Trainmaster5

Well, SAS took 12 years from planning to construction. On the flip side of that, 7 Line Extension planning took from 2005-2007.

You're probably right but in my book construction on the SAS began in 1972 so even if Phase one is completed on-time this year SAS is still under construction to me. Heck, I don't consider the Archer Avenue project in Queens as completed, just halted. I had 2 teachers back in elementary school who said a project was only completed when you reached the end. My parents also stressed that. In other words you can't move the goal posts in the middle of the project and declare "completion". Unfortunately that seems to be the way the city, state, the , and many other entities do business these days. Excuse my rant as it's not directed toward you or my fellow posters. It's just that I, like SubwayGuy, BrooklynBus, and my bus poster from Detroit, and B35 are tired of politicians running a game on the public and the public accepting it.  Carry on.

IIRC, the property owners on the northern side of Eastern Parkway didn't want to allow the IRT to build on that side of the street, forcing the awkward junction and the double decked line under Eastern Parkway east of Franklin.

Looking at it from a builder's perspective back then. Half of Eastern Parkway construction means half the on-street traffic disruption, half the cut and cover costs, half the time needed, and (probably) a lower total cost in the end. Obviously this is an over-simplication of what went on back then but for a Crown Heights neighborhood without any form of mass transit except the Franklin-Brighton line on the western end it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Just speculation on my part. Carry on.

There is no quick fix for Rogers Junction. No amount of service reroutes or truncations will solve this problem and will in fact, likely make the situation worse. Terminating more or trains at Bowling Green is a non-starter. All that does is force more riders onto the already overcrowded Brooklyn-bound trains. And advocating more crowded platforms over delayed trains actually causes more delays because riders will try to force themselves onto trains actually bound for their destinations.

 

That's why service is the way it is and why only a complete rebuild of Rogers Junction will actually solve this problem.

I see people complaining about the and construction shutdowns all the time. I see other folks complaining about the length of time it's taken for the partial completion of the SAS or the finish of ESA. I'm waiting to see how long my fellow posters think the reconstruction of Nostrand Junction and the connections will take. Remember to take in consideration that all service south of Franklin Avenue in the IRT would have to be shutdown to speed up the work. Don't forget the EIS and the time it takes to draw up plans and the bidding process. Are we talking about a 5 year project ? Let's see some estimates. Carry on.

I've been kicking these thoughts around with a few and other retired folks. I'd like to know where my fellow posters stand on these thoughts

1- The extension to Hudson Yards without the 10th Avenue station is a major mistake IMO. The potential ridership at the 10th Avenue station was totally ignored while the real estate interests got over in the final analysis. I keep reading posts from railfans touting the access to the Javits Center. Has anyone else remembered the governor and his administration saying the convention center was too small and outdated? Am I and my fellow oldtimers the only ones who remember the plan to demolish the Javits Center and build a new one on the grounds of Aqueduct racetrack ? That Javits Center is history. Remember the plan to have all downstate racing to go to Belmont Park while Aqueduct was demolished? Meanwhile the Port Authority Bus Terminal is being remodeled and expanded around the missing 10th Avenue station.

2- The proposed transfer/connection between the -Livonia and the -Junius Street stations. Is this really that important in the grand scheme of things? I have my doubts. Are there really riders who will utilize this idea.? This location is the 3rd stop on both trains and I don't see the overwhelming reason for the monetary investment. Hear me out as I'm basing this on ridership from the south and the southeast neighborhoods of Canarsie, Spring Creek, New Lots, and East New York. Riders from Canarsie and the east have easy access to the via the B42, B60, and B6 buses from the south and the east at Rockaway Parkway. Riders on the B60 can also connect to the or the at Rockaway Avenue so I can't see them using the proposed connection/transfer. Riders entering the at New Lots terminal or Pennsylvania Avenue don't appear to need this connection either. The riders entering the station at New Lots and Ashford St are either walking to the train or using the B6 or B15 buses for the most part. I know I'm leaving out the B84 but bear with me. If a rider on the B15 had to use the train they would stay on the bus and use the New Lots station. No one is going to climb the steps at the New Lots , disembark at Junius St, walk down the steps and backtrack to the east, climb the steps again, to catch the train. The rush hour ridership entering the at Pennsylvania Avenue want the IRT. Those who enter there come from the B20 or B83 buses from East New York or Spring Creek. If they want the other options the buses stop at Liberty Avenue or Broadway-East New York , , , , and the train. Almost no one is going to use the proposed transfer because of it's location and the other safer available options.

