Eric B

22 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

Q39 - Good idea to have this line (or maybe another line) cover Vernon with connections to both Queensbridge and Court Square. Almost all riders north and south of Queensbridge were using the Q103 for the station.

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.

5 hours ago, 7-express said:

One of the 14 proposals is actually this.  An AirTrain running along the Van Wyck to Jamaica.

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.

5 hours ago, B35 via Church said:

The Q39 is basically a coverage route in Ridgewood... Aside from space restraints at/around Ridgewood Terminal, the Q39 would be somewhat redundant to the Q58 b/w say, Grand av & Ridgewood Term. if it were to be extended there... In other words, you wouldn't put much of a dent in Q58 usage b/w that stretch if the Q39 were to run over to Ridgewood Term.... The demand is clearly for Fresh Pond over Forest....

As far as running it to Crescent , even less people would consider taking Q39's over B13's in that part of Brooklyn, compared to Queens patrons ditching Q58's for Q39's b/w Ridgewood Term. & that Grand av./Flushing av. area.... B13 goes on a grand tour (lol) of Ridgewood, while the Q39 serves a low-demand part of Ridgewood.... Brooklynites from around the (or take some bus to get to the ) I can't see getting off at Crescent for a Q39 to get to Maspeth or LIC....

Hate to put it like this, but I have believed for the longest that the Q39 south of Myrtle av. mainly exists to have the thing turnaround/layover more feasibly (than if it were to stop dead at Myrtle itself) - which is funny, because even the current layover scenario on that end of the route leaves much to be desired....

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).

On 9/10/2021 at 2:46 PM, bulk88 said:

WTF happened to the Bank of America tower passage? It was in the blue prints given in the EIS.

 

 

On 9/18/2021 at 4:01 PM, R10 2952 said:

Good question, been wondering that myself...

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:

Quote

Construction contract A-35302/A-37116 is for station reconstruction and ADA accessibility at the Times Square and Grand Central S stations. The scope of this contract consists of converting the existing three-track 42nd Street Shuttle operation to a two-track operation and modifying and extending the station platforms to comply with ADA requirements. MTA Construction & Development has requested that the MTA Board ratify Modification Number 30 for the design and construction of the Sixth Avenue Connector and deletion of the Durst Underpass.

The contract calls for the construction of an underpass under Track 4 (the “Durst Underpass”), which provides a required alternate means of egress from the Times Square shuttle platform through the Durst Building to 42nd Street. However, construction of the Durst Underpass presented construction challenges that created risks to shuttle service and to the schedule for completion of the project. For those reasons, MTA C&D sought an easier-to-build solution that would minimize impacts to customer service.
The identified solution is an alternative to the Durst Underpass and provides an alternate means of egress through the Bryant Park station on the IND Sixth Avenue Line. This solution has the advantages of allowing two track service to continue during construction, provides a free transfer to the Sixth Avenue BDFM Line and lessens the risk of impact to the project schedule. In addition, because the owner of the Durst Building had an obligation to fit out the Durst Underpass, it was willing to pay the MTA $7.56 million to be relieved of its obligations for performing its work.

The changed work in this modification consists principally of the deletion of the Durst Underpass and the design and construction of approximately 300 linear feet of enclosed connector in the Shuttle’s abandoned Track 3 right-of-way from the south end of the Times Square Shuttle platform to the Bryant Park station. The work also includes the construction of a ramp down to the connector and two separate stairways constructed from the connector (Shuttle Level) to the Bryant Park station uptown and downtown platforms. 

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".

Quote

On 1/20/2022 at 7:56 PM, trainfan22 said:

YES! They are considering a light rail option!!!!!!

They better not make this no BRT/SBS BS, buses suck, every major transportation project from here on out should be rail, PERIOD!

 

On 1/20/2022 at 9:50 PM, mrsman said:

I would think that it is done for the purpose of reports to show a careful consideration of alternatives.

