|
|
| One proposed alternative service for L riders (1385063) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
|
|
| (1385067) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016, in response to One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by andy on Tue Feb 9 23:45:09 2016. So just how does this plan (similar to Wallyhorse's idea) help the numerous L-train riders that live in the western section of the L-train. The closer to Canarsie section of the L-train actually has the fewer riders on the L-line. Your proposal simply takes those L-trains AWAY from the L-line - leaving the stations with the higher ridership on the western portion of the line served by fewer trains!Exactly how that helps the more numerous L-train riders at the western stations - has yet to be explained by anyone. In addition, by sending those re-routed L-trains all about Manhattan (up to 96th Street and back) - the "bang per buck" of those trains actually helping L-train riders is "watered down". And for all that effort - L-train riders would still be transferring between the L-train, and the A, C, J, and Z trains just in the same way that they have been doing for decades. Can such a routing of trains be done. Sure! Should such a routing of trains be done. NOPE! It does not benefit the majority of L-train riders - especially those in the higher ridership western stations of the L-line. If there were a complete tunnel closure - L-trains would be needed to service the "Brooklyn only segment", and at least 2-3 L-trains would be needed to run a shuttle service on the "Manhattan only" segment. Just because you "can" cut off your arm - does not make that a good idea! Mike |
|
|
| (1385070) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Feb 10 01:53:51 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016. We can always leap forward into the past and resolve the issue the old-fashioned way. So the tunnel's out. We already have the New York New Jersey Rail car-float operation and recently, the Port Authority approved a $356 million contract that will upgrade the system.Why not tap this resource to route the Canarsie line across the east River? We still have some arnines that can be pressed into service just like the days of yore. Problem solved! :)  
|
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1385086) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 09:07:35 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016. Exactly how that helps the more numerous L-train riders at the western stations - has yet to be explained by anyone.It most definitely has been explained. Shuttle buses between various neighborhoods near the L and the closest station on Broadway. Walking transfers from G to J/M/Z. Of course, I keep pointing out it's better to send the extra trains to Queens Plaza and just have 8 platform conductors there for quick fumigation, but that's just me repeating myself. |
|
|
| (1385107) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by andy on Wed Feb 10 11:18:09 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016. I posted this only as trial balloon to see what reactions are out there. So your posting is good, and I agree that "it [Canarsie Trains via the J Line] does not benefit the majority of L-train riders - especially those in the higher ridership western stations of the L-line." And it's certainly true that under a complete tunnel closure "L-trains would be needed to service the "Brooklyn only segment", and at least 2-3 L-trains would be needed to run a shuttle service on the "Manhattan only" segment."Obviously, it's going to take a whole collection of alternative services if the 14th St. Tube is shut down. Myrtle-Wyckoff becomes a much bigger (volume-wise) transfer point than it is now, since the M offers direct service along 6th Ave. Another idea that must be considered is direct bus service. L stations between Bedford and DeKalb should receive express buses to and from 34th Street via McGuiness Blvd. and the QM Tunnel. Along 34th Street there's already a bus lane, so transfers to and from all N-S subways and buses would be easy. |
|
|
| (1385133) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Wed Feb 10 12:59:28 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Feb 10 01:53:51 2016. I figured it would be you who would float this idea! |
|
|
| (1385142) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Dan on Wed Feb 10 13:40:46 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by andy on Wed Feb 10 11:18:09 2016. Are there enough express buses to spare for such a service? |
|
|
| (1385153) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Feb 10 14:57:03 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016. They would not be able to run a Manhattan-only section of the L train with both tubes shut down, because there is only one way in and out and that's through the tubes. |
|
|
