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

    2,055
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by T to Dyre Avenue

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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 .
  4. 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.
  5. 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).
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. But then you would be moving the merge from Canal to 42nd St. That wouldn’t be much better, would it?
  14. 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?
  15. I doubt the R62s and R68s will still be in service in 2039. Yes, the R32s and R42s are still in service after 50 (R42s) and 55 (R32s) years, but that’s because the MTA had no choice but to keep them in service. But don’t forget, it’s only a small portion of both fleets that are still in service. Most of them were sent to their watery graves well before they hit 50. Had the R44s not developed major structural problems and the State didn’t implement funding cuts to the MTA in 2010, they’d still be in service and all of the 32s and 42s would have been retired. Also worth noting is that the 62s and 68s are of the same technology as the 32s and 42s. And in this day and age, that technology is getting more difficult to maintain by the day. You mentioned signals in your last post. Signals would probably be a major factor in Transit withdrawing the 62s and 68s sooner rather than later. They already decided it was more cost-effective to retrofit the newer R142As with CBTC technology and move them to the (as the R188s) vs retrofitting the old-school tech R62s and keeping them on the .
  16. How would they feel? I don’t really know. But that’s why we really need to take another look at a extension. With community outreach, like they did with the 2nd Avenue subway. And believe me, there was plenty of disruption there too - far more businesses and residents there than on 31st Street. There certainly were people who were opposed to building SAS and they threatened lawsuits against the MTA, City and State. Should we have gave in and canceled SAS entirely? Of course not, and now we’re all griping about how it doesn’t have enough service and how the should join the on 2nd Avenue. I too live in Northeast Queens, specifically Whitestone. I’m not within walking distance of the LIRR. I like how you mention extending the subway to Bayside or doing light rail via the Whitestone Expressway and Cross Island Parkway. I would gladly welcome both with open arms! In fact, given how wide Northern Blvd is, I think a concrete el structure like the rebuilt Market-Frankford El in Philadelphia would be the perfect model for Northern. Have a median that holds the concrete pillars. Maybe it would calm the heavy car traffic down somewhat. Much of Northern is commercial, though the section between Utopia Parkway and the LIRR Broadway Station is predominantly residential, and there’s also midrise apartment houses west of Crocheron Avenue. But I still think it’s possible. Getting a bit closer to home, I’d certainly be happy with a light rail or subway line that replicates most of the path of the long-gone LIRR Whitestone Branch.
  17. Did David Gunn ever have to take this much shit from Governor Mario Cuomo? Or did Mario the Magnificent have more sense than his autocratic son seems to?
  18. Why can’t that day be today? Why keep putting it off? Competent urban planning that doesn’t knee-jerk acquiesce to NIMBYs and drivers was needed in this city at least 20 years ago. The sad part about 31st Street, is that none of the residential or commercial properties between Ditmars and 20th Avenue have to be seized and demolished. This is in marked contrast to what happened in Chicago with the CTA’s project to rebuild Clark Junction, which is where the Brown Line ‘L’ joins the Red and Purple lines between the Belmont and Addison stations. The City of Chicago/CTA needed to demolish properties to build the flyover that will allow northbound Brown Line trains to cross over Red and Purple, instead of in front of them like the current flat junction requires. (Broadway-Myrtle Junction, anyone?) At least residents don’t need to be relocated from 31st. And I’m pretty sure that the cars sitting in the parking lots lining 19th Avenue are not going to come to MTA or PA headquarters with picket signs and howls over how unfair the MTA is. And if even surface parking lots have friends in high places in this City, then that’s a pretty bad sign that the way we take care of our City and plan infrastructure really is broken. Why wouldn’t the state and PA at least talk to ConEd about running a elevated structure over their properties, some of which have literally nothing on them? Government agencies can’t be functioning in their own silos. That’s extremely ineffective. Fully agreed. The fact that there hasn’t even been much communication between all the different agencies and stakeholders involved in rail to LGA is what’s really wrong with this project. Don’t choose the path of least resistance solely to get out of having to work with the City and other agencies. But that’s the Cuomo way. That’s “the way we’ve always done it.” And it’s not doing this City and its transit one damn bit of good. At least open up communication with Astoria residents between Ditmars and 20th and property owners on 19th. We can’t just act like nothing has changed in the 20+ years since they last studied the extension and dismiss a subway extension outright. See what mitigation is there for said property owners before we dismiss the subway extension in favor of an Air Train that will be yet another feeder route to an already overfed line. At least an extension (or or extension after Broadway is de-interlined) to LGA can be built in such a way that it could - perhaps at a later point - relieve the in Flushing. An LGA Air Train can’t!
