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

    2,056
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

T to Dyre Avenue last won the day on July 5

T to Dyre Avenue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

938 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. express service is needed, but additional service on the is not warranted? Extra trains per hour definitely aren’t practical, not with all the merging you mentioned. The ’s 2016 study called for an even split between local and express service to make the merge between them at Bergen as smooth as possible. Then again, this being the New York City subway, no merge is ever really smooth. This is true. Truth be told, while a Nassau -8th Avenue connection might be a big help with deinterlining, it will not be cheap to do and it will take years of being studied to death just before ground can be broken on it. And truthfully, the current service is working. Nassau-8th is a “nice-to-have” project, but it isn’t necessarily needed. And as far having a practical version of the express goes that isn’t the ’s 2016 recommendation, I feel like it’s either bring back the separate and services or squeeze more tph out of Queens through deinterlining, perhaps something along the lines of what @R68OnBroadway suggested up thread (the option C in his post on page 3). But maybe not with the running as the sole Queens Blvd local/53rd Street service.
  2. Yes, they should both travel south of Church, with one of them terminating at Kings Highway. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the express , and the might have better ridership if it goes all the way to Coney Island. Given how the stops between KH and Church have relatively low ridership, if local trains start at Kings Highway, they wouldn’t have all that many passengers on board before they begin to take on the larger crowds at the stops north of Church. I think ridership on both services would be a bit more balanced this way. However, the stops south of KH would be served by the on weekdays and the nights and weekends, which some might find confusing. Though having a line diagram at the Brooklyn stops with the service patterns of both the and might ease the confusion. Just because one service is local in Queens doesn’t mean it also has to be local in Brooklyn. This is also a different case from QB because you’d have the local and express merging back in with each other south of Church (unlike the and , which merge from four to two tracks at Canal, then back to four after Hoyt). They have to because the already terminates at Church and the relay tracks apparently are even worse at turning two services than the 71st Av relays are. So it really shouldn’t be problematic if the is local in Queens, but express in Brooklyn.
  3. If it runs to/from 71st Ave via QB local and has a different terminal in Brooklyn from the local , then why wouldn’t it make sense to use ? For now though, it makes sense to use , because they’re only doing two northbound trains in the am and two southbound in the pm.
  4. That kind of came up in the back of my mind - that when it fails, they will say they tried and it didn’t work. Perhaps the ’s 2016 study - http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/pdf/F_express.pdf - wasn't such a bad idea after all... Well then, you can be the one to tell them that. See for yourself how they react. No, running together between West 4th and 2nd Ave is and will always be a recipe for disaster. But @R68OnBroadwayand @JeremiahC99’s suggestions to have a connection between Bowery and Spring St seems like a way around that. A way to still have a direct Midtown connection from the WillyB, plus have a regularly scheduled express between Jay St and Church Ave. Why do think option B is a pipe dream? Compared to some of the other suggestions I’ve seen here (and elsewhere, including from the themselves), this one actually seems quite doable. The part I bolded probably sums up best why option C wouldn’t work. Not to mention that the Roosevelt Avenue platforms would be completely intolerable with all the transferring that would be needed between the and the .
  5. True, although I do recall reading Budd protested and threatened legal action when the MTA chose Kawasaki as the winning bidder for the R62 contract. Budd’s choice of bogies didn’t help their case, given that they weren’t like the heavyweight bogies the MTA usually specifies.
  6. No good. Running a local on a whopping 12-minute rush hour headway with beefed up service is a service plan that’s sure to be dead on arrival. It doesn’t matter if you reopen Bergen Lower. It’s just going to be too many people who are being inconvenienced by running two thirds of the combined service express. No; without increasing service beyond the current 15 tph, it either has to be a 50/50 split like the recommended in its most recent express study or an uneven split in favor of the local. Maybe an local at 9 tph and a express at 6 tph (a 60/40 split). And you would need to run the locals south of Church (perhaps terminate them at Avenue X, like the study recommended).
  7. This was pretty much what I assumed when I first read on the old SubTalk that the was getting R62As in 2002-03 (plus the subsequent speculation about renaming the the 11...obviously that didn’t happen). MTA budget issues being what they’ve always been, that’s probably why they didn’t modify the Steinway tubes and rebuild Corona barn in the late 90s in preparation for the R142As, like they should have.
