Eric B

That was the other thing I forgot. Both 39 and 67 go back the other way (to either Vernon or 21st), before starting to head east, and it feels like a long time, and you're still in LIC. I think the one that goes to Ridgewood should just go straight out on Queens Blvd to Van Dam, and let the other one (the shortened line) pick up all those out of the way corners).

For the Cipher-zone (the invisible hole smack in the middle of the city), the best thing is the Q14 via Eliot, but it still only goes to Fresh Pond/Putnam, not Ridgewood terminal. Also, the 55 finally going all the way into Jamaica, and the 47 coming down to Metropolitan and Fresh Pond. Most everything else is still the same isolation (either by stopping short of connections, or just tortuously winding indirect routes). They swapped the 39 and 67 east of 48th, but still have the 39 taking the ridiculously long angled route through 100% industrial areas between 48th and Rust. It sould stay on Rust to 48th, and move the 67 to 55th Ave. and drop the under the BQE section. I see they also ditched the 59th/60th shortcut (some kinds at the last hearing were saying they couldn;t make the turns, but I think they should really consider doing something about that, and keep it off fresh Pond). If that weren't bad enough, when swinging over from Forest to Fresh Pond, it doesn;t even take the ovious direct path on Eliot, like the 39 does, but stays on Metropolitan to the hard left turn incredibly busy intersection with Fresh Pond. Are they kidding? They're making things worse! The 18 is straightened along 65th, but still doesn't come down past Grand. The 73 still ends on the 23 loop on Union Tpk, and doesn;t go the severl blocks to Myrtle! The 58 now takes Roosevelt instead of Horace Harding,which is slightly more direct, but turns off before reaching the intesection with Main, and ends up using the same loop several blocks away. They should have it turn from Roosevelt onto Main (which is no turns except buses), then end on the loop. I think the 98 at least (or something going across to Flushing) should use Eliot. Grand and Corona is just too long, winding, busy and narrow. The expresses are all unchanged, going 2 miles past Maspeth to Rego Park, to come all the way back to Fresh Pond. The exit in Maspeth is one mile from Fresh Pond @ Eliot, and this is stretched to four miles, half of which on the slow packed LIE! This to-scale map shows how utterly ridiculous it looks. Of the three expresses they have now, can't at least ONE of them go direct, using the Maurice Av. exit?

looks nice. But people and things (perhaps deliberately some times) would be getting caught in the space between the train and the screen doors! As much as I think we need them; I don't see how it could ever work!

Wow; so much time has passed! Doesn't seem like those rosters were that long ago!

Route letters and numbers were strictly an IND thing, and even there, as that old 30's map shows, they were really more for the towers, so transit routes were commonly known by names. Because our system grew and became so vast, with many branches of lines, individual routes became the norm, and finally officially spread from the IND to the BMT and IRT upon total unification in 1967.

That's what I was referring to. I didn't know that would even be on the table, and I'm glad it is (though I'm sure that's not what they're going to choose. But if they go with Willets Point, then JFK and Jamaica should be left in as provisions for the future. Another benefit of tying the two systems together is using the existing yard and shop at JFK; perhaps expanding it if they need. They wouldn't have to build that at LGA. BTW, if they don't go with the eastbound alternatives, then I would favor BQE to Jackson Heights. I see there's also a version of that that cuts across 31st Av. and goes down 55th St. to Woodside. Even though 55th is totally industrial, I don't picture them building a guideway over a street, and 31s is largely residential!)

I was hoping the original Willets Point option would be the springboard for connection to the JFK system (i.e. both options!)

I had forgotten what the temporary route number was, but what I was talking about was that they actually had one from Eliot take 60th St/Ln to 59th Dr. which leads right into Rust. That's a shortcut, and would avoid going further out of the way to the traffic of Fresh Pond. Someone was worried about the turns, but it's no worse than many of the other turns they make.

I'd rather straighten everything out, and have the 39 take Gates directly from Forest, and the 13 take a more direct route, and then pick up the 39's route, down towards Cooper, and then continue from there. (And I'd rather see a "58 bypass" that also takes Gates to Forest, and then heads all the way across on Eliot. (IIRC, they actually had parts of these ideas on that plan that came out two years ago before COVID, and up to those hearings. They even had whatever replaced the 39 stay off of Fresh Pond, and take the short cut between Eliot and Rust St., which I had long suggested, and someone was at the meetings afterward saying it might not make the turns, but I hoped they could still work that out, because Fresh Pond can be ridiculous with the traffic).