3- No matter how many times people have correctly pointed out the reasoning behind the skip-stop service some posters can't see the big picture. Lance, maybe it's a comprehension problem with some folks???? My beef with the Jamaica Line service pattern concerns the demolition work at Atlantic Avenue . If this were better thought out, again IMO, some tracks would have remained in that area to run local service to/from Eastern Parkway while the trains could run express from that point. Even if they only ran for an hour or two in the peak direction it might help the riders coming from the Queens end somewhat. I'm old enough to remember Broadway-Brooklyn local  service starting at Eastern Parkway as well as some locals starting at Canarsie that used the flyover track from the line.

Just my opinions though. Agree or not there's no hard feelings either way. Carry on.

Well, Cuomo may still be thinking ahead to a Presidential run in 2020 or '24, so......

How many politicians from either party have ever made a run for President by pointing out their connections to the Board of Transportation, the New York City Transit Authority, or the ? It may be a + or - to a downstate resident of New York but it's not something to tout to the national Democratic or Republican parties. Most voters across the US have no use for the , PATH, SEPTA,BART, or the DC Metro experience. I'd bet money that experience running any state DOT counts for more nationwide. I read the NY papers  daily but I also check out papers from NC, VA, SC, and DC on a regular basis and I'd recommend  keeping the rail fan/bus enthusiasm tempered when dealing with national politics. Sit in a Denny's,Golden Corral, Hardees, Waffle House or Bob Evans south of NJ or west of the Mississippi and talk transit with a group of your fellow fans. The people around you will look at you and the others as if you had HIV, TB, or leprosy. I've done it with family and friends a few times. Change the subject to highways and watch/feel the change in the atmosphere. Transit is a local matter mainly confined to urban areas and is not a national concern in my experience. Carry on.

Has a 6 Train ever made it to Brooklyn? I know they've terminated at Bowling Green before but have they ever gone any further in service?

Atlantic Avenue, Flatbush Avenue, Utica Avenue and New Lots Avenue have all been graced by a train since 1981. I was a witness to all of them. Each time the was sent to cover major gaps in Lexington Avenue service.

Is BusTime acting wonky for you guys?

Noticed a service advisory about Brooklyn buses and it seems that routes like the B41 or the B46 have one or no buses operating at this time.

These routes aren't even located in the affected area of the advisory.

A New Program for Action:

 

Second Avenue Subway: Assuming phases 1, 2, and 3 are built, with room for changes in Phase 4 onwards

• 2 northern branches: 125th St line, 3rd St / Webster Ave / MNR ROW line (exact route undetermined)
• Southern branches undetermined
• Three services: , ,
• : Fordham to Coney Island via Broadway express, provision for extension north to Bedford Park Blvd or east along Fordham Road
• : Manhattanville / 125th St (Broadway) to Lower Manhattan, provision for extension into Brooklyn
• : See section below

Queens Bypass: Extension of 63rd St line along LIRR row to Forest Hills - 71 Ave. Not calling the line a superexpress because a few key transfer stations should be built. Two services:  ,  .

• Sunnyside - 39th St: Potential station to serve projected development at the Sunnyside Yards, potential transfer to future Sunnyside LIRR / MNR station
• Woodside - 61st St: Transfer to the and LIRR
• 51st Ave: Potential station to connect to Triboro RX / extension along the Bay Ridge branch
• Woodhaven Blvd - Rego Park: Transfer station for the Rockaway branch
• Forest Hills - 71 Ave: Express station below existing station, connects to existing tracks at Union Turnpike.
•  runs between Jamaica / 179 St and Coney Island via 6th Ave, 63rd St / Queens Bypass. Express east of Union Turnpike on weekdays, local all other times.
• runs the same route, serving local stations east of Forest Hills on weekdays.
• now runs express between Queens Plaza and Forest Hills, and local to Jamaica / 179 St.
• re-extended to Forest Hills to provide local service.