BRT would make no sense over here.  You already have the rails.  The rails at present are needed for freight, so we are not ripping them apart.  To the extent that you have a wide ROW, great - separate freight from passenger to the extent practical.  But given that there are places where there is no easy way to widen the corridor to more than two tracks wide, leads me to believe that the only good option is FRA compliant train.

 

On 1/22/2022 at 12:41 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. FRA compliant trains are really the most practical option, even it’s not the fastest. With LRT and BRT, they’ve already stated they’ll have to deviate from the r.o.w. in several areas where it’s only two tracks wide. They’ll still likely have to for an effective transfer between the  in Jackson Heights, but it’s better to have to deviate in just one area versus several. I’m surprised how quickly the subway option was ruled out.

 

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).

17 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

Agreed, Eliot east of 69th definitely should be split off into a different service.  Only question in my mind would be where such a service could start/end; getting through the Woodhaven-LIE-Queens Boulevard intersection by road can be a major pain in the rear end during rush hours.  Only way I could see that being avoided is if some sort of future Eliot Avenue express bus had its terminus at the intersection of Eliot and 86th, or Eliot and Wetherole on the other side if DOT ever got around to reconfiguring that intersection (which I'll always doubt).  

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.

On 1/7/2022 at 9:47 PM, trainfan22 said:

My Ideal interborough express would be from Bay Ridge to the unused level at Roosevelt IND, and tunnel to LGA Airport (with a stop at Northern Blvd) and terminate there using Light Rail equipment. 

I realize that the line going to LGA via an tunnel is an pipe dream due to the streets it would have to travel under being in residential areas... I remember how much of an mess the SAS made of the Upper East Side.

But man I'd love for this to be Light Rail, I already have the equipment envisioned in my head, LRV's wrapped in the Cuomo scheme the buses use with R211 features. On the side of the cars would have an sliver and blue "MTA Light Rail" logo similar to what the subway cars have. 

I think this proposed route would travel from Bay Ridge to the unused Roosevelt IND level and terminate there since the Roosevelt Ave - Jackson Heights station is only a couple blocks away from the ROW this proposed rail service would travel on.

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).

On 1/8/2022 at 4:45 PM, BM5 via Woodhaven said:

The majority of QM24 ridership comes from Eliot Avenue (namely east of 69th Street), which is especially true during the PM rush. 

In any case, they had a split which went through Maspeth but it didn't make any stops there, go figure. In any case, I would only do a split maybe towards the height of the rush hour (so from 7 AM to 9 AM, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM type of thing), and have it Ridgewood/Glendale buses originate from Crescent Apartments, eliminating the need for the QM12 & 42 there. But if you're suggesting nothing for Eliot Avenue between 69th Street and Woodhaven Boulevard, I can't agree with that, since that just kills off a significant portion of ridership. Going down Fresh Pond Road in the PM can be a PITA, and the bus lanes help to an extent, but it's still not enough. It deters ridership to Ridgewood and Glendale in the PM, those buses are close to empty when they turn onto Fresh Pond Road. 

On 1/8/2022 at 4:55 PM, R10 2952 said:

I can see how having the QM24 going from the LIE via Flushing Avenue to Fresh Pond Road could cause problems for the Eliot Avenue riders, but if anything, sending it off the LIE via 69th Street to Eliot Ave would be a reasonable compromise, in my opinion.  Having it go out to Woodhaven Boulevard and then backtracking is too big of a detour.

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.

5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

Talking about Maspeth, they for years have wanted some sort of express bus. The  shut that down. I think a year or two ago, I reached out to Senator Addabbo about it and it never gained any traction. The late night service is esp. helpful in Queens. If I had to go back to the City by subway, it would take me much longer from Kew Gardens or Forest Hills vs the express bus.

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.

On 1/5/2022 at 12:01 AM, GojiMet86 said:

It's not like the MTA was taking over Academy. They just took over operations of the lines.

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?)