|
|
| Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting (1385063) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
|
| (1385323) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by The Silence on Fri Feb 12 16:07:49 2016, in response to Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 11 15:11:33 2016. This nearly got me rolling out into the middle of the street with that. |
|
|
| (1385325) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 16:39:05 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by The Silence on Fri Feb 12 16:06:09 2016. We need to encourage people to go the long way.No, that's not the goal of a transit system. You transport as many people as you can by the shortest route. If you can't handle everyone, some people will realize it's not worth crowding and therefore go another way. In other words, first pack in as many 6th Ave Ms as can reasonably be handled. That's probably 5 more, which isn't enough to replace the L. Then consider additional alternatives, like more J trains (as well as more G trains up to Court Square and maybe even more A trains). |
|
|
| (1385327) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by LadyTripLex on Fri Feb 12 16:56:14 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri Feb 12 14:42:31 2016. No single tracking needed except for the Manhattan portion past 3rd avenue. There are double crossovers at Bedford & B Way junc. The Brooklyn underground portion provides a transfer to the G at lorimer, the M at Myrtle, & the A & C at B way Junc. Add a free subway to subway transfer between The G at Broadway & the J,M & Z at Hewes too. The Canarsie portion utilizing the flyover has multiple termination options depending on the day of week and time of day. The only problem may be in Manhattan if a train should break down and both tubes are closed. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1385355) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by The silence on Fri Feb 12 22:08:18 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 16:39:05 2016. The goal is to move them by any means necessary. And we are at the point where the drastic might be necessary....all everyone here seems to want to do is shit on BMT in riders who don't want midtown... |
|
|
| (1385378) | |
Re: Fumigation/Queens Boulevard during (L) tunnel shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 02:47:57 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 09:57:47 2016. In the case of Church Avenue (F/G), that is normal and was done for years. Same with Bowling Green on the (5).Euclid Avenue is not an issue since the (A) goes through on the express track (except the rare times both the (A) and (C) are local). I'm talking about mainly at peak hours when the (E) is running 15 TPH. In the case of the (M), that is specifically because you have the (E) running through at Queens Plaza. We all know about the issues at 71st-Continental and for you to add any extra (M) service on QB, that service likely would have to go to 179 with the (R), and in that scenario I would then keep the (M) were it is on number of trains and have the (G) (M) and (R) all go to 179th with (the (F) express on its full route and) provisions where if there is a jam-up on the local track, local trains after Parsons can be switched to the express track (skipping 169th street) and run on that to 179. That would allow the (G) to also serve Queens Plaza. Late nights and weekends in that scenario, the (M) would not run (all Broadway-Brooklyn trains late nights and weekends would be signed as (T) to 96th/2nd) and the (R) would be unchanged from what it is now. The (G) would be 24/7 to 179 though when CBTC work is being done the (G) would run as it does now to Court Square. Sending the additional trains as (T) to 96th/2nd as noted would be 24/7 since this (T) would replace the (M) late nights and weekends in doing so and also potentially cut down on the overall number of train sets needed on weekdays. That's why I do that. |
|
|
| (1385379) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 13 03:01:28 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 09:57:47 2016. None of those have 30 tph in rush hour. If you add 5 extra Ms, that's what you would have at Queens Plaza. So you would have to empty out an M without delaying the E behind it, because you have no margin of time waiting for the next train.The only way to do it is to have 8 platform conductors there to make sure everyone gets out of every car within 30 seconds. That's expensive, but cheap compared to all the other alternatives available to provide replacement services for L train riders. |
|
|
| (1385380) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 03:15:44 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 10:10:32 2016. People are going to be PO'ed no matter what happens.It's also been noted elsewhere shutting down one tube at a time could make this as long as SEVEN years to do it. If so, that I don't think is exactly going to go over too well and make 2-3 years of both tubes being shut down being more palatable. I'm operating as if both tubes are being shut down and spreading out riders as much as possible (even if it means PO'ing some people because that is inevitable no matter what is done). And as noted, on the Queens end, what I would do is have (at least on weekdays) the (G) (M) and (R) all go to 179th since that would get the (G) to QP and beyond and likely take pressure off the (E) and (M) from riders who normally switch to the (G) at Court Square (in this, with the provision if there is a jam-up at 179, trains on the local can move to the express after Parsons Boulevard (skipping 169) and terminate on the express track. Obviously with CBTC, weekends are going to be an issue since then you would probably still have the (G) run as it does now to Court Square. CBTC is also why I would have the additional (M) trains signed as (T) going to 96th/2nd since that would be 24/7 (6-7 TPH all times with 3 TPH late nights) since it would likely be difficult most weekends for the (M) to be running to 71-Continental during CBTC work. |
