GojiMet86

The 14th Street Busway has actually been pretty successful. My questions to you are now this: What ax or vendetta are you grinding here? Why bring up bloggers up out of nowhere?

That is actually a false equivalence. Jacobs was not anti-road. She wasn't even anti-car. She was anti-ramming-a-highway-through-already-existing-neighborhoods. She was also against prioritizing cars over any other mode of transporation. Contrast that to Moses, who had a boner for cars despite never driving himself, and had no problem destroying large swaths of the Bronx, Queens, and Brooklyn for them.

I remember grabbing a ton of those old CT timetables back in 1999 or 2000 while visiting New Haven. Then I got home and discovered I had only brought back 1 or 2. I probably left them at Union Station on the benches, but to this day I still have my old M timetable.

Look at that Milan Metro ATM rolling stock! The thumbnail is reversed, so it says MTA, but really it's ATM.

Looking on a FB group, and it appears that NICE will receive 15 more 2021 XN40s (1985-1999). Then they will be receiving the Gilligs, numbered 2000 and up.

https://www.facebook.com/tracksunlimitedllc.nj/posts/2931664497070643

Official Amtrak release: http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Amtrak-Connects-Us-Fact-Sheet-for-Statement.pdf Trains Magazine: https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/amtrak-unveils-connects-us-map-that-suggests-new-corridors/

Makes sense. 1300-1556 are the 257 buses going to MTA Bus. 1557-1606 are the ones for NYCTA, and 1607-1629 are the SIM23/SIM24 option.

No, it's actually the other way around. Jamaica-179th Street to Far Rockaway-Mott Avenue is 1 mile longer than Norwood to Far Rockaway. I just measured it with the Google Earth ruler to as much of a tee as possible. A route doing 179th Street-8th Avenue-Cranberry-Fulton-Far Rockaway is longer than any train that runs from the Bronx. Using these rough measurements, the QBL from 179th Street to 53rd Street/8th Avenue is about ~12.80 miles, while the combined portions of Grand Concourse (~6 miles from 205th Street to145th Street) and 8th Avenue (~4.70 miles from 145th Street to 53rd Street/8th Avenue) sum up to about ~10.7 miles.

The current line from Inwood to Far Rockaway is about 32 miles. Norwood to Far Rockaway would be 35 miles. But Jamaica-179th Street to Far Rockaway would be almost 37 miles.

Market Street garage will be renovated: https://www.nj.com/news/2021/03/120-year-old-nj-transit-bus-garage-to-get-a-makeover-and-addition.html

@vanshnookenraggen Thought this might interest you and Alon: https://www.ctinsider.com/news/thehour/article/Getting-There-Commissioner-talks-train-safety-16042150.php This article suggests that CDOT might have more than enough M8, that it could send a pair to MBTA so that they could test electrification.

Noticed a couple of erros in the Brooklyn neighborhood maps page: https://new.mta.info/maps/subway/mta-neighborhood-maps/brooklyn - Metropolitan Avenue on the is listed...but as Metropolitan Avenue . There is actually no link Middle Village-Metropolitan Avenue. - Greenpoint Avenue is listed as a stop on the .

Yeah, I don't see people walking off with the electronic signs... ...but then again, Life, uh, finds a way.

