Lance

Added.

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.

Another thing of interest in the latest observations is the almost doubling of the MDBF for the 142As, previously one of the chronically under-performing cars in service. I'm still concerned that they are still performing at half of what the 142s can accomplish, but this increase is a good start.

As much as we like to bemoan the excessive costs for MTA-related construction projects, I cannot see the reason for most of the outrage in this case. From the modifications outlined, it looks like a lot of the additional expenses were the result of deteriorating conditions that weren't visible or apparent when the initial estimates were agreed upon. We'd all like for the expense to remain the same without any changes, that's rarely the case. Things like this pop up in any old structure. I'd much prefer they took care of this items now rather than wait until the components fail and we have to pay for another full station renovation five years from now. That mention of the additional waterproofing however is yet again, very annoying. Water flows down in constant rain storms? Color me shocked.

Not really. Given the big jumps between R-numbers for the revenue cars since the R-series is used for almost anything car-related these days, it really isn't a huge leap to assume that the replacements for the 62s would be in the 200s. Besides, I think the MTA also chose that R-number symbolically, just as @Roadcruiser1 probably did.

What's with these threads? If there's a serious discussion to be had, go for it. If not, continue the discussion in the Random Thoughts thread.

Don't try to force a discussion. Random trivia is better suited in the random thoughts thread.

First off, I hate you for reminding me of that damn song. As for the decrease of homebuying in this generation, it's because most of us already have a 30-year mortgage by the time we leave school due to the ever-increasing cost of education. Then there's the costs of actually buying anything around here. Nowadays, you have to go pretty far out from the city to get the best bang for your buck, unless you're trying to do the fixer upper thing. With that said, this ever-growing homeless problem has to be curtailed. It's already fast becoming a quality of life issue for everyone with incidents like the one captured in the opening post happening with growing frequency. Riders shouldn't have to wade through piles of garbage or deal with "passengers" who smell like something worse than death warmed over. Maybe instead of running a campaign that's never going to go anywhere or avoiding the agency until it's time for a photo-op, perhaps our esteemed mayor and governor can actually do something about this before this city becomes San Francisco II.

It's more of that "we didn't think of it, therefore we cannot use it" mentality at work here. That and the perceived fear that forcing developers to compensate for the increased foot traffic their buildings will bring may somehow scare them off.

Actually, South Ferry was paid for in part by Sept. 11th recovery money to revitalize Lower Manhattan following the attacks. Also, the original loop station was built for the amount of service operated at the time. The IRT couldn't possibly fathom running ten-car trains back in 1905 when the station was originally built. @subwayfan1998 I'm glad you're interested and inquisitive here. A problem I'm noting however is a failure to listen to what other people are telling you. Asking the same questions over and over in a slightly different way and expecting a different response will not serve you well here. Listen to what people are telling you and think before you post.

It's likely a simple recalibration.

I believe they're completing these renovations in both directions at once going forward to avoid the excessive lengths of time needed at one particular station. With the previous one-directional closures at 104 Street and 121 Street for example, half of those stations were closed for almost two years in total. A six-month full closure is a much better alternative than that.

Flushing CBTC Temporarily Offline Following Multiple Station Overshoots - Dan Rivoli - NY1 The MTA's latest technology, computers driving trains at the push of a button, got derailed on the 7 line, days after its full launch last week. The reason: trains were overshooting stations — by four cars in one instance. Six trains — including three Friday, a day after the launch — overshot a station last week. Pete Tomlin, the MTA's subway signals executive, called it an "anomaly," where trains didn't stop when they were supposed to and instead headed straight to the next stop. He notes there were at least 12,000 successful runs of the system. "We've actually decided as a precautionary matter we would turn it off, get to the bottom of it," Tomlin told NY1. "If the operator has to emergency brake the train, or take control of the train, that's not a good thing. It's not unsafe." The 7 line is the second, after the L line, to get a new signal system this year. In April, the MTA started testing the 7's automated feature, slowly rolling it out to more and more trains. The computerized system lets trains run faster and closer together — up to 29 trains in a single hour at peak times. MTA leaders want to expand the technology to other lines within 10 years, after spending nearly a decade bringing it to the 7 line. Officials say the results are clear: a major improvement in the number of trains running on time, reaching 89 percent this April during its slow rollout. Passengers spent less time waiting on platforms and their trips were quicker, according to the MTA. "Automatic train operation is a great add-on to every line that we have. It makes train travel predictable, people know where exactly every train is," said Andrew Albert, the chair of the NYC Transit Riders Council and an MTA board member. "We have to make sure that the glitches are worked out and obviously some of the glitches were not worked out." MTA officials are working with the contractor to figure out exactly what went wrong, how to fix it, and get the system running again within days.

It kind of does matter when neither agency can manage their finances worth a damn. PATH, and the PA in general, hemorrhages money with their expenses and that FRA stipulation that the PA cannot get out of does not help matters in the slightest. For what it's worth, it'd be a really beneficial expansion with very little work involved, and that's not something I'm against. I just don't see the two agencies working together on this, nor do I see them playing fair with the costs of operation if such a combined route were to ever come to fruition.

