New MTA statement on L-train project (1499717) | |
Home > SubChat |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
(1499717) | |
New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 11 14:25:25 2019 This summarizes those parts of the original project that are still being done even with the new plan.L Project |
|
(1499719) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 11 14:38:19 2019, in response to New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by italianstallion on Fri Jan 11 14:25:25 2019. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.But we know some of our customers primarily use the L during the weekend and overnight hours when there could be the most impact to service. So, while we might not need the full scale of transportation options we had initially planned, we will still provide an appropriate plan that accommodates 100 percent of impacted L customers, just as the original one did. I'm hoping they decide to run more than 1 train through the tunnel each way every 20 minutes. |
|
(1499725) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Union Tpke on Fri Jan 11 15:30:52 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 11 14:38:19 2019. It will be every 15 minutes, which will be a disaster. It would be better to close it entirely. It will be very dangerous. |
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It
|
(1499729) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jan 11 15:52:40 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Union Tpke on Fri Jan 11 15:30:52 2019. Hmm. During the day on Saturday and Sunday eastbound trains will pull into USQ, and westbound trains into Bedford, already totally full.Maybe that's why they sometimes do the miserable USQ to Bedford shuttle, thus encouraging people to take an alternate route like the M. |
|
(1499737) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Fri Jan 11 17:15:43 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 11 15:52:40 2019. If plan backfires |
|
(1499738) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Jan 11 17:32:15 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by TransitChuckG on Fri Jan 11 17:15:43 2019. That’s why I don’t think a full shutdown is completely off the table just yet. Byford may end up concluding that Cuomo’s plan is too risky. I know there is plenty of skepticism from Board members over Cuomo’s plan. |
|
(1499739) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 17:34:26 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 11 14:38:19 2019. They'll be a lot of weekend and overnight M service to 96th/2nd |
|
(1499742) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jan 11 18:02:41 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by AlM on Fri Jan 11 15:52:40 2019. They will probably still extend the M to 57th St. nights and weekends. |
|
(1499745) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri Jan 11 17:32:15 2019. The tunnels have a alkaline-silica reaction (sea water is reacting with the cement in the shoulder walls) causing it to expand. Covering the shoulder walls with fiberglass does nothing to prevent this from continuing. The walls will need to be replaced. By doing a cosmetic fix, the urgency of actually doing the work disappears, for perhaps 10-15 years. The it LOOKS like the tunnels are fine, when in fact they are not, and some folks get credit for saving lots of money and fixing the problem. |
|
(1499776) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Catfish 44 on Sat Jan 12 01:57:08 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019. Agreed |
|
(1499777) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Bklynsubwaybob on Sat Jan 12 06:34:22 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019. That's what I've been thinking all along! |
|
(1499780) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 12 07:48:12 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019. And is another reason why some think Cuomo is doing this at the behest of donors ahead of a Presidential bid in 2020. |
|
(1499781) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 12 07:52:53 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Dyre Dan on Fri Jan 11 18:02:41 2019. You mean 96th and 2nd, which should be done anyway and made permanent. |
|
(1499782) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:02:45 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019. The tunnels have a alkaline-silica reaction (sea water is reacting with the cement in the shoulder walls) causing it to expand.You need to differentiate between the tunnel liner and the duct bank. The tunnel liner, which surrounds the cast iron tunnel rings, was inspected and is intact. It's only the cement that comprises the duct bank that's damaged. Neither the previous plan nor the current plan calls for replacing the tunnel liner, which isn't damaged. There are plans to patch any cracks in the liner, that's part of both plans work statement. The cracks did not result from Sandy damage but from normal wear and tear and lack of maintenance. The duct bank does not provide any structural support for the tunnel. It merely encases the cables. One of its purposes was to provide fire protection by confining any electrical fire within the duct bank. That function can be provided by