The final EIS for LaGuardia Airport has been released: https://www.lgaaccesseis.com/final-eis-document Right now I'm looking at the Alternatives PDF: http://ricondoprojects.com/LGAAccess/final/5-LGA_Final EIS_02_Alternatives_20210312.pdf Here are the official objections as to why the Astoria extension was rejected: 2.6.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 8A: FROM ASTORIA BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: ELEVATED ABOVE ASTORIA BOULEVARD AND GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE This alternative would create a branch of the existing N-W Lines from the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station on an elevated subway above Astoria Avenue and the GCP that transitions into a tunnel to access a subterranean station at LGA. This alternative would require extensive, complex construction on the N-W Lines and along the GCP. The branch extension would need two tracks to allow for frequent bi-directional service. These new tracks would connect to the existing northbound track, which is the local track for northbound service, and the center track. The connection to the center track would be via an interlocking system. The merge location would be south of the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station, which might have to be reconstructed and shifted northward to accommodate this new junction. The last station on the Astoria Line to serve the Airport route would be the station before the junction point, the 30th Avenue Subway Station. New crossovers would have to be constructed south of the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station to allow subway trains to move between tracks. Implementation of these improvements would disrupt transit service during peak commuter hours during construction on the N-W Lines, which would affect up to approximately 25,000 daily riders. From 31st Street, the two tracks would be on an elevated structure within the GCP right-of-way to reach the Airport. East of Steinway Street, the Hell Gate rail trestle that crosses over the GCP would have to be raised to provide for adequate clearance between the elevated subway and the rail line using the Hell Gate rail trestle. This would result in disruption to train service using the rail line, including Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service, which would affect up to approximately 10,000 daily passengers. Disruption of the Hell Gate rail trestle would require a temporary rail bridge adjacent to the existing trestle to provide for ongoing service during construction. Limited easements exist in this area, likely requiring property acquisition and displacement of existing land uses. Furthermore, the work would need to be scheduled in coordination with ongoing construction that also affects Amtrak service, including the LIRR East Side Access project, East River Tunnel repairs, the Gateway Program, and the Penn Station Access Project. In addition, as a branch of the N-W Lines, this alternative would result in the permanent reduction in service at the Astoria-Ditmars Subway Station, as the new service to LGA would have to be sequenced with the existing service along the N-W Lines, which would reduce the number of N-W trains from the east that could operate through the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station. This would have a permanent effect on up to approximately 13,000 daily users of the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station. This alternative would result in the construction of support columns for the elevated subway and would require the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, which would affect up to 75,000 daily drivers on Astoria Boulevard and up to 165,000 daily drivers on this segment of the GCP. The permanent closure of travel lanes would occur because it is not possible to place support columns for an elevated subway along this alignment without placing one of the support columns in an existing travel lane and it is not possible to shift travel lanes due to limitations associated with existing bridges. A variety of underground utilities (such as water lines and sewer lines) are present along the elevated section of this alignment; this section would be designed to minimize impacts to underground utilities by following NYCDEP guidelines. However, the underground portion of this alignment could not be constructed in a manner to avoid having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E): - 175-inch by 96-inch combined sewer, which varies between 5 and 15 feet below grade, near the intersection of 19th Avenue and 82nd Street; - 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer, which varies between 10 to 20 feet below grade, at the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP; - 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer, which is approximately 30 feet below grade, at the intersection of 82nd Street and the GCP; and - 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which is approximately 20 feet below grade, near the intersection of 90th Street and the GCP. Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended. Relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. An additional complexity is that the interceptors are pressurized to maintain flows 24 hours per day; any changes would be difficult to implement and could affect everyone within the service area. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls or interceptors. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. The construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall or interceptor would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer or interceptor during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct. Avoidance of these major utilities would require tunneling the subway beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to 13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable. Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Given the location of the combined sewer line near the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP, it is likely that the end of the transition to the underground portion would need to occur at 78th Street and the GCP. At a minimum of 5,000 feet, the start of the transition would have to begin on Astoria Boulevard as it crosses under the Hell Gate rail trestle (the distance from 78th Street and the GCP to Astoria Boulevard and the Hell Gate rail trestle is about 5,000 feet). This means that the transition would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, both of which are identified as major roadways by NYSDOT. Finally, construction of a station at the Airport at a depth of 200 feet would require specific engineering analyses and means and methods of construction to excavate a station and not affect existing structures and roadways at the Airport that exist above the excavation. Deep stations would also require special ventilation and enough vertical circulation elements to meet safety regulations and may require continuous dewatering. To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 2.09-mile elevated subway and the 0.61-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.7 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative. This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points. This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative would result in the need to modify the Hell Gate rail trestle, would result in a permanent reduction in service at the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station and the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station, would require the permanent closure of travel lanes on Astoria Boulevard and the GCP, and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Additionally, this alternative would disrupt peak-hour operation of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor and the N-W Lines during construction. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration. 2.6.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 8B: FROM ASTORIA-DITMARS BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: ELEVATED ABOVE 31ST STREET AND 19TH AVENUE ALTERNATIVE This alternative would extend the elevated N-W Lines beyond the final stop at the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station on an elevated subway above 31st Street and 19th Avenue, with a transition into a tunnel to access a subterranean station at LGA. The new elevated section of the subway in this alternative would be supported by columns located either in the street or sidewalks of 31st Street and 19th Avenue. This would require the temporary closure of travel lanes on 31st Street and 19th Avenue, which are identified as major collectors by NYSDOT and would affect up to 10,000 drivers on a daily basis. The elevated section of this alignment would cross several existing utilities, including City Water Tunnel No. 2, a 60-inch-diameter trunk water main, a 20-inch and a 24-inch cast iron water main, a 96-inch interceptor sewer, a 60-inch combined sewer, a 39-inch combined sewer, several sewer chambers, a 66-inch combined sewer, and four different large-scale sewer interceptor lines (see Appendix E). However, it is possible to minimize impacts to these underground facilities through design of the elevated subway and by following NYCDEP guidelines. The underground portion of this alignment could not be constructed in a manner that avoids having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E): - 175-inch by 96-inch combined sewer, which varies between 5 and 15 feet below grade, near the intersection of 19th Avenue and 82nd Street; - 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which varies between 15 to 25 feet below grade, underneath 19th Avenue and 81st Street; - 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer, which varies between 10 to 20 feet below grade, at the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP; - 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer, which is approximately 30 feet below grade, at the intersection of 82nd Street and the GCP; and - 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which is approximately 20 feet below grade, near the intersection of 90th Street and the GCP. Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended. Relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. An additional complexity is that the interceptors are pressurized to maintain flows 24 hours per day; any changes would be difficult to implement and could affect everyone within the service area. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls or interceptors. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. The construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall or interceptor would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer or interceptor during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct. Avoidance of these major utilities would require placing the subway in bedrock beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to 13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable. Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would also be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Also, given the location of the interceptor under 19th Avenue at 45th Street, it is likely that the start of the transition to the underground portion would need to occur at 31st Street and 21st Avenue, which would require the permanent closure of travel lanes and the permanent loss of street parking on a portion of 31st Street, which is identified as a major collector by NYSDOT. The distance from the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Station and 19th Avenue and 45th Street is approximately 5,300 feet. To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 1.97-mile elevated subway and the 0.83-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.82 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative. This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points. This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative would result in the temporary closure of a portion of 31st Street and 19th Avenue and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Avoiding the material effect on major utilities would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes on a portion of 31st Street. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration. 2.6.