Jump to content
Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.

1 Train South of Chambers Summer Outage Concern


MTR Admiralty

Recommended Posts

Not sure if this was posted before but I'm posting it here to inform you all:

 

According to the latest progress report (the 2009 4th Quarter Quarterly Report) issued forth by the Port Authority on the reconstruction efforts at Ground Zero on 2 April 2010, it intends NOT to have major subway outages during its time of work.

 

Originally the MTA was planning to shut down the (1) south of Chambers Street, effectively repeating the post-9/11 7th Avenue Line scene. A rumour on Subchat has a similar story: in that a (9) train will run to New Lots, while the (1) and (3) will run to 14th Street.

 

A recent collaboration intends to have weekend disruptions of service in lieu of the multi-week disruption that the MTA had in plan:

 

(from the Quarterly Report)

In addition to hitting several key milestones, the Port Authority also worked out a plan with the MTA that will relieve the significant subway outages the project once required. In the Port Authority’s October 2008 Report, we announced the need for a six-week long summer outage during 2010 in order to facilitate the permanent underpinning of the MTA's #1 Line Subway box. Since that announcement, the Port Authority and its construction manager – Tishman-Turner – have been working closely with its contractors and the MTA to develop a re-sequencing of the underpinning work in order to significantly reduce the outages required. As a result, the project will no longer require the original 6 week summer shutdown of the #1 Subway Line. Instead, the Port Authority and the MTA will use 53-hour weekend outages planned to coincide with the MTA's planned maintenance work for that line. The first outage occurred the weekend of March 27, 2010, and subsequent outages are planned for April 3 and April 10, with potential additional ones as needed to be coordinated with the MTA in the 3rd and 4th quarter of 2010. We also will be able to take advantage of certain night time outages.

 

The current underpinning was only temporary as construction crews had to dig beneath the 1 train tunnel box in order to have heavy equipment come in and out to excavate the East Bathtub, Tower 4 and the PATH terminal. Equipment must come down using the Greenwich Street ramp and then travel under the train tunnel in order to access the work sites. The permanent underpinning involves placing heavy columns for the future PATH terminal and any subgrade infrastructure that would connect the towers on the east side with the terminal, the memorial, the Freedom Tower and the tunnel to the World Financial Centre.

 

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/pdf/4Q2009_Report.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Maybe the (9) would come back in order to maintain two expresses on 7th Avenue. Since there is the (3) terminating at 14th Street blocking express trains from going further south, that would mean that the only express trains would have to run to 14th Street. That would be the only reason I could think of for bringing back the (9) .

Unfortunately, this wouldn't relieve the crowding south of 14th Street, since there would be 2 locals instead of 2 expresses and one local.

 

If they did decide to close down the line south of Chambers Street for the project, would this service pattern make sense?

(1) : 242nd Street to New Lots Avenue local

(2) : 241st Street to Flatbush Avenue express 96th Street-42nd Street local from 42nd Street to Chambers Street. (vs in 2001, when the (2) ran local the full length.

(3) : 148th Street to 14th Street.

 

Also, to alleviate the crowding on the 7th Avenue south of 14th Street, would it be possible to send the (3) down to Chambers Street? According to this track map: http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigdowntown.png , there is a switch from the southbound express track to the southbound local track. The (3) could switch onto the local track, discharge it passengers, and use the same switch to get back onto the southbound express track and then go onto the northbound express track.

Would that take off enough crowds from the locals south of 14th Street, since there will be an express option (the (2) and (9) or (1) and (2), whatever the MTA decides on) to make it worth the delays at the Chambers Street interlocking or not?

 

By the way, would they run shuttle buses from Chambers Street to South Ferry if they had chosen to close the line for the reconstruction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Rumors are rumors, I want proof that the (9) is coming back, Subchat is NOT a source even if a single t/a worker said it or not.

 

It doesnt make sence to bring the (9) back and cut the (1) to 14th with (3) and then have the (9) replace the (3) instead of letting the (3) run regular to 14th, (1) & (2) to Brooklyn.

 

Now unless the (9) is coming back for Broadway Skip-Stop Express then i guess its fine, but if its to cut the (1)(3) and let the (2)(9) head to kings instead of (1) heading to new lots then its plain stupid..

