Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

T to Dyre Avenue

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


T to Dyre Avenue last won the day on July 5 2019

T to Dyre Avenue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1,206 Excellent

About T to Dyre Avenue

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Location
    Whitestone, Queens

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Prefer to see stops at Junction and 108, especially if the LIE branch runs under the westbound service road. There seems to be more commercial activity and housing density (Lefrak City) to the north of the expressway. Is Junction/LIE close enough to Woodhaven/Queens Blvd to make a passageway between the two stations convenient? Eyeing it on both Google Maps and the MTA’s Neighborhood Maps page makes it look like Junction Blvd by the LIE is a bit too far away from Woodhaven/QB for a convenient passageway. Said passageway would likely have to tunnel under the expressway ramps and the new station’s platforms would likely be located under a section of the service road that’s quite narrow. I had in mind that the LIE branch would turn off the QBL east of Woodhaven and run under the eastbound LIE service road, so the turn-off for northbound trains would be less severe. But it might be less convenient for walk-on riders who aren’t transferring from buses. Though a passageway from Woodhaven/QB to Junction appears to be much shorter and probably more feasible to build if the branch goes under the eastbound service road. Agree that College Point Blvd doesn’t need a station. Main Street isn’t that far away anyway. And Main has more bus routes, including the Q44 SBS. The LIE line should go as far as Springfield Blvd for Queensboro Community College. I think it’s too far away from the Port Washington line to entice LIRR riders away.
  2. It’s possible that a potential stop at LIE and Junction would cannibalize ridership from 63rd Drive as the stations would be within easy walking distance of each other. But given how busy 63rd Dr can get, maybe that’s not such a bad thing. But if it is, then perhaps have stops at 99th and 108th. 108th is a very busy street and you can still have a connection with the Q58 and Q88 there, along with the very busy Q23. And it’s not a long walk to the park either. I like the LIE line extension, as that would really plug a giant hole in subway coverage in north central Queens and bring service to northeastern Queens.
  3. What happens to the between Woodhaven Blvd and Court Square? Express or local on QB?
  4. It’s not feasible, especially if trains are coming from the north. trains coming from the south can relay at Bergen Lower, but would have to go out of service at Carroll St, which would make them useless. You can have some trains coming from the south can stop at Jay St, but they can’t turn at Jay because they would be the outside tracks there. They’d have to continue to York before they can turn back south. But with Rutgers, I think you can have a split , like the split we had when Montague was being rehabbed. On weekdays, you run the to Delancey, like you proposed. Then you have a second service from York to Stillwell. Then on weekends/late nights, have one continuous service that diverts via the from West 4th to Jay (like how the weekend went over the bridge in 2013-14). It would require East Broadway to be closed full time and Delancey and 2nd Avenue to be closed on weekends and overnight hours.
  5. I remember seeing those 10-car R32 trains. It was around 1993, early ‘94. They always ran full (600 foot) length R32 trains, yet always ran short (450 foot) R46 trains, which were the trains that usually ran on the back then. I still think they should send the R46 pairs to CI and run 6-car R46 trains on the like they used to before they cut it back to Court Square full time. An equal number of 4-car R46 sets would be sent to Pitkin to make up for the loss of the pairs.
  6. Lance, stimulus money would go for operations and personnel, of course. Wouldn’t this then allow the MTA to “flex” other money already allocated for operations to go to capital purchases, such R211 option orders and CBTC-related work elsewhere in the system? I do have a tendency to see subway cars, tracks and signals as key to well-run operations, thus I tend to think of them as part of “operations,” and thus, should be treated as such. It’s reassuring (somewhat) that the base R211 order of 535 cars is already paid for from the last budget and can go toward replacing the worst performing R46s. Assuming R211S’s are still part of the base order, that means we will have more than half the 46 fleet still in service once the entire base order is delivered, assuming option orders aren’t exercised.
  7. This is why the MTA would be foolish to cancel the R211 order. We need those cars. At least enough to retire the R46 and R44 SI cars. The time to replace them is approaching. Quickly. Their current line assignments is fine as a stopgap measure, but to expect this to last for five or more years is a lot to expect.
  8. Or at the very least, run the more frequently on weekends. Though running the on weekends would be helpful for Concourse, CPW, 6th Ave and Brighton riders.
  9. It looks like there’s considerably more space for a larger display below what’s there. Maybe they might install a larger screen.
  10. The photo is clearer on Instagram, but the sign over the door is still unclear. What I find interesting is that the route sign display mimics the look of the route roll signs on the R40 through R68A cars by displaying the route bullet surrounded by a square. It’s probably a square screen, but there seems to be some additional space below the route display in the window. Oh, and definitely looking to seeing the pilot R211 train sometime soon this new year. Riding it at some point later this year would be even better, but let’s see how the testing goes first, of course.
  11. I’ll admit this was something I thought about for why CI is a better home base for the after I posted last night. It’s true Culver has more spare capacity to stack put-ins and send troubled trains back. And Jamaica Yard is farther from Court Sq than CI is from Church (though I didn’t think it was almost twice as distant). And I’ll agree it’s best to not have regular put-ins on busy, unpredictable QB. So CI it is. But I still think they should use 4-car R160 sets on the since CI has had 160s for years and has never had 179s. It might be better to keep 179s confined to as few yards as possible, given their not-so-great history.
  12. Is Jamaica Yard that much farther away from Court Square than CI Yard is from Church? Either way, there’s going to be a significant amount of deadheading from the yard required for trains.
  13. Agreed. I get why they did them, but I just don’t like the incessant use of “Hello everyone...,” like it’s Sesame Street or The Wiggles. It’s juvenile and unprofessional. I really don’t see what’s wrong with using “Passengers.” But “Customers” is fine too, really. They used to have an announcement that used both. It went, “In order to provide the best possible service for all out customers, we are waiting for connecting passengers on an arriving train.” Though it was prefaced with a “Ladies and gentlemen,” so I guess it had to go. It’s too bad, because outside of that, I found it to be a rather customer friendly announcement and not what we’d normally expect from the MTA.
  14. It’s kind of sad how in the past it was so easy for the and to swap when the R32/R38 “salad trains” ran on both lines and that was with the running 600-foot trains and the running 480-footers (the R44s made extremely rare appearances on the ). Hope the R211s will finally make it possible to finally have uniform 10-car trains on the . The MTA still can’t get uniform 600-foot long trains on the ever since the R32s were banished from 207/Pitkin and they began running R46s on the in addition to the R179s. I agree with sending the ‘s R179s to ENY and sending an equal amount of four-car 160s to CI for the . I don’t really see anything wrong with having both 4- and 5-car sets of 160s based in CI. It’s more of the same type of equipment that they already have.
  15. I used to ride SEPTA and NJT between Philadelphia and New York in the late 90s. I seem to recall reading a notice to passengers on trains about holding the conductor responsible for the safe operation of the train. But I think that notice was aimed mainly at letting the passengers know that they were expected to pay their fares and cooperate with conductor and the assistants or risk being put off the train at the next stop. Though that notice didn’t say anything about who took the lead in emergency procedures. I assumed it would have to be the conductor and the assistants since they were the ones in contact with the passengers and could assist them off the train faster than the engineer, especially if the train is in “pull mode” and the engineer is not in the cab car.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.