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.

Mysterious2train

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

555 Excellent

1 Follower

About Mysterious2train

  • Rank
    Not Mysterious any more

Profile Information

  • Location
    Flatbush

Recent Profile Visitors

1,280 profile views
  1. Not to my knowledge and anecdotally, ridership is fairly low on the Roosevelt Island portion at times with only a couple of people on some buses. Which is why I'm mixed on cutting service to the northern part of the island and undoing the round-robin pattern. But, I will argue the Q102 has garbo headways offpeak and has a ridiculous routing from trying to juggle several roles at once which hurts its potential. I understand two routes is never going to happen and I'd just be happy with the Q104/QT63. More anecdotes, but when the missus and I go from the island to Western Queens it's either to the shops along the Q104 route/Broadway (like Costco) or to Queens Plaza/Court Square. Now we just take Uber to the former and take the Q102 to Queens Plaza, or take Uber if the next Q102 is far away or it's somewhere a little farther from the Q102, like Court Square. If RI got the Q104 and Q39 we'd be set. If RI got the QT63 we would at least be set for Broadway (and even for trips Jackson Hts/Elmhurst if she could stand a bus ride of that length vs taking the ) and she'd probably Uber to Queens Plaza/Court Square. If RI gets the QT78 she'll probably just want to take Uber everywhere to avoid walking/transferring from the QT78 (unless we need the specifically and service is not stopping at Roosevelt Island for whatever reason).
  2. Mixed feelings about Roosevelt Island. MTA is trying to pull a fast one by not serving the entire northern half of the island with the QT78. I kind of understand as it's not as dense as the southern half and the Q102's round robin pattern is awfully awkward. If it happens, those people would be stuck with the Roosevelt Island bus service. However, the Q102 serves Coler Hospital on the northern tip of the island while the red bus doesn't; the red bus terminates at the Octagon building, which is a few minutes away from the hospital by walking. I would hope the Roosevelt Island Operating Company would extend the red bus to the hospital. I don't like the QT78 much; it's awfully barebones for Roosevelt Island. If we're stuck with a single new route I would much rather have the Q104/QT63 to reach places like Costco or the whole strip of businesses along Broadway. Right now to get around those areas we have to either take a circuitous trip on the Q102 and walk 8+ mins or transfer to the Q103 and Q104 on their high headways. The Q102 has an incredibly awkward existence as a circuitous Roosevelt Island-Queens Plaza/Queens Plaza-Astoria/RI-Astoria coverage route, but its connection to the Queens Plaza area is important. The Q102 saw a pretty nice 50% increase in weekday ridership between 2013 and 2018! Of course we don't know where that new ridership is distributed along the route but it's not hard to imagine some of it is from the new facilities on Roosevelt Island and its surprising population growth. The Western Queens Transportation Study IMO had the best of both worlds for RI by proposing sending both the Q104 and Q39 to Roosevelt Island - Q104 to serve the shops, Q39 to serve Queens Plaza/Court Square. MTA would definitely never go for that - seems like the QT78 is the 'middle of the road' option by serving some of Astoria/LIC/Sunnyside and for taking the straightest route to get to the subway and bus lines, while not really excelling at either.
  3. Realistically, to get backing from suburban politicians with the connection to Metro-North, and to keep the project simpler by keeping it in Manhattan (as sending it to an outer borough opens up a new can of worms). Also I know "Phase 2 should have gone to 149 St" discussions come up every other month in the SAS thread, but the big price tag shouldn't really matter either way; it's not like going 149 St wouldn't have the same cost issues as any other Capital Construction megaproject, and presumably would have been even more expensive, what with one additional station (with the stations being the most expensive elements of Phase 1) and having to build transfers to the and , and an underwater crossing, albeit a short one.
  4. darkstar8983 is not referring to the frequency but rather the span of service. The ran to/from Astoria for a longer span each day than the . Southbound service from Astoria ran from 6:02 AM to 11:01 PM. Northbound s arrived at Astoria from 6:34 AM to 11:34 PM. From 2008-2010 and from 2016 to 2018, the span of Southbound service was from 6:53 AM to 9:58 PM, and northbound service arrived from Astoria from 7:45 AM to 11:29 PM. Because service to/from Astoria started later and ended earlier than former service, bringing back the effectively reduced the number of trips to/from Astoria during those early morning hours and late evening hours. There were some news articles written back when the returned pointing this out. This was addressed in 2018 when the schedule was adjusted and the span of southbound service from Astoria was increased from 6:13 AM to 10:07 PM (with northbound trains arriving at Astoria from 7:47 AM to 11:48 PM). Of course, back in November 2019, evening service was adjusted to end a little earlier, with the last southbound leaving Astoria at 9:26 PM, and the last northbound arriving at 10:55 PM, but the increased service in the morning remains.
