Lance

That would delay the order even further. Adding a couple of cars to the order and converting some A cars to B cars are a much easier process than changing the order to make them into the 211-lites.

Well, it's a good thing that shutdown isn't happening, now is it?

We are no strangers to teething issues here. The 142s were infamous for being in and out of service during the first few years in operation for one reason or another and despite those issues, they would later go on to become some of the best workhorses in the system. With that said, however, it has gotten extremely annoying that a car class delayed by several years due to builder issues can arrive on site and still be defective after such a extended length of time. It's going to look really bad if the test train of 211s arrives before this order is complete.

If there's any consolation, I guess it's a good thing these issues are cropping up now while they're under warranty and not several years later when the costs of repairs would fall solely on us.

1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

Wasnt service between Chambers and South Ferry suspended for a good 2 years? Because of flood damage?

Nope. After the attacks, the line was closed for just under a year, reopening on Sept. 8th, 2002. Post-Sandy, the South Ferry station was closed for nearly five years due to severe water damage, but aside from that, the line remained in service.

12 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Who are these “donors” you keep speaking of? David Faber and Arthur Schwartz, 😆?

And by the way, NO ONE picks a presidential candidate solely (or even largely) on how their commute is affected!

I don't know why you're bothering. It's "pols" this, "donors" that and "potential presidential run" every time something like this comes up.

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 6:48 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

To answer your first question, he didn't bring it up any longer because he doesn't care about NYC residents. If he did care, then he would've been at that first tunnel tour in March 2016 and bring up that solution there instead of waiting now and confusing people in Brooklyn and Manhattan.

To answer your second question, they waited this longer due to the need to find out the actual damage, come up with a strategy to fix the tunnel, plan for robust alternatives for line passengers, and fix up nearby subway lines to be in great condition to carry displaced riders. However, if they inspected every tunnel in June 2013 (and planned the Canarsie work immediately after that June inspection) instead of staggering the inspections over several years, this should've been the order the tunnels would be repaired:

1. Montague  
2. Greenpoint  
3. Canarsie  
4. Steinway
5. 53rd Street
6. Cranberry Street
7. Clark Street
8. Joralemon Street
9. Rutgers Street

That way, the most damaged tunnels would be fixed first instead of waiting. But nope, MTA does what is "best" for us.

I believe the Fix and Fortify closures were done in their present order based on the potential ridership impact and not just damage. It's just coincidence that the worst damage Montague tunnel was the least impactful in terms of ridership, hence why that was closed first. The had a bunch of nearby alternatives when that tunnel was taken out of service in 2013. That isn't the case for the , hence the extended wait while contingencies were drawn up to mitigate a closure of that magnitude. Sure, it would've been better from an operations standpoint to get the Canarsie tunnel back to pre-Sandy conditions earlier than it currently is planned for, but getting several different agencies to come up with a beneficial plan to minimize the impact of the loss of the Canarsie line is not an easy process, especially when dealing with the great bureaucracy.

As for the comparisons to restoring service after Sept. 11th, that was all about bouncing back from the tragedy of the attacks. It would've been the equivalent of leaving that empty pit where the Twin Towers stood. Also, a better comparison would've been to the initial restoration of service on Nov. 8th, 2012 and a more apt comparison to the planned closure would be to the long-delayed restoration of service at Cortlandt St.

In my opinion, it's just another instance of this belief that if we didn't build, create or invent it here in New York, it'll never be viable here. Gotta love that "Can't Do" attitude.

On ‎1‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 8:21 AM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

You know what, now that I think about it, train announcements should say their destination at every stop in every borough. An  train to Bay Ridge shouldn't say Manhattan bound in Queens. Or a  train to Jamaica shouldn't say Brooklyn bound in Manhattan. 

I actually witnessed tourists read the overhead signs on the platform, and then when the train said Brooklyn bound, they thought they were waiting for the wrong train. 

Edit: After looking at this R211 video, think it could be modified to say the destination in Manhattan and Brooklyn? This would also help pple distinguish if the train is going to Lefferts, Far Rock or Rock Pk rather than reading the side signs. 

<vid removed>

The trains are announced as [borough]-bound until they reach the borough of their destination because most riders are not that familiar with the final stops of the route in question. Nor are they riding the train for that much where it would really be necessary. Even on the split  or the rush hours split , unless the rider is in Queens or the Bronx respectively and are riding past the point of divergence, they are going to hop on the first train to arrive.

