LTA1992

What is stopping us from getting plug style doors again?

And would it be possible to get doors that slide on the outside of the car?

On 3/15/2020 at 10:28 AM, XcelsiorBoii4888 said:

Anyone who questions the open gangway with curves...this video will officially shut down your argument. Now like I said, the shorter the train car, along with the wheel position on the body, the better. The only cars in the subway system that would have issues are the 75ft cars. 

 

Man I really loved riding these. I hate how small our windows have gotten.

Just because you didn't see it @Nick mean it wasn't always the plan. Some of us have been following before it even had a name. 

Hell, before there were actual details.

On 3/5/2020 at 4:27 PM, Lex said:

They doubled up on the Q35 and Q52 proposals, though I can't exactly tell what the difference is for the latter. As for the former, the second one has no stops in Brooklyn aside from the terminus.

Yeah, most people who get on the Q35 are those who stay on the bus for the entire Brooklyn leg, but that's no reason to try to revert to a closed-door policy, especially with the B41 still failing to adequately meet demand. And no, they're still not listening to people who are saying that the bus is just fine on Newport Avenue.

I would imagine we need to see the Brooklyn redesign to know if there or stops and if there are, where they are.

9 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

I think his argument is to eliminate the in city zones and just have them with a general fare.

but at the same time, by that logic, shouldn’t we also be dropping express bus fairs? Let everyone ride wherever they want.

(that sound you just heard was every express bus rider having an aneurism... forget being possessive of their system, they get possessive of particular seats.)   

Express buses are a waste anyway.

Aside from the SIM routes, the rest don't save that much time and aren't worth the price of admission.

10 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

There are some pics on Facebook of at least two dyre line stations with OMNY installed, one of which is already online.

Makes sense considering the head start they got last week.

____________

I'd imagine at least two of the four lines going to Stillwell Avenue should have it by April as Easter is the first big day for the amusement area.

At the very least, Stillwell itself.

This expansion has been well planned and pretty well executed so far.

On 2/26/2020 at 2:57 PM, Kamen Rider said:

They hinted because I poked them into it.

Ahh, so that was you lol

23 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

My main concern was with the R262 order, since there was no test train to measure out the curves on the IRT, and the IRT has worse curves then the BMT (City Hall comes to mind).

I'm just saying before we start ordering articulated trains all over the place, see how the first pilot does in actual service.

If Paris Metro can run them, anyone can.

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

I wouldn't trust Railway Age for things NYCT.

This comes via the horses mouth. I just read the board materials an hour ago.

The 949 is both base and option 1.

21 hours ago, Lex said:

Because we totally don't have anything of the sort already...

When you find it, let me know.

I know you're referring to the unlimited ride cards, but no, this is not the same.

In fact, I'd go as far to say that unlimited transfers over a 2-3 hour period would be more beneficial than the current UR cards. Mostly due to the fact that you only save a few dollars (if you travel twice a day for at least five days) these days.

Pair that with fare capping and we might have a winner.

241st has OMNY. 238 I haven't checked.

233rd (finally) has bases. 

1 minute ago, LTA1992 said:

Fun fact: LA is actually doing what I think should be done here. Under their NextGen study, the intent is to get rid of all but three Rapid routes (as well as a few outlying local routes) in order to provide consistent 15 minute or less headways across 80% of the system.

To recoup some of the lost time, all stops would be spaced closer to every 400m/1400ft.

For those wondering why, the answer is this: In order to reap the time savings benefit of Rapid buses, one would need to ride at least 7 miles.

Similarly to our Limited routes. I don't compare SBS as LAs Rapid routes are stated to be spaced similarly to our Limiteds. SBS has wider stop spacing in many cases.

From the day I learned that frequency is more important than speed, that idea came into fruition. And I'm glad there is a city in America that will run the experiment for me.

The MTA has already committed to changing the transfer policy with the redesigns (as they would require it anyway) and OMNY could even allow for an unlimited number or transfers over a 2-hour period.

Vision Zero is the correct idea btw. It's the way we go about it, as well as actual enforcement, that is the issue. It's been proven that faster city speed limits lead to more congestion while lower speed limits not only lead to less congestion, but a more even flow of traffic. Mortality rate need not be mentioned. Influencing both are street width and distance between intersections. 

4 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

I used the rapid buses in LA and I feel that's how SBS SHOULD have been. They MOVE (Like NICE used to do before they started turning Nassau into a game of red light, green light,123).  So, as a reference point, the Queens redesign is not really a disaster, it's just people resistant to change.

From what I can see, the hindrances to the success of the redesign are:

1.  Vision Zero
2. NYCDOT and their pesky traffic signals.
3. MTA's one-transfer policy.
4. MTA/NYCT's B/O operating procedure for them drive like sedated zombies.

When people say buses are "slow" they do not mean frequency, they mean SPEED.

Fun fact: LA is actually doing what I think should be done here. Under their NextGen study, the intent is to get rid of all but three Rapid routes (as well as a few outlying local routes) in order to provide consistent 15 minute or less headways across 80% of the system.