Rockaway Branch: Reactivation of the ROW for direct Midtown service via 63rd St. Three new stations at Metropolitan Ave, Jamaica Ave, and Atlantic Ave.

•  via Fulton St: Redirected to Rockaway Beach, Replaces Rockaway  shuttle
•  via Queens Bypass: New service from Far Rockaway via Rockaway Branch, Queens Bypass / 63rd St, and 2nd Ave to Lower Manhattan.

 

Brooklyn extensions still under planning. Ignoring costs, comments welcome.

Quick question for you and any RTO folks. Wouldn't your proposed service from Far Rock via the Rockaway Branch take more time to reach Lower Manhattan than the present day from Far Rock via Fulton St? Just askin'. Carry on.

The b and the Q train are not on flatbush ave when it reach parkside ave its ocean ave and parkside ave its on. its just empire blvd would be the only station they are close to each other thats the only station

Believe me I know exactly where the Parkside Avenue station is located ( I grew up in the neighborhood) but I also know that the footprint of a Winthrop St station at Flatbush/ Westbury Court that straddles Flatbush Avenue is still only about a 1/2 block from the Brighton Line at Parkside. We used to throw snowballs at the trains from Westbury Court. I'm more interested in how the ROW of this proposal is going to be laid out from Atlantic Avenue to Empire Blvd and the Prospect Park , , station. Remember that the s/b Brighton line passes under the s/b Franklin shuttle track before entering the Prospect Park station.  Any new construction would have to be really deep to pass under the existing tracks. South of that location down to about Beverley Road Flatbush Avenue isn't really that wide so I'd be interested in how this line would be constructed and underpinned. The intersection at Flatbush and Church, with the Dutch Reformed Church on one side and the Erasmus Hall HS site on the other is an historic location in Brooklyn's past which is another concern IMO. That's why I'd like to know a lot more about this proposal. Carry on.

I was thinking about making the 5 train a fullyime route by making it run to king plaza by running on flastbush the whole way the stops would be

.flatbush ave and empire

.flatbush ave and wintrop

.flatbush ave and chruch ave

.flatbush ave and beverly rd

.flatbush ave and ave D

.Flatbush ave and nostand

.flatbsuh and kings higway

.flatbush and ave n

.flatbush and ave u kings plaza

So from Atlantic Ave-Barclays the would run on it's own trackage to Empire Blvd and on to Winthrop St and Flatbush Avenue? You do realize the and lines also run along the same corridor from Atlantic to Parkside Avenue? Where would this have room to operate and construct stations? Wouldn't the line have to run below the Brighton Line from Atlantic Avenue to Empire Blvd because of the existing trackage and the 7th Avenue , stop? What about the Prospect Park , , station that's located at Empire and Flatbush? I think your proposal is somewhat problematic without further details. Carry on.

There will be tail tracks to 105 Street like Hudson Yards. If necessary, have a train dump, and move in to a tail track OR have dispatchers communicate with one another and reroute that M before it gets to Lex-63 instead of letting it run blindly into a wall.

 

If you have two trains back to back, send them both and inform passengers that the is delayed, take the to Herald Square. Then turn the next uptown at 57 Street and send it back to Metropolitan to pick up the passengers who went to 34th. If you have to, hold an F at Lexington Avenue-63 Street to give the M another minute.

 

Recently, they have really cut down time spent in terminals. When I was at Hudson Yards opening, there were never two trains scheduled to be sitting at the same time, however there were times where a train would already be there, another came in and then the first one left a minute later.