  8. I’m thinking you’d build new trackways from the existing tracks between Essex and Bway-Laf to accomplish this, while creating a second SAS service in the process. And this could possibly still have the same two terminals as now and the same route in Brooklyn and Queens (Continental to Metro, but via 63rd Street and 2nd Ave, instead of 53rd and 6th like the current service). Presumably, the would then run its old route via 53rd. But then you’d have the and merging at Queens Plaza and the and merging at 36th St. That could get a bit crazy. To avoid all that merging, you could do via 53rd and via 63rd, but then all the QBL expresses would be running via 53rd and there would be no direct service between the local QBL stations and Queens Plaza.
  9. Well, you can run the and via 6th Avenue, but then you’d essentially have to split the current into a 50/50 local/ express operation (similar to what the proposed in 2016. But that would result in roughly 7 or 8 tph apiece, which would likely please few people. Running an over 8th would need a new connection, though, as the merging between the and the would be nothing but trouble. I’d leave the as is until such connection can be made and other improvements can be made, such as a transfer between Bowery and Grand and reopening the abandoned Canal platform. However, that would limit the amount of South Brooklyn express service that can be provided.
  10. For only two northbound trains in the morning and two southbound ones in the evening, I honestly don’t think local riders between Church and Jay will miss them. Now if they were to expand it to, say, a 50/50 local/express split like the proposed a couple years ago, then I can see how it would be a big deal to local riders (along with the folks they vote for). An via the 8th Avenue Local with that intermediate stop at Lafayette between Bowery and Spring could make for a pretty good crosstown line for Lower Manhattan too. Getting across Lower Manhattan by pretty much any wheeled vehicle can be a real chore.
  11. I wouldn’t say that. By running the express trains between Church and Jay, they will have enough ridership to justify a possible expansion of the express service beyond this trial basis. If they ran the express between KH and Jay, the trains would have very few riders on them and the service would likely get axed within a few months. I just hope Transit does a damn good job of promoting the hell out of it beyond the press release on the website. It's a start. In fairness, a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection would still allow allow riders to get to Midtown. It would just be via 8th Avenue Local instead of 6th. It’s not a terrible idea. Whether it’s actually needed is another thing. Now if there’s very little demand for 8th Avenue for current riders in Middle Village, Ridgewood and Bushwick, then it probably isn’t worth the expenditure. The current does get the job done. But having a Willy B-8th Avenue track connection does have its advantages, especially for de-interlining 8th Avenue and QBL. It was also permit there to be enough track capacity for a full express (or service) in South Brooklyn (which there isn’t with the current service). And you can still do a transfer between Bowery and Grand St and reopen the abandoned platform at Canal.
  12. The express leaves Main Street-Flushing standing room-only at best and crush-loaded at worst. The local makes too many stops along the way and is crush-loaded by the time it reaches Queensboro Plaza. And the PW branch doesn’t run frequently. Stringer would be right to be concerned about any one of those options. He would definitely be right to be concerned about all three of them, because as a daily rider, I know I am. We’ve already got enough people jamming on to the in Flushing, Corona, Jackson Heights and Midtown Manhattan. Now we need to have LGA-bound riders being thrown into that mix too? I understand wanting to take the path of least resistance. But to cram more people onto an already overtaxed subway line (because it runs more frequently than the parallel commuter train line and serves a great area in Midtown, so you know more people will choose the subway), because Cuomo and the PA are afraid of some NIMBYs from 20+ years ago when they proposed extending the to LGA (which would make far more sense) only pleases a small group of property owners in Astoria at the expense of many more daily commuters from North and Northeast Queens who rely on the . Nothing irritates me more than when the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many, which really does seem to be the New York Way.
  13. If it hadn’t been for the R40s and R42s not having door controls in the T/O cabs, putting them in 8-car trains on the wouldn’t have been a problem, because then they would have been able to run 4/4 like the 32s do and the 38s did. But no, they had to let the bean counters run the show and so they took a step back in flexibility by not specifying door controls in the T/O cabs for the 40s and 42s. Probably also why they didn’t go with all-stainless bodies for the R38 through R44 cars.
  14. But then you would be moving the merge from Canal to 42nd St. That wouldn’t be much better, would it?
  15. Right. Only time will tell, but I think for the R62s and R68s to make 50 years in service, either the car maker(s) would have to completely screw up on them (R179s, anyone?) or we’d have to have the same perfect storm of events we had in 2009-10 that forced the R44s out of service and halted the reefing of the remaining R32s and R42s. I thought that side strip was the same stainless steel as the car bodies. Was the aluminum side belt strip done specifically for the SI R44s in order to make them comply with main line rail road crash standards of the day?

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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