| (1385155) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 15:04:12 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Feb 10 14:57:03 2016. Run a bunch of 4 car trains and keep a few spare 4-car train sets down there. Presumably most of the time one tube would have tracks running through it, if not electricity, so that you can run work trains. So if a train breaks down, you can evenutally pull it out with a locomotive.Maybe impractical, but not infeasible. The alternative is that need to cram a lot more buses onto 14th street, because the L gets a lot of intra-borough usage. |
|
|
| (1385163) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Feb 10 15:24:08 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 15:04:12 2016. I fully agree that 14th St would need to be flooded with buses to cope with the loss of the L train there. Even with just one tube shut down, they'd have to run more M14 buses, but it wouldn't be as bad as with no L at all.That's why I have a feeling they will opt for shutting down one tube at a time. Of course, we won't know for sure until 2018 draws closer. The time frame also leads me to believe they will opt for shutting one at a time. |
|
|
| (1385168) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 15:31:49 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 15:04:12 2016. Actually I was thinking that even under the scenario of "shutting down both tubes" - that not actually both tubes are made not passable.One tube could indeed be shut down with construction work that requires the removal of tracks, etc. The other tube is available for crews and work trains, and if and when needed to allow the "Manhattan-based trains" to travel between Brooklyn and Manhattan for major service. In addition the middle track between Sixth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, besides being used as a lay-up track, could be used a repair track for any work that does REQUIRE the full capabilities of a repair facility. For example the replacement of smaller parts that can be carried to that station and installed, or the cleaning with mops/soap/water of train interiors and exteriors. (Yes, the days of not cleaning the trains as "rust prevention" are long over!) Then this would leave all but the most major of repairs for when the train HAS TO BE sent to a train yard. Just some thoughts. Mike |
|
|
| (1385171) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 15:52:42 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Wed Feb 10 15:24:08 2016. That's why I have a feeling they will opt for shutting down one tube at a time.But shutting down 1 tube probably reduces the remaining tube to 10 tph at the absolute max, and and that is by making L trains come in batches. Lots of trains for half an hour, then none for half an hour. I don't think that kind of crowd control is manageable. Alternatively, don't run in batches. Then you're down to 4 tph. So my prediction, which is worth the paper it isn't printed on, is that they will close both tubes at once. |
|
|
| (1385172) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 16:02:46 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 15:31:49 2016. Forget ONE word, the entire meaning a sentence is changed!Oops! The paragraph should have read: In addition the middle track between Sixth Avenue and Eighth Avenue, besides being used as a lay-up track, could be used a repair track for any work that DOES NOT REQUIRE the full capabilities of a repair facility. For example the replacement of smaller parts that can be carried to that station and installed, or the cleaning with mops/soap/water of train interiors and exteriors. (Yes, the days of not cleaning the trains as "rust prevention" are long over!) I have to proof-read my work! Mike |
|
|
| (1385175) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 16:17:54 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 09:07:35 2016. I am going to try again.In another message, #5 - Dyre Ave & Stephen Bauman agree that the L-line has 244 cars in total. It is said that four cars out of the 212 R143s are permanently out of service due to a crash in Canarsie Yard that caused significant damage to one of them. So it's really 240 cars. Even so, 192 is what they need for the present, full-length L service. In another message Stephen Bauman said there are 212 R143's and 32 R160's that are CBTC equipped. 24 trainsets, comprising 192 cars are required for peak am operation. The rest are spares, some of which might be undergoing maintenance. The running time from Canarsie to 8th Ave is 38:30. The running time from Canarsie to Bway-Jct is 10:00. The running time from Bway-Jct to Myrtle-Wyckoff is 6:30. The running time from Myrtle-Wyckoff to Bedford is 13:00. Repeatedly the figure of 20-tph has been used to describe the current L-train rush hour service, each train packed with riders. I'm not contesting the numbers, but just making a point. In one of the messages for a "proposed Canarsie Trains via the J Line" it was suggested that 4 or 6 L-trains be assigned to this purpose. Imagine that 2-3 trains remain on the L-line just for the Manhattan-only segment. Leaving as few as 11-tph just for the Brooklyn segment of the L-train to still service those (approx.) 