Hudson Yards and the is a different setup than what I was getting at. In that case you have one fleet and one service. That line's frequent headways are unique in RTO. Even when TSQ was the terminal if something was wrong with one consist you simply used the one across the platform.Redundancy was(is) built into the system to cover most contingencies. What I'm referencing is what I've experienced at Flatbush-Brooklyn College when we had two services and two fleets using those two tracks. We had the 9 car line as the primary and the 10 car line added to the mix during rush hours. We had an ATD at Franklin Avenue and the tower at Nostrand Junction spotting the s/b service too. All we needed was for 1 thing to go wrong uptown or at the terminal and Flatbush was SOL. Let two or three nine car or ten car trains come back to back and there's nothing you can do to prevent that s/b delay from becoming a n/b delay. Let one of those trains at the terminal refuse to charge up and two lines are screwed up. That's precisely why the present and setup at Flatbush won't be changed. That's why the Operations and Planning department wouldn't give much (any) consideration to terminal sharing with the , scenario. I'm sure all of you have read the TA's on-time performance charts. I'm also sure that most of you have used the system on weekends. I'd bet no one has noticed that there are usually two trains berthed at the terminal except when one has just left. Redundancy again. It's set up that way in case there is a problem with one of those consists you automatically use the other one.Let me use Dyre Avenue as an example. Two tracks with two layup tracks north of the station and relay/layup tracks south of the station. Depending on the problem if one train has issues in the station it may not be able to move at all. The relay/layup tracks are useless for all intent. The delay, if any, can be charged to the line and won't affect any other line. As a rule you don't see two or more lines sharing a terminal unless there is a yard lead which connects to that station. I have personally witnessed arguments between superintendents in the IRT where two lines share a terminal and/or trackage. Remember those on-time performance charts I mentioned earlier? Suppose your job or bonus review included those OTP numbers as well as crew payroll and OT numbers. The Supt. job does. Unless the head of Subways, Payroll, and Operations and Planning, as well as both superintendents can work it out that relay/layup track is useless unless someone's budget creates jobs for relay people. I'm not saying it's right or wrong but that's the reality of things in RTO. When I mentioned the KISS mantra in an earlier post everything I've just written comes in to play. It's always about the Benjamins in the . What seems to make sense to an outsider enters an alternate universe when it comes to the . I have brought a redbird into Livonia Yard to lay up overnight and noticed broken glass in the last car. I notify the Yard Dispatcher who then notifies Car Equipment in the barn at Livonia. All of us are oldtimers on first name terms. We have two choices. I can get back on that consist, take it back to East 180th St barn and return with a replacement train. line Supt. pays me OT out of his budget. Choice number two means either I or the switchmen at Livonia yard swing the consist into the barn so the glass can be replaced. line Supt. pays the line for the time and work performed. Either way the line Supt. is gonna pay. If I chose to take that train back to East 180th St for an exchange and I get caught up in a delay behind a , , or don't think the Supt. won't try to get them to pay part of my OT. It's happened to me. Carry on.

 

 

If there is one thing that the MTA cannot control, it’s the exact arrival time of trains. Just because the schedule says three different trains are on approximately 10-minute headway, doesn’t mean each and every train comes 10 minutes apart. It also doesn’t mean that if three such trains share a track that each one will arrive exactly 3.3333 minutes apart. The statistical mean will show that, but a lot of them will (read: guaranteed) bunch up and cause delays.

This should be posted throughout the Subway Forum. Make it required reading before being allowed to post. I don't know how many times I've read complaints about the not waiting for the , the , not waiting for the , the and not being evenly spaced and so on .Each line has it's own schedule to adhere to. That's what fascinates me with these new proposals about the Broadway sharing a terminal with the Sixth Avenue even on weekends up on the SAS. One train out of place and 2 services are screwed up. Sometimes I just ignore the Train Sim/Lionel crew because they fail to see the big picture. Maybe with system-wide CBTC but until them your post is entirely correct. Carry on.