  19. Not to mention the cost of his boondoggle LGA Air Train has ballooned to over $2 Billion AND he wants the to contribute to the hyper-inflated cost.
  20. It’s not every day, or even every year, I find myself agreeing with a New York Post editorial, but here it is... https://nypost.com/2019/07/01/the-2b-lunacy-of-the-la-guardia-airtrain/ And it really is lunacy. I mean pretty much everything about this project just doesn’t make sense from the price to the politics, and of course, the route itself. And now, Prince Andrew apparently wants the MTA to contribute to building it. Just consider this more proof that this guy’s got to have everything his way or no way. And one more reason not to like him as Governor. http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=1517305 Well at this point, you’ve got to wonder if it would be cheaper to just buy out the property owners on 31st Street. Or might today’s property owners be a bit more open to a concrete el as opposed to an old-fashioned steel el? Maybe not, but perhaps the PA and possibly the should actually try reaching out to the community to see if the attitude towards an (or de-interlined or ) extension to LGA has changed over the past two decades. You never know...
  21. I noticed that too this morning. And the second weekday in a row I got an R160 (although on Friday I got off and waited what ended up being four minutes for the - the platform sign said it was one minute away). Also the R160 train I took this afternoon had the M14 SBS update.
  22. @Uncle Floyd Fan, thank you so much for providing this template. I tried this morning to compose my own letter, but at my job in civil court, I don’t really have a whole lot of time to do stuff like this, so the template really helped. So far, I’ve emailed my local Assemblyman and State Senator (respectively, Edward C. Braunstein and John Liu) my City Councilman (Paul Vallone) and Council Speaker Corey Johnson. Fully agreed. If you’re going to bring people to properly (and professionally) manage the MTA (or any other government agency for that matter), then you step back and let them manage. Governor Cuomo has failed big on that. You don’t come in and micromanage, like he’s been doing for almost the entire time Andy Byford’s been here. Makes me wonder what Ontario Premier Doug Ford would do, if Byford was still in Toronto heading up the TTC.
  23. I suppose they are. But would Transit really want to take a chance on a car maker that’s never built a subway car for New York (other than Alstom)?
  24. The current / service started less than a year before / service did and still survives to this day, warts and all. I do know about the 60s-era A/B service on the Jamaica El, but I didn’t think it was relevant to this topic. Agree that poor dispatching may be playing a big part in the ’s unreliability. But better dispatching can only go so far when the route runs seven days a week, has multiple merges with other lines and is local in three boroughs on three busy corridors. And unless you’ve got Darth Vader for a boss it’s pretty easy and safe to say, “We’ll double our efforts to keep the trains running on schedule.” But, to use a tired old cliche, actions speak louder than words. And if they do say they will commit to better dispatching, it won’t be the first time they’ve said it. You would need to build a new mezzanine and staircases to access the old platform at Canal Street (not sure about Bowery). If there were an in-system transfer (I’m not really a fan of out-of-system transfers) between Bowery and Grand, then I’d be fine with the Nassau R terminating there, though Essex and Delancey is a pretty hopping area on the weekends (although the Bowery is too). It’s been decades since there’s been a second Nassau service on weekends, and overnight, hasn’t it? As long as I’ve been alive (probably much longer than that), it’s been just the . Maybe this too, is something Transit needs to rethink.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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