Lance

Slight correction there: most of the track work needed has been completed during the nights and weekends closures of the past few months. It's a bit disingenuous for the Daily News to paint this entire project as "mostly complete" when the bulk of the work as it pertains to the current service changes is the repair and replacement of the electrical components that were severely damaged during the storm surge, which is only just now has begun. That hasn't changed from the initial plans; only its execution has. That's why it's still expected to take at least a year, even with the changed scope. The MTA may have been able to knock a few months off the original work schedule by completing most of the structural repairs during the interim prep period, but that's it.

The infrequent intervals are due to the lowered capacity in the tunnels and the track layout. They have to run single-track operations from Bedford Av to Union Square, which makes it impossible to run much more service than what is already being put out. Meh. I can't say I'm surprised. I think I've mentioned this before, but using Ms. Mitchell speeds up the process of updating the announcements. It's all inhouse now as opposed to before where they had to work around the schedules of the Bloomberg gang to get new recordings completed.

That is true unfortunately and the agency seems uninterested in changing the narrative. Even when they have able and extremely competent people working under their umbrella, they are overshadowed by the higher ups who either have no clue what's going on or are actively trying to avoid doing something to fix the situation. I think we're all in agreement on this one. But that ain't an option. Even if this proves to be a disaster, which I'm currently withholding judgment on for the moment, the MTA will continue to try this method because his majesty has commanded it. I don't know why I'm entertaining this, but I am. Maybe it's my masochistic tendencies at work here. I just want you to think about that sentence you typed for a minute and consider it as it would apply to the president (not the current one mind you) regarding some other major situation. "Well, these guys told me to do it this way" won't fly and rarely leads to anything good. Shifting gears, since everyone here knows that I'm the map guy, it should come as no surprise I've made some updates to my version of the subway line maps to reflect the changes in service related to the Project. There are also minor updates to both Vignelli-inspired maps, the normal service one and the late night version.

As @bobtehpanda stated, Archer Ave was less about removing the Jamaica elevated in the area, though that was the final intention, but rather about system expansion. That the MTA and the city as a whole went completely broke in the '70s is why the lines end at Parsons Blvd instead of some other useful location. Also, while a lack of an Archer Ave line would allow for more service on Hillside Ave, Queens Blvd would lose overall in terms of a lack of nearby connections. Both the JFK AirTrain and the Jamaica LIRR stations would be blocks away from the Sutphin Blvd - Hillside Ave station. The multitude of buses that stop at Parsons Blvd and Archer Ave would not stop there if there was no Archer Ave line, meaning riders heading east of the and terminals would have to walk over to the 165th Street Bus Terminal to continue their trips as they did prior to December 1988. In regards to a new subway line over reusing the Liberty Ave elevated, the idea was to get service to Richmond Hill and the Rockaways as soon as possible. With their acquisition of the Rockaway Beach branch from the LIRR in '52, the BOT needed a connection from the Fulton St line and they had a perfectly good, fairly new stretch of track available. The alternative would've been to wait a decade or so for them to build a new tunnel connection all the while with the Rockaways line standing idle. Remember, these are the same folks who attempted to build the Second Ave line twice at this point with nothing so show for it. Besides, neither the Liberty Ave or Rockaways stations are that heavily used to justify a four-track extension beyond Euclid Av. It wasn't so much passenger confusion as it was an operational headache at the time. At the tail end of the line's days, those trains came out of Coney Island since they shared a fleet with the . The line's fleet at the time all came out of 207th Street, but that wasn't an issue since the line was rush hours only. When the and were merged into one line back in '88 and more so when the former's service was expanded over the years, it became more annoying to move the cars around every week. When the started running to 168 Street on weekends, that was when the 1988 service pattern started becoming unattainable. Eh, I'll give it a few days before the "I told you so."s. How many major service changes have gone off without a hitch? For instance, I recall the first passenger train up Second Ave got stuck in traffic. First off, welcome to the forums. I see you've been busy, which is wonderful. However, for a lot of your queries, they can be found on the MTA's site or looking through the most recent posts in the relevant threads. Using this one as an example, if you look at the MTA's site, you'll see they're doing major renovations at Astoria Blvd, which will require trains skipping the local stations as needed.

The MTA is still stuck in the millennial minimalism phase that everyone else has long-since gotten past. It's much easier to maintain, I'll give them that, but it looks absolutely clinical.