I have a question for everyone about the terminal station at 96th St and Second Avenue. It's currently the projected home of the line and maybe the line will stop there if the complete SAS is ever built. I have seen proposals to run the line to that terminal on weekends or during the line tunnel work. From what I recall the terminal is a 2 track setup similar to Flatbush Ave-Brooklyn College on the , lines or Parsons -Archer on the . Correct me if I'm wrong here. My RTO folks can probably see where I'm going with this. Let's say this idea some posters have is implemented. You are the dispatcher at that terminal. There's a delay on either service and now you have 2 or more trains from the same service back to back to back. train BMT South equipment. train BMT Eastern equipment. Trains and crews not interchangeable. If the ever comes around it will use or equipment. This is not Flatbush nor is it Parsons-Archer. The proposed 72nd St setup is a memory. Does anyone really believe Operations and Planning would approve such a plan. This looks like a disaster that's guaranteed to happen. On paper only the or  maybe the runs the proper amount of service to fit that slot on Second Avenue. To add another service up there would entail cutting back on the . Even if the went up there in an emergency some Broadway service would have to be cut back to fit those extra trains in. What some posters overlook is you can't swap equipment up there. The IRT terminal at Flatbush Avenue has an interchangeable fleet to work with. I've been down there on weekends where a a or a has shown up in an emergency and the crew was allowed to use the rest room and walked back to their train and sent on their way. What I'm getting at is unless scheduling has really changed in the last few years there will be 2 trains in the terminal at all times. No room for an outsider by schedule. I don't see them cutting back Brighton (or Sea Beach) service weekdays or weekends for this proposal to see the light of day. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

 

 

..

 

Never liked the locale of that station/entrance anyway; the homeless that sleep under the "main" staircase there doesn't help.... This morning, some lady that was sleeping in the cab of an abandoned truck asked me "sir, you got 50 cent"..... Had to do a triple take to see where the voice even came from - that is, until she started fussing w/ her head poked out in (what I call) homeless speak at these other 2 homeless ppl. across the street (that were under the same main staircase I referenced earlier)......

I got off a w/b LIRR train earlier this week at that location at about 10:30 am. Hit the stairs to the underpass behind a B/O. When he reached the bottom he stopped dead in his tracks so fast that I almost hit him. There was a homeless woman, naked from the waist down, who started cursing at us and a woman who came down behind me. The homeless woman cursed us out because we were walking through her house. There were some LIRR workers at the west end of the platform who came down to investigate the commotion and they got cursed out too. I used to use the East New York station frequently in the evenings while I made the walk over to the B'way Junction complex so I figured I'd seen it all. I thought the surrounding area was being cleaned up. Obviously I was wrong. Never a dull moment over there.

http://www.nyctransitforums.com/forums/topic/46374-fulton-street-brooklyn-l-track-plans-1912/

 

It doesn't seem that way on the track map though. It's double-tracked most of the length, and the third track only shows itself from Grant Avenue eastward.

What the map shows seems to be a proposal and not the finished product. I've actually ridden the section from Hinsdale St to Rockaway Avenue which was the western terminal in 1956. There were at least 3 tracks at Hinsdale St IIRC. The remaining structural stub section over Pitkin Avenue, before it's removal, actually showed 3+1(n/b local) if my memory is correct. Notice the map shows a Belmont Avenue Yard which I can assure you was never constructed. Fulton Els were assigned to East New York Yard. There were yard leads from Atlantic Avenue used by the Fulton and Canarsie trains into East New York Yard that remained for years after the El was torn down. I'd also point out that if one looks closely at the section of the map south of Atlantic Avenue you can see a station labeled Eastern Parkway. Before anyone gets confused let me point out that in a post about the IRT relays at Utica Avenue I mentioned that the relay tracks pointed to Pitkin Avenue( which is where Eastern Parkway ended back then) and the numbering system on Pitkin is a continuation of the Eastern Parkway system. Eastern Parkway on the line was called Manhattan Junction back then. The street at the n/b western end of today's station  was called Eastern Parkway Extension.  When I grew up in Brownsville in the late '50s the old folks always called the section around Rockaway-Saratoga Eastern Parkway extension much like the old folks called the section of downtown Brooklyn from Fulton to the Manny B Flatbush extension. The BMT stopped at DeKalb Avenue and Myrtle Avenue and Flatbush Avenue Extension. Today people say DeKalb and Flatbush and let it go. Today's history lesson. Carry on.

