geoking66

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?

6 Av Exp FTW!!

…no

Atlantic Av

 

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.

I am guessing those cars are likely to 60 footers, right?

 

That's what I have been hearing.

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.

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.

I agree with the train idea.

 

About the Second Av. stations, while they would be convenient stations, they wouldn't work:

 

There is already a Second Av. station on the (hence it's title, 2nd Av).

The won't happen because the Queens-bound end of 53 St. - Lexington Av. is at, if not passed Third Av.

Similar with the at 59 St. - Lexington Av. AND the at Grand Central.

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.

again: would you rather have something or nothing? Yes those trains are old, what isn't? It's not like the redbirds are being brought back into service. Those R62As have at least 10-15 more years left [they are maybe 30~ years old now].

 

Most trains are retired at about 40 years of service and new cars aren't cheap. It's best to keep older cars running if it is still financially 'cheaper' to keep them in running order as opposed to buying new trains.

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.

I'm surprised that R62s couldn't be retrofitted with CBTC, though.

Why do people still assume that? They can either ride the trains or deal with the roads if they don't like it.

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.

^ 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.

That would make the most sense, replacing all three classes with one new fleet, that is, not only because of the continuous delays, but also the fact that the R46s are also nearing the end of their nominal lifespan. I'm pretty sure it would cost less to buy around a thousand cars at one price with one order than it would with two different contracts, especially considering that the costs of these new cars keeps going up as time goes on. But that's just me.

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.

I am wondering, what is there going on, on 14th and 23rd streets that makes Jamaica bound skip those stations.

 

Jamaica-bound trains skip 14 St and 23 St

Nights, 11 PM to 5 AM, Tue to Fri, Jul 5 - 8

 

It's been like that for couple or more weeks, whats going on?

I believe it's platform edge replacement.

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.

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.

Making 74th express wouldn't be ideal b/c all of the express trains would absolutely be crushloaded, all the time. I would leave 74th and 61st as currently is.

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 .

I'd make 81st Street, Manhattan an express stop…

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).

Exactly, the (Q6Av) was basically a <> on Brighton. Other than a different north terminal, it wasn't really an additional service. Hell, there were times I felt the was better at showing up before the other 3 'express' trains arrived.

It feels like waiting for any train on the Sixth Avenue Line is futile most of the time; good thing the run well only one block west. But that's beside the point.

In all honesty, I'd like to see the get upgraded, both in terms of rolling stock and frequency. For such an important line, it seems pretty neglected. I couldn't begin to tell you how many times it feels like express after express comes with no local, which becomes a problem when you have to travel to Columbia a lot. The is probably the lowest-priority IRT line in terms of needing an upgrade, most likely because it only has two unique stations and the and are far more heavily used. But as long as IRT service stays as good as it is, ie better than the B Division, I'm fine with whatever car type shows up.

Am I weird for always preferring an R160 to an R32?

The cannot be rerouted on to another line, it's independent of every other IRT line.

I meant that it can be routed via B Division trackage to other A Division lines. If I'm not mistaken, work cars are of A dimensions, so it would make sense that an R188 could be placed onto the Lexington Avenue Line for example if there were some reason to do so.

In my opinion the strip maps are just as effective as the FINDs in showing the stations where the train will stop. The person has to be stupid in order not to understand what the strip map is showing. The FINDs can be harder to figure out, in that respect, though they're better in showing how many stops until the stop you wanna get off. Even if someone doesn't realize how the strip maps work right away, after a couple of stops he or she will be used to them. I'm not saying that the 7 should get strip maps. I prefer anything that's newer technology over older. But, we should also think on how much it's worth it for the to waste money especially since these trains cannot be rerouted to another line. There are other things around the system on which they can spend money that are far more urgent, I believe.

In the long run though, isn't the initial cost of FIND more worth it? The R188s will run in 5 and 6-car sets, so those 5-car sets could be rerouted onto the 7th or Lexington Avenue Lines for some reason (can't think of one in particular, but it can happen). Also, for services, it's easier to see only the express stops rather than the entire line and only a faint dot for express stops. Finally, FIND is easier to update in case of transfer changes such as the inclusion of new bus routes or if other subway lines change routings (the replacement of the V by the M is a good example). To me it seems that the flexibility of FIND warrants the upfront cost of the system.

Why?

Because the sucks. It's not even the R32s (not much in the way of places to hold on), but more that it seems to take forever to show up.