|
|
| (1385382) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 13 03:54:58 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 10:10:32 2016. 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?A lot of L cars will be available. Right now, the need for 20 tph in the morning rush is entirely due to people riding the train from Bedford Ave to 1 Ave. With the tubes closed, the traffic will disperse into 8 different groups: - Bedford to Lorimer - East of Lorimer to Lorimer - West of Myrtle to Myrtle - East of Myrtle to Myrtle - East of Myrtle to Bway Jct - West of Bway Jct to Bway Jct - Within Manhtatan - Not bothering to take the L at all, but walking or taking a bus to the G, M, or J/Z 4-car trains running every 5 minutes (as opposed to the current 8-car trains running every 3 minutes) should be able to handle those separate groups, leaving lots of spare cars. The express track between Marcy and Myrtle-Bway may have to be sacrificed for use by M trains making a left turn at Myrtle, so that they can do that without slowing down J/Z trains behind them. They could alternate regular G service with long G trains running just from Bedford-Nostrand to Court Square, which is only 1/3rd of the full G run, but covers all the portions of the G that would see more traffic. That could triple capacity with relatively few extra cars. |
|
|
| (1385396) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 09:04:53 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Feb 12 10:10:32 2016. They have 14 R46 sets that are 2 cars (A-A and A-B).They can make 6 car trains if they want to. |
|
|
| (1385399) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 09:10:59 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:55:41 2016. I predict the J/Z will go skip/stop to Marcy, and the M goes express for load-balancing. Perhaps the 5/10 minute skip-stop period will expand to 90 minutes or 2 hours. |
|
|
| (1385403) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 13 09:32:59 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 09:04:53 2016. Not realistically enough for the G without splitting pairs. Especially not if they increase G service! |
|
|
| (1385405) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 10:31:38 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 13 09:32:59 2016. If you are short cars, maybe they'll just have to break their edict that all trains assigned to a service be an identical length. |
|
|
| (1385409) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 13 10:48:44 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 10:31:38 2016. So call it separate services.The QB and 6 Ave local stations have trains of different lengths. For added G service, it makes no sense to make the entire G line into longer trains. Just keep the current service, and supplement it with a separate "service" of 480' trains from Bedford-Nostrand to Court Square. Call it the H if you have to. |
|
|
| (1385415) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 13 11:45:29 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 10:31:38 2016. Or just run the whole thing full length! |
|
|
| (1385426) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 12:46:40 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by The Silence on Fri Feb 12 16:07:49 2016. I'm glad that you like it.Did you look up the address? Mike |
|
|
| (1385429) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Feb 13 12:57:58 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 12:34:43 2016. This makes me wonder if a yard shouldn't be built for the L in Manhattan somehow. Not easy, not cheap, but it would also give long-term operational flexibility. Of course, this is something that would have needed to be started years ago to be ready any time soon. |
|
|
| (1385431) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Feb 13 13:03:44 2016, in response to Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Michael549 on Thu Feb 11 15:11:33 2016. This demonstrates why community input isn't always very useful. While satirical, it does capture what happens at real community meetings where people will shout down what is proposed while not presenting any legitimate, realistic alternatives. |
|
|
| (1385440) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 13:59:08 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Feb 13 13:03:44 2016. This demonstrates why community input can be very useful. While satirical, it does capture what happens at real community meetings where the planners do not actually consider the very real effects of their proposals and designs upon the people who will have endure those grand schemes. |
|
|
