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

    1,922
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

T to Dyre Avenue last won the day on December 14 2018

T to Dyre Avenue had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

858 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. I’m guessing probably because crews on the rerouted trains are unfamiliar with 145th St and where exactly to stop the trains so they are in just the right place for the doors in the front section to open onto the platform. I can understand that, especially because the uses rolling stock that’s significantly different from what’s used on the and . At least it’s not an issue with the R142 cars being unable to properly platform there (which I do recall reading was an issue with South Ferry Loop), so that won’t be an issue when the R62s retire.
  2. Re-implementing the post-Sandy split exactly as it was done in 2012-14 would certainly be a plan nobody likes compared to the current service. The MTA would be foolish to propose that. After reading several articles about it, plus the comments, I’d like to think that even the Congressman and his fellow Bay Ridge pols have modified their position somewhat and would be in favor of a 4th Ave Local train that goes somewhere in Manhattan via the Montague Tunnel, be it Trinity Place/Broadway or Nassau/Centre. They probably just don’t want it to go to Forest Hills and be susceptible to all the problems that line has, plus all the seemingly endless weekend G.O.’s. Just as foolish would be to propose extending the or implementing another Nassau St service to replace the , while terminating both the and at Canal/Whitehall. Hopefully, the MTA won’t try proposing that either. I feel the best remedy would be one Broadway train and one Nassau train serving as the 4th Ave locals. Both aren’t needed 24/7, but I definitely agree that any Nassau St line that serves the 4th Ave local stations should run more than just during rush hours. I like running the between Bay Ridge and Astoria 24/7 best because that would facilitate de-interlining Broadway at 34th Street. But I feel like that would limit the need for a supplemental Nassau train because then the would no longer be subject to QBL-related troubles and would no longer have the cutting in front of it at 34th or Prince. My next best option would be to have a brown service to/from Essex replace the as the main 4th Ave local train with the functioning as the secondary 4th Ave local and the getting cut back to Whitehall. Though because the runs more frequently than the , that could force some trains to end at Canal because they may not be able to turn them all at Whitehall. But I don’t think that necessarily makes this plan a non starter. I’m not surprised at all...
  3. I haven’t seen anything more recent than from two weeks ago. I really hope it doesn’t meet the same fate as the Culver express plans, although in Culver’s case, the MTA actually put out a plan (controversial as it was). For Bay Ridge, they have no plans as of now. The late night shuttle extension to Whitehall is a benefit for overnight riders, but they can only short-turn Whitehall service from Brooklyn during overnight hours, possibly also during weekends. But since weekend ridership is greater, a Brooklyn short-turning at Whitehall won’t be very useful, as it would only have transfers to the , the SI Ferry and through-running trains (assuming weekend QBL work doesn’t cause some of those to disappear). A 4th Ave-Nassau service with a much greater number of transfers would be far more effective.
  4. Agreed in full. MTA really needs to shit or get off the pot on this one. That extra revenue space will go a long way. MTA, just get it done and quit it with the excuses! Does the go via the 60th or 63rd Street Tunnel in your plan? I’m assuming 60th because you’ve got the teal Z running down 2nd Ave to Chrystie St. But then, you still have to have the switching to the local tracks to get to 60th, so you’d still have merging delays on the Broadway line.
  5. Channel 11’s Greg Mocker just did a story about this very issue, along with the upcoming closing of Astoria Blvd.
  6. Reading this really made my day! I’m glad the PCAC sees what we’re seeing. Now we just need MTA management to get on board.
  7. That seems like it would make Northern Blvd the better choice for the relief line by default. Either way, it should be its own self-contained line, so it can offer the maximum amount of trains per hour. It probably wouldn’t be able offer all that much relief as a branch off of the 2nd Ave Subway.
  8. Ever since moving to Queens in 2010, I’ve wanted to have a extension to Springfield Blvd via Northern. I’ve also City Ticket for a PW branch with more frequent service and stations in Corona and Elmhurst. Hey MTA, what’s that saying about “when there’s a will...”? Perhaps the combination of a extension to Broadway LIRR, plus implementation of a weekday City Ticket on the PW could do wonders for congestion relief, in the short term, both on the and on the streets of downtown Flushing, by keeping some of the bus routes from having to converge there to connect with the now. Would be way better than the giant mess we have at Main Street-Flushing now.
