Eric B

To cut across Beverley would be the fastest way possible and a great improvement, compared to the way it is now for all the routes (Cortelyou and Church Ave. or staying on the streets ruther until Ft Hamilton, and then the other way getting off the expwy early, to McDonald Ave. or Ft. Hamilton). They probably don't want to go on the parkway for just that half block, so if you're saying it should go on the parkway sooner, that will never fly.

I thought they already were converted into something like that.

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-lga-subway-extension-hochul-mta-20211116-hxmy7hhmffhqrg6vfwuocna6lu-story.html One thing I also just thought, is PA going to help pay for that? They got the Airtrains at the other two airports done quickly (and now actually completely redoing the one at NWK?) but we know how long it takes MTA to do a new subway extension; even a short one. That's another reason I liked Cuomo's idea. And then, the other ideas include bus lanes, but isn't that what the Q70 does? And then, light rail to the LIRR. If an Airtrain to Willet's Point is so “inefficient”, then isn't light rail the same thing (only being cheaper to construct, but still dealing with surface transit limitations)?

So now, R143 8121 has LCD ad panels like the 211! (Not the rectangular one on the window like the modified 160s, but the square one on the wall next to the door panels. Four per car. The next car didn't lave them).

They still wouldn't accept the , because they want direct express service (local on Hillside switching to the express at Continental). For the and when you say "grouped like that", do you mean the original pattern, or the current one? The original pattern was the way the IND was set up, so that every branch could have direct access to both trunk lines, at eleast in rush hours (and also the Crosstown service on the Queens and Smith St. branches. Don't know why they never did that for Fulton St. though, with two 6th Ave. services that ended in Mahnattan. That was the sole "deinterlined from the start" line). The extension of Astoria was't what I was arguing for, it was what I was arguing against. Others pushing for that then threw in deinterlining to accommodate it. But Astoria insists on having two services, one local and one express, and the express must also stop at 49th before crossing over. (If the people in these places who demand all these little extras only knew what it was like getting around in northeast Brooklyn (the "cipherzone"); especially before the was sent to midtown, and began running past Myrtle on weekends!) So losing that to "deinterlining" they probably won't settle on. They'd probably have whatever delays from crossing over, than to have two locals (which si what deinterlining would do, there. So my point was rearding an extension, and this would be just another strike against it, to them).

It's not being afraid of change, but on the other hand, it looks like I'm dealing with wild ideas of change just for the sake of change, as this just fits right in with everyone talking about "deinterlining" everywhere which seems to be the new fad. There's a cost-benefit ratio, and deinterlining might just move the problem of traffic convergence somewhere else. If they thought it would really solve delays much they would have done it. They already deinterlined the and uptown, because the extended was only a rush hour service anyway, and historically, the local to 168 was always 8th Av. with it turning into the rush hours; so they could get away with complete deinterlining, and apparentely, not many people complained. It also helped consolidate the districts, since they regrouped it "North" and "South", and the equipment is to some extent shared on both pairs of lines. All this other deinterlining people talk about, like the lines going into Coney Island won't have that benefit since the lines are already sharing a terminal and yard. And more people want direct access to more than one trunk line. Remember when they "deinterlined" local/express service on Hillside Ave. by sending the to 179 so the could stay on the express with the (which looked like it made sense on paper). The people on four local stations were loud enough to get the service pattern changed back. So using the subway for LGA access as another occasion for these deinterlining schemes I don't think is worth the trouble. With the Cuomo plan, most people leaving the airport wouldn't be thinking "Oh, we're heading east instead of west"; they would hear on the train that the next stop is the transfer to the and LIRR (and the latter would still be faster into the city than a local subway route), and I liked the idea because it made it possible to connect LGA to JFK, eventually.

Ihave dreams about working different places, usually from the past (like MET and the BMT South), sometimes not (like the line has come up quite a few times over the years for some reason) and usually like heading into work. One recurring set of dreams was about my job before Transit, and taking the trains around there.

But with Chrystie St, lines were changed because they were directly affected by the new construction. Not "well, you have to change this line, of a necessity to accommodate that line, that was changed by some construction somewhere else, and not even in the subway system. And if I remember correctly, there is no provisions for a switch south of 36th, so you're removing walls and columns and having to then re-support the whole tunnel structure. That is major construction, and why they haven't put in the switch for the southbound 6th Av. local to access the Manhattan Bridge. Should also mention, Ditmars may be just as wide on those two blocks, but you'll still have to remove all their trees to fit the el. So you're not only taking away the air space of the street (no matter how small they make it), but also taking away the greenery. Who will ever go for that? (The stretch of the street with the el is mostly commercial). And again, a one seat ride may be nice, but you're dealing with all the luggage in the crowds, as well as the delays of the system (which simple "deinterlining" is not going to be enough to help). You can get connections to all those palces at Penn Station or GCT, and not everyone is going to those places; again, it's not a commuter line. So now, this is not a subway extension you're proposing, but rather a different Aitrain routing, connecting to the current plan?