| (1385448) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 13 15:33:03 2016, in response to One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by andy on Tue Feb 9 23:45:09 2016. Given two years notice some people may choose to move on to the next trendy neighborhood and avoid the shutdown. |
|
|
| (1385452) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 15:54:24 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 13 15:33:03 2016. They won't pay attention until late in the Sunday evening before the first Monday AM rush without the L to Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1385473) | |
(Clarification) Fumigation/Queens Boulevard during (L) tunnel shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 22:23:07 2016, in response to Re: Fumigation/Queens Boulevard during (L) tunnel shutdown, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 02:47:57 2016. Should clarify I meant the (R) running on Queens Boulevard (it would still run to 179 in the scenario laid out on weekends). |
|
|
| (1385475) | |
Re: (G) train service during (L) tunnel shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Feb 13 23:37:06 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 13 10:48:44 2016. Except I would want all (G) trains to reach at least Fulton Street where people can get the 2/3/4/5/B/C/D/N/Q/R and possibly (W) at Atlantic-Barclays (except for the (C) that is at Lafayette Avenue) as part of a plan to spread out as many passengers as possible (with OOS transfers there and at Hewes-Broadway).Again, even if that wound up being only a small amount of the people who normally would take the (L) went the more cumbersome route, it takes that many people away from Court Square, which could be crucial, especially since even with siphoning off riders to other lines, Court Square is still going to be jammed. |
|
|
| (1385481) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Feb 14 03:43:15 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Wallyhorse on Fri Feb 12 09:28:26 2016. You saw it elsewhere where? |
|
|
| (1385486) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 06:38:11 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 13 13:59:08 2016. Actually, you're both right on this one!As said, I'd be going into this KNOWING I'm going to be PO'ing some people regardless of what is chosen. Regardless of what is chosen, it's not going to be pretty and there are going to be people who are very angry to say the least. One of the problems here that CB leaders would be overlooking is the fact there is ALSO going to on weekends be CBTC work on Queens Boulevard (though hopefully by time of the actual shutdown, the (7)'s CBTC work will be complete to where you can have more trains on it at all times), which is specifically why I did some of the routing I did in wanting to as much as possible discourage people from using Court Square, especially on weekends because crowding there as it is even with what I plan will be unavoidable in all likelihood. The pain likely is going to be spread whether directly or indirectly, and by directly trying to spread out the pain as much as possible, it avoids bigger problems if something (especially on the (G) goes wrong). |
|
|
| (1385487) | |
Re: (L) line during tunnel closure/long-term |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 06:42:57 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Feb 13 12:57:58 2016. And one of the things I would be looking at long-term if I ever got to build my extended (L) that would become a 10th/Amsterdam Avenue line after 8th Avenue/14th to 72nd/Broadway (with provisions for such to go further up Amsterdam in the future). Perhaps such could be west of where the line turns north on 14th with provisions there to in the future have a New Jersey branch of the (L). |
|
|
| (1385488) | |
Re: (M) Line during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 06:46:37 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 13 03:01:28 2016. Which is why I would limit that to at the most 1-2 (M) TPH but preferably have those go to 71-Continental.The "Orange (T)" I would do to 96th/2nd would avoid having to use QP at all for a terminal and more importantly have a weekend terminal as CBTC work is going to continue on QB on weekends, likely making it impossible more often than not to have the (M) go to Queens on weekends (which is the real main purpose of this (T) going to 96th/2nd as it would be a supplemental line during the week and the main line on weekends from Broadway-Brooklyn). |
|
|
| (1385489) | |
Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by heypaul on Sun Feb 14 06:58:43 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Feb 10 16:58:49 2016. "Yes, I was substituting for Heypaul who is away on assignment. :)"I like your idea of a car float. Once the cars reach the Manhattan side, I would propose that they run across 14th Street at street level. The idea of a 3rd tube to be used during reconstruction of the original tubes is suggested by what the highway engineers have been doing during the reconstruction of the Belt Parkway overpasses in the area between Knapp Street and Pennsylvania Ave over the last 5 to 10 years. Before they rebuild and reinforce the existing roadway, they have spent considerable time, money and energy building a new 3 lane bypass route that will handle traffic while they rebuild one of the current 3 lane roads. So the subway engineers could build a new tube that would then handle subway traffic while they rebuild each of the old tubes, one at a time. After all the work has been done, this new third tube could be used in rush hours to bring more trains into or out of the City. |