 

The (9) should be used to provide extra service due to interruptions in service, because there probrably will be more crowding with more tourist in the summer

 

 

So? You can just use the (1) for extra service, putting the (9) wont make a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Rumors are rumors, I want proof that the (9) is coming back, Subchat is NOT a source even if a single t/a worker said it or not.

 

It doesnt make sence to bring the (9) back and cut the (1) to 14th with (3) and then have the (9) replace the (3) instead of letting the (3) run regular to 14th, (1) & (2) to Brooklyn.

 

Now unless the (9) is coming back for Broadway Skip-Stop Express then i guess its fine, but if its to cut the (1)(3) and let the (2)(9) head to kings instead of (1) heading to new lots then its plain stupid..

 

 

 

 

So? You can just use the (1) for extra service, putting the (9) wont make a difference.

 

Thats true,theres no reason for a (9) to come back (if its true) they can just have extra (1) trains to New Lots. And I never even saw a point in the (1) going to SF,its only 2 stops,Rector and SF,the (R) is 1 block away from the (1),people can use the (R) instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys I don't see what the discussion about the (9) is all about. He's saying that there is NO need for a (9) and even provided a quote. There's no rumors involved here at all aside from the one he just debunked. The only shutdowns on the (1) line will be the continuation of the usual weekend work that's plagued the (1) line in recent years - no (1) trains under 14th or Chambers St., free shuttle buses provide alternate service. No (9) required at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why couldn't they just have the (1) run all the way to New Lots instead of having another line?

 

Ok Rumors are rumors, I want proof that the (9) is coming back, Subchat is NOT a source even if a single t/a worker said it or not.

 

It doesnt make sence to bring the (9) back and cut the (1) to 14th with (3) and then have the (9) replace the (3) instead of letting the (3) run regular to 14th, (1) & (2) to Brooklyn.

 

Now unless the (9) is coming back for Broadway Skip-Stop Express then i guess its fine, but if its to cut the (1)(3) and let the (2)(9) head to kings instead of (1) heading to new lots then its plain stupid..

 

 

 

 

So? You can just use the (1) for extra service, putting the (9) wont make a difference.

 

]Thats true' date='theres no reason for a (9) to come back (if its true) they can just have extra (1) trains to New Lots. And I never even saw a point in the (1) going to SF,its only 2 stops,Rector and SF,the (R) is 1 block away from the (1),people can use the (R) instead.[/b']

 

 

If this plan goes into action, there is a reason for all of this, and you can't have extra (1) trains because you'd have trains short turning and making last stops into different stations, plus this is where they finally get work done on the Cortlandt Street Station and along that area, where (1) train service wont be provided. They are increasing service because of what may happen soon.

 

From what it looks like, they may still continue with the constant shuttle bus G.Os instead of the major changes to hit Lower Manhattan. But we'll see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this plan goes into action, there is a reason for all of this, and you can't have extra (1) trains because you'd have trains short turning and making last stops into different stations, plus this is where they finally get work done on the Cortlandt Street Station and along that area, where (1) train service wont be provided. They are increasing service because of what may happen soon.

 

From what it looks like, they may still continue with the constant shuttle bus G.Os instead of the major changes to hit Lower Manhattan. But we'll see.

 

Yes, but where is the proof the (9) would come back

 

Also if the (1) were to cut from SF then how are people down there suppose to use alternative sevrice if the the (N) overnight service via Whitehall will be cut. Even tho (4)(5) can provide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plan right now is that when they start excavating, the ONLY time (1) train service will be impacted is during the weekend, instead of at all times for six straight weeks. They will run shuttle buses the entire weekend like they have already done multiple times before. The article is to show that they don't have to go through with such systemwide changes across the IRT to accomodate WTC construction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this plan goes into action, there is a reason for all of this, and you can't have extra (1) trains because you'd have trains short turning and making last stops into different stations, plus this is where they finally get work done on the Cortlandt Street Station and along that area, where (1) train service wont be provided. They are increasing service because of what may happen soon.

 

From what it looks like, they may still continue with the constant shuttle bus G.Os instead of the major changes to hit Lower Manhattan. But we'll see.