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 8C: FROM ASTORIA-DITMARS BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: TUNNEL BENEATH 31ST STREET AND 19TH AVENUE ALTERNATIVE This alternative would extend the N-W Lines beyond the final stop at the Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station in a tunnel beneath 31st Street and 19th Avenue to a subterranean station at LGA. The section of the subway in this alternative that would transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require the permanent closure of travel lanes and the permanent loss of parking on 31st Street, which is classified as a major collector by NYSDOT. This closure of travel lanes on 31st Street would affect up to approximately 10,000 daily drivers. In addition, there is insufficient distance along 31st Street for the subway to descend at a 3-degree grade from the existing Astoria Boulevard Subway Station, clear the GCP, and transition underground to a new Astoria-Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station with adequate clearance to support the required elevated infrastructure. These two subway stations are approximately 2,300 feet apart, and there is less than 2,000 feet available once the subway passes the GCP. At that point, the subway is approximately 25 feet above ground level, and based on a maximum 3-degree grade for a subway, the tracks could only descend 59 feet before entering the new underground Astoria Ditmars Boulevard Subway Station. At this location, the subway would be approximately 35 feet below ground level (assuming the terrain is constant). Based on the required height clearance for the train and platforms, there would be less than 20 feet of cover over the subway station, which would be insufficient to structurally support aboveground infrastructure. In addition, the transition to an underground subway would occur beneath the Hell Gate rail trestle, which would require substantial excavation in proximity to that structure, as portions of the AstoriaDitmars Boulevard Subway Station lie beneath the trestle. During construction, this excavation could result in interruptions to the operation of the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, which would affect up to approximately 10,000 daily passengers and the N-W Lines, which would affect up to approximately 25,000 daily riders. Furthermore, the work would need to be scheduled in coordination with ongoing construction that also affects Amtrak service, including the LIRR East Side Access project, East River Tunnel repairs, the Gateway Program, and the Penn Station Access Project. The alignment for this alternative would be underground and could not be constructed in a manner that avoids having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E): - City Water Tunnel No. 2 - 60-inch-diameter trunk water main - 20-inch and a 24-inch cast iron water main  96-inch-diameter interceptor sewer - 60-inch combined sewer  39-inch combined sewer  several sewer chambers - 66-inch-diameter combined sewer - four different large-scale sewer interceptor lines: — 175-inch by 96-inch combined sewer — 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor underneath 19th Avenue and 81st Street — 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer — 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended.73 Relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls and interceptors could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. An additional complexity is that the interceptors are pressurized to maintain flows 24 hours per day; any changes would be difficult to implement and could affect everyone within the service area. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls or interceptors. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. the construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall or interceptor would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer or interceptor during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct. Avoidance of these major utilities would require tunneling the subway beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to 13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall and/or interceptor, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable. Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would also be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Given that the transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would begin at the Astoria Boulevard Subway Station, there is sufficient distance to achieve a 200-foot depth to avoid the utilities. However, construction of a station at the Airport at a depth of 200 feet would require specific engineering analyses and means and methods of construction to excavate a station and not affect existing structures and roadways at the Airport that exist above the excavation. Deep stations also require special ventilation and enough vertical circulation elements to meet safety regulations and may require continuous dewatering. To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 2.9-mile subway extension in this alternative would cost approximately $3.15 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative. This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points. This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utility lines. Specifically, this alternative would result in the permanent closure of a portion of 31st Street, would result in the permanent loss of parking on a portion of 31st Street, and would affect existing major underground utility lines. Additionally, this alternative would disrupt peak-hour subway, rail, and/or transit service during construction, including Amtrak Northeast Corridor service and the N-W Lines. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration. 2.6.3.4 ALTERNATIVE 8D: FROM ASTORIA-DITMARS BOULEVARD SUBWAY STATION: ELEVATED ABOVE DITMARS BOULEVARD AND GRAND CENTRAL PARKWAY ALTERNATIVE This alternative would result in the development of an elevated subway above Ditmars Boulevard and the GCP. Because this alternative would require excavation in proximity to the existing Hell Gate rail trestle, this alternative could affect passenger rail service during construction, including Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, which could affect about 10,000 daily passengers. Furthermore, the work would need to be scheduled in coordination with ongoing construction that also affects Amtrak service, including the LIRR East Side Access project, East River Tunnel repairs, the Gateway Program, and the Penn Station Access Project. In addition, this alternative would result in the construction of the support columns for the elevated subway in the rights-of-way of Ditmars Boulevard and would require the temporary closure of the roadway, which would affect up to approximately 30,000 drivers on Ditmars Boulevard on a daily basis during construction. A variety of underground utilities (such as water lines and sewer lines) are present along the elevated section of this alignment; this section would be designed to minimize impacts to underground utilities by following NYCDEP