wrapping the cables in fire retardant material. That's part of the new plan. Its other purpose was to provide a catwalk for passengers to evacuate the tunnel. That purpose has been pretty much compromised because of obstacles that have been placed in the tunnel since its opening. The proposed plan keeps one of the catwalks free of obstacles by locating the cables on the opposite side. The duct bank's danger comes from its crumbling cement. The problem is twofold. The crumbling cement can fall on the tracks and cause a derailment or similar mishap. The crumbling cement could not support weight to function as a catwalk. The fiberglass encapsulates the duct bank and contains any crumbling cement within it. This prevents any duct bank pieces from falling on the track. The fiberglass also acts as an exoskeleton to support the weight of any evacuees. Rebuilding the duct bank did not provide any additional protection against a Sandy repeat. If salt water were to accumulate within the tunnel, a similar result should be expected. The salt water would penetrate the duct bank and corrode the cables. Locating the cables on the wall provides a bit more protection. The cables would be located higher up than they had they been located within the duct bank. More salt water accumulation within the tunnel would be required to damage the cables. |
|
(1499783) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:05:41 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019. The tunnels have a alkaline-silica reaction (sea water is reacting with the cement in the shoulder walls) causing it to expand.You need to differentiate between the tunnel liner and the duct bank. The tunnel liner, which surrounds the cast iron tunnel rings, was inspected and is intact. It's only the cement that comprises the duct bank that's damaged. Neither the previous plan nor the current plan calls for replacing the tunnel liner, which isn't damaged. There are plans to patch any cracks in the liner, that's part of both plans' work statement. The cracks did not result from Sandy damage but from normal wear and tear and lack of maintenance. The duct bank does not provide any structural support for the tunnel. It merely encases the cables. One of its purposes is to provide fire protection by confining any electrical fire within the duct bank. That function can be provided by wrapping the cables in fire retardant material. That's part of the new plan. Its other purpose is to provide a catwalk for passengers to evacuate the tunnel. That purpose has been pretty much compromised because of obstacles that have been placed in the tunnel since its opening. The proposed plan keeps one of the catwalks free of obstacles by locating the cables on the opposite side. The duct bank's danger comes from its crumbling cement. The problem is twofold. The crumbling cement can fall on the tracks and cause a derailment or similar mishap. The crumbling cement could not support weight to function as a catwalk. The fiberglass encapsulates the duct bank and contains any crumbling cement within it. This prevents any duct bank pieces from falling on the track. The fiberglass also acts as an exoskeleton to support the weight of any evacuees. Rebuilding the duct bank did not provide any additional protection against a Sandy repeat. If salt water were to accumulate within the tunnel, a similar result should be expected. The salt water would penetrate the duct bank and corrode the cables. Locating the cables on the wall provides a bit more protection. The cables would be located higher up than they had they been located within the duct bank. More salt water accumulation within the tunnel would be required to damage the cables. |
|
(1499784) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by TransitChuckG on Sat Jan 12 08:27:27 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:02:45 2019. Thank you Stephen Bauman. So to be assured that the proper fix is done that will last for a "long" time, the existing duct bank should be fixed so it does not crumble onto the tracks? |
|
(1499785) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Kevin from Midwood on Sat Jan 12 08:44:30 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:02:45 2019. The fiberglass encapsulates the duct bank and contains any crumbling cement within it. This prevents any duct bank pieces from falling on the track.From the Verge article: "The MTA would also install fiber-optic sensors and LIDAR laser sensors to detect any impending failures in the bench wall, so the agency can send in workers to reinforce those section as needed." I feel like you're glossing over this part of the proprosal. Presumably if installing the fiberglass covering were effective as rebuilding the bench wall, then there wouldn't be any need for the constant monitoring. |
|
(1499786) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 12 08:50:01 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:02:45 2019. What I stated is true for the Hudson River tunnels. I don't know about the Canarsie tunnel. |
|
