Art Vandelay

I get the impression that the Queens Public Transit Committee is nothing more than a small group of drivers who don't want the Q52/Q53 bus lanes to exist. 

6 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

That's not actually true. Google Maps puts the time from Rockaway Blvd to PABT at 40 minutes. 63 Dr - Rego Park to PABT is 26 minutes. Assuming that the new train line makes the same average speed as the current (R), that puts Rockaway Blvd to PABT in 32 minutes via RBB.

I don't actually think RBB is a priority, it's just better once built than the current options to get to Midtown.

63rd Drive to Times Square is a 35 minute trip. Rockaway Boulevard to PABT is 39 minutes. I see almost no chance of the R making it from 63rd Drive to Rock Blvd in under 4 minutes. Even if it teleported, the time savings would be insignificant. 

6 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

I added the variable of those who are not near the q52 qnd q53

The Q52/Q53 closely parallel the RBL. There is no area for which this is a reality. 

5 hours ago, RR503 said:

 

How does an extension to elminate what was hands-down the least efficient termination procedure in the system at the other end of a line mean anything relative to the end we're talking about? People on QB want to go to Manhattan, not Manhattan Avenue. Why do you think the 11th st cut was built? Or the 63rd street connector? 

I'm all for the bypass, but how does installing a track that allows trains to skip the areas we're talking about in any way help transit access in said areas?

The Jamaica line doesn't need express service. It needs skip-stop to be ended. The time savings commuters will realize in shortened headways because of that will vastly outweigh any savings from express service. If you feel bad for getting rid of express, then send the  local from Bway Junction to Marcy, and the  express -- the stops from Myrtle to Marcy need more service anyway. 

The time difference between taking the  vs  from Roosevelt to Queens Plaza is about two minutes, and that's before we factor in delays at 36th street on the express tracks. The difference is all in the perception of greater speed. I wish there was a way we could demonstrate that to commuters. 

Everybody in New York wants subway service. The fact of the matter is that given the size of the un/underserved population along RBB, and the time savings that such a project would get them, other projects would be able to bring more to the city than this one. There are dense areas of the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens (think 3rd avenue, Utica Avenue and Northern Boulevard) that have no subway service whatsoever. They should get first priority simply because the good we'd be doing them would have more impact. In planning we have to make choices like this -- money isn't infinite. We have to pursue the projects that will bring the greatest good for the greatest number, which the RBB will not. 

Look, a few months ago, I was walking in Forest Park, and hiked down to the old ROW to see how it was doing. The state of affairs -- trees in the tracks, ties rotting, the corridor being reintegrated into nature -- made me sad. In that moment, I too wanted to reactivate the line; to see trains rolling south towards the beaches. But rationally, I knew that couldn't happen. There are other, bigger, fish to fry at the moment. Whatever your connection of sentiment may be with the line, you must dissociate -- see the big picture. For it's this exact mentality of pet projects that has wrought our current transportational disaster. 

This is truly an outstanding post. 

I do have one minor quibble however- Skip stop service has a value on Jamaica, as most of the stops being skipped aren't particularly notable in terms of ridership. I think a stronger argument could be made for eliminating the inner Broadway El express, as some of those stops really are getting quite busy. Either way- neither will be done, because speeding up the J is important to allow it to relieve the Queens Boulevard express, so that as many people as possible can be diverted away from the E. (Which to bring this all full circle, is one of the reasons why the RBL will never be reactivated- Nobody in their right mind would connect anything to Queens Boulevard.)

 

4 hours ago, BreeddekalbL said:

And the thing is for those in the rockaways how you gonna force them to go to manhattan to go to forest hills 

Nobody is. That is what the Q52/Q53 are for. 

9 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

A minor quibble: the dominant travel orientation is to Manhattan, or Midtown, more specifically. As such, the RBB is actually more oriented towards that then the scenic route on the or  . But yes, it's really not necessary.

That being said, "the express buses are good enough" is not really a good argument, because the express buses cost so much to run. The subway is dirt cheap to operate and the marginal cost of pressing more bodies into the train is virtually nil.

