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

SENIOR MODERATOR
  • Content Count

    3,056
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    28

Everything posted by Lance

  1. Not without work though. Right now, the lower level is in no shape to act as a terminus for anything except relaying trains, meaning some service would discharge on the tunnel platforms at Canal St and relay down to the lower level, possibly creating a Forest Hills-type situation there. We're in agreement here in regards to the PCAP recommendations. I was just putting forth the idea the MTA would be likely to consider based on what they did for the Culver line, mostly because it's apparent they never had any intention of actually implementing express service there. Put forth an idea nobody likes and let the people decide for themselves that the current service is "better" than the alternative. It's a well-worn playbook. Maybe I'm mistaken, but aren't a lot of the complaints in regards to non-rush hour service? The tends to run fairly smoothly during peak periods when maintenance and construction work are minimal. Off-hours is a different story, what with the scheduled 12 minute weekend intervals on top of slowdowns due to continuous Queens Blvd work. Bringing back the Nassau St as a rush-hour only route will be ineffective if the problems are outside that time window. The returning back to Queens Blvd as a replacement for any service there is a non-starter. The only reason why the stuck around as the primary Queens Blvd local for so long was due to a lack of available options. 53rd Street was maxed out by the and express service while the Broadway-Queens Blvd service was normal hours only until 1987. With three river crossings connecting to Queens Blvd today, riders will not put up with a non-Manhattan service that replaces a much more usable line.
  2. I'd prefer if these audits and reviews actually led to some real changes. Every so often, we have line reviews done by either outside agencies or internally by the MTA and almost every time, they all lead to the same result: nothing changes. It's good to know what's preventing optimal efficiency in the subway. It doesn't help if all these reports just sit on a desk somewhere.
  3. What's more amusing (and annoying) is that other people actually helped him get that thing onto the damn train. If that beam slipped in any way either on the platform or in the train, someone could've gotten seriously injured. The subway is not a moving company for a reason.
  4. Was that comment really necessary? Yeah, dumb people do dumb things. That does not mean we wish for their deaths here. Don't instigate. It helps no one here.
  5. My fear is that the MTA will put forth a similar controversial plan for 4th Avenue that creates more problems than it solves. Just spit-balling here, but I can realistically see them proposing to resurrect the Nassau St as a full-time service to/from Bay Ridge while the current Broadway is truncated to Whitehall St to maintain current levels on Queens Blvd and Broadway. As such a plan would obviously lower capacity on the Broadway local on account of an inadequate terminal at Whitehall St, this could put some runs in jeopardy. This would set up a fight pitting Bay Ridge against Astoria, just as the Culver express proposal was vehemently fought against and for by north Culver and south Culver respectively. Once the legitimate concerns and objections come forth, the MTA will claim to revisit the initial proposal, but instead privately shelve the entire idea and nothing will change, except us having to deal with this whole song and dance again in a couple of years. Should the MTA actually make the requested changes to improve service, they obviously cannot do so by using Whitehall St as the catch-all terminal for local service as that plan is destined for failure. The MTA will have to present an idea that both improves 4th Avenue service while at the same time maintaining the current levels of service on Broadway, Queens Blvd and Astoria.
  6. Split out from the proposals thread to avoid getting buried in the other ideas.
  7. While there may be a market for this, I can't imagine it's that large where the costs of expanding the payment system that far outside of the NYC metro area will be offset by the benefits of it. I'm aware of the super commuters that travel between Philadelphia and New York, but that isn't a large amount by any stretch of the imagination. Then there's the whole issue of dealing with yet another completely separate transit agency, one that actually sucks more than ours. As for the various NYC-area modes of mass transit, I wouldn't be surprised if the end-goal is to create one homogenous mode of payment across the system, much like the MetroCard was advertised to be in the '90s regarding city transit. OMNY is supposed to be rolled out on the railroads eventually and if DeBlasio gets his head out of his ass, they'll be used on the NYC Ferry network as well to eliminate that current double fare issue for ferry users that need a bus to get to their final destinations.
  8. But that solves everything, right? /s For the record, I also don't believe the should be the sole Queens Blvd local line, primarily because it assumes the combined / service levels are also needed on Myrtle Ave, which is not true. That's the conundrum with trying to reduce the number of merges and divergences along the lines, more so since most of the system was designed to be heavily interlined. On the issue of the actual subject at hand, has there been any news regarding splitting the ? While it's nice to discuss the hypotheticals behind potential service rerouting, I'm kind of curious if the MTA is actually looking into the issue or whether it will be buried like the Culver express plans a few years back.
  9. It'd be likely extremely easy. I'd rather they didn't though because knowing the MTA, they'd install some opaque netting not unlike what they use when they're painting the elevated structures. That netting would stick around forever, gathering all types of dust and grime from the trains above and the cars below and look terrible after about a week. Also, it doesn't fix the problem at hand, but rather just masks it with another. Besides, they'd still have to collect the debris caught in the netting after a while. Otherwise, the netting along with the dangerous debris is going to come down onto the roads below.