200,000 riders that still need to transfer to other subway lines. The above paragraph is a simplification of the issues, but that is the bare essence. There are only so many train sets assigned to the L-line. (I agree that the question of whether the MTA would create a "land-locked" Manhattan only L-train service with 2-3 trains assigned full-time with no other track access to any other line is an interesting question. Assume the answer in the affirmative.) As one "removes" trains for some other purpose, the remaining trains have to pick up the slack especially at the western Brooklyn stations with their increased ridership! This would easily create longer wait times for the crowded remaining L-trains that have to attempt to get these riders to the transfer stations. Just how much backward or forward riding just to make a transfer large numbers of riders will have to do is an unknown? In any case it will still be large numbers of folks traveling about for transfers. Shuttle buses at every station may reduce some of the ridership on the platforms. Just how much of the subway ridership switches to shuttle bus usage for the first part of their journey is an "un-known". In the past the slow moving shuttle buses has meant longer travel times and involve the need to transfer to a subway further down the road. Some folks have not forgotten that very awful entire period of frequent L-train shut-downs due to the installation of CBTC - where major portions of the L-train was repeatedly bus substituted and shuttled? The lines, non-frequent trains, wait times, transfers to buses were horrendous. The 14th Street Tunnel closure will involve the rush hours, unlike the CBTC installation. Then shut-downs occured weekend upon weekend often with mid-day and over night shut-downs to content with - for weeks on end! Now some folks act as if, "shuttle buses" are some whiz-bang solution. The walking transfers to between the G-train and the J-M-Z trains may help some riders, but how many is an open question. One would still have to take the remaining less frequent over-crowded L-trains to the G-train, wait for the G-train, then take the G-train to the station for a walking transfer, and re-enter the subway for the J-M-Z train! Increasing the wait times for over-crowded L-trains riders helps how? How does reducing service of the L-trains at the higher ridership western stations help those riders? Can L-train riders transfer to A, C, J and Z trains at the Broadway Junction station? Of course they can, they have been doing that for decades, and will continue to do so. Millions have used those stairs and escalators millions of times - it is not a big deal. Of course that transfer station is very important and helpful with any closure of the 14th Street Tunnels. Will the creation of a "proposed Canarsie Trains via the J Line" route help L-line riders at the higher ridership western Brooklyn stations? So far the answer is not looking like a slam-dunk positive! Of course, create shuttle buses and enhance service on existing buses, create a limited bus direct to/from Bedford Avenue & Manhattan, and strongly push riders to transfer to the A, C, E, 7, G, J, M, Z lines - with as much information and community involvement as possible. All of that is appropriate! All of the above will real understandable schedules and estimates of the travel times involved for each method. Large numbers of people will be inconvenienced regardless what plan is implemented, in my view - creating proposals that increase wait times and crowded-ness on the remaining L-trains is not a solution. The public will be very angry, as their travel times, and "around - aboutness increases" to very high levels. Does anyone really think that current N-train riders are "happy" or "thrilled" with their all hours round-about trips on the Sea Beach line? Think again! Mike |
|
|
| (1385176) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Feb 10 16:20:12 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 16:02:46 2016. There are no pits there for the workers to get under the cars. You would need flagging in both directions because people would be around the track area at any time.This will not work. How do you change a wheel or a truck? |
|
|
| (1385180) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 16:34:26 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Wed Feb 10 16:20:12 2016. May be a part of the message was left off.Using the idea that not both tunnels are made un-passable at the same time, but that there is a small set, say 2 or 3 trains set aside for the Manhattan only portion of the L-train. For example - to the public both tubes are closed, while actually one tube is closed and under re-construction - while the other tube remains passable with work trains, supplies and crews. When needed for major repairs those "stranded L-trains" could be brought in for repairs and returned. Then when the "first tube is near completion or is at least passable with tracks/signals, the re-construction work on the second tube begins. In that way, the "Manhattan segment" was never really dis-connected from the rest of the system for any very long period of time. Some components - say an electrical gizmo or small part, etc. that can be carried can be brought and installed using the "temporary repair track" - which is by no means meant to replace a full-fledged repair facility. So this is not about changing a wheel or a truck - which admittedly has to be done at a major repair facility - a point conceded early on. However if minor small repairs and washings could be done on that middle track or at/off the platform per side of a closed train - then the NEED to have such trains travel over the passable track to a repair facility is reduced - not eliminated but reduced. Just an idea. Mike |