It's probably for the best that didn't happen. Port Authority would love for someone else (the MTA) to foot half the bill for PATH expenses seeing as that "railroad" costs much more per rider to operate than the subway. Not surprising since they never wanted to be the railroad business in the first place and only are because of the World Trade Center. I could quite easily see that happening should the MTA ever build a track connection to the PATH network.

Forgive my cynicism, but I don’t really see this study doing much in terms of actually bringing subway service down Utica Ave. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if it does lead to it, but given our track record of not building necessary subway lines, I’m not holding my breath that this will lead to anything beyond B46 SBS improvements.

Eh, it’s all cyclical in my opinion. Go back 60 years and you could say the same thing about all of the R-series in service at the time. Aside from the color scheme on the various cars and slight variations in the cars’ design, they all looked quite similar. Even the 32s and 38s with their stainless steel builds were not that much of a departure from the previous car design. It wouldn’t be until the 40s were debuted that a major shift in car design occurred. It’s quite possible that the weekend M will prove popular even after the Canarsie work wraps up. It all depends on the MTA’s finances whether the extension sticks around beyond next year. As for the weekend route not appearing on the maps, that’s not surprising since the map clearly notes that it displays weekday service only. Weekend and late-night service is denoted in the box. However, there’s no reason why the overhead signs haven’t been updated. They should reflect what’s in the schedules. I’m ambivalent on the rest of your post, but sending both the M and R to 179 Street just moves the fumigation problem at Forest Hills there. While 179 Street is more than capable of turning that much service, the entire line will be slowed down by the increased amount of relaying required for the F, M and R lines. Also, such an extension serves very little purpose as riders will bail the locals at the first opportunity, especially from that far along the line. The only ones who’d benefit are Hillside riders seeking Queens Blvd local stops and vice-versa, which I’m sure is a relatively low amount of riders on the line. They sure do love to change the signs, don’t they? And yet, the super-abbreviated displays on the 188s remain.

Keep the discussion to the topic at hand. Off-topic posts will be deleted without notice, such as those previously in this thread.

And good riddance. The old names don't exist anywhere except on very old maps, therefore they should be removed from the signage. Of course, the same could be said for Rawson, Lowery and Bliss, and yet they continue to hang on despite their constantly dwindling historical significance. Regarding the actual work to be done, hopefully they find a way to minimize the amount of line closures necessary for these. I'm sure Jamaica riders would really like to see weekend service beyond Crescent St and Broadway Junction at least once this year. Yes, I am aware J trains have run normally a few times this year. Don't be pedantic.

Grand Central to Brooklyn and the local / express platforms from 125 Street to Grand Central, both during FASTRACK closures. This is a new one: Also, be on the lookout for the / swap on Memorial Day Weekend. The Bronx half of the service changes have been posted.

Why is it always the LIRR? This isn't the first time this has happened and this certainly isn't the first time the LIRR has been the main culprit here. Shifting gears, it looks like the new LED displays for the main departure board at GCT are now active. Courtesy: reck345, Reddit Despite the insistence over there that these new displays somehow diminish the class and grandeur of the station, I think they look nice. A much better improvement over the dated and damaged LCD screens currently in place. Though, in my opinion, the gradient needs to go. That kind of design is way too dated these days. Just look at the MTA's site to see what I mean. Also, what's the point of treating the information sign as separate lines like it's the old LCD board. They can take the same feed that goes out to the Outfront monitors on the opposite side of the main hall sans advertisements and it would work just as well.

Ditto. She doesn't sound as bad as she did when they started using her recordings last year. At least she no longer sounds like she has something in her mouth in her newest recordings. While the costs of construction are way too high comparatively, it makes no sense to skimp out on such bare necessities like waterproofing simply because they cost too much. They'll just have to pay for it eventually anyhow since ongoing leaks deteriorate the structure after a while. I get what they were trying to accomplish, using the full name to indicate which line to transfer to for alternate service. However, simply using "Lorimer St" for the destination signs works just as well. And it doesn't take an age to scroll across.

No doubt about it. My point was that they shouldn't say that most of the project has already been completed, then report that the remainder will still take about a year or so because more work still needs to be done. It gives the impression that the MTA doesn't need to do much else and are just creating headaches for riders with no real purpose.

Same reason South Ferry was leaking back in 2010 and until the whole thing became a bathtub in 2012, lack of waterproofing. You'd think that would be the most obvious thing to include in the design specs seeing as this isn't the Mojave Desert, but here we are. Again. Catherine Cowdery, voice of most of the B-Division for those unaware, did those transfer announcements. I'll believe it when I see it. Unlike the bus AAS program, which was just rolled out fairly recently across the board, there is already an existing AAS setup for the trains. Since I cannot imagine Transit maintaining two distinct systems, I wouldn't be surprised if the 211s are outfitted with an upgraded version of the setup found on the rest of the existing NTTs. Then again, I've been saying for a while now that the present setup needs to be upgraded to be more flexible, so who knows?

Hey kid, don't play mod staff.