All of the Archer Ave stations have nice designs. I'm more partial to the one at Sutphin Blvd though, especially with the vaulted ceilings on the upper level, but I can see why one would like Jamaica-Van Wyck Blvd. It is a shame those skylights remain shuttered as it would go a long way toward making that station look less drab. It would also help if they actually maintained those three stations' appearances over the years. Roosevelt Island and 21 St-Queensbridge, built and opened around the same time, don't look as severe as these three do. Well, the IND had 30 years to see the neighborhoods develop after the BMT and IRT built their lines in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. The IRT lines ran through literal farmland when they opened in the early 1900s. The BMT is no better since most of their lines were built in the late 1800s. It's hard to anticipate future ridership with no real point of reference.

Just a reminder folks: any realistic scenario that fixes 4th Avenue service and the will likely come with little to no new construction. We might see some work done at Whitehall St and Chambers St / Essex St to better facilitate terminal operations if necessary, but any new tunnel construction, even for one of a relatively short distance, is wishful thinking at best. That also applies to the belief that any immediate fixes to the will result in an almost complete rearrangement of the B-Division. I appreciate the enthusiasm, but this isn't the proposals thread and every time I see a new post here, I'm actually interested (perhaps others are as well) to see if there's been any movement from the MTA / elected officials on this problem.

I'd rather they restrict access much more over the alternative, which is someone falling onto the tracks because of a severe overcrowding situation.

Presently, there are no plans for the to receive NTTs.

You can't really call it appeasement when Cuomo essentially told the MTA to do it his way and if they didn't like it, they could go and kick rocks. Quite frankly, this potential disaster cannot really be pinned on the MTA since their original plan was, for it's many flaws, a much better one than the one we have presently. The agency's hand were tied from the moment Cuomo swooped in and saved the day. I just hope that off-hours riders do seriously consider the alternatives and avoid the western end of the line at all costs. Otherwise, Bedford Av will make Court Sq-23 St look like a cakewalk in comparison. I also don't want to see this turn into Sea Beach part deux where we're taking bets to which one finishes first, Canarsie or ESA.

Imgur and Flickr both offer high quality uploads.

Unlikely. We're stuck with this until a catastrophic failure occurs that is directly related to the changes in the project. Anything beyond that will be seen as unrelated and inconsequential. Nobody's going to risk political suicide in this city by supporting the original plan when the experts came up with something better.

I'll take the columns and get the line to Harlem sometime before 2100 over the alternative. I mean, it won't be like the Contract I stations where the pillars eat up significant walking space on the ends of the platforms.

If I'm not mistaken, they'll have to do so for every full renovation. Let's see if they try to get around it by doing more "component repairs" instead of full rehabs. If they do, I foresee another suit.

The MTA didn't follow the C&C crew's guidelines correctly. Of course, there'd be more prose and poetic waxing, but that'd be the gist of it.

Not a proposals thread.

I hope not. To pull a Wallyhorse, it wouldn't look good for his presidential run (yeah right) if his brilliant idea blows up in his face.

I can't say I'd be surprised if he left. In fact, I've been saying this for a while now. Who wants to work for someone that won't listen to any of your proposed solutions? Or worst, do the exact opposite of what's suggested? That nonsense gets very old very fast. The pay rarely makes up for the headaches and annoyances. The point behind bringing Byford onboard was his transit expertise and his ability to turn a failing transit system around. Even before he started his tenure here in New York, he was touted as the guy that would fix the subway. Now, it seems like every time you turn around, Byford is being sidelined in favor of someone else who Cuomo likes more. What's the point of bringing in the expert if Cuomo's just going to defer to the C&C crew for every solution? I'm not knocking Columbia or Cornell, but when we have a transit expert in our back pockets, why do we keep deferring to outside engineering experts that may not all of the information for every solution lately? The mishandling of the changes to the project is one glaring example of Byford being pushed aside (he was reportedly not even consulted regarding the changes to the project before the press conference). However, this has been an ongoing problem for since Byford's tenure began last year. When he began, Byford laid out his plan for fixing the subway and the cost of doing so, and aside from a couple of token mentions, there has been little to no action in doing anything substantial about actually fixing the myriad of subway problems. It's a hefty cost, no argument about it, but that's what happens when general maintenance and infrastructure upgrades get deferred to the point of failure. I imagine the costs of the major car overhauls and infrastructure upgrades in the 1980s were comparably just as high back then. And if I hear one more thing about ultra-wideband radio signaling as a replacement... I'm all for innovation and being the best around, but when we have proven technology used the world over, forgive me if I'm a little hesitant to be the pioneers on an unproven signal system. We already have an exclusivity problem when it comes to component replacements for signals because our system is one of a kind these days. We don't need to exacerbate this by bringing in another signaling system that no one will be using for the foreseeable future (because most major transit systems have or are in the process of upgrading to CBTC or something else widely used across the globe). The person who needs to go is Cuomo, but the only way that's happening is if he pulls a Weiner. I just hope that, should Byford jump ship, we get someone to head Transit that will continue to challenge the status quo. It's been decades since the first major speed reductions were enacted following the Union Square and Williamsburg Bridge crashes, but we haven't seen any removals of those artificial speed limits in nearly 30 years until just a few months ago. Even when Prenderghast was MTA chairman, there was no push to raise the speed limits where they made no sense being so low. We don't need to revert back to that kind of leadership, not when there are so many problems, both major and minor, that need to be addressed.

