Fix & Fortify - 14th Street (L Train) Tunnels Closure

[trainfan22]

On 4/9/2018 at 8:10 AM, Lawrence St said:

While the Manhattan portion of the is closed, they really should extend those tracks at 8th Av to create extra storage space.

But about the , I was thinking why not have extra trains operating via Crosstown, signed up as trains? These trips would be the short turn trips that end at Avenue X, Kings Hwy and Church.

Those loss of trips on 6th Av can allow more trains to be squeezed on there.

 

On 4/9/2018 at 9:53 AM, Lance said:

If these trips via Crosstown are being pulled from the existing schedule, that's a definite no-sell. The bulk of Culver and Queens Blvd riders, especially those on the eastern end of the line, are looking for Manhattan service. Run those trains via the line and most riders will bail at Queens Plaza or Bergen St. In fact, even if these are additional trips that will not impact the existing schedule, I don't see them being all that popular outside of the Crosstown line. The majority of the Canarsie shutdown Crosstown ridership will come from the actual Crosstown line, not from the other two connecting lines. Running these quasi- trains from 179 Street to someplace on the Culver line seems like a waste to me.

As for extending the tail tracks at 8 Avenue, this is yet another missed opportunity Transit is blowing.

To add tail tracks, They would have the dig up 14th street which would be a traffic nightmare and would interfere with the shuttle buses. I don't think its worth the hassle.

Edited April 11, 2018 by trainfan22

[RR503]

36 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Wouldn't the 6 minute headways be enough rather than 4 minute headways on the  though?

I have a feeling they’re coming from a law of induced demand perspective. People are gonna flock to the  because they actually go to Manhattan, leading to obscene crowding on those lines. Making the  as attractive as possible will help to pull people away from those lines, thereby keeping ridership reasonable, even if trains run below loading guidelines. 

Regardless of that though, keep in mind the sheer volume of people who will be without transit to Manhattan. 225,000 people is no laughing matter, so I honestly wouldn’t be surprised if we see the  packed during rush hours at least. 

27 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

This plan keeps everything more or less the same TPH, which makes it really easy to schedule trains.

If the is every 4 minutes and the is every six it's very hard to schedule even intervals between trains.

That’s certainly true, but I don’t think that played as much of a role as you’d think. Remember that 3  tph are short turning at Bedford, and that 3  tph are heading express. That’s gonna leave some strange looking intervals, so I have a feeling it won’t be a perfect 15, rather that headways will vary across the hours of peak service. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by RR503

[VIP]

Are they seriously considering keeping or extending  skip-stop service on the  ? 

[Lance]

If I recall correctly, skip-stop service should remain as it was prior to the Myrtle Ave rehab. Peak direction express service between Myrtle Av and Marcy Av, however, will be eliminated to facilitate better transfer opportunities between the and Jamaica services.

[Wallyhorse]

14 hours ago, RR503 said:

Yes. I’ve heard that folks at OP are worried about what 10tph of service and 13tph of will do to Forest Hills. I heard that they were throwing around extending a few  trips to 179 just to give FHills a chance to decongest. Again, I don’t know how likely this is — just an idea that I’ve heard is being thrown around. Everything else listed seems pretty set in stone though. 

I'd be looking at having the and ALL go to 179 if that is the case (with the express its entire route) and as needed if there is congestion at 179 after Parsons Boulevard make it so any local train can be moved to the express track (skipping only 169th) to speed up getting trains back the other way.  Some might complain about this at local stops, but they can go to any local stop to get the  (and/or  if west of Van Wyck) in that scenario if they want express.  This mainly allows the to get to Queens Plaza and takes pressure off Court Square between the transfers there and a new OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza I would have. 

This is also why I would be looking to split the into and where the  runs as it does now and the  runs 24/7 to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (as a 5 TPH supplement to the weekdays, 3 TPH late nights and 6-9 TPH weekends).  

It's also why as well I'd have the OOS transfer between the at Fulton and at Atlantic-Barclays and encourage people as much as possible to head there, especially if looking for lower Manhattan.

[biGC323232]

38 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I'd be looking at having the and ALL go to 179 if that is the case (with the express its entire route) and as needed if there is congestion at 179 after Parsons Boulevard make it so any local train can be moved to the express track (skipping only 169th) to speed up getting trains back the other way.  Some might complain about this at local stops, but they can go to any local stop to get the  (and/or  if west of Van Wyck) in that scenario if they want express.  This mainly allows the to get to Queens Plaza and takes pressure off Court Square between the transfers there and a new OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza I would have. 

This is also why I would be looking to split the  into and where the  runs as it does now and the  runs 24/7 to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (as a 5 TPH supplement to the weekdays, 3 TPH late nights and 6-9 TPH weekends).  