  9. Don’t get me wrong...I’m in favor of the being rerouted back to Astoria and the going to 2nd Ave. I think it can make for a more reliable in Brooklyn. Certainly, it would have far fewer merges than the current . But without the , you’ll need another service to replace the on the QB local, as the alone won’t be sufficient. (Please, nobody say, “Extend the !”) It could be the , like @Caelestor posted up thread and like @RR503 posted in the Proposals thread. That’s probably the best option. If the current were to be replaced in Brooklyn by a Nassau St service, the should operate in Brooklyn as the secondary Bay Ridge-4th Ave local train. Only the should terminate at Whitehall in that scenario. But then that may preclude the the from going to 2nd Ave and the to Astoria.
  10. Can’t the run to/from Forest Hills as the secondary QB local train? Like the / did in the old days. Though in the long-term, I favor the plan to maximize capacity on 6th, 8th and Broadway (like I’ve posted in the Proposals thread). If Congressman Rose, et al, can be persuaded on this as a way to make 4th Ave local service run better, then great!
  11. Were it not for the lack of an easy way for the to access the DeKalb bypass tracks without delaying the and at Atlantic, I’d say this would be pretty easy to implement. The on the Bridge would certainly shave a lot of time off Bay Ridge riders’ commutes. Though I get the feeling Sea Beach line riders would take issue with having the rerouted to the Montague Tunnel 24/7, even if it does stay express in Brooklyn.
  12. Nope... I read the whole post. (And I know what intolerable means...) There is plenty in your post - and in this thread - that I do agree with you on...the long waits for the train at local stations included. The problem is that the intolerably long waits at the 4th Ave local stations are all too often (not always...such as today’s signal problems at 36th and 4th) the result of problems affecting the in Queens or Manhattan. The recent issues with the work trains affecting AM rush on 4th Ave might be a good place to start. They shouldn’t be affecting Brooklyn service well into morning rush. But I don’t think that alone is going to address unreliable service.
  13. I’m not quite sure what you mean by fixing the issues making 4th Ave local stations “intolerable.” If you’re talking about the physical condition of the stations themselves, judging by the recent rehabilitation of Prospect Ave, 53rd St and Bay Ridge Ave, it seems like the MTA is addressing that issue. Slowly. But even if they rehab all of the 4th Ave local stops, what good will it do if the sole 24/7 train line serving them continues to be plagued by signal problems at Grand Ave, sick passengers at Roosevelt, taking too long to get in, out and back in to 71st-Continental, etc.? It’s not about so much about recreating old BMT services as it is about providing that is much more predictable and reliable. The current service is neither. Perhaps an Astoria would be the best improvement, as opposed to a split. But no one at the MTA has even considered that. Not necessarily. They might possibly call for the to go back to Midtown Manhattan if the split doesn’t make 4th Ave local service better, but I doubt they’ll be asking for it to go back to Queens Blvd and Forest Hills fully local. The MTA might want to do their due diligence and show these same Bay Ridge pols why the split is not an improvement over the current service. And offer some real alternatives to a split . CBTC on Queens Blvd and 60-foot R211s with faster boarding are years away.
  14. That would be one extra-wide platform at Canal St for the (plus any potential new service that operates through there). And it might facilitate building another, ADA-compliant exit at the north end of the platform. I wonder if it may be possible to “relocate” the Hewes St station so that it’s closer to Broadway, which would then facilitate a transfer between the and the . Then relocate Marcy a little further to the west, closer to the bus station, with either a dual-island setup or a Manhattan-bound island/Queens-bound side platform setup.
  15. These would both be a major improvement over the current operations at Main Street, and the bus services upstairs. The is madness pretty any time of day. So is taking any of the buses to and from the due to the clogged Flushing streets and the lack of signage or maps showing exactly where the buses stop. This new station house could help improve ADA accessibility, as there is very little room to fit elevators in the current mezzanine with fare controls also there. Move them to the new station house to free up room for elevators to and from the platforms.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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