The at Lex/125 would give Metro-North riders an easier trip to West Midtown. Right now if you’re a MNR rider going to somewhere like Herald Square or Columbus Circle you have to make 2 transfers after getting off at Grand Central.  The will shorten those trips. This is a perfectly legitimate riderbase that’s being overlooked. Why? It’s no different from how LIRR riders transfer to the at Woodside or Hunterspoint to get to the East Side. There are many LIRR trains that don't stop at Woodside and Hunterspoint Av is rush hours only, but that doesn't mean that there's a lack of demand. 

 

Also, while I don’t think a westward extension down 125 St is an upmost priority, people here are really underestimating its usefulness. It would help riders in the Bronx by connecting all the north-south routes. I mean, right now traveling between the east and west sides of the Bronx and Upper Manhattan is a complete pain (and a few Select Bus Service routes does not negate that point). Being able to easily get from the to the via the would make a lot of Bronx trips shorter. Trainmaster, you say that Harlem has adequate subway coverage now but you seem to be ignoring the fact that these new connections would benefit people beyond those who live/work in Harlem. That's like me saying the MTA shouldn't have spent money to build the transfer at Jay St-Metrotech because Downtown Brooklyn already has adequate subway service. The Jay St transfer obviously benefits people whose destinations are not Downtown Brooklyn.

 

Don't get me wrong, I obviously think a Bronx segment should be built, but it and a 125/Lex stop are not mutually exclusive. One isn't preventing the other. If the MTA suddenly decided tomorrow to scrap the 125/Lex stop and just build a terminal station at 125 St and 2 Av instead that wouldn't make a Bronx extension come along any faster.  

 

Censin does have a point on the reduction in capacity but most of the Bronx's local stations have 15 TPH or less so express stations aside the most major loss is a possible 2nd branch which is even further down the line than a 1st one. 

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this. My comment about Harlem having excellent service wasn't meant to be limited to the Harlem residents themselves. I was trying to point out that people who wanted to reach points along the 125th St corridor had many access points from Broadway on the west to Lexington on the east. I see your point about cross-Bronx travel and Wallyhorse's Columbia ideas but any projections I've seen or heard about show a population increase in Bronx County. It's my opinion that if the City of New York and the have sold this idea of the SAS as a replacement for the torn down Second Avenue Elevated then any talk of a cross 125th St extension by any official, not representing Harlem, should be suspect. Your point about the Metrotech connection in downtown Brooklyn benefiting many residents is spot on. It was constructed for that very reason because the stations were 1 block apart. What the 125th St extension is entails building another line that has nothing to do with what was proposed in the first place. That's the basis for my beef with these extraneous proposals. Build what was blueprinted before veering off the agreed upon path. Although it was the city's money I think the money spent on the extension to Hudson Yards was done wrong. IMO the unbuilt 10th Avenue station would have served a more immediate need then what was ultimately constructed. Hudson Yards will be a real estate bonanza according to the writings in business pages for the last decade. The casual New Yorker, as well as many railfans, see it as transport to the Javits Center. Those same business pages have been saying that the Javit's Center is inadequate for modern conventions and that it should be demolished and relocated. Has everyone forgotten the proposal to relocate it near JFK airport, the Belt Parkway, and Aqueduct. The one where the racetrack was to be demolished with downstate racing relocated to Belmont Park. Go back and look at Governor Cuomo's statements about Aqueduct. Like they said back in the Watergate days, "follow the money". I don't trust most politicians nor the when they make these pronouncements. They hope your attention span gets diverted by the new and shiny proposal. Mine doesn't. Carry on.

Speaking of Rogers Junction, the original 2015-2019 capital program proposal from last year included $12 million to study redesigning Rogers Junction and Flatbush Av terminal, but the final program approved last month doesn't mention it at all. I hope its omission is just a typo or something. I'd hate to think it got postponed again...