|
|
| (1385490) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Feb 14 07:05:33 2016, in response to Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by heypaul on Sun Feb 14 06:58:43 2016. And the money to pay for this will be coming from......? |
|
|
| (1385491) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by heypaul on Sun Feb 14 07:10:38 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Dave on Sun Feb 14 07:05:33 2016. The money to construct the 3rd tube will be more than offset by not needing to spend money on bus substitution and the time saved by customers who can get to work normally and spend their time constructively screwing this country. |
|
|
| (1385492) | |
Re: Alternate routes during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:16:09 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 14:03:48 2016. Which was why I had my plan for combined M/T from Metropolian Avenue and a re-routed (C) from Canarsie along with everything else on mine.The idea in the first post here as noted is one I suggested myself before and has been suggested by others. That (most likely if so (K) line) can be a 24/7 line as well running Rockaway Parkway to Broad Street while the (L) is truncated to between Bedford Avenue and Broadway Junction so the (L) can better serve the much more heavily traveled portion of the line and Broadway Junction is where many people make transfers anyway. If we went with the (K) idea, we would likely see the J/Z skip-stop perhaps after Hewes Street (where I would an OOS transfer to/from the (G)) with the (J) stopping at Lorimer and the (Z) stopping at Flushing Avenue, with the additional stops before Myrtle possibly during both rush hours. Meanwhile, the K (to/from Broadway Junction) and M/T (to/from Metropolitan) would be the peak-direction express lines and likely would join the J/Z in reverse-peak skip-stop to Myrtle (with the (K) stopping at Lorimer and the (M/T) stopping at Flushing Avenue in the reverse-peak direction). In this scenario, if it's found more trains are needed to midtown on weekends in particular, THEN perhaps on weekends (when there is less train traffic overall) you could then re-route the (C) to Rockaway Parkway and have both the (C) and (K) run to Canarsie then since as noted you have the CBTC issue with QB and the main purpose would be to get riders to midtown (and on weekends, the (E) running to Euclid with a shuttle running between Chambers and the uptown local track at Canal on the regular (E) route)). This might be the compromise version. |
|
|
| (1385493) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 07:19:51 2016, in response to Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by heypaul on Sun Feb 14 06:58:43 2016. After all the work has been done, this new third tube could be used in rush hours to bring more trains into or out of the City.Rush hour capacity is limited by the layout of the 8th Ave terminal. The terminal can be overwhelmed with the existing 2 tunnels. It can be overwhelmed with only a single tunnel. |
|
|
| (1385494) | |
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 07:21:30 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 07:19:51 2016. That was a Heypaul post. |
|
|
| (1385495) | |
Re: Alternate routes during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:27:17 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by The silence on Fri Feb 12 22:08:18 2016. Which is why I came up with what I did along with now a compromise using the also-suggested (K) route. |
|
|
| (1385497) | |
Re: Alternate routes during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:33:04 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 12 16:39:05 2016. The plan for the additional (M) trains is why I would do them signed as (T) to 96th/2nd, with a maximum of 6-7 TPH (late nights 3 TPH) on a 24/7 basis. That avoids bigger problems on QB and also can make the (T) the weekend Broadway-Brooklyn route during this period when CBTC likely will make it impossible to run the (M) on QB most of the time.In this case, you do what you can to encourage people to go the long way if they can. Court Square is going to be one, hot mess no matter what and is why I would encourage riders to take the (G) the other way to either Hewes/Broadway (Broadway-Brooklyn line) or Fulton Street (for the (C) at Lafayette or 2/3/4/5/B/D/N/Q/R and maybe (W) at Atlantic-Barclays) with new OOS transfers. In addition, I'd be looking at express shuttle buses between Myrtle-Wyckoff and Atlantic-Barclays (only stopping at Myrtle-Broadway) and Myrtle-Wyckoff and 71st-Continental (non-stop) to keep as many people off the (G) and away from Court Square as possible. You also have "bus bridges" to Manhattan if possible and I would also keep 6-7 four-car sets of (L) trains on the Manhattan side for service between 1st and 8th Avenues there (using a max of five at any one time with trains not in use stored most likely at the edge of most likely the tunnel being worked on whenever possible). |
|
|
| (1385498) | |
(Clarification) Re: Alternate routes during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:33:54 2016, in response to Re: Alternate routes during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:33:04 2016. I meant most of the time on weekends in the case of the (M) to 71-Continental. |