 

Yeesh this thread is a mess! But as a resident off the Rector station I'd much rather put up with weekend shuttle bus G.O.s than this alternative plan that's being discussed. I totally understand that station has to be brought back. That the WTC needs to be rebuilt but that whole thing with the (1) & (3) then all of a sudden there's the (9) from right field...get me some tylenol cuz I'd need a bottle of it just to make sense of this if they did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this was posted before but I'm posting it here to inform you all:

 

According to the latest progress report (the 2009 4th Quarter Quarterly Report) issued forth by the Port Authority on the reconstruction efforts at Ground Zero on 2 April 2010, it intends NOT to have major subway outages during its time of work.

 

Originally the MTA was planning to shut down the (1) south of Chambers Street, effectively repeating the post-9/11 7th Avenue Line scene. A rumour on Subchat has a similar story: in that a (9) train will run to New Lots, while the (1) and (3) will run to 14th Street.

 

A recent collaboration intends to have weekend disruptions of service in lieu of the multi-week disruption that the MTA had in plan:

 

(from the Quarterly Report)

 

 

The current underpinning was only temporary as construction crews had to dig beneath the 1 train tunnel box in order to have heavy equipment come in and out to excavate the East Bathtub, Tower 4 and the PATH terminal. Equipment must come down using the Greenwich Street ramp and then travel under the train tunnel in order to access the work sites. The permanent underpinning involves placing heavy columns for the future PATH terminal and any subgrade infrastructure that would connect the towers on the east side with the terminal, the memorial, the Freedom Tower and the tunnel to the World Financial Centre.

 

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/pdf/4Q2009_Report.pdf

I wonder why it took this long to figure it out.To me it seems like so much a better idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this was posted before but I'm posting it here to inform you all:

 

According to the latest progress report (the 2009 4th Quarter Quarterly Report) issued forth by the Port Authority on the reconstruction efforts at Ground Zero on 2 April 2010, it intends NOT to have major subway outages during its time of work.

 

Originally the MTA was planning to shut down the (1) south of Chambers Street, effectively repeating the post-9/11 7th Avenue Line scene. A rumour on Subchat has a similar story: in that a (9) train will run to New Lots, while the (1) and (3) will run to 14th Street.

 

A recent collaboration intends to have weekend disruptions of service in lieu of the multi-week disruption that the MTA had in plan:

 

(from the Quarterly Report)

 

 

The current underpinning was only temporary as construction crews had to dig beneath the 1 train tunnel box in order to have heavy equipment come in and out to excavate the East Bathtub, Tower 4 and the PATH terminal. Equipment must come down using the Greenwich Street ramp and then travel under the train tunnel in order to access the work sites. The permanent underpinning involves placing heavy columns for the future PATH terminal and any subgrade infrastructure that would connect the towers on the east side with the terminal, the memorial, the Freedom Tower and the tunnel to the World Financial Centre.

 

http://www.panynj.gov/wtcprogress/pdf/4Q2009_Report.pdf

 

Welcome back. I hate it when the West Side IRT is screwed up. The (2) scrapes the wall from Flatbush Avenue all the way to 241st.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but where is the proof the (9) would come back

 

Also if the (1) were to cut from SF then how are people down there suppose to use alternative sevrice if the the (N) overnight service via Whitehall will be cut. Even tho (4)(5) can provide.

 

What is with the constant request for proof? NOTHING is ever set in stone until its official....... and you answered your own question.

 

 

The plan right now is that when they start excavating, the ONLY time (1) train service will be impacted is during the weekend, instead of at all times for six straight weeks. They will run shuttle buses the entire weekend like they have already done multiple times before. The article is to show that they don't have to go through with such systemwide changes across the IRT to accomodate WTC construction.

 

I would think that the MTA would make a press release regarding this situation, but as always, both sides dont always give the full story until the day it may/may not actually happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand it. THE QUOTE SAYS THE (1) IS NOT GOING TO BROOKLYN!!!:mad: They're ONLY gonna have WEEKEND bustitutions...why is there such an argument?

As a result, the project will no longer require the original 6 week summer shutdown of the #1 Subway Line. Instead, the Port Authority and the MTA will use 53-hour weekend outages
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I guess I have to make a clear up statement:

Number 1: The MTA did in fact planned to have some contingency routing during the summer.