|
|
| (1385183) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Feb 10 16:58:49 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by italianstallion on Wed Feb 10 12:59:28 2016. Yes, I was substituting for Heypaul who is away on assignment. :) |
|
|
| (1385196) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 18:55:21 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 16:17:54 2016. This is incredibly complicated. There are 20 Brooklyn L stations and 20 plus station in midtown. So there are 400 combinations of trips, even without considering where you live or work relative to a given station.So there will be many different travel solutions. As one example, if you live near Lorimer station and work at Rockefeller Center, right now you probably take the L to the F/M. With the L shut you'd take the G to Court square to the M. But many other people won't have such an easy alternative. NYCT has to devise a plan that makes life tolerable for most of them. Any plan we come up here with won't be comprehensive enough. |
|
|
| (1385214) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Feb 11 03:43:44 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 01:14:51 2016. And although that would be a railfan's delight, that is going too far: |
|
|
| (1385217) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Feb 11 03:56:26 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 18:55:21 2016. And going to Court Square is something I would be trying to discourage as muchas possible because too many people are going to go that way as it is: |
|
|
| (1385220) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Feb 11 04:09:47 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Wed Feb 10 15:04:12 2016. That to me would be the way to do it:You have 6-7 four-car sets of trains with a couple for emergencies perhaps stored inside the part of the tunnel not being worked on that can be brought out easily if needed or in the event work has to be done on that part of the tunnel the cars taken out of the tunnel and stored elsewhere. You could conceivably have a maximum of five trains running at any one time with 1st Avenue as the east (railroad south) terminal and 8th Avenue as the west (railroad north) terminal. That said, I would also during this time if possible use it to lengthen all of the Manhattan platforms to 600 feet as part of a long-term plan to eventually be able to run 10-car trains on Canarsie (this would require in most cases platforms being lengthened 65 feet or so since such platforms used to be able to handle trains of eight-car standards that were 536 feet in length). |
|
|
| (1385221) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Feb 11 04:12:57 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Michael549 on Wed Feb 10 16:34:26 2016. Exactly!!This very well could be the way this works. |
|
|
| (1385227) | |
Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 11 15:11:33 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Feb 11 03:43:44 2016. Disaster At The Community Board MeetingMarch 9, 2016 Montrose Avenue Community Gathering Center 264 Bushwick Ave Brooklyn, NY 11206 East Williamsburg L Train To Montrose Avenue ----------- Last night at the Montrose Avenue Community Gathering Center, community board president Louis Tommaso introduced the speaker for the evening, Mr. Wally Horse who gave a presentation of his ideas for the closing the 14th Street L-train Tunnel that connects East Williamsburg to Manhattan, and eastern Brooklyn. The MTA says that tunnels need major repair work due to the corrison by salt water during Hurricane Sandy in 2012, when the tunnel were filled with millions of gallons of salt water. Mr. Wally Horse explained that he is proposing that the MTA close those subway tunnels for three (3) years to allow the re-construction to proceed smoothly. He proposed a series of items that he said would help East Williamburg subway riders to get to and from their destinations and work places during the tunnel outage. The crowd at the community were very, very skeptical of his ideas, and the evening took a dark turn as the night wore on. Mr. Wally Horse said that he'd like to take half of the trains assigned to the L-train and create a new route of "C" trains running up to Washington Heights. Jamil, a long time resident interrupted him to say, "What you want to take away half of our trains