guidelines. However, the underground portion of this alignment could not be constructed in a manner that avoids having a material effect on the following major utilities, some of which provide services to more than 650,000 residents of Queens (see Appendix E): - 132-inch by 60-inch double-barrel storm reinforced concrete sewer, which varies between 10 to 20 feet below grade, at the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP; - 129-inch by 96-inch double-barrel combined sewer, which is approximately 30 feet below grade, at the intersection of 82nd Street and the GCP; and - 120-inch by 108-inch interceptor, which is approximately 20 feet below grade, near the intersection of 90th Street and the GCP. Relocation of these utilities would require feasibility studies for the alignment/route of the relocated utilities to satisfy NYCDEP clearance requirements between relocated utilities and existing utilities. This would require a determination as to whether relocated utilities would necessitate additional replacement or relocation of other existing utilities (water main, gas main, electric line, etc.), and whether affected drainage plans would need to be amended.80 Relocation of combined sewer outfalls could also result in changes to the slope of the utility, which could result in the need for additional pump stations or modification of existing pump stations. In addition, the relocation of combined sewer outfalls could result in 1. the relocation and reconstruction of the outfall, which also would affect the existing shoreline, pier head, and/or bulkhead and could extend the outfall and riprap beyond the bulkhead line; 2. the need for temporary fluming of the sewer flow, although major storm events could overwhelm the system resulting in area-wide sewer backups and flooding; and 3. land acquisition and/or the purchase of easements from private property owners. Relocation of these utilities could only begin after lengthy surveys and coordination with other utility providers and transportation agencies to understand what other effects may occur as a result of the alignment/route of the relocated utilities and the relocation of the combined sewer outfalls. In addition, feasibility studies, which would include flow monitoring and modeling, and drainage plan amendments would be required. The construction plans for a relocated combined sewer outfall would need to allow for continuous operation and management of the flow in the sewer during construction to ensure that flooding does not occur anywhere within the system. Finally, relocation of the interceptor or combined sewer outfall could take more than 3 years to design and 10 years to construct. Avoidance of these major utilities would require tunneling the subway beneath the utilities. Geotechnical information based on borings at LGA indicate that bedrock is at least 150 feet deep, groundwater is present at 6 to13 feet below ground surface, and the predominant soil is a mixture of marshy soil, sediment, and clay not suited to provide structural support. NYCDEP requires 20-foot separation between their utility and other structures. Thus, a tunnel beneath the combined sewer outfall would need to be at least 50 feet deep. Due to the poor soil conditions and presence of groundwater at LGA, a subway tunnel not in bedrock would need to be constructed on pilings and would need extensive water pumps to keep groundwater out of the subway tunnel. Additionally, structural supports would need to be provided for the combined sewer outfall, which would greatly complicate construction even further. For these reasons, construction of a tunnel through the soils beneath these utilities was determined to not be practicable. Alternatively, the subway tunnel could be constructed in bedrock, which would require a tunnel approximately 175 to 200 feet below ground surface. Emergency access and ventilation of tunnels at these depths would also be challenging due to the complex urban environment. To achieve this depth for a subway tunnel, the distance needed to transition from an elevated subway to an underground subway would require at least 5,000 linear feet using the assumption of a maximum 3 percent grade. Given the location of the combined sewer line near the intersection of 80th Street and the GCP, it is likely that the end of the transition to the underground portion would need to occur at 78th Street and Ditmars Boulevard. At a minimum of 5,000 feet, the start of the transition would have to begin on Ditmars Boulevard at Steinway Street (the distance from 78th Street and Ditmars Boulevard to Ditmars Boulevard and Steinway Street is about 5,000 feet). This would result in the permanent closure of travel lanes and the permanent loss of street parking on a portion of Ditmars Boulevard, which is identified as a principal arterial (other) by NYSDOT. Finally, construction of a station at the Airport at a depth of 200 feet would require specific engineering analyses and means and methods of construction to excavate a station and not affect existing structures and roadways at the Airport that exist above the excavation. Deep stations would also require special ventilation and enough vertical circulation elements to meet safety regulations and may require continuous dewatering. To provide a general cost for subway construction, the average per mile cost of $976.0 million for elevated subways and $1.09 billion for underground subways was used. On this basis, the 1.89-mile elevated subway and the 0.61-mile underground subway in this alternative would cost approximately $2.51 billion, which is less than two and a half times the estimated $2.05 billion cost associated with the Port Authority’s proposed alternative. This alternative is on the N-W Lines and would provide reasonable access to all identified access points. This alternative would have a material effect on major transportation facilities and major utilities. Specifically, this alternative could disrupt peak-hour Amtrak Northeast Corridor service during construction, would result in the temporary closure of travel lanes on Ditmars Boulevard, and would result in the permanent shift of travel lanes and the permanent removal of parking lanes on Ditmars Boulevard. In addition, this alternative would affect existing major underground utility lines. Avoiding the material effect on major utilities would result in a permanent closure of a portion of Ditmars Boulevard. As a result, this alternative would not be reasonable to construct and operate and was eliminated from further consideration.