Looking at the schedules of the R and the A, it looks as if, should the RBB be reactivated and connected to the Queens Blvd Local the fastest route to much of midtown from the Rockaways would be... The A.  This isn't just a solution to a non-existent problem- it is a non-solution to a non-existent problem. 

39 minutes ago, subwaycommuter1983 said:

 

Yes, but if the r179's aren't delivered by April 2019, there will be a car shortage, and the G train can't be expanded if there is a car shortage. That's why more articulated buses need to be purchased just in case. 

What I was saying was, without the G train expansion, the L train shutdown cannot realistically happen. G train expansion is an essential part, Shuttle buses are not an option as a substitute. 

On 10/29/2017 at 7:53 PM, subwaycommuter1983 said:

At this point we just have to wait and see what happens with the  r179's. As a backup plan,  the MTA should consider purchasing additional articulated  (accordion) buses to run parallel to the G train because there will be a car shortage if the r179's aren't delivered by April 2019 when the Canarsie tunnel shuts down.

This would not be a sufficient backup plan. Without a significantly expanded G, the 14th shutdown probably can't happen. 

On 10/25/2017 at 12:08 PM, Bosco said:

 

I doubt it.  The only train built to similar specs as our trains is the PA5s, and those are roughly IRT-spec so they would be useless for the current situation. 



To piggyback off of what Lance said, even if the MTA didn't get "scrap happy" with the 60' SMEEs, their retirement started 10 years ago.  It's highly unlikely that they would be usable in the future for the L train shutdown.  If usable at all, those R38s/R40s/R40Ms (even the best ones when they were retired) wouldn't be in much better shape than the few R42s we still have (which are on life support).

Any second hand car would have to be made surplus prior to us receiving it. The only cars currently being actively retired that come anywhere close to our dimensions are WMATA's 1K, 4K, and 5K series. Considering their floor height is significantly different and their terrible crashworthiness, I don't see them as being a reasonable alternative. 

They'd be in approximately the same condition- and they would have had to have gone through an SMS cycle too. Had the condition of the R44s been properly evaluated prior to the stripping and sinking of most R32-R42 cars, perhaps different choices of what to retain would have been made, but that is not how things came to be.

That all said- Had the R179 fleet come on time, there would have been no fleet shortage. It is SAS which is causing the current fleet shortage. (Yes- SAS was planned not to need any additional cars. That was never actually true, but R32s could (would/will) have been saved so there wouldn't have been a shortage) 

On 10/24/2017 at 9:53 PM, S78 via Hylan said:

The R38’s wouldn’t have held up well as they were already in poor condition.

Anything would have gone through an SMS cycle regardless. Would the MTA have picked different cars had they had the choice? Maybe? The bottom line is, they did not have the choice. 

On 10/25/2017 at 12:31 PM, R42N said:

If push comes to shove the  will not get a boost. Relatively few Passengers will be transferring to the  as it doesn’t go to Manhattan, and the number of passengers taking the to the  or  will be few and far between, as the  or  is a one-time transfer, not two transfers with tons of staircases. 

The  will only need about 70% of it’s cars to run the limited service it will be providing, shifting those displaced cars over to the and  is more than what’s needed. 

The problem lies in the mean distance between failures of the R32’s and R42’s. Both of which are becoming alarmingly low, but that’s what happens when you have 50 year old cars in service. 

The most practical thing would be to re-open the R160 assembly line, but that would be admitting defeat, which would be to problematic for the MTA in their “The New - New York” campaign. They are probably going to wait it out on the R179’s or transfer them over to the R211’s. 

The G is absolutely essential. Roughly as many riders are forecasted to take the J as are forecasted to take the G. Without expanded G service, the shutdown can't happen. 

Yes, the L cuts will allow for the J and M increases. It won't cover the G increases. 

There is no R160 assembly line to reopen. Even if ordered a year ago today, the R211s will not come in time. There is no choice- we need the R179 order before 14th street line can be rebuilt. 

One question about the R211S: Will they be required to have PTC like PATH? I know SIR has some FRA waivers, but do they have one to not install PTC?