  10. Everyone wants transparency in what's causing the delays. Sometimes shit like this happens. Literally. We all damn well if they classed this as something else like a signal failure or a problem with the train, somebody would've complained about the MTA lying as usual. You can't win for losing sometimes.
  11. Exactly. We're looking at this from the wrong angle. Even discounting the extreme costs to rebuild and/or bury the existing elevated lines, they themselves are not the issue here. The problem here is that pieces of the structures are flaking off like dead skin, but unlike dead skin, these rotting pieces of wood, steel and metal are quite dangerous when they fall to the ground, the last two incidents involving such a scenario have proven quite soundly. No. What needs to be done is that the MTA must secure their infrastructure and prevent such incidents from happening in the first place. Whether that involves walking the length of every elevated track both above and below the structures remains to be seen, but they cannot continue to treat this as a one-off occurrence and simply ignore it.
  12. There's nothing preventing such a route. I was just trying to eliminate the logjam at Whitehall St with terminating trains, while at the same time preserving the amount of service along Astoria and Broadway. Running the same level of service in Astoria with just one route while keeping Whitehall terminal in play is a potential disaster that I was trying to avoid. Also, retaining the as a service to 71 Avenue would still deal with the double merge at Queens Plaza between the and Astoria , thus potentially delaying those lines. Not to put a damper on this, but as this is not the proposals thread, I'd prefer we keep these ideas somewhere within the realm of reality. If a plan to fix 4th Avenue ever came to fruition as suggested in the opening post, it's not going to be done via a costly and invasive connection between the Montague tunnels and the Fulton St line. @RR503 While piss-poor operations due play a major role in service degradation, the routes themselves don't help matters at times, the being the most prominent example. Right now, the merges with other lines a total of eight times in one direction at the height of service. Combine that with the Forest Hills terminal ops (the only terminal that turns two full length services at its peak) and the timers situation you mentioned and we have the situation we're currently mired in. In sending the back to Astoria, along with sending the to 96 Street, eliminates all but two of those merge points, both of which are only temporary due to the 4th Avenue tunnel project. As mentioned above, it also eliminate that potential for a worsened Whitehall terminal issue if the present Queens and the current both have to terminate in Manhattan if the Brooklyn were to be replaced by a Nassau service. Obviously, such an approach cannot be applied to every situation, which is why as you've mentioned, we must address the larger issue at hand, operations in general and the infrastructure, both of which have not really changed much in the past few decades. Of course, that's unfortunately more of a longer term project given the current political climate, which is why my idea is more of an immediate fix. On a side-note, the ran much better before they started screwing around with it. As someone who's used the for the past few years until fairly recently, I can attest to how poorly the line is now compared to years prior. The car situation was of course unavoidable since the needed those former 142As for CBTC and Transit was in no shape to purchase 400 more brand new cars for the service, but reducing service along the line because of the Second Ave line caused the service to tank. The fact that the runs to the east side does very little for anyone outside of that relatively small section between 96th Street and roughly 68th Street. Bring the service back to it's former two minute intervals between 3 Av-138 St and Brooklyn Bridge and the line's performance will bounce back.
  13. To add on, if an ailing person on a train were to become sicker or worse in an effort to maintain service, the MTA would face lawsuits left, right and center for failure to provide immediate medical assistance by carting the person across the line. If a person is sick on the train, there isn't much the crew can do other than hold the train and wait for EMS to arrive. That's why one of the items in the Subway Action Plan is/was to expand the number of EMS teams within the subway to minimize the impact of these types of events.
  14. All of that essentially makes the argument for streamlining Broadway. While there isn't much that can presently done to remove the aging rolling stock, more so if the was ever removed from Queens Blvd, the bulk of the issues you mentioned can be addressed by implementing the oft-proposed idea of shifting the back to Astoria and sending the to the East Side. The would go the way of the dinosaur as it's only needed to provide additional Broadway service to Astoria without running to Coney Island via Sea Beach. Those runs can be absorbed into the proposed route and provide desperately needed additional service along 4th Avenue as well. Of course, the difficulty lies in what serves Queens Blvd as the primary local. A seemingly no-brainer would be to make the service the main one there, but it becomes a capacity cut as those trains must be eight-cars to run on Jamaica and Myrtle Ave. There's also the issue of whether the amount of service along Queens Blvd is also needed on Myrtle Ave, which is partly the reason behind the current operations of the and today.
  15. Why though? Again, this isn't a revolutionary new car design. Almost identical trains have been operating on the 8th Avenue local for over a decade now, as well as the 8th Avenue local since 2013. When it's a jump to a wholly new car class across the system, sure, they should advertise it. However, when it's just more of the same, just with different finishes, it's seems like more of a waste to advertise existing technology that has been in place since the mid-2000s. That's just me though.
  16. After cycling through this entire thread again, I see a lot of ideas flying back and forth, which is wonderful. However, a few of them are a bit troubling in my opinion. If the idea is to fix Bay Ridge transit, that cannot be done at the expense of other riders, especially when the number of riders impacted is potentially high. I'm not going to delve too deeply into specifics here, but I guarantee you that any plan that puts any Coney Island service via Whitehall during peak periods is dead on arrival. Riders may not be looking for a direct route from Bay Ridge to midtown, but they sure are doing so from the Sea Beach and Brighton lines. To give these riders the shaft to appease the ones along 4th Avenue is a grave disservice to everyone affected.