(1499788) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Jan 12 09:13:40 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:05:41 2019. "Its other purpose is to provide a catwalk for passengers to evacuate the tunnel. That purpose has been pretty much compromised because of obstacles that have been placed in the tunnel since its opening. The proposed plan keeps one of the catwalks free of obstacles by locating the cables on the opposite side."So for some time now there's been no way to evacuate a train in the tunnel? |
|
(1499790) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by MTA T on Sat Jan 12 09:20:49 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:02:45 2019. Thanks for the clarification. The MTA videos about the L shutdown seemed to emphasize tunnel liner damage, which I guess was quite the over-exaggeration. |
|
(1499791) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 12 10:51:38 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by MTA T on Sat Jan 12 09:20:49 2019. Maybe it was and masybe it was not.LION does not trust Princess Coumo and his 12th hour 25c fix. If the specialists have spent three years or more developing this plan, then this is the plan that ought to be used. The MTA board should the Coumo to stick his plan where the sun does not shine. ROAR |
|
(1499795) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sat Jan 12 11:08:11 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Jan 12 09:13:40 2019. The catwalks are good (for cats) but not for wimpy litigation bound princesses. The catwalk after all is DIRTY, as well as occasionally obstructed by DIRTY appliances which will soil the skin and clothing of said princesses. [Litigation Litigation Litigation!]Yes, of course they could exit down to the roadbed but then the power would have to be off and maybe the lights too. Then peeps could trip over the ties and slide on the rails, not to mention stepping in the sludge in the drain-way. [Litigation Litigation Litigation !!!] They should protect the MTA from all litigation. If PAX are worried about injury on the subways or anyplace they should buy thier own insurance. The MTA should be held harm-free. Anyway, the optimal rescue method would be a rescue train, but sometimes that cannot be or cannot wait. What do they want for their stinking 35c? To Live FOREVER? ROAR |
|
(1499797) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 12 11:15:24 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 08:02:45 2019. Seems to me that the duct bank should be removed altogether if it is no longer useful on its own, and in fact is dangerous, and perhaps a lightweight, quickie catwalk could be installed, much like the LIRR platform extensions at Kew Gardens and Forest Hills.As for a higher cable tray, while that is an improvement, if the tunnel were to flood completely, the cables would most likely still need to be replaced, though exposed cables are easier to replace than cables enclosed in concrete. |
|
(1499800) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 12:42:11 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Jan 12 09:13:40 2019. So for some time now there's been no way to evacuate a train in the tunnel?Wait for a rescue train, or turn off power and climb down the front or rear storm door onto the rail roadbed. There were no catwalks on the original subway; there are no catwalks on the els. A long time ago, there was an incident on the Lex (above 42nd St) where people were waiting over an hour to be evacuated. They could not use the catwalk and had to wait for a rescue train to arrive. |
|
(1499801) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 12:44:38 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by TransitChuckG on Sat Jan 12 08:27:27 2019. So to be assured that the proper fix is done that will last for a "long" time, the existing duct bank should be fixed so it does not crumble onto the tracks?No, the existing duct bank should be prevented from crumbling onto the tracks. There are many ways to implement this. Reconstruction is one. Encapsulation is another. |
|
(1499813) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:04:24 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sat Jan 12 07:48:12 2019. NoNoNoNoNo! Not a thing to do with donors.It has ONLY to do with making him seem like a can-do problem solver with the general public. |
|
(1499814) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:07:24 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 12:42:11 2019. There are catwalks on plenty of the els. |
|
(1499815) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 12 16:07:56 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:04:24 2019. And get physical projects done, even if they are band-aids, or has design flaws, until next election. |
|
(1499816) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:08:34 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Peter Rosa on Sat Jan 12 09:13:40 2019. I've seen plenty of catwalks and I've never seen an obstacle put on any of them. |
|
(1499820) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 12 16:15:43 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:07:24 2019. He may be thinking of the BRT els that lacked right side ones. |
|
