Will the “G” train run again under Queens Boulevard?
Time will tell.
The change would extend the G’s current route, from Church Av in Brooklyn’s Kensington section to Court Sq-23rd St in Queens’ Long Island City, to Forest Hills 71st-Av on Saturdays and Sundays. It would connect neighborhoods along the Queens Boulevard line — including Astoria, Elmhurst, and Rego Park — to areas throughout northern and western Brooklyn, such as Williamsburg, Bedford-Stuyvasent, and Park Slope.
The G ran to Forest Hills on nights and weekends until 2010, when the MTA shortened the line to its current route. At the time, the agency cited its own financial struggles and low capacity on the crowded Queens Boulevard line for its decision.
Last week, a coalition of over 30 groups, including advocacy organizations and the New York Mets baseball franchise, penned a letter to Mamdani, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber urging them to extend the G.
the recent electrocution of a chow chow at Bowling Green station and resulting transport disruptions have caused some to wonder whether the unenforced subway dog laws need to no longer be unenforced
This better impress. For this kind of investment and amount of cars, these should be truly excellent inside and out. Plus they need to do justice to the mighty fine R-62/62A, which are some of the best cars NYCTA has ever operated.
A few asks: 1) Entire order should be open-gangway. There is zero reason to only do 60% of the order. 2) Please don’t make these look like the R-211’s. Please do something different (better) here. Please don’t use digital LEDs with low resolution so bright it burns your retinas. Use LCD that adheres to NYCTA graphic standards and can present useful information beyond line/terminal. Stainless steel carbodys that look like they haven’t melted in the sun and gotten wavy. No other world metro stock looks like that. Little things matter. Do a bunch of really smart and good looking little things. Don’t design these by commitee. Hire a talented world-class industrial designer, and not designed in house at Kawasaki by engineers with no understand of design.
MTA, if you spend this huge sum and deliver something lame, shame on you.
Let’s just hope they don’t have portholes for windows, much like the R211’s. Plug doors exist and would enable big, accessible doors without shrinking windows.
Another interesting thing of note: the article mentions replacement of all trains except those used on the 7. All trains would also include the R142/142A cars as well.
The RFP includes an option for another 1,250 cars, which would be swapped in for the R142s and R142As that run on the 2, 4, and 5 lines.
The base and options would replace all of the numbered lines — the former IRT, today known as the subway’s A Division — except for the 7.
It seems like they might kill off the R142’s as well as they included an option for more cars. This is particularly interesting as the oldest cars would be pushing 26 years old, which isn’t that old compared to the R62/A series.
Then again, by the time we see new trains, those would be pushing (or exceeding) 30 years old.
The 7 would be a good (if not ideal) candidate for open gangways as it’d effectively kill most subway surfing as they can’t as easily get to the roof from between the cars or ride in the indented area at the front or back of the cab cars but they’re gonna keep the R188s for a bit longer it seems.
I didn’t see anything mentioned about the Times Square Shuttle, which uses the same rolling stock as the 1/3/6 trains. I can see that being another good candidate for open gangway, as those trains are all about standing capacity.
The way the current newest cars use LED vs. LCD is appropriate, IMO. LCD is great for dense info viewed at a short distance. LED is generally much brighter (why is this bad?), and therefore better for anything viewed from a longer distance, whether it be from the other end of the car or from outside.
With that said, much denser/sharper LED panels are available now, at reasonable prices and with good durability. Just look at every billboard in Times Square…. It is weird that the MTA keeps spec-ing such low-res LED signs for its rolling stock.
Yes! This! The walls have become comically thick, reducing interior space, and the windows have become comically small, giving a cave-like feeling even when above ground. I hate that the MTA is so stubborn on this. The rest of the world has proven that plug doors work fine. NYC exceptionalism is really holding us back here.
I would assume they may replace those as well, although they may be in a separate order of cars, or they may be ordered with the eventual 7 train replacement, and some 62’s would be kept around as spares for parts until then.
If any line should be getting open gangway cars, the 6 deserves them the most. The 6 is one of the busiest and the extra capacity would be welcomed.
I wonder if part of the design rationale is rooted in the FRA’s antiquated “crash worthiness” standards. It’s also a big reason why our rail cars tend to be heavier and more expensive than their international counterparts.
The FRA standards have been relaxed which is why the new Acela trains and Caltrans KISS trains exist and some agencies bought Stadler FLIRT trains as well.
It’s just a matter of respective agencies buying new trains that take advantage of relaxed standards. For example, NJ Transit is not one of them and continues to buy trains that are based on designs pushing 20 years old.
However, the subway is not governed by the FRA (The SIR and PATH are, but are anomalies (both were former railroads) and have waivers which is why slightly modified R211’s exist on the SIR). The FTA governs the subway and has its own standards.
The bottom line is the train design is just MTA preferences and one thing is the population in NYC is quite abusive to public property which further contributes to the “rugged design” of the subway trains.
Just look at the new trains MARTA bought from Stadler. They are open gangway and reasonably modern in design.