It's also why as well I'd have the OOS transfer between the at Fulton and at Atlantic-Barclays and encourage people as much as possible to head there, especially if looking for lower Manhattan.

 is not sending all those lines up there to 179st....How is sending all those lines up there helping the  shutdown.....I can agree with sending a few 's up there so it can lay up.... Also having  trains to queens plz might be a good idea on paper...In practice its gonna delay     services as well as the ....Just my opinion

[Coney Island Av]

3 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I'd be looking at having the and ALL go to 179 if that is the case (with the express its entire route) and as needed if there is congestion at 179 after Parsons Boulevard make it so any local train can be moved to the express track (skipping only 169th) to speed up getting trains back the other way.  Some might complain about this at local stops, but they can go to any local stop to get the  (and/or  if west of Van Wyck) in that scenario if they want express.  This mainly allows the to get to Queens Plaza and takes pressure off Court Square between the transfers there and a new OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza I would have. 

This is also why I would be looking to split the into and where the  runs as it does now and the  runs 24/7 to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (as a 5 TPH supplement to the weekdays, 3 TPH late nights and 6-9 TPH weekends).  

It's also why as well I'd have the OOS transfer between the at Fulton and at Atlantic-Barclays and encourage people as much as possible to head there, especially if looking for lower Manhattan.

Not this again...

We've told you many times why this won't work. The  will amount to 30 TPH at 179, and adding the  will only make one big conga line even worse. You'd just be moving it from Forest Hills to 179 St. 

And skipping 169 St won't do anything, considering that there will still be conga lines, as two trains have to relay on each level. The  would have to relay on top and  on the lower level. 

Then there's also the constant need for the HIllside Local being the QBL express, which is why the  currently does so today, running local east of 71 Av. Having a fully-local train stop there will only have people bail at Parsons, Union Turnpike, and 71 Av, since the local will be slower to Manhattan. In fact, this will only make people's commutes slower given the crowding you would see at each express stop if this were a reality. 

And this proposed  combination is pointless, given the Willy B might not have the capacity, and the  is already slated to have an increase during the shutdown. The 6 Av Local might also not have capacity given the current levels of service, which amount to 25 TPH. But yes, your  could be just the extra TPH the  is slated to receive, but just call them s. Sending them as s will only confuse riders. If the  is slated to receive a service increase, call them s. Not . 

Just send a few rush hour s to 179 St. Period. Just because the  ran express east of Forest Hills, the  went to 71 Av, and the  went to 179 St in the past does not mean this proposal will be feasible and/or justifiable. Don't make the proposed service patterns even more complex, because it'll only cause more congestion. 

[Lance]

@Wallyhorse Repeating your idea time and time again does not make it any better, nor does it endear anyone to your beliefs.

[Caelestor]

One sneaky way to prevent some s from going to 179 St is to rebalance Broadway service. Have some  trains from the QBL local tracks displace some  trains to Astoria, and have those  trains run to 96 St. Not certain if such a plan is feasible, however.   

[RR503]

7 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

I'd be looking at having the and ALL go to 179 if that is the case (with the express its entire route) and as needed if there is congestion at 179 after Parsons Boulevard make it so any local train can be moved to the express track (skipping only 169th) to speed up getting trains back the other way.  Some might complain about this at local stops, but they can go to any local stop to get the  (and/or  if west of Van Wyck) in that scenario if they want express.  This mainly allows the to get to Queens Plaza and takes pressure off Court Square between the transfers there and a new OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza I would have. 

The cars for this will come from where exactly? I'd much rather the agency increase service on the  or on Concourse or put in gap trains than go through with this nonsense -- if we can find the cars, that is.

Also (30tph +15tph )/2 = 22.5 tph per terminal track. That's more than Forest Hills, and that doesn't even begin to account for the strange terminal patterns with locals and expresses beginning on unpredictable tracks. 

[kosciusko]

Instead of sending select rush hour s to 179th, why not send them to 96th?

[RR503]

7 minutes ago, kosciusko said:

Instead of sending select rush hour s to 179th, why not send them to 96th?

You miss Court Square where all the displaced  riders will be transferring from the . 

[Lawrence St]

13 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Instead of sending select rush hour s to 179th, why not send them to 96th?

That only works on weekends because of all the CBTC work on QBL. Think of it like weekend Bx5 service to Bay Plaza.

[Wallyhorse]

19 hours ago, kosciusko said:

Instead of sending select rush hour s to 179th, why not send them to 96th?

 

6 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

That only works on weekends because of all the CBTC work on QBL. Think of it like weekend Bx5 service to Bay Plaza.

