|
|
| Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting (1385063) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
|
| (1385637) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 15 15:02:08 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 14 18:32:48 2016. Not good. You want to make things as easy for passengers under the circumstances, not more difficult! |
|
|
| (1385638) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 15 15:02:53 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 14 18:33:33 2016. It didn’t during the last snowstorm! |
|
|
| (1385639) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:14:39 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 15 15:02:08 2016. When you have an M cattle train and no one can get on by Flushing Ave, you are not making things easy for anybody. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1385640) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:15:23 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 15 15:02:53 2016. 2' is very unusual, like 2nd worst in history. |
|
|
| (1385641) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:16:39 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 15 14:47:59 2016. Can't say about spare cars. We don't know what the L and M schedules will look like. |
|
|
| (1385642) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Mon Feb 15 15:42:00 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:14:39 2016. How do you know exactly how many passengers would,be on an M at Flushing Av or Hewes St? Since the volume of traffic on N/B F service is not as much as S/B it is likely that an extra M or 2 can be operated to absorb any additional passenger loads that might happen. |
|
|
| (1385644) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:58:59 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by randyo on Mon Feb 15 15:42:00 2016. If much of the entire L west of ENY jams on the M at Wyckoff, you will have a cattle train by the time it reaches Bway, even if you add 2 or 3 per hour. |
|
|
| (1385650) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 15 17:25:37 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 15 15:01:56 2016. Having several options in place (in the event of a closure) even if each option is "minimal" by some standard that can actually help the immediate riders of the L-train - is best.Agreed, but some are more minimal than others. Increasing WB service from the current 20 tph to as many as 30 tph (with as many trains as possible going up 6th and the rest going to Chambers or Broad) is by far the biggest single improvement that can be made, overwhelms any of the others, and singlehandedly makes a huge impact on the problem. |
|
|
| (1385654) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 15 18:06:24 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 15 17:25:37 2016. From a previous message:"Increasing WB service from the current 20 tph to as many as 30 tph (with as many trains as possible going up 6th and the rest going to Chambers or Broad) is by far the biggest single improvement that can be made, overwhelms any of the others, and single-handedly makes a huge impact on the problem." I also tend to agree. I also agree that to do the above one does not have to tear up half the subway map. Even if only a few additions to the current amount of M-trains travel up the Sixth Avenue line occurs, and some added trains terminate at Chambers Street - at least several places for transfers to other subways are available. (For example, for plenty of L-train riders Union Square is a very important stop with both the BMT-Broadway & Lexington Avenue lines, a fact that often gets missed when folks here lionize "Sixth Avenue".) The urge to add L-trains to other lines can not and should not result in very long waits for the L-trains that remain on the shortened L-line, nor result in those trains being very, very crowded. Mike |
|
|
| (1385658) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Mon Feb 15 18:16:30 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 15 13:31:55 2016. Joe Korman has blueprints on his website dated 10/27/31 showing the configuration I referred to. The specific diagram is "Plan 1 - Manhattan Connections".It's a bit faded, so the gist of it is: local tracks from 2 Av turn east and run under 1 St to where it intersects with Houston (between Aves A and B). Express tracks from 6 Av continue east along Houston. They meet for a 4-track station at Pitt St (2 Av on the outside). Then the 2 Av tracks turn southeast then under Stanton St for the river tunnel. The Stanton St tunnel appears to be labeled "future". I refer to this configuration as "bizarre" because, on those same plans, the Houston and Stanton tunnels would have met again when reaching Brooklyn (Havemeyer St?), except the Houston tunnel would be the outside tracks instead of inside. Korman also has a cleaned-up diagram (PDF) showing an alternative configuration of the Stanton St tunnels. This PDF does not correspond to any of the diagrams on the first page. |
|
|