SIR has no FRA waivers- there is nothing to waive. They have not been subject to FRA governance for over 29 years. 

Every car since the last R142A was delivered has been CBTC ready from day 1. That includes EVERY R143, R160, R179 and R188. 

And IINM, that's the definition of "CBTC ready", so yes, the R179s are CBTC ready.

To create a new acronym: YANM. 

 

What equipment swaps? Are the R179s starting their 30-day acceptance test next month? I don't see big car assignment changes happening until many of them are in service.

 

 

Just because you don't see them happening does not mean they won't happen. 

 

 

 Just because you worked for the MTA does not make you Mr. Know-It-All. 

Bill is a transit professional. There is no excuse for disrespecting him here. I happen to disagree with him as to how insurmountable the issue of R32s on the B is, but the Montague clearance issues are significant potential issues. 

What are the odds of something catastrophic happening that shuts down all four tracks of the Manhattan Bridge? A lot less than winning the lottery. Besides, there would be no reason to send the B down Montague Street if something like that were to happen as the N, Q, and R have priority down there, plus trains can just sit there and wait or be stored at the DeKalb Avenue outer tracks or the tunnels toward the bridge.

Nothing at all prevents them from being on the G during the 14th street shutdown. Proper stop markers/CR boards are present for 10 car G trains. 

 

 

 Current plans are for the five-car R179s to go on the A, transfer the R46s to Jamaica, which will then give more R160s to Coney Island for the N, Q and W

 

I don't believe that has ever been the plan. 

 

 

The B requires 23-25 trains a day, so there are not enough R32s for the entire route. The TA still plans to retire all R42s by next year and only keep 160-170 R32s, so the B will likely be no more than 30-35% R32s, just enough to make the G full-length R68/68As during the Canarsie Tubes shutdown.

 

Correct- They can't make the B entirely R32. Where does that 160-170 number come from? R42s will certainly be staying into next year.  

 

 

All-in-all, I don't except the C to be full length. The TA already determined last year that there is not enough ridership to warrant 600-foot trains on that service, so unless ridership suddenly sky-rocketed in the last few months, the C Will remain 480-foot long. Besides, most people just take it to the next express stop for the A and when it used R44s and R46s, the trains were practically empty. All trains are crowded during rush hours, you can't do anything about it.

 

 

Just because Joe Lhota said the MTA plans on lengthening C trains does not mean they will actually do it. It is just an option at the moment.

If Joe Lhota and Andrew Cuomo want it to happen, it will happen. 

CRRC is the resultant company from the merger of CSR and CNR. 

You are correct and I forgot about that. There are a bunch of dumb regulations this country made in the railway industry. Take a look at all new railcars in this country: R179, WMATA 7000s, BART Fleet of the Future, the new ACELA, the new Brightline in Florida, the CTA cars, MiamiDade new cars, and even MBTA, all have the traditional round headlights.

 

Unfortunately this design is too unrealistic unless something changes in the books.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Acela and Brightline are the only ones which have onerous federal regulations to follow. Transit agencies can do nearly whatever they want. 

If NYCT wanted to, they could probably order a car without headlights at all! (Not that they would want to.)

I think the tracks were former layups or something like that. The connection from QBL to Archer Av was something similar.

T2 comes in where D4 used to be. D4 was rerouted on the south end to connect to the former D5 relay track, which was connected on its north end back to D4.

T1 comes in where D1 used to be. A new D1 was built outside of it. 

How would that be less confusing than making the V be the 96th street train?

Either way, wherever it goes, It will be called the M, and Monday-Friday during normal M hours, it will be run to 71/Continental. 

Phase 1 was tunnel bore'd, this cut and cover work for maybe 7 blocks should not take a decade. 

The boring was done in well under 2 years. It was the cut and cover stations and cut and cover launch box that took all of the time. 

The R160 demo was not to show off the R160. It was to show off FIND. 

http://lkcomstock.com/sites/default/files/Release-MTA-Queens-Blvd-CBTC.pdf

They latest the project can be finished is 2021. And they just recently began the project in January of this year. To me that's plenty of time for QBL to get rid of the R46s and have the R211s come in.