and send them to Washington Heights". "Well yes, that way everybody shares the pain of losing the tunnel" said Mr. Wally Horse. "How does sending half of our trains to Washington Heights help us? Their tunnel is not closing! said Jamil shouting. "Their tunnel is not closing!" he repeated. "Well you people have to understand that my plan has everything to do with trying to spread the pain out as much as possible because people are going to be affected all over the place no matter what is chosen, even if they live in areas not even close to the L," explained Wally Horse. "So you take half of our already crowded trains, so that we have to wait longer for very over-crowded trains - because that is "sharing the pain"! Have you lost your damn mind!" Screamed Jamil. "Those people in Washington Heights are NOT in pain! We Are! Right here! Right Now! What are YOU going to do about that!" Screamed Jamil. "Nothing!" Screamed Jamil. Well, I want to send some of those L-trains - that won't be yours anymore, I want to send them up the east side of Manhattan on the new Second Avenue subway, said Wally Horse. "Fuck That" - "You wanna send our trains to the rich upper Eastside! Talk about taking from the poor and giving to the rich! You have some nerve! Shouted Maria, a long time church going woman in the community. The community board president Louis Tommaso interrupted and said, "I know you're going to discuss shuttle buses and other transit services that will be made available, right? "No, no, nope. I don't need to talk about such mundane things, because I have a grand plan. You see I want to re-build the Atlantic Avenue station in East New York so that I could ..." Wally Horse started to say. "And how the hell does that help us right here, right now? said Louis Tommaso, a man usually noted for being very polite to every one. The discussion at the meeting did not get any better. "You people just have to understand that I envision an Orange T train that will help folks get around Manhattan better and ..." Wally Horse trailed. Jamil shouted, "And just how do we get from here to Manhattan?" Well, I'm thinking that you could walk to the G-train, and then once you're in downtown Brooklyn we'd have walking transfers to the other subway lines. That might add 40 minutes to an hour of extra traveling, but I don't have to worry about that," said Wally Horse. By this time, the crowd had risen to their feet & the lights in the center suddenly went off. There was a great deal of screaming and shouting. At one point in the evening, Maria was seen in the kitchen heating several large pots on the stove that later analysis revealed were filled with cooking oil. The NYPD confirmed that feathers that were to be used for an art project from the arts and crafts room was stolen. Later closed circuit cameras recorded Jamil ripping open several large pillows to gather the feathers. Cords and rope were also found in the large community room. The location of Mr. Wally Horse however remains a mystery, but sources at the NYPD revealed that they will be looking into board president Louis Tommaso and the usage of his regular work place at 264 Bushwick Ave, Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1385228) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Feb 11 17:02:28 2016, in response to Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 11 15:11:33 2016. LOL. Actually, Mr. Horse isn't alone. Mr. Lion has also been known to make proposals that wouldn't go over very well. And there are others too. |
|
|
| (1385241) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 08:11:32 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Thu Feb 11 17:02:28 2016. PROPOSALS OF LION are designed to HELP the situation.Mr. HORSE is full of hay. Him wants to shut the whole thing down for three ears to fix all of the stations as well. We aul know that the stations too need to be fixed, but we do not shut them all down at once. We close ONE SIDE at a time. KEEP service on the other side and allow OUR RIDERS to ride a TRAIN to the nearest connection. Closing one tunnel and not the other is a dumb idea, because there is no way to move all of the trains to Manhattan and have no way to get them back. Besides the whole point is to fix the tunnels. LION proposes putting three sets of equipment in Manhattan, one on the westbound track, and one on the eastbound track, a third set will be in the pocket as a spare. No signals, no switches, trains are captive to their respective tracks and shuttle back and forth, forth and back. ----------- That takes care of Manhattan. Out here in the Brookline, first, all stations on the westbound side will be closed for rebuilding. For safety of workers and for use of work trains West bound track is closed. Only East bound track is open. THEREFORE LION breaks the system down into a series of shuttles between transfer points. (L1) Shuttle between Bedford and Myrtle. Eastbound leaves Bedford on the hour, and on the half Westbound leaves Myrtle on the 15 and the 45. (L2) Shuttle between Myrtle and East New York Eastbound leaves Myrtle on the hour and on the half Westbound laeves East New Yourk on the 15 and the 45 (L3) Shuttle Between East NY and Canarsie Eastbound leaves ENY on the hour and on the half Westbound leaves Canarsie on the 15 and the 45 Is NOT Good. LION nose! Is better than nothing, is better than bus, But what is a LION 2 do? You got better plan that provides service to station, let us know that. BUT IF PLAN OF EWE not serve these stations, then plan of ewe is nought. ROAR |