18 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

The problem I have with that is the font is so goddamn tiny. It's already annoying enough when you have people trying to squint at a subway map with 8 pt font.

The less information displayed, the better. Keep It Simple, Stupid.

This was really just a demonstration of the technology to be offered on the new trains. I imagine once the trains are actually built and the finishes are added, the information will be much more visible than was shown in the clip. Besides, that tiny font would probably run afoul against ADA regulations regarding legible text from a certain distance.

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

Maybe we shouldn't be so fast to sh*t on Wally's conception of politics...

Let's see if this actually pans out. Announcement is in 12 mins...

 

EDIT:

Confirmed. The f*cking Prince has decided that it's better to screw NYC with 36 months of crowding instead of 15. I think this is the moment where we give up on NYC transit ever unf*cking itself. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/03/nyregion/l-train-shutdown.html 

Beyond the incontrovertible idiocy of not doing the full shutdown, this is a complete denigration of public process. There were hearings on this. Alternatives and assessments and decisions were put together. What we're seeing today is basically an authoritarian rejection of that entire process. I hope everyone here (provided they want the 15 month version) takes it upon themselves to call their representatives/Cuomo and give them hell. 

So much for the “get in, get out” approach he touted as part of the Enhanced Station Initiative he pitched. Now we’ll be stuck with severely reduced service for the foreseeable future while one tunnel is perennially out of service. Once again, Prince Andy spits on the desires of the electorate here by ignoring what the people overwhelmingly chose. Everyone knows the MTA is slower than molasses when it comes to construction, which is why we chose the shorter option to fix the issue in one fell swoop rather than prolong the pain for at least three years. I just hope this doesn’t backfire on him, because we’ll be the ones suffering from a catastrophic tunnel failure.

38 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

i hope the hipsters who predicted doom and gloom are happy because of your crying and moaning your screwing everyone else

They’ll complain regardless as the L will be reduced anyhow. The full closure option was overwhelmingly preferred over this half-assed approach because even under a partial closure, the tunnels will not be able to handle full capacity, thus requiring the myriad of transportation alternatives outlined in the full closure option.

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:49 AM, Lance said:

The closest they got for Metro-North is the one for Grand Central, which is buried in their site. I haven't seen any effort to expand that to the other stations.

Found the Metro-North version. Damn thing is buried in the TrainTime page.

10 hours ago, QM1to6Ave said:

Am I missing something...it seems like the MTA website has a departures board for LIRR (which is great for when I use the Atlantic ticket), but no online departure board for Metro North?

The closest they got for Metro-North is the one for Grand Central, which is buried in their site. I haven't seen any effort to expand that to the other stations.

It could be that it's perceived as not as much of a big deal than the other ones since technically, no stations are closed under the Jamaica shutdown. Jamaica Center and Sutphin Blvd remain open for the full duration of the project. It's just the lower level platforms that will be closed. Also, the shuttle buses will only operate a one-stop distance between 121 Street and Jamaica-Van Wyck Blvd . Finally, the loss of skip-stop service is being offset with additional trains.

Good morning and Merry Christmas. Here's another addition to the gallery.

Date: 1988

Printed by: Michigan Laser Graphics

Used for: R68s, R68As

Upon delivery of the cars, starting in May 1988, all incoming R68As were equipped with these curtains, a change from the alphabetical order found on their Westinghouse cousins. Also, this one included options in anticipation of the Manhattan Bridge closure, something the original curtains on the R68s did not, leading to several instances where those cars would be signed up as when the south tracks were closed. This lack of correct exposures led to some of the original R68 curtains being replaced with this model in the early 1990s. However, most trains would retain their original curtains until 2001 when they would be replaced with new ones that had a correct circle route.

4 minutes ago, Abba said:

Why can’t you run the  via Rutgers ? There is nothing closed on that route .

Because it's not needed? Running the via Rutgers serves no purpose and only gets in the way as the has to run to Euclid Av because of the closure. Besides, the Manhattan-bound local track between Jay St and W 4 Street is out of service that weekend, so that option is out either way.

3 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

He dosent mean operate the C via Culver, he wants to operate it via Rutgers then normal route to Euclid. This eliminates the transfer needed for someone who has to transfer from the to the to get to Euclid. That solves that problem.