Very nice work there @RR503. I'm glad you were able to put this together as it consolidates all of these capacity constraints conversations (try saying that three times fast) into one very easy to decipher map. If I may make a suggestion: for services like the and , I'd recommend using eastbound / westbound instead of north / south, though that's just a personal preference.

I think you're the only one whose mind went there. Shifting gears to lighter things, I just realized that with the extension of the at the end of the month, this'll be the first time in a long time there will be three scheduled services running on 6th Avenue during off-hours. The last time this occurred, service was provided by the and the . Weekend service ended in 2001 with the Manhattan Bridge flip while late night service was suspended back in 1977 as part of ongoing service cuts that would see both the and cut back to shuttles during the overnight hours.

We knew this was coming when the info regarding the delays at 8 Avenue came out recently. The schedule change just confirms this unfortunately.

Following up, here's the scheduled service levels for the 6th Avenue services as captured in 1999 by the Wayback Machine: - 168 Street / 21 St-Queensbridge to Coney Island - 205 Street to Coney Island - 179 Street to Coney Island - 21 St-Queensbridge to Brighton Beach As mentioned in the previous post, the three express lines ran a combined 22-24 trains per hour with the as the least frequent of them, operating only six trains during peak periods. While the operated at the same levels seen today, at 15 trains per hour, there was less local service overall on the line. For those interested in seeing similar schedules for the time period, replace the bracketed text below with the route of choice. https://web.archive.org/web/19990418024253/http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/service/[q]train.htm

Based on the early 1999 schedules from the MTA's archived site, all three lines ran roughly every 7-8 minutes each (or 24 trains per hour total) at the height of the rush hours. I'll link to the Archive.org pages later today as I'm currently working off my phone. Re: Astoria service and yards If the lack of direct yard access was a true issue, it would've been one back in 1920 when the Broadway line was extended beyond Whitehall St across the river. The fact that it only became an issue in the mid-1980s leads me to believe something else was in play beyond giving the a home yard. Remember the service operations in place at the time, especially during the overnight hours. Two of the four South Brooklyn lines, the Sea Beach and the West End , were both relegated to shuttle operations between 36 St/4 Av and Coney Island, while the 4th Avenue was the only direct service to Manhattan as something had to serve Astoria. Flipping the and back in '87 allowed for the elimination of one of the late night Coney Island shuttles while retaining the primary Broadway service to Astoria. Remember that for the first couple of years post-swap, the and ran 24/7 to their respective destinations, and it wasn't until 1990 when owl period service was converted to the shuttle to 36 Street. The lack of direct yard access does add unnecessary mileage to the cars, but it shouldn't be considered such a prohibiting factor to altering service if needed. If it was such a problem, the and wouldn't run their present routes as they both currently have long relays to their home yards from their usual terminals.

Both elevators are expected to be operational in November 2020.

I try not to be too anal about this, but I do ask that we all do try to keep the topic related to the subject at hand, which is the 179s' ongoing delivery and placement into service. CBTC installation may be tangentially related here due to the potential for car placement, we do have two dedicated threads for CBTC signaling, both of which are stickied to the main subway page. Please use them for discussions on the signal upgrades and leave this thread for its intended purpose.