To recoup some of the lost time, all stops would be spaced closer to every 400m/1400ft.

For those wondering why, the answer is this: In order to reap the time savings benefit of Rapid buses, one would need to ride at least 7 miles.

Similarly to our Limited routes. I don't compare SBS as LAs Rapid routes are stated to be spaced similarly to our Limiteds. SBS has wider stop spacing in many cases.

From the day I learned that frequency is more important than speed, that idea came into fruition. And I'm glad there is a city in America that will run the experiment for me.

The MTA has already committed to changing the transfer policy with the redesigns (as they would require it anyway) and OMNY (my hopes anyway) may well introduce an unlimited number or transfers over a 2-hour period.

Vision Zero is the correct idea btw. It's the way we go about it, as well as actual enforcement, that is the issue. It's been proven that faster city speed limits lead to more congestion while lower speed limits not only lead to less congestion, but a more even flow of traffic. Mortality rate need not be mentioned. Influencing both are street width and distance between intersections. 

David Gunn, then Andy Byford. If this is the cycle, we might see a savior arrive in the 2040s at the earliest.

11 hours ago, Kamen Rider said:

no change on the 6, but we now have activity on the 2

3rd ave-149th

Prospect Ave

Intervale Ave

Simpson St

Soon. Meccha soon...

15 hours ago, Jova42R said:

Wasn't the tunnel to Staten Island meant to be started under Owl's Head Park (at 67th St - see article)?

 

The original plan was that. But with that tunnel project cancelled, they decided to extend the existing subway to 95th Street.

This was in preparation to extend it again to a station at 101st Street providing connection to a ferry that would have run until a further extension to SI was built.

I haven't walked that far down 4th Avenue in ages, so I don't remember if there is ventilation for a tunnel. Even the 1970s sections of SAS had evidence (grates sealed with concrete, something I found because I had to tie my shoe) so if there's really a tunnel built, it would be seen.

Honestly, it makes perfect sense to leave the 160s at Jamaica and send most of the 211s to CIY, 207, and Pitkin.

Simply put, the and (currently my educated guesses on where the 211s will primarily run outside of the few we all seem to agree will go to QBL) are services that tend to be very congested at rush hour.

Unlike the QBL (which will have CBTC online by the time the first 211s go into passenger service), these lines will still be mostly manual and can't run anywhere near as much service.

To compensate, the might be operating on the thinking that since they can't expand service yet, mitigate congestion with the wider doors and open gangways.

This is why I think there won't be any 160s leaving Jamaica.

Y'all know that high pitched whrrrrr that the A/C units make?

My heart sank when I realized I'd likely never hear that again. My father found that funny as he'd seen many cars die and knows the feeling.

6 hours ago, N6 Limited said:

Are the open gangways between 4-5 cars at a time? Does the C/O still have a cab?

So long as two man crews are mandatory, yes.

4 hours ago, Jemorie said:

The is always inconsistent with car assignments anyway. I have personally been under the impression that Lex deserved CBTC more as well as the other IRT trunk lines that were already 100% percent NTTs prior to the / car swap and the R188 contract. The spent a whole ton of money and time spent on retrofitting the most of the R142As to R188s, even though they could have done that years before so that the R62As didn't need to be sent over from the to the to retire the Redbirds on the latter. I also read a recent article about the is testing some other type of signaling system on some lines to keep costs down than with CBTC: https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/09/27/mta-tests-ultra-wideband-technology-on-l-train- Couldn't they have just used that for Flushing (and then now Queens Blvd) instead?

Two things.

Iirc, the whole reason the never got 142As had to do with clearances in the Steinway tubes. That has since been fixed. What we see now is, in a way, what was supposed to happen in the first place.

Second: From what I heard and saw at the last board meeting, UWB will serve as a compliment to CBTC, not outright replace it. 

It's times like this I love being an IC.

Not missing Retirement Take 2.

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

The  doesn’t have the ridership necessary to justify 60’ cars.

if it’s the R68s then maybe I’ll swallow my pride, or even the R32s\R42s, but not the R46s. Those cars are death traps

This comment screams "I have NO clue what I'm talking about".

On 2/5/2020 at 2:24 AM, bobtehpanda said:

Check yourself before you wreck yourself:

 

Parisian farebeaters must be a whole different breed because they definitely DON'T get stuck lol.

Hell, it was them that taught me that faregates won't stop people from skipping out on paying.

5 hours ago, FamousNYLover said:

All need to be scrapped again and redraw again.

They need to keep same bus route numbers for all Queens bus routes.

Only bus route thats are kept same numbers are Q22, Q35, Q52 SBS, Q60, etc.

That makes no sense s most routes are new.

Secondly, there is rationality.

The higher the number, the more local the service. Usually. In terms of stop distance.

10 hours ago, 7-express said:

https://gothamist.com/news/mta-plan-subsidize-late-night-uber-lyft

 

Looks like Queens would be a prime target to trial this out in.  So there goes any hope of reasonable express bus service or restoration of cut service spans from the draft.

Byford isn't even gone and we're already making worse decisions?