|
|
| (1385242) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Feb 12 08:18:50 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 08:11:32 2016. I think each shuttle should be named "Lion 1," "Lion 2," and "Lion 3." |
|
|
| (1385253) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 12 09:28:26 2016, in response to Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 11 15:11:33 2016. I saw that elsewhere and got a good laugh on that.As said elsewhere, I get it, but this is going to be a BIG case of “dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t” and it won’t matter what you do, people are going to be PO’ed at you no matter what. I’d be looking at it knowing I’m going to have a slew of people PO’ed at me regardless of what is done. What I wrote is to me is the way to make the least number of people PO’ed as possible. I do get where you’re coming from. I’m also looking at it from the perspective we know what is going to happen at Court Square if the shutdown happens over 2-3 years on both tubes and how severely overcrowded the (E)/(M) and (7) platforms are and ALSO the fact CBTC work on Queens Boulevard is going to make it near impossible over much of that time to have the (M) run weekends on QB is why I have the “Orange (T)” to 96th and 2nd at all times as that would be the (M) supplement weekdays and replace it late nights and weekends. Fact is, there are going to be jam-ups all over the place no matter what and this going to be a game of “pick your poison” regardless of what direction this eventually winds up in. |
|
|
| (1385259) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 09:57:47 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 12 09:28:26 2016. The supplemental M trains can turn at Queens Plaza. Court Square needs the extra service, not a line that's not even open yet. If fumigation would really be such a big problem at Queens Plaza, then why do we do about trains that already fumigate and relay in the following places throughout the system?205th St (D) 179th St (F) 71st Ave (M/R) Euclid Ave (C) Church Ave (G) Bowling Green (5 on weekends - using the inner South Ferry loop track) |
|
|
| (1385260) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 10:10:32 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 12 09:28:26 2016. You'll be PO'ing the most people off with your plan. Extra and longer G trains will surely be needed (where they'll be getting the extra cars is something I'd like to know since they're claiming a tight spare factor right now). And the M will need more trains as well, but will they all be able to turn at Metro and not foul up the flat junction at Broadway-Myrtle?If not, or if the MTA elects to shut down just one tube at a time (there are community and business groups in Williamsburg who actually prefer that option), then run the extra M trains to/from Rockaway Pkwy via the Williamsburg Bridge, then via 53rd St Tunnel with Queens Plaza as the last stop. Call them T if you like. |
|
|
| (1385268) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 10:53:42 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by New Flyer #857 on Fri Feb 12 08:18:50 2016. Good For ewe! |
|
|
| (1385270) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 10:59:56 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 08:11:32 2016. Now, Regarding Mr. Horse...I can sea what him was trying to do. When close the tunnel ewe do, ewe loose x number of trains, or 1000x pax per hour capacity between Brooklyn and the Isle of Man Hatten. Him wants to mess with whole system to replace this capacity. This him cannot do as him suggests 'cause him is full of HAY. USED hay at that. LION would increase (M) service by 2-4 thp. LION would increase (J) service by 1-2 thp LION would increase (A) service by 2-4 tph and LION would increase (GG) service by 4-6 tph. Increased (M)s in Queens would also manage some of the increased (GG) loadings. Increase each service a little is better than @#$%&$#@G up the whole system just because Wally wants to horse around. ROAR |
|
|
| (1385271) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 11:39:20 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 10:59:56 2016. LION would increase (M) service by 2-4 thp.LION would increase (J) service by 1-2 thp LION would increase (A) service by 2-4 tph and LION would increase (GG) service by 4-6 tph. Increased (M)s in Queens would also manage some of the increased (GG) loadings. L riders who ride under the East River (as opposed to getting off earlier) are almost all going to midtown. Therefore: M, at least 4 tph more. J: why more? Almost no one will start taking the J that isn't already taking it just because the L terminates at Bedford. The only reason for more Js would be if the M is maxed out and still isn't carrying the load, so people take Js out of desperation just because they need to get to manhattan. A: why more? Same argument. Most L riders originate west of Broadway Jct. OK, maybe 2 more to handle riders coming from ENY through Canarsie. |