https://gothamist.com/news/subway-ridership-hits-new-peak-first-time-during-pandemic

One of the 3100 Gilligs was turned into a Mobile Vaccination Square (from Bus Lounge group on FB):

I don't know, I never saw the passengers getting in or the ones inside.

The final EIS report: http://glassborocamdenline.com/post/final_eis_document It will be a DMU service, running on its own tracks from Walter Rand Transportation Center to Woodbury Heights. It will then share a track with Conrail until it reaches Glassboro borough, at which point the line will split off from Conrail and end at the Glassboro terminal. NJT will most likely be the operator.

Well, it's pretty similar to the smell argument. It cannot be isolated, at least at the moment of the incident. Call it in, take out the consist, have it cleaned, and have it ready for the next day or however long it takes. But the same thing happens with R46s, R68s, the NTTs. You're just down a set. That's it. Not a big deal. Or if time allows...they could make sure trains have the capability to close the doors in one car, and seal it off at the terminal with tape or a barrier. But even with the current closed-off configurations, conductors still have trouble keeping regular folk away from troubled cars. I once sat on an R46 that had one car affected by smell, and I spent 30 minutes hearing the conductor warning people to stay away from the car. With trains made up of single cars or married pairs, trains still have to be taken out of service to remove the car/pair. My question to the pair crowd is, when was the last time the MTA stored 2-car pairs around the system and not just in yards? When was the last time they even ran a sole 2-car pair to meet up with the impacted train? What space will be used for these spares? What happens if my at Astoria needs a pair? Where will it come from? All the way from Coney Island? Still going to take the same amount of time, gangway or none. Might as well have a full train come. Notice the BMT was beginning to order articulated trains, even in the heyday of cutting up trains. Cutting up trains makes way more sense if there are very clear peak and off-peak periods. But now, peak and off-peak are beginning to resemble one another.

The decline in ridership doesn't rule out 2-car open-gangway trains. You can still have operational flexibility. Again, the lack of flexibility and the homeless are completely blown out of proportion. We don't have to do exactly the same things other countries do, but is is very nice to be open-minded about other possibilities, which is what the MTA has not done in the last 70 years. And are we to listen only to the most wise, most exalted Trainmaster5 or Snowblock, and only them? You know, there are thousands and thousands of other train operators in the world that would disagree with them. There are the also engineers, safety experts, etc. They are also not the be-all, end-all. Appreciated? Sure. But they can't be right 100% of the time. No one is. Even I'm not. According to them, trying wouldn't even be worth it in the first place! The gospel here is New York Exceptionalism. If it didn't come from here, it's garbage. It's stubborness. It's one of the reasons why Andy Byford left. Trying too much to provide change. Thank you. What a resistence to a couple of pilot trains.