Kept forgetting to mention, that in catching up reading NY Div. Era Bulletins (where I used to get all of my transit news before the internet, and then entering Transit myself), I see that the sudden change in the construction plan, including the purpose was covered in the August edition. (Recall, some of us didn't even know about the new alignment until that day, going out there and looking for the passage!) So on P4, Rail News: So it looks like the Durst passage is out of it for good, but I wonder if they'll still use the constructed passage (in the sidewalk vault), with the provisions for the exits in the Theatre arcade ("the Patio") and the 6th Av. north mezzanine. (It was promised to Durst tenants, and the passage to the arcade would at least bring them closer to Times Sq, in addition to the 6th Av. station. Didn't know Durst itself was performing the work). I had said they should have used the existing sealed off underpass, but that connected to the old uptown platform, and it's sunk in now that it is not even anywhere near the passage (which did extend past the proposed new underpass, but still quite a distance away from the platform, which you can hardly even see from where the new station ends now! So it would have required more construction that was not even planned, and the space is next to the Conde Nast building (4 Times Sq), which was already built up, and thus might not even have been available, or I assumed it probably already had provisions for the connection. Plus, given the angle of the passageway and location of the uptown platform (which I had not really grasped before the shuttle station construction, as you had to go so far over to take the foot bridge anyway), it was rather out of the way, while the new alignment is the shortest distance possible.

So they want to put that over the whole Airtrain? Still wonder why it isn't mentiomned n the descriptions, and the map doesn;t show a shuttle bus. I guess the map was made earlier, and they changed it and eliminated the Skytrail and rail extension to Astoria?

According to the map legend, the Astoria-LGA section is "Airtrain Skytrail (atop Airtrain)" [Green] above "Airtrain using JFK technology" [light blue], like the LGA-JFK section (with the exception of the TBD portions), yet the description says the first portion is a shuttle bus. And I'm not even seeing a description of the "Skytrail" (though the map says something about a "linear park".

I don't like LRT because of it leaving the ROW and running on the streets with three turns around MET. Though being able to run via the street to the Roosevelt hub wuld be good. But I think it would better be extended via the other BQE spur, to LGA. (I thought DMU was the best idea, but that was ruled out for some reason).

I had in mind swinging over one of the existing routes on the LIE by having it get off on 69th St. (It would go reverse of the current direction). Like you could use the QM12 or 42, and perhaps cut it off somwehre to the east, and have the extended 24 pick up the Yellowstone portion, to balance the ridership.

LGA is a great idea! Wonder why they didn't think of that, since they're looking for alternatives to Cuomo's plan. I think that would be better than extending the Astoria line. The track already runs right next to the BQE, so you would branch off and follow the highway to the airport. (Anther branch eading to the unused Roosevelt Av. staton would be nice as well, but that would be digging under the street for 3 blocks. Doable, but would increase the time, cost and disuption to the streets). (From the time they began tossing this idea around any years ago, I always got the sense the line was planned to be LRV's. I guess tat could have changed by now).

I wasn't even thinking about ATS, but rather DeKalb and other B Div. locations. Most of them are doing it that way without ATS. Often, it's district politics, as the towers want "their" trains to stay on time (and be as close to time as possible, even when already behind).

I'm looking at the long run, when the new equipment becomes more prominent. (And they could really retrofit the 160's with the color changing signs as well). One thing they could do as far as the schedules is adopt a "first come, first serve" policy, as much of the wait is because they hold one train because "the other is supposed to go first". If one is already behind, don't hold another just to keep his place on the track. (They do this all the time, everywhere, and I find myself saying if they had let me go first, I would have ben gone and not be in the way of this other train).

I would have something else swing over from the LIE to Eliot; something heading out that way, so it wouldn't be out of the way. Again, extending the 24 further out (maybe replacing another route in the Forest Hills area, like on Yellowstone) would replace the Eliot riders. I think the current route deters riders, because it's so circituous, and says on the crowded LIE longer.

They really should just reconfigure the QM24 so that it gets off the LIE in Maspeth and heads straight to Fresh Pond, instead of going all the way out to Elmhurst/Rego Park, and then coming back west. (They'll probably say there wouldn't be enough riders on a direct route, but they can extend it further from where it ends now, perhaps toward Forest Hills). I don't remember what changes the redesign plans called for, if any.

At 96th St. you had services crisscrossing over each other (on the same switch), not simply merging. At Gold St., the biggest problem as far as slowing down service is them (DeKalb tower) stopping everyone and "spotting" them (i.e. asking for "call letters", which is the line/interval/origin/destination. They don't trust the punches anymore), and that's what takes up all the time. If they could come up with a solution to that, and schedule them better so that trains merging to the same line don't arrive there at the same time, it would work fine. Eventually, CBTC or at least ATS will allow them to know what's there. They already have cameras, but the new LED signs on the 211's will allow the route (letter and color) to be more visible, working just like the old marker lights.

Thanks. Are they the same union? I thought it was the different unions that led them them to keep acquired lines separate.

All this time, I never saw mentioned, which garage will they operate out of? Will they keep their own garage, and it be added to the rosters, like when the DOT companies were taken over? Is the agency NYC Bus, or MTAB, or something separate?

How long did we have them? It's been quite a few years!

They're just now going for the converson to pump cars? I thought they had done that already. (Or were they simply talking about it for years?)