| (1385661) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Feb 15 18:38:51 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 15 18:06:24 2016. I also agree that to do the above one does not have to tear up half the subway map.Bingo! For example, for plenty of L-train riders Union Square is a very important stop with both the BMT-Broadway & Lexington Avenue lines, a fact that often gets missed when folks here lionize "Sixth Avenue". As a semi-regular L train rider, I can vouch for USQ being the main stop where L train riders get off in the morning. After that, 6th Ave, then 8th, then 1st, then 3rd. The main reason to lionize 6th Ave is that it can be done and the second big reason is that it connects to all the other lines (at Bway-Lafayette, W 4th, 14th, and 34th respectively). Broad St connects to all the rest too, but results in longer trips for most riders. |
|
|
| (1385662) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Mon Feb 15 18:43:37 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by tunnelrat on Mon Feb 15 14:04:22 2016. Me three!:) |
|
|
| (1385668) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 15 20:28:53 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by K. Trout on Mon Feb 15 18:16:30 2016. Interesting! My guess is that the final product, had it been built, would have been more consolidated. For example, the 2nd ave turnoff, via 1st Street, could have been tied into the Houston St tunnel tracks. |
|
|
| (1385676) | |
Re: South 4th Street Brooklyn to Manhattan |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 01:15:57 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by Elkeeper on Mon Feb 15 20:28:53 2016. Probably would have been more consolidated had it been actually built.Where would the line that went into Avenue C (now Losida Avenue) have gone to? |
|
|
| (1385679) | |
Re: Connecting the Canarsie Line to the SAS |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 01:25:33 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 23:39:51 2016. Adding to what I wrote earlier:If you did the routing I suggested for a third tunnel and a rebuild of the other tunnels that allowed for a connection to the SAS at 23rd/2nd, what I would do is probably set it up so there is a stop on this line (probably given the (K) designation) at 1st Avenue/18th Street, right in the heart of Peter Cooper Village in Stuyvesant Town. This could then run via with the (T), possibly with 55th/2nd being made into a three-track station where this (K) can terminate in Phase 3 of the SAS (and also where a branch of the Broadway-Brooklyn line should that ever be connected to the SAS). |
|
|
| (1385681) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Feb 16 02:06:48 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Mon Feb 15 18:38:51 2016. Also, the thing to consider is that 6th Avenue and Broadway are close enough together (north of 14th) that somebody could reasonably walk over to the (M) train from Broadway. |
|
|
| (1385686) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by N6 Limited on Tue Feb 16 06:23:46 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Mon Feb 15 13:43:47 2016. Also, the Williamsburg Br and Delancy Street have really horrible traffic most of the day. The one way to mitigate that would be to reserve a bus lane in each direction on the bridge and along Delancy Street.But I'd say that to get from First Ave/14th st to Bedford Ave station would take 30+ mins on a bus! |
|
|
| (1385690) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 16 08:00:29 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:58:59 2016. Yes, but what else can you do?SHUTTLE 1 of LION rens between Bedford and Wycoff, these will be the only ones transferring directly to the M and many of these will transfer to the GG to take advantage of the A and the E trains. Shuttles 2 and 3 would drop pax off at ENY and they would acces the A J Z. trains. AND NO! I would NOT send any L trains onto Broadway, any extra capacity there would be for the M train. ROAR, |
|
|
| (1385692) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Feb 16 08:28:36 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 16 08:00:29 2016. Why 3 shuttles and not just through trains from Bedford to Canarsie. Turning takes time and reduces throughput.The through trains could be frequent and half length. According to the MTA's 2014 numbers, 16% of Brooklyn L riders use Bedford, 9% Lorimer, and 31% the stations between Lorimer and Myrtle. The Lorimer passengers will be using the G train, not the L, in order to get to the M. Many of the remaining passengers will be using a quick shuttle bus from their neighborhood to the J/M/Z on Broadway rather than using the L to Myrtle. |
|
|