Part of me thinks the preference would be to guarantee the fire is contained to one car but burn almost everyone in it, rather than have the fire spread, hurt (but not necessarily kill) more people, and destroy more equipment. Let me revise this a little. Japan does this for metros that spend almost all their time underground, but not for trains that spend most of their time outside. So it appears that tunnel ventilation is a factor.

So let's back up, it appears there's a conflation between several concepts, like open-gangways and flexibility. 1. Are we talking about open-gangways or no walking in between? 2. Are we talking about short 2-car sets or 4-5 car sets? 3. How about single cars like the Arnines? See, a 2-car open-gangway set seems reasonable. But longer sets without open-gangways? Not so much. 2-car pairs with no walking in between for the metro system that has the highest ridership in the Western hemisphere is unreasonable to me. The only line that is limited to 2 cars is the Franklin shuttle. If you're going to have smaller sets, they better be open-gangway sets (unless the MTA actually does find them unfeasible because of curves). But I argue for longer sets in the rest of the system. PATH is essentially one line with two of branches; longer-fixed sets might not work when their trains constantly vary between 7 and 8 (and eventually 9 and 10) cars, but shorter open-gangway sets might. WMATA has stated they won't order open-gangways because of the curves and their longer cars, and their yards aren't made to work with longer sets, although they could theoretically order 2-car open-gangways instead. This is the same agency that constantly derails its trains, so smaller pairs make more sense. CTA has really, really sharp turns. Even though the other USA systems don't have the ridership, they are more than capable of doing 2-car open-gangways. Toronto has decided to go forward with longer, open-gangway sets. The older T1 trains are always put into 6-car consists, peak or off-peak, so there goes the ridership argument. Montreal has gone with longer, open-gangway sets, and the new light-rail REM will have 2-car open-gangways. Mexico City has gone with longer, open-gangway sets. Santiago has gone with longer, open-gangway sets. Buenos Aires has moved to longer, open-gangway sets. In Europe, SNCF in France has open-gangway commuter trains not only to improve flow, but to lessen crime. People legit feel safer when they have an option to run as far away as possible. Open-gangway makes it easier for people to run away. Same with the Paris Metro, which has been open-gangway for decades now. London has moved to longer, open-gangway sets. And open-gangway also means there are more eyes watching. Think of the older NYC stock that only had windows on the storm doors. Not much you can see. And when crap hits the fan, everyone wishes they could run to the next car without anything blocking the way. So notice then, that open-gangway, in and of itself, and regardless of the number of cars in a set, is much more beneficial than what NYC has now. This is in terms of passenger flow and passenger safety. Now curiously, what I have seen no one here mention before, and that's because the discussion is almost always centered around stinky homeless people, crime, or cutting up trains, is that the biggest knock against open-gangways isn't about flow of passengers, or flexibility... It's Fire. Or more specifically, fire underground. In an open-gangway train, fire can spread quicker because there's more oxygen, whereas in the closed design, the fire has less oxygen to burn. In Japan, subways with underground portions do have open-gangways, BUT they have self-closing doors:

Sure, in the immediate short-term, at the moment of the incident, that's true. And yet in the 40-year long run, such occurances have not and never have been common enough to justify having cabs in each car. How many times in the history of the subway has there been a serial window smasher? If you recall, the problem (aside from an idiot) wasn't that there weren't enough cars in service, it was that there weren't enough spare windows. The rest of the world clearly has no problem with longer sets. Notice shorter sets exist because of lesser demand. And it's the mainline railroads that put and break apart multiple sets. Clearly, the benefits of longer sets outweigh both its detriments AND the benefits of married pairs.

And with that thought process, how often will a homeless guy just jump to you? How often will a random guy just start attacking you? The chances of being with a New York City police officer are higher than being stuck with a deranged lunatic.