  17. Thing is, with the 179s, there are no glaring differences between these cars and the 160s. While there are cosmetic upgrades and a different propulsion system between the two classes, it's not an entirely new design, unlike what the 211s will be compared to the 160s/179s.
  18. That may be, but I think you're understating the process involved. Using Bleecker St as an example, it took about seven years and $135 million to extend the platform 300 feet in order to correct that BoT head scratcher they implemented all those years ago. I can't imagine it'd be any easier or less expensive to effectively extend the Lexington Ave line platforms roughly 700 feet to 63rd Street. It gets even worse if there's any utility relocation required or if there's a requisite width to meet ADA regulations. It's not an impossible feat by any means, just annoyingly difficult, especially if they're restricted to only using the sidewalk space.
  19. I'm just trying to envision how such a transfer passageway would fit with the existing infrastructure in the area. Obviously it would have to flank the Lexington Ave tunnels, but unless its construction coincides with new developments between 63rd Street and 60th Street, it's going to be much more difficult to build such a passageway, as it would have to run beneath the basements of the brownstones along that stretch of Lexington Ave.
  20. Exactly. There are a lot of ideas being floated about lately and while the enthusiasm is quite welcome, a lot of them ignore the two most important criterions, ridership demands and route simplicity. Broadway is by far the easiest line to streamline in the B-Division without rearranging the entire system around it. High passenger count at 49 Street and possibly because it was easier for all Queens services to run local through 34 Street rather than have the switch over at 57 Street. When the ran to 57 Street, terminating trains ran the risk of delaying trains heading uptown, hence the switch over at 34 Street. Now that the runs to 96 Street, this should probably be revisited at some point. Of course, it just moves the merge point from one location to another, so it's unlikely that this relatively minor move will have a beneficial effect on service.
  21. When Manhattan-bound service is directed over to the Wakefield-bound track at 3 Av-149 St, trains must switch over to the express track just north of Jackson Av, bypassing the station. When the inverse occurs, Wakefield-bound trains can switch over to the proper track just south of Jackson Av, allowing the station to continue to be served fully.
  22. Specifically, it was planned to be done on 2nd Avenue and the Queens Blvd bypass.
  23. Oddly enough, they include a minute countdown for the railroads. Why can't they be consistent with this stuff? SubwayTime spits out the information correctly and it looks like straight garbage. Why is the much more polished app worse at providing this information? When subway service is (supposedly) more frequent than rail service, it makes much more sense to display the arrivals as "X minutes away", rather than "will arrive at Y time." Then again, since subway service is so sporadic these days, maybe Transit is conditioning riders to set their schedules to specific arrivals as they would on Metro-North / LIRR.
  24. It's nice that we're looking outside the box for answers, but how many studies and reviews do we need to determine how to fix the crumbling subway? With the ever-growing amount of them over the years related to various signal, track and structure repairs, rebuilds and upgrades, it's almost like Cuomo is fishing for a different answer. Or that he wants a cheaper one. Either way, it's becoming readily apparent the answer he's seeking is likely not going to be the one he receives. The subway has been falling apart for years now due to deferred maintenance and the fact that a lot of the underlying infrastructure has reached the end of its expected lifespan. Replacing and upgrading the critical components will not be a quick or cheap fix, but rather one that will take some time and be quite expensive. To compare, after the near collapse of the subway system in the '70s, it took well over a decade to rebuild the derelict subway cars and rehab many of the crumbling stations and line structures that were left to rot for years prior. As for the experts chosen here, I'm on the fence here. It's obvious they have the knowhow and the expertise to be consultants for the MTA regarding the many upgrades needed to bring the system back into a state of good repair. They're not going to put their reputations on the line by offering recommendations that will not work. On the other hand however, we need to be consider the knowledge and expertise of those familiar with transportation and signaling as well. It's becoming more apparent that we are starting to accept the recommendations of those with one aspect of knowledge (engineering/construction) over the other important one (transportation operations). After all, that was the point behind hiring Byford as transit chief, wasn't it? It's also why we recently hired Pete Tomlin for his knowledge of upgrading the signal system based on his previous work. By relying solely on experts without a transportation background, we run the risk of accepting ideas that may work under some scenarios, but not necessarily so for the subway specifically. I'd also like to see how the changes to the Canarsie closure actually pan out first before accepting their word as gospel. To address something that stands out... Wouldn't this just create a similar situation to the one we experience right now? Presently, a lot of the components we replace regularly are specialized for only this subway system, which only adds to the expense. Is it really wise to roll out such an experimental signal system that doesn't have wide usage yet? I'm aware that this idea is probably much cheaper than the proposed broad rollout of CBTC signaling in the coming decades, but if we're the only ones using this kind of signaling system, it's quite likely going to cost us more in maintenance upkeep.
  25. Yeah, they definitely went from one extreme to the other, both in terms of useful, relevant information and with site design.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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