 

Speaking of, if CBTC is already operating on sections of the , why are there still R62As there? Not saying it's actually in operation, but it's a bit odd to still see R62As there.

The CBTC contract was signed in 2015. Installation is well underway now. The R211 order has not even been placed yet. There are 4 bidders as of yet, 3 of which have immense backlogs, the fourth of which is a major unknown, as it has not yet built a single car in the continent. Expecting the R211 to come in by the time CBTC turns on is shaky at best, especially with NYCT having a history of ordering equipment much later than any published plans.   

I believe they are doing the Flushing CBTC testing at night, although I could be mistaken on that. 

 Then, show me the language in the contract that specifically says x number of R160s instead of x number CBTC kits.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/communications/siemens-lands-nyct-qbl-phase-1-cbtc-contract.html

CBTC will not be going live before the R211s get here...

 

This rumor that Jamaica is going to become 100% R160 has come up every year since the last option cars got delivered and ever year it doesn't come to fruition. Especially considering that Car Equipment, according to ENY just set in stone that the and are getting R211s, I highly doubt Jamaica and the will ever be 100% R160.

IF the MTA expected that both the R211 were going to Jamaica and the R211 were coming before Queens CBTC were going online, the MTA would not be paying millions (IN THE QUEENS CBTC CONTRACT) to outfit enough precisely enough R160s with CBTC to reliably operate the full Queens Boulevard fleet. 

Something that is a major element of a signed contract is not a rumor. 

(Nowhere here am I saying that the R211s will not go to Queens Boulevard. Just that if they do, and the Queens CBTC project is on schedule, it is R160s that they will be bumping elsewhere, not R46s.)

Honestly the R211s are pretty much around the corner. No need to move them.

Speaking of, I heard part of this rumor before, and it was that the R46s were to be moved to CI and run on the . I absolutely hate this rumor given the issues R46s usually have on Brighton and the fact that again the R211s are likely to come as soon as the R179s finish delivery. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if R179 delivery still continues as The first R211s come in at this point.

A. The R211s are not right around the corner. In the most optimistic of circumstances, they are 3 years away. If the MTA manages to actually order them without delay, and whichever builders end up being selected end up building them without issue. Recent orders give me no reason to be optimistic. Even if the R179s are further delayed, there will still be a substantial gap between them an the R211. 

B. There are no issues with regards to R46s on the Brighton line. 

C. Being able to function on a line is a very good reason to move the equipment. When CBTC goes live, R46s cannot run on Queens Boulevard. 

And your source for that is?

The Queens Boulevard CBTC contracts, which pay for the conversion of 309 sets of R160s, enough to outfit the E F M and R+ 25% spare factor.  

The 211s will likely go to the current mainstays of the 46s, which are the and lines, and there is a reason for this. CBTC signal installation is either in the construction, planning or design stage for Queens Blvd between Union Turnpike and 50 Street, 8th Avenue between 59 St-Columbus Circle and High St, and the Culver line from Church Av to West 8 Street. Sense a pattern here? As we all know, once CBTC is installed and operational, provisional start date set sometime in the early 2020s, the older trains will not be able to run on these lines. I feel that if the MTA were smart (I know, shut up), they'd put these new cars on these lines in preparation for this expected occurrence. After all, we do not know when the agency plans to replace the 68s; we just know the end of their nominal lifespan occurs in 2026 or so.

 

On a side note, I really can't see the 68s retiring off any line besides the . It's like one of the few constants in life: the sun rises in the east, the two things you can't escape are death and taxes and the will always use 68s.

F and R will be entirely R160 by then, as part of the QB CBTC project. I wouldn't reject the idea that R211s might end up on Queens Boulevard, but they wouldn't be directly replacing R46s. 

6 car R32/R42s are not allowed. That does not mean 10 car R32/R42s are not allowed. 

Should we expect more and to 96st in late 2017/early 2018? I see every N/B leaves 57st-7av packed everyday during PM rush.  

You fairly quickly end up with a capacity issue heading through DeKalb should there be attempts to increase service on the Q.