As said before, I think sending any additional trains as s to 96th/2nd (with that being 24/7 as noted elsewhere) would be better as I would first of all be encouraging people to travel the other way on the to Fulton with a new OOS transfer at Atlantic-Barclays for the  there in addition to the OOS between the and at Broadway.  That to me would prevent conga lines at 71-Continental from getting worse as well as likely cut down the need for trains on the overall by one or two sets with a max of 5 TPH (weekdays) going to 96th/2nd (the would otherwise run as it does now).

[Wallyhorse]

20 hours ago, RR503 said:

The cars for this will come from where exactly? I'd much rather the agency increase service on the  or on Concourse or put in gap trains than go through with this nonsense -- if we can find the cars, that is.

Also (30tph +15tph )/2 = 22.5 tph per terminal track. That's more than Forest Hills, and that doesn't even begin to account for the strange terminal patterns with locals and expresses beginning on unpredictable tracks. 

That to me is the alternative and the only way you avoid a disaster at Court Square. 

[RR503]

18 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

As said before

This should trigger some consideration of whether it bears repeating. 

17 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

That to me is the alternative and the only way you avoid a disaster at Court Square. 

How does this avoid it? Very, very few will opt for the , and Court Square is a closer connection to the . And FWIW, the projected volumes at Court Square will be a-ok. We will see no second GCT appear. 

The only way I see this part of Canarsie being a disaster is if they don't restore weekend  frequencies to 7.5 tph. Right now, they're planning 5tph because of CBTC installation, and that is a recipe for absolute mayhem. They should consider terminating the  at QP, sending the  local on QB, and running the  and  at 7.5 tph each. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by RR503

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 4/10/2018 at 9:08 PM, RR503 said:

Yes. I’ve heard that folks at OP are worried about what 10tph of service and 13tph of will do to Forest Hills. I heard that they were throwing around extending a few  trips to 179 just to give FHills a chance to decongest. Again, I don’t know how likely this is — just an idea that I’ve heard is being thrown around. Everything else listed seems pretty set in stone though. 

If I were in OP, I’d be just as worried about the flat junction at Myrtle-Broadway, what with 13  tph, plus increased  service.

On 4/11/2018 at 12:00 PM, Wallyhorse said:

I'd be looking at having the and ALL go to 179 if that is the case (with the express its entire route) and as needed if there is congestion at 179 after Parsons Boulevard make it so any local train can be moved to the express track (skipping only 169th) to speed up getting trains back the other way.  Some might complain about this at local stops, but they can go to any local stop to get the  (and/or  if west of Van Wyck) in that scenario if they want express.  This mainly allows the to get to Queens Plaza and takes pressure off Court Square between the transfers there and a new OOS transfer between Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza I would have. 

This is also why I would be looking to split the into and where the  runs as it does now and the  runs 24/7 to 96th Street-2nd Avenue (as a 5 TPH supplement to the weekdays, 3 TPH late nights and 6-9 TPH weekends).  

And I’d be even more worried about your “reverse-branching-on-steroids” plan that will only require a whole lot of subway cars we don’t have (and won’t even after all the R179s are in service) and will unnecessarily take both crews and commuters well out of their way to get to Midtown Manhattan. However,...

23 hours ago, Coney Island Av said:

Not this again...

We've told you many times why this won't work. The  will amount to 30 TPH at 179, and adding the  will only make one big conga line even worse. You'd just be moving it from Forest Hills to 179 St. 

...

And this proposed  combination is pointless, given the Willy B might not have the capacity, and the  is already slated to have an increase during the shutdown. The 6 Av Local might also not have capacity given the current levels of service, which amount to 25 TPH. But yes, your  could be just the extra TPH the  is slated to receive, but just call them s. Sending them as s will only confuse riders. If the  is slated to receive a service increase, call them s. Not . 

Just send a few rush hour s to 179 St. Period. Just because the  ran express east of Forest Hills, the  went to 71 Av, and the  went to 179 St in the past does not mean this proposal will be feasible and/or justifiable. Don't make the proposed service patterns even more complex, because it'll only cause more congestion. 

Yes, we don’t need to go from a conga line to get in and out of 71st Ave to a really bad conga line at 179th St. 179th St is not Grand Central Terminal and we don’t need to treat it like it is. Maybe send a few ’s there, but even then, I’m concerned about the inevitable merging delays that will occur when a northbound  and  arrive at 71st at the same time (oh yes, that’s going to happen).

Meanwhile, the MTA don’t want to turn the extra  trains at Queens Plaza because they don’t want to delay through  trains or potentially leave crew members open to assault. That’s completely understandable. Unfortunately, it means the extra trains have to go out of service somewhere else that’s not near Court Square. That’s kind of why I understand Wally’s continuously-mentioned  / ( T ) proposal. Sending  all the way to 179th is completely ridiculous and unnecessary and will be rejected outright. Turning at the Queens Plaza pocket track is out to minimize delays and protect crews. Turning additional  trains at 71st will only make the delays getting there worse. What other option is there really?