 

Glad you picked up on the missing item. I do have one question I'd like to ask everyone who is NOT an RTO employee, past or present. Where did this term " Roger's Junction" originate? I've been a member for quite a few years and every few years there are posts about this imaginary location in the IRT. People who use the term are usually very knowledgeable about the area so I rarely correct them but let's get this out in the open.Everyone look at item #14 with the arrow pointing at it on the left hand side. That is the name of the junction. NOSTRAND, not Roger's. I know all about the layout, the switches n/b and s/b, the streets overhead, the old tower, the staircase between the levels.I've worked on work trains where we ran signal cable from Atlantic Avenue to Utica Avenue when the tower at the junction was being phased out and it's functions were transferred to Utica tower. Everyone  from the local Trainmaster down to the porters/cleaners who worked that tower will tell you the name is Nostrand Junction. Just thought I'd put that out for all to peruse..SubwayGuy, Snowblock, RTOman, dc, correct me if I'm mistaken. Carry on.

My opposition to a cross 125th St segment, simply put, is who benefits from this expenditure of the public's money? Are businesses along the street going to close up shop if this line isn't built? NO. Will crosstown traffic dry up on the commercial strip? NO Will Columbia University halt it's long planned expansion if the line isn't built? NO. This line has nothing to do with the expansion and hasn't ever been mentioned as part of the university's plan. Does this westward diversion screw over a substantial base of potential riders ( the Bronx)? YES. If this idea of a cross 125th St line is so important build a trolley line instead. It's cheaper by far, not as disruptive, and I'd guess the ridership would probably equal the present day bus service on the street. Wallyhorse, I have a question especially for you. How come you love to propose spending the public's money for the benefit of private projects? I remember our discussions about the racino at Aqueduct, Belmont Park, and Hudson Yards in particular. I still say these projects are private endeavors that benefit their sponsors way more than any potential benefit or need of the general public. You want it, you pay for it. With limited funding available I'd always side with the greater public good. Carry on.

I keep seeing these proposals that want to take the SAS westward on 125th St and I always ask myself why? The "original" SAS proposal and all subsequent ones envisioned a replacement for the old Second Avenue EL The environmental impact  studies all were conducted with an eye on a Bronx extension. Even the MNRR connection on 125th St is wasteful IMO because I doubt than many railroad riders would use that stop for any reason. Does anyone really think that upstate or Connecticut riders are going to exit a railroad train where the next stop is Grand Central Terminal for a subway train? Many MNRR trains don't even stop at 125th St today because the demand is not there.  To those of you who propose extending the line even further westward toward 12th Avenue or whatever I'll assume you folks are into Lionel or some sort of train simulator game. With the at Broadway, the , , and at St. Nick, the and at Lenox, the MNRR at Park, and the , , and at Lexington north and southbound service is fully covered. No one except a train buff is going to ride a crosstown 125th St train to head downtown. That would be a total waste of time for a commuter and a waste of money for the and the taxpayers. That's why they have buses on 125th St in the first place. The SAS is a quasi- replacement for the Second Avenue El and a congestion reliever for the Lexington Avenue subway. If any new money becomes available it should be directed toward the Bronx IMO because Central and West Harlem have adequate subway coverage for today and any forseeable population increases. Following that train of thought I'd think SE Queens, Southern Brooklyn, and NE Queens have better claims on any new NYC transportation monies. I don't think that any segment of the service area would support any 125th St line because the board wouldn't even consider it. For those Columbia University apologists out there I'll leave this with you. Private school= Private transport. Buy some buses or ride the existing transport options. Just my opinion though. Carry on.

I order stuff from amazon on oct. 3 and they tell me it won't get here until the 27th wtf?? I never shoulda bought from that new seller with the lovest price....

