R10 2952

The LA Red Line was built using a combination of mining and cut-cover. People complained about traffic reroutes, but it's LA- there's always terrible traffic congestion, construction or otherwise. Building a line that might not be able to handle increases in population density and ridership defeats the purpose of building any line in the first place. Some methods that are used elsewhere might work, but building a two-track lines down a major trunk route in Manhattan is not one of them. The idea that 3-and-4 track lines are obsolete is a complete fallacy; in New York, they are a must. This is not London, Berlin, Tokyo or Beijing. Apples to oranges.

But it would still be easier to build a line with extra capacity on Second Avenue to begin with, as opposed to having to build a parallel line on Third Avenue in 2050 or so. The Canarsie Line is a perfect example of what happens when you don't plan ahead for the future.

At this rate, I seriously wonder if a two-track line will be enough to handle growing ridership 30-40 years down the line. I understand that a 4-track line might have been excessive, but 3 tracks would have been worth serious consideration, and I'm not just talking about the original 72nd Street plans. Just look at how the 14th Street-Canarsie Line has been limited by it's 2-track, twisted configuration. CBTC and more trains-per-hour might be sufficient for now, but in the long-term they are stopgap measures. What happens a generation from now if Williamsburg, Bushwick and Greenpoint continue to be overdeveloped and more riders pile on? You can't force Niagara Falls down a drinking straw...

You'd be surprised; the LIRR Bay Ridge and Lower Montauk Branches see a few trains a day and the MNRR Hudson Line has several freight trains every weeknight.

You do realize that Grand Central would be a complete disaster without the express platforms at 59th Street offloading some of the crush, right? Or do you not see that?

Okay then, 59th Street on the (4)/(5). They did a pretty good job with that...

I won't be fooled with that ADA stuff- a blind person can still hear, and a deaf person can still read. If you think the ADA specifically mandates automated as opposed to audible announcements, and LED signs as opposed to readable signs, you're interpreting the law opportunistically. And the law is still subject to how the executive branch interprets it- some administrations are overzealous, others are not diligent enough. The aim of the ADA is honorable, but some of the requirements have been unnecessarily broad. Unfortunately, with the current clowns running the country, we'll be lucky if any legislation designed to help the challenged will be left standing.

Well, the IRT did it in 1911 with 191st, so if the current people in charge aren't willing to take a page from the playbook of New York subways past, then that'll be another couple of million thrown away.

Barring equipment malfunctions/deterioration, it's worked fine for decades. If a person can't understand human voice, that means they're either a prime candidate for the Darwin Award or have already been enslaved by machines.

Simple. Wiring from the cabs to the signs. Train crew would flip a switch and the signs would scroll to the correct lineup. All electro-mechanical, no hi-tech bullshit. They did malfunction sometimes, but keep in mind that this was during the era of deferred maintenance, and the R44s were lemons anyway.

No, but if people are so absorbed in their phones and computers that they can't be bothered to listen to the conductor's announcements, that's their problem, not the MTA's. Besides, the R44-R46s used motorized rollsigns and those worked good enough. Still cheaper than FIND computers...

I don't know what the big deal is about FIND. Paper and ink are perfectly reasonable mediums of communication...

110th or 120th Street would be a good alternative location for a station. But even if they want a station at 116th Street, that doesn't mean they need to tear up a perfectly good section of tunnel for it. Look at 191st Street on the , an infill station that was carved out of the tunnel walls without disrupting the street above. 116th might be closer to the surface, but with today's methods of underpinning, it could be done without too many problems. And they need to stop wasting precious time and resources building those full-length mezzanines; just build two damn side platforms, some pocket entrances and call it a day.

Was riding an RTS on the Q67 a few weeks ago, looked like it had just been pulled off the scrap line. Haven't seen an RTS on that line since the Queens Surface days- brings back memories...

Yeah, they should really look into the problem of contract number inflation- I think the R68s were originally supposed to be R55s. And logically speaking, I don't even see why we should be past 100 for the subway contract numbers, let alone 200- what happens when they get to 999? Shouldn't it be like R80 or something as opposed to R211? But I digress...

Couldn't have said it better myself- it's just that I get real tired of all the misinformation and nonsense that goes on, especially from some of the non-employees who act like they're "backseat RTO". I might talk a lot, but I always defer to what the actual TA personnel have to say because I know barely 10% of what they do about the system and operations. True, they've definitely lasted longer than expected. And I wonder how many of those who complain about the current MK-rebuild R42s were actually riding the subways when the horrific CI-rebuild R42s were around; the ones on the and were a particular shitshow back in '05-06.

Almost as bad as subchat- got a good laugh a few weeks ago when somebody told me about some n00bs over there arguing that the R42s were going to be retired before the end of the year. A pile of horseshit if I ever saw one LMAO...

Honestly, it would've been a lot easier if the Metropolitan Railway Co. had simply built the el down First Avenue instead (this of course was in the times before Queensborough Bridge was built, so it would've made sense).

It's situations like this where the LIC terminal and Lower Montauk Branch would really come in handy; offload some pressure off of the jammed-up Main Line...

True, demolishing the Third Avenue El without a replacement was one of the biggest mistakes the TA ever made. But again, it boils down to them pursuing a real-estate agenda when they should be focusing on actual transit issues. Although even if the El in Manhattan had lasted longer (say into the late '70s or early '80s), I'm skeptical as to how they would have resolved the equipment issues. The Composites were retired in 1950 and I doubt the MUDCs were in better shape at the time. The Low-Vs would still have been too heavy for the el below 149th Street. And even if the TA had ordered the R39s, I imagine they would've had to be particularly lightweight to run on 3rd, such as having aluminum carbodies and space-age material trucks or something..

It goes back way further than that- the has not seen R32s since about 1982. I'm about as opposite of a foamer as you can get, but an R32 on the has been like the holy grail since I was a kid. If that had been the West End Line, some people would probably be getting coronaries LOL... "This is tremendous folks, it really is."

The trolling is strong with this one...

Operational flexibility is always a good thing; allowing a mistake like the Montague rebuild error to persist is simply lazy and irresponsible. Again, does anyone know what the TA's plans are regarding the clearance issue? I'd appreciate information on this.

So when is the TA going to get around to fixing the Montague clearance problem?