|
|
| (1385272) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 11:40:48 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 08:11:32 2016. "Closing one tunnel and not the other is a dumb idea, because there is no way to move all of the trains to Manhattan and have no way to get them back. Besides the whole point is to fix the tunnels."There are crossovers east of Union Square and west of Lorimer that would permit two-way operation into and out of Manhattan. Obviously rush hour train frequency would have to be severely decreased, but it sure is possible. Not saying it's the best option. |
|
|
| (1385273) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 12 11:58:34 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 11:39:20 2016. Why would almost nobody be taking the J?The J offers a connection to the L at Broadway Junction. The J is close to the L around Broadway Junction. The J from Broadway Junction to Myrtle is close enough to the L that it likely would provide some relief. The shared portion of the J and M is also close enough to the L that it would likely provide some relief. Furthermore, with the M absolutely packed on this segment, increased J service could be necessary to fill the lines existing demand. I see 5 potential reasons a J increase would be needed on the brooklyn side. I suspect all 5 will hold true! On the Manhattan side- the J does provide reasonable connections to most Manhattan trunks. I agree that the M will be more popular, but there is a limit to how much you can increase it. |
|
|
| (1385275) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:12:27 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by R30A on Fri Feb 12 11:58:34 2016. I did say:The only reason for more Js would be if the M is maxed out and still isn't carrying the load, so people take Js out of desperation just because they need to get to manhattan. Your other 4 reasons already apply right now. People who live near the L and want to go to lower Manhattan are quite likely already taking the J. |
|
|
| (1385276) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 12:14:57 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 11:39:20 2016. J: why more? Almost no one will start taking the J that isn't already taking it just because the L terminates at Bedford. The only reason for more Js would be if the M is maxed out and still isn't carrying the load, so people take Js out of desperation just because they need to get to manhattan.A: why more? Same argument. Most L riders originate west of Broadway Jct. OK, maybe 2 more to handle riders coming from ENY through Canarsie. Because some people will change at the East New York station. ROAR |
|
|
| (1385277) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 12:20:51 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 11:40:48 2016. There are crossovers east of Union Square and west of Lorimer that would permit two-way operation into and out of Manhattan. Obviously rush hour train frequency would have to be severely decreased, but it sure is possible. Not saying it's the best option. Yes, But... If the (L) is shutdown in one direction to allow station work as proposed (Actually, they proposed closing the whole thing) then the delay would be quite a bit more than just the time to transit the tunnel. So Why bothere, get the work done more quickly. ROAR |
|
|
| (1385279) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Fri Feb 12 12:29:04 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:12:27 2016. But when the L stops running, those that want Midtown can take the J to another Manhattan trunk! |
|
|
| (1385281) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:34:43 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 12:20:51 2016. I agree.If you don't run batches of trains in 1 direction then the other, you can only manage 3 tph in each direction. If you run 4 trains one way, then 4 back out again, you can maybe manage 4 round trip trains in each 32 minute interval, which is 7.5 tph, but they are bunched. If you run in batches of 6, you can do 6 trains in 40 minutes, for 10 tph, but they are even more bunched. None of the options for single tube operation are at all satisfactory. |
|
|
| (1385283) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:55:41 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by R30A on Fri Feb 12 12:29:04 2016. True, but the M will be a lot quicker. Unless of course the M is so packed they can't get on it, which is a situation I already agreed would cause demand for the J. |
|
|