  5. The state legislature passed a bill this year requiring the MTA to add "Medgar Evers College" to the names of Franklin Avenue and President St. It was sponsored by Senator Zellnor Myrie and Assemblywoman Diane Richardson who represent the area. The SubwayTime and myMTA arrival apps already reflect the change.
  6. Agree 100% with the idea of connecting the to the Franklin Avenue - but of course it should be its own route going all the way up to Court Square, not just a slightly longer shuttle. Going off further into never-going-to-happen land, A 21 St subway line would connect to the at Queensbridge, serves Astoria, could potentially go all the way to LaGuardia, and would still connect to the at Court Square. Would require closing 21 St but it doesn't exactly have high ridership to begin with. My deepest, most never-going-to-happen fantasy for the would probably be to close down 21 St and build a new platform at Vernon Blvd-Jackson Av connecting to the , since the literally passes right below the station (Thanks John Hylan?) Would definitely be tight and disruptive to build, but like anything it would be possible with enough money and political will. This could save 7-10 mins on some Brooklyn-bound trips as by no longer having to go the additional 2 stops to Court Square you'd be able to catch the previous trip to Brooklyn sometimes. You'd see smaller but still noticeable time savings going Brooklyn-to-Manhattan since the runs more frequently.
  7. There's a cross-passage running east-west under E 45th St as part of Grand Central North that passes below the lower level platforms. (It's shown on this outdated GCT North map, but it's a little hard to see) There are stairs/escalators that run directly from the upper level NW/NE passages to the 45th St cross-passage bypassing the lower level platform. Since the 45th St passage is below the lower level platforms, using it is similar to accessing the express platforms at Atlantic Av or 34 St-Penn Station on the subway. The 45th St passage should be only about 20-30 ft above the top of the southern end of the upper ESA cavern. It definitely should have connected to the ESA caverns and I assume the mindset that LIRR/MNR must be separate is what prevented it. Hopefully it could still be built in the future, albeit more disruptively and expensively than building it now.
  8. Elevators at 62 St/New Utrecht Av opened today. https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtaphotos/albums/72157709742946302 http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/mta-installs-four-elevators-other-ada-features-new-utrecht-av62-st-station
  9. 7 Av/Broadway Line will be completely suspended for two weekends in August due to interlocking work 96 St, with the rerouted up Central Park West to 145 St to substitute: http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/essential-work-replace-switches-and-tracks-96-st-set-begin-late-friday
  10. Don't forget Assemblywoman Amy Paulin and Senator Leroy Comrie who are the chairs of the Corporations, Authorities and Commissions committees in the Assembly and Senate (respectively). Those committees also have oversight over the MTA (in addition to the Transportation committees) and all appointments to the MTA board have to pass through the Senate Corporations, Authorities and Commissions committee (in addition to the Senate Finance and Transportation committees). https://nyassembly.gov/comm/?id=9 https://www.nysenate.gov/committees/corporations-authorities-and-commissions https://nyassembly.gov/mem/Amy-Paulin https://www.nysenate.gov/senators/leroy-comrie
  11. Kind of surprised the topic of board member seats doesn't get more discussion on here. Like the fact that Cuomo appointed Mujica to replace Michael Lynton after less than 3 months on the board. Or the fact that even after the State Senate confirming 10 people in new board seats this year (plus 2 reappointments) the board still has 4 vacant seats. Or the general idea that the State Senate seems to rubber-stamp anybody Cuomo appoints to the board. It's true that this process is not fully transparent. I guess it's all futile in the end.
  12. Not sure if 3070-3073 was running specifically back on Thursday on 16th, but it has been seen in service this week:
  13. The CBTC systems on every line from Culver and Queens Blvd onward will be designed to be inter-operable with CBTC systems on other lines (with the exception of Canarsie and Flushing, since their CBTC systems were not necessarily designed to be inter-operable.) This means that those R160s receiving CBTC equipment as part of Queens Blvd or later projects, the R179s and the R211s will be able to run on any CBTC system on the B-Division except Canarsie (and Flushing). Siemens (which installed the CBTC system on the (L) and is providing the equipment for the R179s) and Thales (which installed the CBTC system on the (7) and is providing the equipment for the R211s) collaborated on the Culver Line CBTC test track and are collaborating on Queens Blvd CBTC to ensure that their two systems are inter-operable. I am no expert in the technical aspects of this, so just asking - as Siemens installed the CBTC system on Canarsie, and is also fabricating the equipment for the R179s, would anybody happen to know if the R179s will be compatible with Siemens' older system? I don't think I've seen 3252 mentioned in this thread, but it looks like somebody on reddit spotted it on its way down to the city yesterday: https://www.reddit.com/r/nycrail/comments/bju07h/new_subway_car_coming_down_i87/
  14. Those proposals came from attendees at the meetings, not NYCT itself. I sure hope nobody at NYCT would propose a Co-op City-to-Brooklyn route.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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