Number 2: However, as transport options are already being limited and that the summer season is well needed, the Port Authority has collaborated with the MTA to provide a new contingency plan, which would involve GOs instead of a several week shutdown period.

Number 3: Bustitutions, for this kind of work, is much more convenient. The shuttle buses simply ply a mile or so route up and down Lower Manhattan. However, the reroutes and everything will most likely not happen.

Number 4: The rumours posted on Subchat would mean the (2) would be local, and I am sure the (2) crews would not be happy. You also have to take into account the 96th Street interlocking. Signs would have to be updated in order to reflect the new changes. Bustitutions are more convenient because of this.

Number 5: The bustitution would generally mean that the (1) would terminate on the express tracks of 14th, the (2) running local, the (3) truncated to 42nd Street and the (4) extended to New Lots. That is how I see it. I don't want to spread rumours, because it is not from any source. It simply came from my head, so do not quote me on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Number 5: The bustitution would generally mean that the (1) would terminate on the express tracks of 14th, the (2) running local, the (3) truncated to 42nd Street and the (4) extended to New Lots. That is how I see it. I don't want to spread rumours, because it is not from any source.

Usually the (2)(3) run local south of 42 St and the (1) runs exp south of 42nd when the (1) to 14 GO is in effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Usually the (2)(3) run local south of 42 St and the (1) runs exp south of 42nd when the (1) to 14 GO is in effect.

 

There have been times when the the (1) has gone local to 14th Street. If you look at the track map ( http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigmidtown.png ), the (1) comes in on the southbound local track, terminates, then comes out to the northbound express track and onto the northbound local track.

I guess it provides less interference with the (2)(3) on the local, if the (1) has to wait for another (1) to pull out at 14th Street. It would be waiting on the express track instead of the local track, blocking (2) and (3) trains behind it.

 

So far on the reroutes I have been on, yes the (2)(3) train do run local.

 

I do agree that a bustitution is simpler than the planned 6 week-shutdown. Instead of designing a whole new map showing the (9) to New Lots Avenue and whatnot, it is simpler to simply put signs up every weekend on the IRT 7th Avenue Line saying that there will be bustituted service south of Chambers Street, the way it currently is set up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been times when the the (1) has gone local to 14th Street. If you look at the track map ( http://images.nycsubway.org/trackmap/bigmidtown.png ), the (1) comes in on the southbound local track, terminates, then comes out to the northbound express track and onto the northbound local track.

I guess it provides less interference with the (2)(3) on the local, if the (1) has to wait for another (1) to pull out at 14th Street. It would be waiting on the express track instead of the local track, blocking (2) and (3) trains behind it.

 

So far on the reroutes I have been on, yes the (2)(3) train do run local.

 

I do agree that a bustitution is simpler than the planned 6 week-shutdown. Instead of designing a whole new map showing the (9) to New Lots Avenue and whatnot, it is simpler to simply put signs up every weekend on the IRT 7th Avenue Line saying that there will be bustituted service south of Chambers Street, the way it currently is set up.

Don't forget aides at stations to inform what train is going where. The crew would be affected as well. Also station signs would have to be changed. All this is money. The FSTC project, with the recent A/C work, required a lot of staffing during rush hours to assist riders. There are also many new signs put up at that platform alone. They don't want deja vu with the Seventh Avenue Line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is with the constant request for proof? NOTHING is ever set in stone until its official....... and you answered your own question.

 

 

 

 

 

Yes there is a need for proof, becuz i wonder who would start saying that the (9) is coming back out of no where.. If no proof is in then someone made it up... And there for unofficial.

 

As for the (S) bus, i think thats a better solution then cutting service and making changes to the IRT West side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes there is a need for proof, becuz i wonder who would start saying that the (9) is coming back out of no where.. If no proof is in then someone made it up... And there for unofficial.

 

As for the (S) bus, i think thats a better solution then cutting service and making changes to the IRT West side.

It might have been thought up by the planning team because the PA did in fact spoke with the MTA. But any details of the contingencies the MTA thought up before the PA came over are unknown to public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.