| (1385284) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Fri Feb 12 13:30:45 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 12 09:28:26 2016. Most of the poisons being discussed would simply make us sick. Your's would kill. Period, end of story. |
|
|
| (1385285) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by LadyTripLex on Fri Feb 12 13:32:49 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 08:11:32 2016. What about 3 L trains?8th to 1st Bedford to BWay Junction. Canarsie to Chambers St. express along the J & Z. |
|
|
| (1385286) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Fri Feb 12 13:47:16 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:55:41 2016. Like I was saying in one of the "Bring back the W" threads, the shorter length of the M is detrimental to it's capacity on a Manhattan trunk.This is a problem which can't be answered in the short term for this project. Using the Centre/Nassau line spreads the load out to the other lines and doesn't put 6th Ave over crush load. If a few extras ran to Broad Street, it spreads the load to the other trunks. It provides better connections to other parts of the city other than Midtown. Many of these plans seem to assume people who live along the L only want to go to Midtown. My family all lives in Ridgewood and my mother works in Downtown Brooklyn. She rides the L backwards to B'way Junction and gets the A. I only take the L a few stops, only within Brooklyn. |
|
|
| (1385287) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 14:03:48 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by The silence on Fri Feb 12 13:47:16 2016. Many of these plans seem to assume people who live along the L only want to go to Midtown. My family all lives in Ridgewood and my mother works in Downtown Brooklyn. She rides the L backwards to B'way Junction and gets the A. I only take the L a few stops, only within Brooklyn.No. It's the people who ride the L under the East River in rush hour who overwhelmingly want to go to midtown. There are 20 tph worth of these people and they have to be accommodated somehow. The people who take the L for some other reason, such as within Brooklyn or within Manhattan, also need to be accommodated, of course. But it is much easier to accomodate them - just keep on providing service that is already there when you shut down the tunnels. My guess is that service every 5 minutes from Canarsie to Bedford Ave and 1 Ave to 8 Ave with 4-car trains will probably be just fine for those other people (I'm one of those people too). |
|
|
| (1385288) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Chris R16/R2730 on Fri Feb 12 14:04:35 2016, in response to Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 11 15:11:33 2016. This is worthy of being copypasta. My side's ... |
|
|
| (1385290) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Feb 12 14:07:44 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 14:03:48 2016. How would they provide service in Manhattan without access to maintenance facilities for months or years? |
|
|
| (1385296) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 14:29:43 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Spider-Pig on Fri Feb 12 14:07:44 2016. The tunnels aren't both going to be trackless for months at a time. You want to be able to bring a diesel-powered work train through. So maybe have three 4-car trains going back and forth in Manhattan and store one or two spares in the third track between 6th Ave and 8th Ave.The number of buses they would need to add otherwise would cost a lot, and be far less reliable. |
|
|
| (1385298) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 14:42:31 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by LadyTripLex on Fri Feb 12 13:32:49 2016. If they were single tracking it would take to long to clear the track for the next trains.ROAR |
|
|
| (1385303) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by caine515 on Fri Feb 12 14:58:47 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Feb 10 16:58:49 2016. Tunnel opened rush hours only. 5am-9am,4p-7pm. Other times..shuttle buses lorimer street to connect with "J" or "M" at Marcy Avenue. Extra "M" service on weekends to 57-6 to cover "L" loss. |
|
|
| (1385322) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Fri Feb 12 16:06:09 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 14:03:48 2016. You're making a rather large assumption still. Have you spoken to all of them? Foot traffic at USQ to the Downtown platform of the Broadway line looked quite heavy two.In these circumstances, we need to use all the capacity we can get our hands on and we need to be smart about it, not like a certain someone... But this stubborn idea of "Midtown! Midtown! Everything MUST be Midtown!" is not going to help. You want to get to Midtown? you can do it just as easily at Canal Street, Brooklyn Bridge and Fulton street. You spread the load onto the other trunks. The 6th avenue line between Lafayette and 34th street will be Tokyo level crowded. It will make the Lexington line seem pleasant. We need to encourage people to go the long way. |
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 4 |
|