(1499822) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 16:29:34 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Andrew Saucci on Sat Jan 12 11:15:24 2019. that the duct bank should be removed altogether if it is no longer useful on its own...Demolition of the duct bank is what requires shutting down one or both tunnels. More precisely, it's the silica dust that's generated during demolition. The dust wafts into the air and takes too long to settle out to permit train operation during daytime hours. The academics' contribution was realizing that future operation did not depend on demolishing the duct bank. |
|
(1499823) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 16:33:17 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Kevin from Midwood on Sat Jan 12 08:44:30 2019. if installing the fiberglass covering were effective as rebuilding the bench wall, then there wouldn't be any need for the constant monitoring.There's always need for monitoring, regardless of how "permanent" any construction is. The use of photo-optic sensors should be judged as the consultants' trust in the thoroughness of the MTA's current monitoring practices. |
|
(1499829) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 18:27:51 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:07:24 2019. There are catwalks on plenty of the els.They are not at door level. |
|
(1499833) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 12 19:29:06 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 18:27:51 2019. Have passengers ever been told to evacuate by jumping/climbing down to an el catwalk ? |
|
(1499835) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Fisk Ave Jim on Sat Jan 12 20:19:15 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 12 19:29:06 2019. They wouldn't have to be told if lights go out & smoke fills the car & panic sets in & there was no communications or announcements between crew & pax. Or if a train got stuck in a snowbank between stations w/o lights or heat, again w/o communication. Thats when you hope there are catwalks. |
|
(1499836) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 21:21:53 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Sat Jan 12 19:29:06 2019. Evacuation - except if there's an imminent hazard, like a fire - is less a problem on els as it can be done by fire trucks from the street. |
|
(1499847) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 12:43:43 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by italianstallion on Sat Jan 12 16:04:24 2019. Yeah, but there are quite a few elsewhere who "corrected" me and said it was his donors who insisted on this. |
|
(1499848) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by MTA T on Sun Jan 13 13:17:49 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 12:43:43 2019. Damn are you salty about that lol. |
|
(1499849) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun Jan 13 13:19:20 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jan 12 18:27:51 2019. The cats do not care. |
|
(1499850) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 13 13:49:31 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 12:43:43 2019. Bless your heart. |
|
(1499851) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 13 13:53:11 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 12:43:43 2019. The donors don't give a flying fuck about the L train. |
|
(1499852) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by WayneJay on Sun Jan 13 14:00:37 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Joe V on Fri Jan 11 19:03:35 2019. Agreed! Kinda like painting over rust. |
|
(1499853) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 13 14:04:29 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by italianstallion on Sun Jan 13 13:53:11 2019. Excellent post. |
|
(1499856) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 14:31:50 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 13 14:04:29 2019. They likely do if their own commutes or that of their employees is affected by such a shutdown, even if they don't actually use the (L) or come from elsewhere. |
|
(1499860) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jan 13 15:31:08 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 14:31:50 2019. LOL! |
|
(1499865) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by gp38/r42 chris on Sun Jan 13 16:28:35 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 14:31:50 2019. Oh please |
|
(1499866) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Jan 13 17:17:40 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 14:31:50 2019. The typical attitude of top management toward someone who takes the L train to work is "Hey when the train shuts down you'd better be sure to leave home sufficiently earlier so that you still get to work on time." |
|
(1499883) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Sun Jan 13 19:38:00 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Wallyhorse on Sun Jan 13 12:43:43 2019. David Faber and Arthur Schwartz made him do it!/s |
|
(1499888) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 13 20:17:03 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by AlM on Sun Jan 13 17:17:40 2019. The Three Stooges Division is the Rodney Dangerfield of the NYC subway system. |
|
(1499894) | |
Re: New MTA statement on L-train project |
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Sun Jan 13 20:37:11 2019, in response to Re: New MTA statement on L-train project, posted by Steve B-8AVEXP on Sun Jan 13 20:17:03 2019. this is a hopeless contest. almost every line has issues. |
|