Eric B

On 12/14/2021 at 2:05 PM, Bill from Maspeth said:

I'M DREAMING HERE, trust me, I am not trying to start a rumor at all.  But I was told shortly after the R32's received their GOH, and I DID NOT HEAR a confirmation on this, that the digital end sign, along with all the "tin" around it, was simply put over the original end signs/markers/local/exp. signs.  Wouldn't it be great if that rumor was true and they are able to restore the "face" to its former and proper glory? 

You mean the original cutouts for the signs. The actual signs (or even the lights or mechanisms for them) aren't going to still be behind there. Everything gets stripped from the car in the GOH.

Still, the current digital signs are directly in the middle, where the old signs had two next to each other that were not centered. The direct center would lie more in the right (destintion) sign slot, but I don't know if the current signs would fit completely in it. So they may have had to cut the piece between the old signs to center it. 

It otherwise does look like they simply tinned over the old front, so they likely wouldn't cut anymore than they had to to fit the new front and sign slot. However, the marker lights were on raised surfaces, and those are obviously gone, but the holes for them could still be there; again, if they didn't remove the whole original front panel.
The R38 is where they kept the original moulding under the new front and even the combined cutout is still outlined.

What was this explosion in the video, anyway? I don't remember hearing about it (or if I did; I didn't realize ho big it was).

"Beverley instead of Cortelyou" sounds like it was just in the same stretch then: CI-Ocean/Flatbush, then.

They need to try all the way from Ocean-Ocean!

On 12/8/2021 at 9:17 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

That was actually done a few years ago. I asked the  to do that because of the construction of the building by Cortelyou and Ocean (we were getting a ton of complaints from riders in the group about how long it was taking to get through there). They agreed to try it out for one day or so and then claimed that it made no difference in travel time, which I find hard to believe.e ideal.

Wow; didn't know that! But if they were only avoiding Cortelyou and Ocean (I see they tore down another old church over there!) then did they take Beverley all the way across from the parkway to the avenue (or Flatbush), or did it still do the McDonald Ave. CI Avenue thing? All of that's where a lot of the time is lost as well. So I could see where it wouldn't make as much of a difference. All of those jagged turns might seem small by themselves, but they add up.

Quote

All I can say is I've had numerous conference calls with the  about the BM lines. They have been working with me to get the buses tracking again, which was a huge problem, esp. Downtown. It took a few months, but most issues have been ironed out. The General Manager is in the group, so he also sees what's going on.

So what is your position? I didn't know you were some kind of official that dealt with the MTA like that.

On 12/7/2021 at 8:40 PM, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

  and  riders want faster trips. I don't understand the need to have stops so far north when the  and  can handle that and the stops alone. If you've looked at the amount of stops the  and  make in Brooklyn alone, it's at least 25 stops. Some buses make that many stops total between Manhattan and their respective outerborough.

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).

On 11/12/2021 at 7:58 PM, Lawrence St said:

I'm going to have to disagree with you on some parts. The  to 179th St and  via Hillside Express was going to be a problem from the start since, let's face it-it's the . Today, you could get away with de-interlining by extending the  instead to 179th St in place of the . Which actually would have made more sense when the  was around.

To the  &  swap, I don't know who's smart idea it was to have them grouped like that in the first place, especially being that they share the same CPW corridor.

Going to the extension of the Astoria Line to LGA, the extension would work yes, but you make the problem along Broadway even worse with way how the  is designed to operate by crossing in front of 's and 's. This is where deinterlining comes into play. You can waste all that money extending it to LGA but forget to fix the major problem that plagues the  today.

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).

On 11/3/2021 at 4:59 PM, TMC said:

It seems like you're really afraid of change here. Providing 30 trains per hour of service on the 2nd Ave Line with the N and Q would be a boon for people on the UES and Harlem, especially if we extend them both across 125th Street. The R would have exclusive use of the local tracks, meaning that the LGA Extension would be provided by faster and much more frequent service than a LIRR Connection and the overcrowded 7 train. The BMT Southern Division plan mentioned here also addresses the yard access issue and gives much better service to people in South Brooklyn with better one-seat options.

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. 

On 10/8/2021 at 8:39 PM, JeremiahC99 said:

It should be because deinterlining is somewhat like a complete overhaul of the subway system's service patterns to fix other problems in the system, similar to the effects of the Chrystie Street Connection. When that opened, multiple subway lines were altered to provide new travel options and more service for riders. It's like demolishing a house entirely and rebuilding the whole thing from the bottom up to fix all the issues of the house. The two new switches would take at most two weekends to construct, and could be done even before the subway extension starts construction, but they can have lasting effects for all riders (and in a good way). Just because it's simple doesn't always mean it's the right solution.

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. 

Quote

Well it's almost the same thing, though Ditmars can be wide enough to support a smaller two-track structure. 

