Mysterious2train

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

3238-3247 spotted in service on the .

Not sure if 3070-3073 was running specifically back on Thursday on 16th, but it has been seen in service this week:

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/

Just from the little I've seen of her at the Senate meetings, she seems like a good fit for the board. I read there was controversy when Obama first appointed her to the FRA over her lack of prior experience in the railroad industry, but after actually spending two years in the role, I think she try to do right by us. She was apparently also one of the judges for the Genius Competition, whether that lowers or raises your image of her.

Cuomo appointed Sarah Feinberg (who used to work at the US DOT and led the FRA in the tail end of the Obama administration) and real estate developer David Mack to the MTA board back in Feburary, which the news media reported on. Then the State Senate confirmed them to the board back on Tuesday and I haven't heard a peep in the news about that. Even the MTA site isn't updated yet. Mack used to be on the MTA board from 1993 to 2009 and was forced to resign. He absolutely has no place on the board and it's amazing he's been reappointed and reconfirmed. Looking at the three committee meetings, a few Senators were pretty critical of him and actually voted against him, but the Senate ultimately did approve him. It's nice to see a few newly-elected Senators like Andrew Gounardes, Jessica Ramos or James Skoufis actually *attempting* oversight. The board is basically a revolving door at this point, we might need a dedicated thread just to keep track of it all. And there's still four vacant seats, including the chair.

Surprised nobody's talking/talked about how Rose's letter and press release originally named "MTA Chairman" Andy Byford, even though the first post of this thread has the version with the error. It's a small mistake, but it is telling.

The MTA announced that the would become full-length as part of the Subway Action Plan in July 2017. Byford had nothing to do with it. Or as Jon Weinstein put it: It seems like that promise may not be kept after all?

That's an interesting plan but without more details and assuming more service than runs today it sounds like this could lead to big backups heading southbound around Bowling Green and Utica from trains fumigating. Right now only a handful of trains each rush hour are scheduled to turn at Bowling Green and even that isn't always great. Utica has its bad days too. Seems like at a minimum the interlocking right before Utica Av southbound would have to be reinstalled to allow New Lots-bound express trains to run around fumigating trains on the express track. I sure hope fumigation practices improve in the future. I'm aware. CBTC will probably improve things, but the Lexington Av express isn't really known for its great dwell times, and it's already using NTTs exclusively. I just wouldn't be surprised at all if the MTA wanted the R262s on the to help increase capacity and push down dwell times further is all. Certainly, anything's possible. The R262s could go anywhere. But it seems they will be built with open gangways and wider doors to increase capacity and shorten dwell times. While all of the IRT lines experience crowding out the wazoo, I'd absolutely argue the generally have it worse than the . So I don't think the R262s, if they have superior capacity, would be living up to their full potential on the if the are still getting absolutely slammed in the future the way they are now. And presumably, moving the R142s and R142As to the and changing the strip maps would only be a one-time thing until the time comes for their retirement, whatever distant year that is. Granted, who knows how things will change in the future.

No article yet, just the committee meeting materials: http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/190122_1400_CPOC.pdf (pgs 8. 9. 22 and 25) Obligatory disclaimers that I can't see the future, I don't work at the MTA, I don't know what kinds of technologies could appear in the future and there's little point in speculating about a fleet that currently doesn't exist. But for the sake of discussion: As long as the and maintain their current routings, it's probably safe to say they will share a fleet to keep things as simple as possible. (And putting aside logistics, why would anybody want 7th and Lex to have their own uniform fleets? It'd be a bit dull seeing all the routes on a trunk line use the same fleet exclusively!) Once CBTC on the Lexington Av Line starts, I assume every car assigned to the would have to be CBTC-compatible in case they show up on the . There aren't enough R142s and R142As to completely fill the , so it seems we have little choice but to wait before a sufficient amount of R262s enter service before Lex CBTC can start. (If there's something I'm missing in this regard, please let me know!). If the R262s come with wider doors and open gangways like the R211s, I assume they would go to the lines with the biggest dwell time and crowding issues. That sounds like the to me, with any leftover cars going to the . (Keeping in mind that the MTA put the R62As on the to keep them off of the ). Which would mean that the R142s and R142As would go to the - though which of the R142/R142As end up on which of those three lines specifically is irrelevant to me.

This month's capital program oversight committee meeting will feature the annual update on rolling stock procurement, so if there are any further changes to the contract, this would be the time to announce them.

So just glancing at the MTA site for next weekend, it looks like the will all be not running between Brooklyn and Manhattan while the will both have their frequencies slashed to every 12 mins/5 TPH, alongside the and . It'll probably be a complete shitshow. On a normal weekend, between the Montague, Joralemon and Clark St Tunnels and the Manhattan Bridge, 44.5 TPH are scheduled (45.5 before the had its service reduced earlier this year). Granted most weekends have some reduced service, but next weekend will see only 20 TPH between those four lines which is probably a record low or something. The is ostensibly having its service reduced because southbound trains are running express from 14th to Chambers. Fine, except that same GO is happening this weekend and the did not have its service reduced - which I'm assuming was because of the Brooklyn Half-Marathon yesterday. There's no big marathon next weekend, but the fact that the will all be out between Brooklyn and Manhattan should surely justify not cutting service on the remaining lines too much. And I'm not just saying that as a Nostrand Av Line rider. Have we had any recent weekends when the were all knocked out between Brooklyn and Manhattan at the same time? I understand the necessity of this work, but all of the above on one weekend seems a bit excessive.

The agency actually put out a press release about the line work this weekend. At least they're being responsive... http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/mta-nyc-transit-lirr-offering-robust-alternate-service-customer-outreach

Byford is apparently running test trains to gauge the accuracy of signals around the system. This was mentioned by an angry T/O at one of the Fast Forward town halls (angry about T/Os getting penalized for tripping red signals), who said this wasn't public knowledge, but it's apparently a thing. Maybe that's already known here but it was news to me at least.

The is also listed as running every 12 minutes this weekend. Has the agency announced when a route is cut to every 12 minutes before? This is the first I remember seeing of it. Still, it sucks to be a lower White Plains Road rider. Having the cut and having the reduced from 8 TPH during the day to 5... That's going from 13 TPH to 5, or some 72% percent reduction in service! Is there also work being done on the connection from the WPR line to the Jerome line, or is the flagging on WPR that bad? If it's just the latter, that's overkill.

It's been 50 years since revenue service last ran from Canarsie down Broadway in Brooklyn, right? I wouldn't expect any area politicians to know about such a service or advocate for it. I would hope none of them oppose this additional bus service.