has the very real possibility to create more problems than it would solve. Taking a look at the K and R services on 4th Avenue, almost every K local that would run would follow directly behind a more frequent R train, thus leading to an imbalance on usage. If the plan is to supplement the R, the new route must pretty much run in tandem with the R. In my opinion, since both would be intended to be feeders to other lines, they should run at equal frequencies with other lines boosted as needed.
  17. Pot, meet kettle. If you can't take someone calling you out, perhaps you're the one who shouldn't be here on the forum.
  18. No one is saying it must all be done at once. The problem is that boatloads of money is being spent to renovate these stations and time and time again, the MTA has somehow gotten away with not installing elevators, even for stations that have essentially been rebuilt from the ground up, which should violate the ADA waiver the MTA received back in the '90s. The glacial pace of elevator installation has to come to an end because riders are tired of it. Not just disabled riders, but also the elderly and people who are able-bodied but need elevators for strollers, carriages, etc. Obviously, this will not be a cheap expense, perhaps the MTA and the city need to look at having more private developers install these elevators for incentives. Right now, three stations are receiving elevators to the platforms as part of nearby developments. This definitely needs to be looked into further, especially as areas along transit lines gentrify. We simply cannot throw up our hands and say that it's too expensive, therefore we can't do it. Also, and more germane to the opening post, adding elevators as part of the renovation costs will more than likely be less expensive than doing the station renovation and elevator installation separately. There are definitely going to be stations that are more difficult to provide full accessibility than others. Nevins St is an example of this, but that's not as big of an issue right now because DeKalb Av is literally right around the corner. The Lexington Ave platforms at Union Square will prove to be another challenge due to the gap fillers and the curved layout, but as long as other nearby stations can be made fully accessible first, it's not as big of a concern. The issue is that we cannot continue to use the age of the system as an excuse to not install elevators. There's absolutely no reason why most of Brooklyn and Queens are such accessibility deserts in 2019. The agency can tackle the harder stations at a later point, but it needs to seriously look into closing some of the accessibility gaps in the system. Even given the planned expansion of full accessibility in the next five years or so, most of South Brooklyn will remain inaccessible, as will most of the Jamaica line and every local stop along Queens Blvd. For the record, I'm glad Byford is seriously taking this into account as part of his pitch for better transit, but my concern is that he doesn't make the final decisions here. I'm worried that, like with a lot of his ideas, he's going to get sidelined again.
  19. We really have to get out of this belief that we must spread the pain around to everyone. Cutting back lines or needlessly expanding their intervals between trains is extremely detrimental to getting people to actually use these service outside of peak periods.
  20. Maybe the folks at Columbia and Cornell can figure something out.
  21. People love consistency and hate change. Everyone likes to complain about the services provided, but I guarantee you they'll be the same ones raising holy hell if said services are changed significantly, even if it is for the better. In regards to car availability, with the drastic changes to the Canarsie project, the need for the 32s and 42s has lessened significantly. I have a feeling that once all of the 179s are in service and go through their teething issues, the 42s may simply be retired. As the recent MDBF figures show, the 42s are quite frankly on borrowed time and have been for a while now. As a minority fleet on what's essentially a low-use line, their performance numbers are not good for long-term sustainability. The 32s are in the same boat, but they perform a bit better than the 42s, which will allow them to stick around until the 211s arrive. However, they may be rotated more frequently with other trains, the 46s and 179s should they stay on the and lines. Their continued longevity is amazing, but they are cars that have been in service for 50+ years and their performance numbers reflect that. Transit is right to avoid overly relying on these cars. Those local trains would've carried a lot of air if all local service ended at Prospect Park / Franklin-Fulton with a large imbalance of use between the local and express trains. Not every branch needs to operate as a feeder to another line. I agree with you on the fact the shuttle was reconstructed poorly, but we must remember the MTA had no interest in rebuilding the shuttle in the first place. They were extremely content with replacing the dilapidated structure with bus service and only community outreach forced their hand to actually rehab the line. They pretty much did the bare minimum during the reconstruction to get the line rehabbed and operational again, hence the shortened platforms and single-tracked operation for most of the line. You can't eliminate one good service and replace it with an entirely different good service elsewhere. It's why the plans for the Culver express died a quiet death after it came out that while south Culver riders would benefit from quicker service, north Culver would suffer from less frequent service. Any plans to improve service anywhere must not come at the expense of riders already benefitting from another service. In this case, there's a definite need for Myrtle Ave - midtown service, even when the operates normally. Until that need changes, the present is here to stay.
  22. To respond to a couple of things, the use of gap trains is a good idea in theory. The problem remains in their execution though. For them to be cost-effective, it must be assumed they will constantly or at least consistently be needed. It requires at least one train crew to be on standby should the situation warrant a gap train to be put into service. That's fine if the issue is on one line or service in particular. If gap trains are required all over the place randomly however, it's probably better to look at what's causing the delays in the first place rather than spend money on additional train crews that may not be required at the time. The other problem with gap trains is their placement. They would obviously have to be in a good location to be put into service in a pinch. At times, however, especially on weekends when maintenance and/or construction work is most prevalent, those key locations may be unavailable due to service changes taking a track out of service. On the subject of decreased service, specifically that of the as opposed to other lines, it's not so much that the line is untouchable, but rather the nature of the line itself. The is the only east side express line that goes to Brooklyn. The doesn't share that luxury and therefore is considered a supplemental line that's expendable should the situation require it unfortunately. Broadway doesn't count in this case as none of those lines go to Harlem or the Bronx. The problem isn't that the needs to be reduced to fit in extended train service; it's that the is being over-reduced unnecessarily. If every other line can operate at 12 minute intervals when a track is taken out of service, why is the being singled out by being forced to run at 20 minute intervals whenever it has to share a track with the and ? Surely, the can run at something resembling its normal service levels without hampering other services that much.
  23. Then the question is, are these trains arriving to their terminals on something resembling on-time? Given what we're seeing, I doubt it. The problem is that they don't want to nerf the unless absolutely necessary, especially when the Yankees are in town, which they are for the weekend of June 1st. Even during the many weekends where service was reduced for Jerome Ave work, the reduction was only in place north of 125 Street or Burnside Av, the area impacted by the slowdowns. As the is the primary Lexington Ave line, it gets priority over the unfortunately, which is why the latter is always either truncated to E 180 Street or has its service levels reduced.
  24. Not good, but not surprising either. If there are ~20 minute intervals upon leaving the terminal, it's not surprising there are these large gaps between trains mid-route.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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