That's two parts of the puzzle, via Crosstown and via Rutgers. The only problem left is 63rd St. Sending the via 6th Av wont work because people are going to cram it, but the other problem is that it's the only line that can provide 6th Av local service, unless you reroute the via 6th Av.

So the plan is to shaft Manhattan - Queens riders by giving them reduced service? While the is running via 6th Avenue due to the week-long closure of 53rd Street, running the via Crosstown simply because the is covering 6th Avenue is a poor operations move because it effectively halves service between Queens and Manhattan. It's also a bad move to run the via 63rd Street on a normal weekend for such a service change as it forces either full-time service to Queens or the reroute of the to Whitehall St during overnight hours like it was done two weekends ago. This whole thing makes more work than the standard via Fulton St / to Stillwell Av service change that's happened many times over the years without incident. The fact that the has to be cut back to 2 Avenue is a necessary evil over rearranging the system.

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 8:04 PM, trainfan22 said:

Funny, this little discussion reminds of the early 2000s when it was common to have weekend "No trains running" G.O with the scraping the wall from Euclid to 168th. 

I always wondered what exactly was being repaired during those G.Os...

That's what came to mind when I read the suggestion. Since I've been combing through some of the previous years' weekend service changes, two constants popped out: 1) the consistent suspension of Queens Blvd service and 2) the full suspension of the whenever anything remotely impactful happened on 8th Avenue or Fulton St. I can't imagine riders liked that particular service change, especially since it happened all the time.

Sometimes, it was due to repairs following the 2005 Chambers St fire or major suspensions in Brooklyn, but a lot of the time, it was due to innocuous service changes like express-only service in one direction along Central Park West or 8th Avenue proper.

On ‎12‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 11:17 PM, Abba said:

What they could do is send the to 2nd ave. could go via Rutgers to replace the and then  go back on it’s regular route to Euclid .  I think this weekend it’s more complicated with  on 6th ave but on a regular weekend  with this G.O Does this make sense? I think it might 

The closure is between Jay St and Bergen St, hence the service changes on the and . Running the down Culver would be impossible under these conditions. The only alternative to preserve full service would be to cut the back to Jay St, but that would require riders to make a three-legged transfer to get from 6th Avenue to the Culver line. The via Fulton St allows for a quick transfer between the and at Hoyt-Schermerhorn Sts.

21 hours ago, RR503 said:

The really disappointing part of this, though, is the fact that even for a 24/7 GO, they can only be bothered to bus as far as Van Wyck. Classy, MTA. 

That is an interesting point. Why do the shuttle buses end at Jamaica-Van Wyck for Jamaica line closures? The buses always run to Jamaica Center when service is suspended, so why not the buses? Is it because it's a direct shot to Jamaica-Van Wyck from wherever the buses originate from?

21 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Do they even have a program to 121? I see a repeat of the  to Metropolitan GO in our future...

We'll find out soon enough, won't we.

Exactly. Can you imagine what would happen if the patchwork repairs fail because Cuomo decided to strong-arm the MTA and force the cancellation of the closure? The inevitable line shutdown that would follow would be more costly and more time-consuming than just letting the original shutdown commence as planned.

Also, I'm still baffled on how a line closure here in New York translates into increased / reduced presidential viability. Voters in the boondocks barely care about what happens in NYC. What makes you think someone in middle of nowhere Ohio is going to care about a partial line closure?

12 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Took the  by there today. They are keeping the old tiles... 

Unfortunately, I expected that. Since it's an island station, the only way to remove and replace those tiles would be to close the station for a period in at least one direction for access. Such a reroute would impact the and since service would have to run via 53rd Street.

On ‎12‎/‎12‎/‎2018 at 9:41 PM, RR503 said:

With you here on the Lex-63 connection. Instead of making heavy-handed and questionably necessary investments like ESA, Fulton Center, CBTC, etc, we should be focusing on this sort of 'quick win' investment -- there are *so* many little things we could do with massive effect for low cost. Others on the I'd say are the reconfiguration of the Astoria terminal, a station in Livonia Yard, crossover replacement at Jamaica Center, a flyover for Dyre, etc, etc. 

About deinterlining 36: the interlocking there isn't inherently limited by geometry or configuration. I'd at least attempt to operate interlined service through there before we throw in the towel -- the  is quite popular for a reason, after all... 