Wow, that's like such a domino effect, spanning across the system! (Including more construction in the existing system, like at 36th!) The current plan seems much simpler to me. It's not really "near" residential homes; it's down the center of a big expressway, rather than right down the middle of a residential (not even fully commercial like south of Ditmars) street. But it not being on one of the busier lines leaves more capacity for a dedicated, or at least more focused service. And then Woodside will be the next stop. I would say going the other way down the highway to Woodside or LIC would be more direct, but it's not as simple, because the BQE is in a much tighter space and doesn't have the grassy space they could use to moce the lanes over to add the guideway to the median, and then you have to get from the BQE to the Woodside station, and with the there, or get from the BQE to what; Sunnyside yard, to get to LIC? All of these other ideas are much more complicated, and you know they're trying to do what's more simple and cheap,a nd less disruptive. It's still better than what we have now.

Apparently, the plan is underway to make the R160's, for the rapidly encroaching CBTC, and they've already moved one 5 car set over in service today.

So it's the you want extended. But now you're recreating the old problem of having no yard, unless woul want to build a new yard over there somewhere as well (which is now more monen and much more property). It's not simply periodoc politics, nobody is goign to want an el of any kind run down their street, right in front of their windows (there are larger apartment buildings on those blocks). Trainmaster mentioned the potential problem of running on PA property, but there's also the CON-ED property being mentioned, which is probably full of industrial hazards. I don't think Second avenue at this point needs two lines. Maybe once extended to 125th, and IF it draws a lot of IRT riders there, but ven then, there was never any plan to have a second line until phas 3 (below 63rd, aka the (T). And so now, QBL will have no Broadway service? All of these changes to the subway are far less simple than the Airtrain. On the last two statements, you dismiss the Port Washington Branch as continuing to be infrequent, and then go back to the inconvenience of using the , but you would increase the frequency to a new dedicated terminal for the airport service at Willets Point (and if the rest of the line is infrequent, then the new service should have no problem being added), and it can have a reduced price from the rest of the railroad.

Howard Beach is in the middle of nowhere as well; it's a transfer point (since they don't plan to run the service all the way into the city). And it isn't totally in the middle of nowhere; it's next to a major attraction, CitiField, as well as the tennis arena, , etc. Everyone is going to those places, of course, but more air travelers might be going there than Flushing. It's not a local transit system we're talking about; that's what the is for. Astoria wats their local and express services, and not just one local. Taking the N away still won't do anything abou tall the other delays, and not just merging; that's probably the least problem. Those are two long blocks, and els are outmoded in NYC (the ones that remain are 'grandfathered' in), so no one wants them expanded anywhere by even that much. And I never said to take away service to Flushing. I was referring to using spce on the Port Washington Branch, and not taking away service to Long Island, but adding a dedicated service from Willets Point to the city One seat ride with many stops, and the greater crowds of the subway (even if you do manage to get the first seats. And think rush hours, with all that luggage. It woukd be inconvenient to both travelers and regular commuters!) And I already mentioned that too much is being made of this "wrong direction". It's not as out of the way as you think. If you look at it, going across 19th Ave. to 31't is just as much going in the "wrong direction", as the grid is more tilted, so you're going north as well as west, and again, only to pick up a whole line of local stops. With GCP, you're going only slightly east, but also south, which is part of the right direction. And it's a fast, dedicated line with no stops that takes you right to the LIRR.

You would beef up Port Washington serice, and the would, just be an additional option. It doesn't matter how often the whole line runs now; you would add the additional service to Willets Pt. (which as I mentioned has space for an extra platform to make a dedicated terminal. And I don't think 'deinterlining', which is the other thing I see everyone here pitching, would solve the problem as much as people think. It just makes the service pattern more rigid, but there will still be trains cutting in front of each other at places. And again, there's the issue of extending an elevated subway through a residential area).

Why do so many people want the and extended? Then the airport service is subject to the delays from coming across three borouhgs, and it's making those lines longer further making them prone to delays. And everyon know no one wants more of an el through a residential neighborhood. The Grand Central proposal should just be left alone, as it goes to both the and the LIRR, with space there for a platform for a dedicated service to the city, and the next stop would be Woodside with its connections. This is better than going the other way to Astoria Blvd as the parkway has many more overpasses from the streets going that way. People claim Willets Point is "going the wrong direction", but not that much; it's going more south than east, and would be fast and much shorter (as oppsed to a subway extension from the far west). What I would also do is continue down GCP to Jamaica to connect with that hub, including JFK (which is probably the idea for the long run).