 

 

You pays for you learnin'

I order things from Amazon all the time and I've never had that problem. First of all I have Amazon Prime which usually means free 2-day shipping. The exception to that is to check for the seller first. Many things on the site are not sold by Amazon but second party sellers. In that case all bets are off because one has to check to see what the sellers shipping policy is and check if the seller even has the desired item in stock. As an example, if I wanted to buy my little nephews Halloween costumes tonight, Tuesday, most sellers on Amazon won't deliver before Saturday or Sunday. Better check everything before you click buy on these online sites. YMMV though. Carry on

So I'm sitting down in NC a few nights ago and I decide to use Bus Time for the first time. It's about 3 am and I decide to see what Brooklyn bus service is at that time. I click on a few routes like the B6, B41, B15, etc. I clicked on the B12 and I thought I found a glitch in the app. I tried the B46 and the same thing happened. My question to you bus fans is this. Are those deviations in the Bus Time app maps for special service like school trippers? The B12 has one that appears to head toward the Wingate site while the B46 has one that heads eastward from the area around Flatbush depot. I looked at the schedules for both routes and I didn't notice anything about special service. I've also noticed that the BusTime app shows things like the N/B B41 runs to Empire Blvd which are also on the schedule. I can't find anything about the B12 or B46 diversions in their printed schedules. What am I doing wrong? Carry on.

. Add another stop or two further into Jamaica and I think more Lower Manhattan-bound riders might opt for the J and K over the E.

Depends on where you'd add those stops, right? Remember those stops the used to have further east on Jamaica Avenue? The ones the said the merchants and residents wanted removed. Instead we got the (truncated) , setup we have today.. IMO the better option would have been to leave the elevated where it was and extend it eastward while using the and another QBL local along Archer Avenue toward the east/southeast. Since hindsight is 20/20 and I wasn't a resident of the area or on the board when these ideas were floated I'd like to know the reasoning behind what we ended up with today. I understand the financial problem(s) that made Parson's -Archer the present terminal but it amazes me that the and NYC brag about the Hudson Yards train to the dump called Javits and the never-ending SAS saga.The missing 10th Ave stop would have benefited more people IMO. Look at the recent proposals for the PA bus terminal location as an example of what I mean. Personally the Archer Avenue extension done in conjunction with the QBL CBTC would have more benefit for more New Yorkers than the extension will ever have. Hudson Yards benefits the real estate folks while SAS and an Archer Avenue extension benefit real New Yorkers. Just my rant. Carry on

first of all we need to assess driverless

 

but you said if

 

A route length/hours is determined by available cars, demand, and funding. Also the only routes that you can make "long" are B division rotes which would require a huge CBTC systemwide upgrade that would take years. Additionally new safety measures would need to be instated because part of a driver responsibility is to be prepared for a situation. Furthermore the MTA doesn't really care how long a route is as long as it efficient from what they have available. Easy example are the and . However something like this is impossible for the near future (the time you're living) because its not economic feasible considering new training, cars and equipment is necessary.

 

Short answer Yes if there are demands for long routes, just not now

You've got the right idea, efficiency and equipment. I'd doubt that there are many posters out here who can remember when the Dyre line used to change crews at East 180th Street heading N/B. The IND also changed crews on S/B trains at Euclid Avenue heading out to the Rockaways. In both cases the passengers remained on the train while a new crew took them on to their destination. The equipment doesn't need a lunch or bathroom break. Even if the ran totally automated subways as long as there is a human onboard who is responsible for safety some accomodation has to be made for him/her. Just my opinion. Carry on.

I wonder why the never mentions that some trains go to Utica Av during the rush hours (map and board)

If you go to the site and download the schedule it's easy to see which trains go to terminals other than Flatbush Ave, like Utica Avenue or Bowling Green.. Those PDF schedules have been online for at least 10 years IIRC. Same thing with the trains that terminate at 138th St-3rd Avenue. There's only so much room on a map or board anyway. Carry on.

I have a question. What was the original reasoning for putting the bus #'s on the roof? Someone told me it was so if a bus ever got hijacked or something, the police would be able to spot and follow it easily via helicopter. Is this true?

That's what I was told by NYPD back in the day. It was also the reason why the US Postal Service and other commercial carriers instituted the practice back then. Drive on elevated roadways around the country and you'll see how widespread the practice is today. That's my observation anyway. Carry on.