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).

Quote

But you also seem to neglect that it's still out of the way, and it's reach is limited. It's only going to Penn Station or Grand Central. By contrast, a direct subway extension via the Broadway Line can take you to Midtown, Lower Manhattan, and Downtown Brooklyn on one train, with more opportunities to connect to the rest of the system.

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.

Quote

I'm not proposing the line go down the BQE all the way into the Woodside station. I'm not sure what the original plan for the AirTrain was in 1990, but I aim to roughly follow that. Here, I am proposing the line leave the BQE at 31st Avenue, travel along 31st to the Northeast Corridor tracks, and travel along the east side of the NE Corridor tracks through Sunnyside Yard to Queens Blvd, where it would head up that street terminate right next to the Queensboro Plaza station, where riders would transfer to the Flushing and Astoria Line to their destination. This route could connect with the proposed line to Willets Point and come down the Van Wyck to connect with the JFK AirTrain, (almost) fulfilling the original 1990 plan.

So now, this is not a subway extension you're proposing, but rather a different Aitrain routing, connecting to the current plan?

6 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Alongside (or instead of) a new yard, there would also be service changes on the Brooklyn end of the  route. Here, with two new switches installed south of 36th Street, the  and  routes would swap (I'm being a bit conservative over there). The  would switch onto the West End Line and travel to Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue, while the  would switch to the local tracks south of 36th Street and make all the local  train stops to Bay Ridge-95th Street. This negates the  train yard access issue since it allows for the line to have direct access to the existing Coney Island Yard.  service would operate at 12 trains per hour and  trains would operate at 20 trains per hour, more than current service on both routes.

Second Avenue Subway having two routes could give the  and  some pretty good competition. The line is already pretty popular, with its ridership goals of 200,000 people already met for Phase 1 alone. If we can replace all the overflow  and  train with every single  and  train going there at a frequency of 20+ trains per hour, then more people would be inclined to use the line as well, even when Phase 2 opens.

Modified service on Queens Blvd going to the 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue Line, plus some new transfers, all of which can be implemented even before a subway extension is built, can mitigate the lack of Broadway Line service on QBL. This is considering that all the West Side lines operate within one block of each other, especially the 6th Avenue, Lower 8th Avenue Line, and the IRT Broadway-7th Avenue Line. It's all the matter of riders making the short walk from a nearby station with a transfer in a few cases.

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.

Quote

If we can build a modern elevated structure near residential homes in South Ozone Park, then we can sure as hell build two new blocks of modern elevated structures along 31st Street in Astoria. As a consolation, there could be a new stop at 20th Avenue for them to use. As for the Con-Edison property, this was one of my concerns when I was opposed to this two-three years ago, but it could be mitigated with MTA buying part of the property and building a wall to prevent explosions over there.

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.

Quote

That still doesn't negate the fact that the PW Line at Willets Point is more out of the way compared to the other options. There's a reason why the Q70 goes to the Woodside-61st Street stop rather than anywhere else: it serves the more frequent main line.

Ultimately a compromise to this is to have an AirTrain not from Willets Point, but to Long Island City at the Queens Plaza station, which is much closer to Manhattan and serves more subway (and LIRR when Sunnyside opens) lines than at Willets Point. It also replicates original plans for the AirTrain to the airports. However, a subway extension would not be ruled out with this, especially since the subway extension would serve an additional area as well. After all, other cities can build direct subway links to the airport (Chicago even built an elevated Orange Line link to Midway Airport serving the Southwest Side), so why can't NYC?

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.

9 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

Most riders in Astoria are already off the train by 34th Street-Herald Square, so there is almost no need for express trains on Astoria. Rerouting the back to Astoria will also be supplemented by other changes, namely moving the  to 96th Street with the , increasing frequency on the Second Avenue Line. The  would also be absorbed into additional  runs. With this and the Astoria extension, the new  route to LaGuardia would operate at 20 trains per hour (potentially you could run more if it weren't for the curves at City Hall and possibly the curves at 57th Street), more than the current train frequency provided today by the  and . This allows for a service boost on the entire Broadway Line and solve delays.

Astoria politics has changed since 2003, and since a lot of the politicians that opposed it are gone, it could be palatable to build an elevated through the area, especially if we make a modern elevated structure that is a little more compact (the whole thing would be two tracks) and made of concrete, which makes it less noisy and less subject to a rain of debris.

The Port Washington Line would continue to be infrequent and also out of reach to most travelers in terms of cost.

The Astoria extension would actually make trips quicker, since it's only 15 stops to Midtown, compared to the 19 on the . 20  trains per hour would be enough to accommodate both airport travelers and regular commuters, compared to the 15 on todays  and , which means more available seats for everyone.

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.