Here's the opposite direction, including to 5th Ave.

RTS Junior! Even moreso than the low floor version of the actual RTS, including the one picked up by Millennium. (Seems all of this has been forgotten by now) Too bad they didn't catch on. I rmember you or someone at some point mentioning some company considering reviving the fishbowl, but it was like a secret. What ever came of that, and which company was that?

Looks like they're cutting out going under track 4 to connect it, but I imagine they might still use it between the two control areas on that side. (Again, it was in fact promised to the tenants of the new building, so they would at least have the indoor access to 6th ave.). Here's the final video I did (for that direction):

Here I did a long planned video of the whole walk from 6th to 8th. Will have to redo it and figure how to affix my phone to the hshopping cart I had, so it would be a smooth run. https://www.facebook.com/eric.bolden/posts/10225613226695004

Just came from there. It's a completely different passage than the one originally planned, even up to fairly recently, when they produced that map for the finished complex. I head straight to the northernmost mezzanine to find nothing has changed, and the passage is still walled off with no sign of any soon opening. So I think, is it only partially open, perhaps from the mid block arcade to Times Sq. with the 6th Ave. portion what will be completed next year? But there's no change there either (though there is some sort of construction going on on the sidewalk just east of there). So I enter from TSQ and head down the shuttle platform, and find the passage that just goes straight ahead to the stairs to the 6th Ave. platforms in what seems to be an all new area. I didn't even know where I was coming down at. In the past plan drawn up, it was supposed to go downstairs from the shutle and cross under 4 track to access the sidewalk vault of the north side of 42nd St., which would lead to the arcade and the 6th Ave. north mezzanine. But this passage seems to be right under 42nd St. (I guess they just made it the former trackway, to save the extra construction of going under the other track). I wonder if they're still going to use the north vault (Durst) passage, which I believe was already constructed when the Durst building was built [and again, promised to its tenants], and perhaps at least have it connect to the arcade. What they should do, it connect it to the old sealed up underpass from when the shuttle was the original mainline. The arcade entrance would include the ADA access, and I thought all new construction had to have the ADA additions, but there weren't any on what I saw today.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/06/arts/design/nick-cave-42nd-street-subway.html Just saw this in NY1 "In The Papers". It at first, erroneously says "corridor connecting Times Square and Grand Central Station", then one of te photo captions says accurately: "which links the Times Square-42 Street station to the Bryant Park station". Says it will be "unveiled" Friday, so does that mean that at least part of the passage will open? (to other displays will be installd next year). It's now been 12 years since the passage was constructed and promised to the new 1 Bryant Park tower (BOA) tenants. So now, we have an actual glimpse of it. Pretty colorful artwrk, but the passage is pretty narrow; kind of like the old Gimbel's passage. Is brightly lit, though. The orange, yellow and dark blue vertical lines on the right wall basically evoke the three subway lines that are now linked (though it seems to omit red for 7th Ave.)

Just saw the news story when my wife told me about it. but this morning; I got to see it for myself (including the ramp they had for the story), during my medical visit in the yard. Totally cool! Been waiting a long time (about 30 years!) for the RGB LED's. Only thing is that with the flush front design, there is little space to stand on when the door is closed. (Seems worse than even the 44/46, even with the indentation they put on the bottom of the door).

I wonder why they keep switching them around. It's like "musical trainyards" now!

From the (J), it does look like it might be over part of the ROW, likely due to the angle of view, but it's hard to tell.

I don't remember them. Where is that posted?

Are there going to be 8 car 211's? I figured they might want to try the open gangway on the (L), but did not hear any definite plan. (Though I'm sure they might remove a car from the test units, to test them over there like they did with the 160A's). This is assuming the 211T is approved after the initial tests. Seeing this nice flush ended car (and with the fancy color changing digital signs) evokes the innovation of the R44 and 46, which were banned from the Eastern div. because of the car length. But if they only order five car units, and don't get any 211T's for the (L), then this could be the 44/46 all over again, with the East forever shut out (unless they ran a five car shuttle somewhere, but they probably won't bother with that). They could get 4 car 211A's to expand service, but wouldn't it be more likely for them to put five car 211 sets on the (as part of making it full length), and just sending the 179's to ENY for the expansion? That looks like the more likely scenario.