| (1385705) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 16 10:35:00 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Tue Feb 16 08:28:36 2016. Why 3 shuttles and not just through trains from Bedford to Canarsie. Turning takes time and reduces throughput.Because, according to the understanding of the LION they wanted to CLOSE the WHOLE THING so that stations could be repaired. The PLAN of LION is for SINGLE TRACKING, thus the shorter segments. Turning time is nil, since there would be a T/O at each end of the train. IF it were safe to do so, it could be done by just closing the platforms and allowing trains on the construction side to run non-stop. If so you would have rush direction trains making stops and equipment returned to the other end in service with a stop only at ENY which does not need rebuilding at this time. If other stations are identified as not needing repair, then stops could be made there too. That would be best, but if repairs require the use of the OOS track for Div C use, then that is a no-go. Since much of the ROW is in tunnel, it is not possible to bring stuff in from the street. ROAR |
|
|
| (1385709) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Tue Feb 16 11:32:49 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by K. Trout on Mon Feb 15 18:16:30 2016. Judging by the date, I'm guessing that these drawings were a first draft of the new routes. The SAS proposals were first offered by the City in 1929. |
|
|
| (1385714) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Tue Feb 16 12:16:43 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Tue Feb 16 10:35:00 2016. Because, according to the understanding of the LION they wanted to CLOSE the WHOLE THING so that stations could be repaired.Ah. Didn't notice that part in any of the postings. |
|
|
| (1385765) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Tue Feb 16 20:33:20 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by Elkeeper on Tue Feb 16 11:32:49 2016. Yes, it sounds like a very early proposal. I'm sure it would have been scaled down quite a bit - for example, Hylan's original 1922 proposal included multiple Brooklyn crosstown lines, including a Jamaica branch of the Lafayette Ave subway.Interesting to look at what might have been, and how the proposals evolved over the years, with some pieces set in stone and some drifting quite a bit. I wonder if any of the later plans were as detailed as the ones I linked to. |
|
|
| (1385769) | |
Re: South 4th Street Brooklyn to Manhattan |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Tue Feb 16 20:54:26 2016, in response to Re: South 4th Street Brooklyn to Manhattan, posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 01:15:57 2016. I'd hope so. The PDF appears to involve 8 tracks across the East River! However only 6 trackbeds were built at Union/Broadway, which didn't open until 1937 - the plans may have already been scaled back by that time.The Ave C subway can be answered with a 2 Av diagram dated 12/7/30. The Ave C spur would have turned under 16th St and become express tracks along 2 Av. |
|
|
| (1385770) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Tue Feb 16 20:58:32 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by K. Trout on Mon Feb 15 18:16:30 2016. Ah, here's a PDF of the 10/27/31 diagram. Includes both built and unbuilt segments. |
|
|
| (1385775) | |
Re: (L) line during tunnel closure/long-term |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 21:26:15 2016, in response to Re: (L) line during tunnel closure/long-term, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:54:38 2016. Oh that would work too, except that possibly could very difficult to pull off.One thing that helps in my plans is the area of 9th Avenue and 14th Street and Hudson Street is there is a lot of street there to work with in building a small yard with provisions to later go to NJ. You don't have that with connecting to 8th Avenue even though that would work as well. |
|
|
| (1385784) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 22:32:19 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Mon Feb 15 18:06:24 2016. As said:What I would do here is supplement the (M) with an "Orange (T)" running to 96th/2nd that would be 6-7 TPH (3 TPH) late nights as part of a much bigger plan already well noted. |
|
|
| (1385785) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 22:34:01 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Tue Feb 16 02:06:48 2016. And you can do of course a direct transfer between 6th Avenue and Broadway at 34th. |
|
|
| (1385786) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 22:35:22 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Joe V on Mon Feb 15 15:15:23 2016. Exactly:That storm was 1/10th of an inch short of the record. |
|
|
| (1385787) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 16 22:37:04 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Feb 14 17:02:38 2016. I only do that when I provide links and use Front Page express for that.Most of the time, I do it normally. |
|
|
| (1385808) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Wed Feb 17 01:30:04 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by K. Trout on Tue Feb 16 20:58:32 2016. Quite ambitious. |
|
|
| (1385891) | |
Re: South 4 Streer |
|
|
Posted by Elkeeper on Wed Feb 17 20:05:33 2016, in response to Re: South 4 Streer, posted by randyo on Wed Feb 17 01:30:04 2016. What I found to be the most interesting thing was that Court St (Ave on map) still would not be connected to any route, west or north of the existing station. |
|
|
|
Page 4 of 4 |
||