10 hours ago, Lex said:

Not only does that fail to address the fare issue (in fact, the LIRR would exacerbate it) in addition to pointing the wrong way for most airport-seekers, but Willets Point is the middle of f*cking nowhere. I'd have an easier time accepting it if the proposal was to send it to Flushing, where there are actual people and businesses instead of parking lots and somewhat-sparsely-used sports facilities surrounded by a bunch of near-industrial auto shops and parkland. Even with potential redevelopment, it won't hold a candle to Flushing.

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.

4 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

But deinterlining Broadway does solve the merging delays that plague it. That  merge at 34th causes ripple-effect delays (as does the Prince merge on weekends). There are ways to operate the line that don't require the  to be a hybrid local/express train in Manhattan. The  should be a full Broadway express and the  can be expanded to full-time service and be the sole Astoria service. And then it can be extended to LGA. 

Now you say there's an issue with extending a elevated subway through residential areas. For what, all of two blocks from Ditmars Blvd to the ConEd plant? Once you get past 20th Avenue, there are no more residences. The extension can run over the surface parking lots (is the "diminished quality of life" of cars something the MTA and PA should really be worried about?) until it gets onto 19th Ave. Then it can continue east on 19th toward Hazen St. 

And I wouldn't call 19th Avenue a residential area. Judging by the aerial of that area, it looks like anything but a residential area. It's mostly surface parking lots and distribution centers. How would a elevated  train on a concrete structure mess up the quality of life for said lots and distribution centers?

East of Hazen is the tricky part because now you're on airport property and the train has to avoid planes taking off and landing, so you have to go underground. But this should not be an impossible task. How did London, Chicago, Seattle, DC, Atlanta and even St. Louis and Cleveland figure it out?

I'd be much happier with the GCP proposal if it turned west at Roosevelt Ave and tied into the Flushing Line instead of east and dumping people outside Citi Field. I've suggested this in the past, only to get blowback over taking away  service from busy Main Street-Flushing. I definitely don't think taking away subway service from Flushing is the best idea. This is why I'm in favor of extending the Astoria Line. But I've taken the  line for many years (I switched to the QM20 express bus during the pandemic when my office in Supreme Court went to hybrid in-office/WFH) and I've noticed that it's only the  express trains that enter and leave crush-loaded. The  locals do not. In fact, they tend to have seats available until 90th St. And some of them enter and go out of service at Willets Point Blvd or 111th St. Maybe those particular trains are the ones that can be siphoned off to LGA. I'm just brainstorming here.

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

2 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

three words: "one-seat-ride".

if you are a tired traveler with luggage, the last thing you want to do is run around to find elevators, etc. The N/W pretty much hit all the hotels and offices in Manhattan.

Not to mention, the GCP proposal takes you *in the wrong direction* into already congested trains. If the first stop on the N/W is LGA, you're guaranteed a seat.

And speaking of fantasy, there is no room for additional trains into Manhattan from Willets Point, so a platform for dedicated service would be empty. And LGA-JFK would be pretty much useless; no one actually exits security and re-enters it for a plane journey in any sort of reasonable numbers.

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. 

On 10/5/2021 at 10:55 PM, Vulturious said:

There are other proposals that have been overlooked because Cuomo wanted his pet project done his way. An LGA Airtrain would be fine, it's the fact that it's done all wrong. It's a waste of time, effort, and money all for nothing just to benefit a small margin of people.

Yes they're direct, but it's only going to the  and the Port Washington Branch that doesn't even connect to Jamaica at all. I'm not entirely sure how often the branch runs, but it's still a pretty void area to go to. Willets Point shouldn't be the place to build to, I'm all for an extension towards Jamaica, it should've been part of that proposal.

There are a lot more advantages to the / extension as what you said, it going across three boroughs. Yes, you are correct about making lines longer further making them prone to delays, but there are ways to improve them. De-interlining the service would help boost the service. It's better than trying to crowd Willets Point on the  because that line is already crowded as is and the / would be already directly at LGA making multiple stops in Queens. This would mean no cars would have to crowd one station because parking would be built dedicated for Willets Point which basically defeats the purpose of alleviating car crowding. You're basically moving cars from one area to another which literally solves nothing at all. Then you got the LGA being expensive, doesn't point towards Manhattan forcing people from Manhattan to ride the whole  line from Manhattan all the way to almost the last stop.

On 10/5/2021 at 11:42 PM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

The  is already overcrowded enough as is. Do we really need to cram airport-bound passengers - and their luggage - onto the ? Who’s to say they’ll take the less-crowded  local?

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.

1 hour ago, Cait Sith said:

Most of my best catches were without trackers, especially this(I miss these lol).

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.)

9 hours ago, trainfan22 said:

 

Wheelchair riders are the first non MTA or Kawasaki personnel to board the R211s

 

 

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).