¿Por qué no los dos? I'm not saying your ideas don't have merit, far from it, I actually like what you come up with, even if I don't always agree with the ideas. However, the so-called "questionably necessary investments" you mentioned do serve a purpose as well. ESA will free up much needed space at Penn Station by allowing the LIRR to travel to Grand Central. It also has the unintended benefit of facilitating the push for Penn Station Access for Metro-North. The Fulton Center project has streamlined the formerly abysmal transfer at Fulton St without rebuilding the Nassau St tracks, all while recouping some of the costs with the shops above. As for CBTC, well, I've already said my piece on that. We do need to take a more progressive stance on these easier projects, but we cannot ignore the big ones either.

Nope. Culver has the system that will eventually be in place on Queens Blvd and I don't believe there is any CBTC signaling on the Jamaica/Nassau St line. The system in place on Canarsie is completely different from the other ones.

5 hours ago, RailRunRob said:

Can you imagine working on the planning for this shutdown for 2 years  Just to have to Cuomo, Cornell and Columbia staff second guess everything you've done?  My question is if the State is ready to open there wallet if need be to get it done right.

Nah. Don't you know, the subway is run completely by the city. Don't let those such pesky things like facts tell you otherwise. Andy Boy just wants to show us how he'd do things, just like when he inspected the tracks last year for no real reason. It's too bad the other Andy can't tell this one to take a hike.

 By the way, if he wants to inspect something, maybe he should take a look at his dad's namesake bridge first.

15 hours ago, NY1635 said:

What's going on next week? 

ESI finalization work at 57 Street. trains will run via 63rd Street to maintain service along the line while trains are rerouted to 53rd Street to avoid the closed station. trains are running to Whitehall St via 63rd Street for the same reason.

More Info: https://new.mta.info/Dec-8-data-outage

11 hours ago, Far rockaway said:

11:45PM Fri to 5AM Mon Dec 14-17

 trains run via the  between Roosevelt av And 5av/53rd st in both directions then resume regular service at 47-50th st 

 trains run via the  between 36th st and Lexington av 63rd st in both directions then resume regular service at 57th st-7th av

 trains provide alternate service to Lexington av 59th st and 5thav-59th st

Also, during overnight hours, trains will run via the and lines between Roosevelt Av and Whitehall St to provide service to 63rd Street. 57 Street may be opening soon after this.

Actually, it was likely due to a perceived poor investment at the time. Remember that the current version of the line was to be built in stages, not all at once like the 1970s version was to be. Digging a large tunnel three miles further than the intended southern end of the line at the end of stage one would've been seen as a waste of money, regardless of the time savings we would've gotten from it. Then there's the maintenance of such a long and currently unusable tunnel, which I cannot imagine would've been that cheap. It would've been nice to get a head start on future construction of the line, but it would've already been about ten seven years that the tunnel would've sat idle without any plans for use. And based on the latest information on the project, it will be another decade before we even begin to discuss realistic plans for an extension of the line south of 63rd Street.

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

They have to upgrade in some areas, yes. But one fact that many commentators miss is that the fixed block systems currently in place are (generally speaking) not all that old. Much of the IRT was signaled parallel to ATS, IND Culver got during the rehab, CPW/Concourse/Inwood over a period of many years from the '80s onwards, West End, Sea Beach, Brighton all within the past two decades, etc etc etc. What we should be pursuing is thus a phased approach to implementation over the course of, say 20-30 years that focuses on incremental improvements to the fixed block system and competent installation of CBTC -- not an all out foamfest to obfuscate the causes of a completely separate issue, namely, that of system operational meltdown. 

Regardless of what's been drafted in the as of yet unfunded Fast Forward plan, most of us know that the entire system does not need CBTC, which is why the original plan was more focused on need. To do otherwise would just be a waste of very finite resources. That's why the focus has always been on the lines where even improvements on fixed block will not allow for the amount of service needed to meet demand. Look at Queens Blvd for example. The express tracks are maxed out at 30 trains per hour and no amount of improvements to fixed block signaling will change that unfortunately, hence the focus there. It's the same reason why both 8th and 6th Avenues are also slated to receive CBTC signaling. The core would benefit from this much more than the single-service lines.

Going forward, please use this thread for general discussion regarding CBTC. This thread may be merged with the other one depending on use.

Going forward, please use this thread for any MTA information related to the installation of CBTC signaling systemwide.