|
|
| (1385499) | |
Weekend routes during (L) tunnel closure |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:39:49 2016, in response to Re: Alternate routes during (L) tunnel closure, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:16:09 2016. And to add, in that scenario you would have on weekends only:(C) from 168th Street-Rockaway Parkway (current (L) station). (E) extended to Euclid Avenue to replace the (C) in Brooklyn (possibly including late nights). (J) running as it does now. (K) running between Broad Street and Rockaway Parkway (current (L) station). (M) not running on weekends (mainly due to CBTC work on Queens Boulevard). (T) between Metropolitan Avenue and 96th Street-2nd Avenue. That to me would work in that case. |
|
|
| (1385500) | |
Re: (G) train service during (L) tunnel shutdown |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 07:45:11 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 13 03:54:58 2016. Except again:I would want ALL (G) trains reaching at least Fulton in the hopes of encouraging people to avoid Court Square by taking the (G) the other way to Hewes-Broadway or Fulton (in the latter cases because of all the transfers at Atlantic-Barclays). |
|
|
| (1385505) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 08:23:31 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Terrapin Station on Sun Feb 14 03:43:15 2016. This is where I originally saw it at Second Avenue Sagas (scroll down). |
|
|
| (1385509) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sun Feb 14 10:59:08 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by heypaul on Sun Feb 14 07:10:38 2016. Do you honestly think the cost of bus substitution comes anywhere close to the billions of dollars it cost to build a 3rd tube?And the time saved by customers does not mysteriously transform into dollars available to build a tube. |
|
|
| (1385514) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 14 11:52:25 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Dave on Sun Feb 14 10:59:08 2016. Do you honestly think that heypaul went out of character and made a serious suggestion? |
|
|
| (1385520) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Feb 14 13:38:21 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Feb 14 07:19:51 2016. Actually, IMHO it is a brilliant idea. If properly designed, it could post repairs serve as a connector to the SAS and if regularly used, stretch out the life cycles of the existing tubes. |
|
|
| (1385532) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by kew gardens teleport on Sun Feb 14 17:02:38 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Wallyhorse on Thu Feb 11 03:43:44 2016. Why on earth do you insist on changing the font? |
|
|
| (1385537) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:51:40 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Sat Feb 13 09:10:59 2016. the problem with that is if a Metrocard transfer were to be instituted as planned at Bway/Hewes, passengers changing from the G there would want the M service to get to midtown Manhattan. |
|
|
| (1385538) | |
Re: (L) line during tunnel closure/long-term |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:54:38 2016, in response to Re: (L) line during tunnel closure/long-term, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Feb 14 06:42:57 2016. Easier than that would be building a rail connection between the IND 8 Av Line and the L Line at 14/8. That would allow for a 1 Av to 8 Av shuttle service to be operated and give that dedicated fleet access to a maintenance facility. |
|
|
| (1385539) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:58:07 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by merrick1 on Sat Feb 13 15:33:03 2016. Now of my neighbors here in Bay Ridge mentioned that possibility with Bay Ridge becoming that trendy neighborhood. That’s assuming the evacuees want to put up with the unreliability of the R Line. |
|
|
| (1385540) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 14 17:58:33 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:51:40 2016. Very simple: make the J the local, the M the express.Probably will have to do that anyway for load-balancing. |
|
|
| (1385545) | |
Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 18:28:30 2016, in response to Re: Disaster At The Community Board Meeting, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 14 17:58:33 2016. It still wouldn’t give passengers boarding at Hewes direct midtown access! |
|
|
| (1385546) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 14 18:28:30 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 17:58:07 2016. Then maybe Bensonhurst. |
|
|
| (1385547) | |
Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 14 18:29:24 2016, in response to Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by Joe V on Sun Feb 14 18:28:30 2016. Then you run into problems on open air lines during bad winter weather. |
|
|
| (1385548) | |
Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Feb 14 18:29:38 2016, in response to Re: Why Not Construct a 3rd Tube Between Now & 2018??..Re: One proposed alternative service for L riders, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 14 11:52:25 2016. Dave "R" serious cat ... no joking permitted.
|
|
|
|
Page 2 of 4 |
||
