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.

geoking66

Veteran Member
  • Posts

    141
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1 Neutral

About geoking66

  1. I recently saw that the subway's hit another increase in ridership for 2011. Does that mean the MTA will be releasing station-by-station stats soon?
  2. Atlantic is only three blocks north of Bergen and two south of Hoyt. For IND stations in Downtown Brooklyn, it'd make more sense to work on connecting to BMT or IRT stops. Unfortunately that's virtually impossible and bad design on the part of the IND engineers who were working on eventually recapturing.
  3. Almost definitely. The fact that 75-footers can't be used on the Eastern Division is a big reason why the MTA is highly unlikely to ever choose that design again. Operational flexibility is key, and with real-time updating and FIND, it's even better now that soon enough we'll only have 60-foot cars.
  4. Kent Ave to serve all the waterfront development and take some pressure off of Bedford. Too bad the tunnel is at a grade by that point.
  5. Except the is 14 blocks south of the . Building those two proposed stops in conjunction with the Second Avenue Subway if/when it goes that far south would certainly be smarter and create an easy interchange.
  6. The "6" mosaic in the background kind of gives it away…
  7. I'll take whatever comes, although I have a preference for keeping the Lex NTT for capacity reasons (R142s and R142As handle crush loads better than R62s). However, I'm seeing this from a non-fan's point of view, and that's one of another con against the MTA.
  8. I'm surprised that R62s couldn't be retrofitted with CBTC, though. It comes off badly on the MTA. Service cuts are bad enough in the public's mind, let alone putting older rolling stock onto the busiest line in the system.
  9. ^ Not only that, but UES residents would get pissed off quite quickly if they were in essence "downgraded" to not-NTT cars. I can't quite imagine trying to run R62s on the Lex anymore; it's already insane with better-designed cars. I don't see why the (7)'s fleet couldn't get upgraded with CBTC unless there were some sort of technology hindrance, but I'm not an expert on train technology so I'm sure someone has a better understanding of why the MTA would rather swap fleets. Come to think about it, wasn't the equipped with CBTC-compatible R143s before CBTC went into service? It would make more sense to bring in the CBTC-compatible R188s before attempting to work with CBTC, at least having the Flushing Line outfitted by that point. But I guess money's the important factor right now. Oh well, it'll be a shame to see the Lex not be fully-NTT after almost a decade.
  10. It's a matter of how long the R179 gets delayed. There's a belief that it's cheaper and easier to knock an old house down and rebuild from scratch; perhaps it also works when considering rolling stock (like you said, it might be cheaper overall to have a huge merged R179/211 order than to retrofit the R46s with newer technology). I'd like to see the R179s soon, but the MTA might simply not be able to produce it as early as many of us would like. Just anything to get rid of those God-forsaken R32s; those things have nothing to hold onto when it's crowded, and considering how poor CPW service is, even during rush hour, it would be a welcome reprieve.
  11. Why would R62As go onto the Lex at all? That would just be a stupid decision considering ridership alone. The additional width of R142 and R142A doors allows for slightly lower dwell times, while the staggered door placement slightly increases standing room, or rather aids in spreading out standing passengers and making it easier for them to move to the centre of the car.
  12. The Woodhaven and 74th Street debate reminds me of an older argument of a similar nature: why is 59th Street/Columbus Circle not an express? Simply, it's that, at the time that the line was designed and built, planners didn't consider the same stations to be as important as well as trying to even out station spacing. Further, until the construction of the Eighth Avenue Line, 59th had no connections, and as such wasn't as particularly important as it is now, just like 74th upon the opening of the Queens Boulevard Line. If the MTA went through with its plan to switch 59th and 72nd, we'd be left with an incredibly long express service between 59th and 96th (almost two miles) that would be ineffective at servicing the Upper West Side. On the subject of Woodhaven, I believe that the station placement on both the Flushing and Queens Boulevard Lines had something to do with LIRR connections; note that Woodside and Forest Hills both had commuter rail stations and were therefore more important at the time of the building of their respective subways. The building of an express station at Roosevelt was a means by which the IND could capture Midtown-bound riders from the IRT as well as the fact that Roosevelt was and still is more of an important artery than Woodhaven, having been developed due to the earlier construction of the Flushing Line.
  13. I agree; keeping 74th as a local allows for better passenger distribution. If the MTA were to convert it to express, not only would the station have to be re-designed, but it would make the less attractive in terms of saving time compared to the . That makes sense if it weren't for the fact that only 72nd exists between 59th and 81st. Perhaps the addition of a 66th Street stop would make that more logistically feasible. One could argue, however, that the appeal of the long express stretch to 125th is that the lack of particularly prevalent express service in Upper Manhattan and the Bronx (apart from the during rush hours and the 8th Avenue Line between 125th and 168th, which isn't particularly time-saving).

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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