|
|
| Re: future L train blues (1464889) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
|
| (1465073) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Feb 10 01:50:17 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 9 15:21:28 2018. If they're headed Downtown, a rider who formerly took the L to the 4/5 might decide to take the G to the A/C as opposed to the J/Z. |
|
|
| (1465079) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 04:37:43 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Feb 10 01:50:17 2018. True. Most people aren't heading downtown though. I didn't say there would be no diversion to the southbound G. |
|
|
| (1465080) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 04:42:26 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Feb 10 01:49:05 2018. This seems to be a subject of major disagreement here. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1465095) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Feb 10 08:27:40 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 9 18:44:14 2018. They don't maintain their schedules with the current passenger load. Adding 10% more passengers per car isn't likely to improve the situation. |
|
|
| (1465106) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 10 10:56:17 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by checkmatechamp13 on Sat Feb 10 01:49:05 2018. But N/W riders also switch to the 7 at QBP. |
|
|
| (1465108) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sat Feb 10 11:02:44 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Feb 9 14:13:20 2018. I'm sure sZemp wouldn't mind.:) |
|
|
| (1465114) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 11:44:18 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 10 10:56:17 2018. I've read numerous times that the net flow is toward the N/W, but I don't know by how much. |
|
|
| (1465115) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 11:54:19 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by r33/r36 mainline on Thu Feb 8 19:49:11 2018. I found the stats for 2014. Canarsie (13,500) is comparable to Lorimer (14,600) and half of Bedford (27,200). Myrtle-Wyckoff is 19,200 and everything else is less. |
|
|
| (1465118) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Feb 10 11:59:46 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 11:54:19 2018. Yes. Canarsie has a large catchment area. |
|
|
| (1465125) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 10 12:53:38 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Fri Feb 9 17:15:54 2018. I'd be surprised if that is true. I'd bet many who currently take the G north to the L will take the G south to the A/C. |
|
|
| (1465129) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 13:12:12 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 10 12:53:38 2018. True. A trip like Bedford-Nostrand to midtown, for example. |
|
|
| (1465130) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 13:18:02 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 10 12:53:38 2018. On second thought, if you're going Bedford-Nostrand to midtown, wouldn't you switch to the M at Broadway? |
|
|
| (1465131) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by R30A on Sat Feb 10 13:19:22 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 13:18:02 2018. Not if you can't reliably make it onto the Ms, many of which will likely be crush loaded before Hewes/Lorimer. |
|
|
| (1465135) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by K. Trout on Sat Feb 10 13:46:13 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by R30A on Sat Feb 10 12:53:38 2018. Dwell times at Metropolitan will probably get worse with passengers coming from the L, so I wouldn't be surprised if some passengers choose to go south instead of north for a more reliable experience.FWIW Flushing is more or less the midpoint of the line, so it'll be interesting to see which patterns emerge. |
|
|
| (1465154) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sat Feb 10 16:21:00 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by K. Trout on Sat Feb 10 00:57:31 2018. That would be a good idea but unfortunately, by the time a new tunnel and its connections are finished the L would be back up and running. |
|
|
| (1465189) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by Michael549 on Sat Feb 10 23:52:52 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by Bill from Maspeth on Fri Feb 9 14:13:20 2018. From a previous message:"They could prolong the rush hour by doubling the number of Z trains.......having 2 hours worth instead of 1." That would be a great idea! Increasing the amount of J and M train through out the day and evening would encourage displaced L-train riders to considers the J and M pathways into and out of Manhattan on a regular basis during the tunnel outage. With many of the western most L-train stations in Brooklyn having a direct Brooklyn bus route between the L-line and that J or M line stations, the travel time and hassle could be reduced. I know some folks want to create every kind of train route expansion involving almost every switching operation that could possibly be created, sometimes simpler is better. What is more simple than just increasing the existing train service on the J-M-Z lines as a way to help those displaced L-train riders? Mike Mike |
|
|
| (1465229) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Sun Feb 11 17:53:58 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Sat Feb 10 11:54:19 2018. When they measure Rockaway Parkway usage, how do they account for the passengers exiting the B42 bus directly into the station. You have 4 additional bus lines (B6, B82, B17 and B60) stopping at the Rockaway Parkway station. |
|
|
| (1465232) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by jabrams on Sun Feb 11 17:56:48 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by Edwards! on Thu Feb 8 21:44:51 2018. Not every L train should go up 6th Ave. Maybe every other or third. It would alleviate the crowding at the back of the J train station at Bway Junction. |
|
|
| (1465234) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 11 18:01:27 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by jabrams on Sun Feb 11 17:53:58 2018. I believe they are turnstile counts. |
|
|
| (1465236) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 18:48:31 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by AlM on Sun Feb 11 18:01:27 2018. Then passengers coming directly from the B42 would be in addition to those turnstile counts. |
|
|
| (1465237) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Feb 11 18:51:27 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 18:48:31 2018. Yes, just like passengers coming from the A/C or the J/Z at East New York aren't part of those counts and passengers coming from the M at Myrtle aren't part of those counts. |
|
|
| (1465238) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 11 19:10:21 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 18:48:31 2018. Maybe they add in the B42 passenger counts, given the unique setup there. |
|
|
| (1465259) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Sun Feb 11 22:01:54 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by jabrams on Sun Feb 11 17:56:48 2018. A handful of M trains currently turn at 2nd ave due to the Queens Blvd side needing more service than the Myrtle Side. Perhaps those could be turned into a special rush hour "LM" service (whatever letter you want to call it).That said, the L being CBTC and the Broadway el being... not, some awkwardness will undoubtedly happen with such a service. |
|
|
| (1465268) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Feb 11 22:35:03 2018, in response to Re: future L train blues, posted by italianstallion on Sun Feb 11 19:10:21 2018. However, there may be some B42 passengers who don’t transfer to the L which could throw the count off. |
|
|
| (1465482) | |
Re: future L train blues |
|
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Tue Feb 13 00:09:36 2018, in response to future L train blues, posted by rockparklocal on Thu Feb 8 15:53:48 2018. There were suggestions for this in other threads a while back, along with mine to re-route the (C) to Rockaway Parkway via this route that were for good reasons shot down.The only change I would make (one I'd be looking at doing as soon as the (M) returns to Metropolitan is the (M) being split into (M) and (T) with the combined lines at 13 TPH at peak times, the (M) running as it does now while the (T) runs to 96th Street-2nd Avenue as a 24/7 line (supplementing the (M) weekdays while being the main line nights and weekends). |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
Page 2 of 2 |
||