As for just calling the extra 96th St-bound trains  (as opposed to ( T ) or another letter), wouldn’t that be more confusing? Especially for Queens- or East Midtown-bound riders who find themselves at 57th St-6th Ave or Lex/63rd?

Edited April 12, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Wallyhorse]

9 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

As for just calling the extra 96th St-bound trains  (as opposed to ( T ) or another letter), wouldn’t that be more confusing? Especially for Queens- or East Midtown-bound riders who find themselves at 57th St-6th Ave or Lex/63rd?

That is exactly why I use the ( T ) designation for trains to 96th/2nd, with such actually being the full-time line from Metropolitan Avenue while the  during the week remains unchanged.  The added bonus is UES riders get a one-seat option for 6th Avenue service.  I still would actually have started this as soon as the returned to Metropolitan well ahead of the shutdown.  

[T to Dyre Avenue]

Except there’s nowhere to turn the ( T ) trains now. Forget about turning them at 2nd Ave-Houston St, as that will delay  service (that was one other bonus for eliminating the  in favor of the ). There’s no need for the extra service to Metropolitan Ave while the  is still running between Brooklyn and Manhattan. Nor will there be any need for it once the reconstruction of the Canarsie tunnels is done. Hell, I’m not even sure if the flat junction at Myrtle-Broadway is going to be able to comfortably handle the additional  and  service they’re already planning to run through there during the shutdown.

Edited April 12, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[RR503]

1 hour ago, Wallyhorse said:

That is exactly why I use the ( T ) designation for trains to 96th/2nd, with such actually being the full-time line from Metropolitan Avenue while the  during the week remains unchanged.  The added bonus is UES riders get a one-seat option for 6th Avenue service.  I still would actually have started this as soon as the returned to Metropolitan well ahead of the shutdown.  

I just don't understand why, if the whole point of this exercise is to increase  service for the  shutdown, we'd want to reroute trains away from Court Square -- where a significant number of people will be transferring. Yes, you may have issues at Forest Hills, but with some more platform conductors to help things along, or sending just a handful of s to 179, the issue would become, well, a non-issue. And yes, you may get a merge delay with the , but given the low frequency of the extended , I don't think anyone at OP will lose sleep over them. 

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

If I were in OP, I’d be just as worried about the flat junction at Myrtle-Broadway, what with 13  tph, plus increased  service.

2

They're barely increasing  service. OP is worried about Myrtle junction though. There are definitely some strange service patterns are being thrown around...

[LGA Link N Train]

38 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I just don't understand why, if the whole point of this exercise is to increase  service for the  shutdown, we'd want to reroute trains away from Court Square -- where a significant number of people will be transferring. Yes, you may have issues at Forest Hills, but with some more platform conductors to help things along, or sending just a handful of s to 179, the issue would become, well, a non-issue. And yes, you may get a merge delay with the , but given the low frequency of the extended , I don't think anyone at OP will lose sleep over them. 

They're barely increasing  service. OP is worried about Myrtle junction though. There are definitely some strange service patterns are being thrown around...

I would say make some trains express so that they don't interact with the when it makes the curve but knowing they won't do that

[Wallyhorse]

58 minutes ago, LGA Link N train said:

I would say make some trains express so that they don't interact with the when it makes the curve but knowing they won't do that

What you would have to do is this:

AM Rush: express at Myrtle, local. 

PM Rush:  express, local.

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

I just don't understand why, if the whole point of this exercise is to increase  service for the  shutdown, we'd want to reroute trains away from Court Square -- where a significant number of people will be transferring. Yes, you may have issues at Forest Hills, but with some more platform conductors to help things along, or sending just a handful of s to 179, the issue would become, well, a non-issue. And yes, you may get a merge delay with the , but given the low frequency of the extended , I don't think anyone at OP will lose sleep over them. 

They're barely increasing  service. OP is worried about Myrtle junction though. There are definitely some strange service patterns are being thrown around...

Including keeping some Ms to Broadway Junction.

[RR503]

26 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Including keeping some Ms to Broadway Junction.

Yup! They'd maintain service to Wyckoff with put ins from FPY IIRC. 

[S78 via Hylan]

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

Including keeping some Ms to Broadway Junction.

 

52 minutes ago, RR503 said:

Yup! They'd maintain service to Wyckoff with put ins from FPY IIRC. 

I don’t agree with this. As the  will be the main alternative to the  during the shutdown, it’s not a good idea to reduce service to and from Metropolitan Ave.