Jump to content

L Train Service Between Brooklyn & Manhattan May Be Shut Down For Years


RollOver

Recommended Posts

lol... The (MTA) is funny... They've been pushing people to the subway and now they're going to leave them with absolute crappy options once this porject starts.  This is why I'm glad I don't have to rely on the subway.  The facts are the subways are becoming LESS reliable, more overcrowded than ever and everyone is being packed in like rats with no real solutions in sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 532
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Yes, J and M service would have to increase.....in particular, the M, since I reckon lots of people will transfer at Myrtle-Wyckoff. You'll have people backtracking taking a Canarsie-bound L to get to the M.

 

I personally would have split M service--one going to Continental and the other going to Broad Street--in order to maintain increased TPH without disrupting 6th Av.

 

 

I would increase the M rather than the J--have the extra M trains turn at Broad st, like the brown M of old. 

That's what I was thinking. (M) service might be able to be doubled in Brooklyn, but would run into big problems anywhere on the busy IND lines.

I think this work is supposed to be after the major shutdown of the (M), so at that point, I would make CTL-2nd Ave. the (V) again, and when that was finished, extend the (V) to Metropolitan (the original idea for today's service, in fact), and M would be the weekend service, extended permanently to Chambers. So when the (L) shuts down, the (V) and M would run at the same time on weekdays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The G runs 13 trains in the morning rush, and there are 13 sets of A-A R46s currently, no? You'd have to do some wonky stopping stuff to avoid making the old signs for passengers redundant and stick a 2-car set onto a 4-car stuff, but it's not physically impossible. Equipment-wise, the Rockaway shuttle is already often comprised of 4-car sets of R46s, and the A-A pairs on the A could easily be moved. By the looks of it, most G stations still have boards labeled 8-car stop and "4-car R46" C/R boards hanging. 

A 0% spare factor is functionally impossible to operate with. 

 

Furthermore, I would be incredibly surprised if the number of G trains does not rise too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 3 year plan would be best for those people in Williamsburg that want to complain. The (L) would terminate at Bedford Av, then at that station, a special 14 St (S) would operate between 8 Av and Bedford Av. Is this the best plan? No. But it can keep those straphangers that want to complain some service to work with. Another thing that could happen is extending the (M), as mentioned here. If 2 Av opens in time, 96 St MIGHT be a possible terminal for the (M) believe it or not. if not, the (M) extends to the QBL and can go to Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. If none of these solutions could work, then the absolute best thing to do at this point is switch up the (M) and (F) lines between Rockefeller and Jackson Heights, even though there may be some complaints about some riders losing express service on 63rd st. This switch up could give 24/7 service on the (M) between Forest hills and Middle Village. I believe the 63rd/53rd switch up would be the best option because 1. There would be a lot less confusion with riders using the line, 2. If there ever is a weekend go on QBL, the (M) would be impacted minimally and could just terminate at 21 st and still give Williamsburg riders the service they need.

I wonder how the MTA will solve this one, because it's not the (R), where you can easily split a line or reroute it temporary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 3 year plan would be best for those people in Williamsburg that want to complain. The (L) would terminate at Bedford Av, then at that station, a special 14 St (S) would operate between 8 Av and Bedford Av. Is this the best plan? No. But it can keep those straphangers that want to complain some service to work with. Another thing that could happen is extending the (M), as mentioned here. If 2 Av opens in time, 96 St MIGHT be a possible terminal for the (M) believe it or not. if not, the (M) extends to the QBL and can go to Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. If none of these solutions could work, then the absolute best thing to do at this point is switch up the (M) and (F) lines between Rockefeller and Jackson Heights, even though there may be some complaints about some riders losing express service on 63rd st. This switch up could give 24/7 service on the (M) between Forest hills and Middle Village. I believe the 63rd/53rd switch up would be the best option because 1. There would be a lot less confusion with riders using the line, 2. If there ever is a weekend go on QBL, the (M) would be impacted minimally and could just terminate at 21 st and still give Williamsburg riders the service they need.

I wonder how the MTA will solve this one, because it's not the (R), where you can easily split a line or reroute it temporary.

I honestly think it's ridiculous that they're saying NOW after ALL of the SHUTDOWNS that have occurred on the (L) over a series of years, that NOW they have to do this work.  I have friends that live along the (L) and I don't understand for the life of me why this work wasn't considered when they were running the (L) in sections for so long?  Going back almost 10 years now, I can remember the (L) being a line of patchwork and how much of a PITA it was to commute with the (L), so yes, considering what they've been through, they should be complaining.  Now of course the (MTA) isn't responsible for Sandy, but at the same time, they knew about this AFTER Sandy, so why wait almost 4 years later instead of putting this out there so that the best option could be chosen earlier??  Another example of TERRIBLE planning by the (MTA).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the 3 year plan would be best for those people in Williamsburg that want to complain. The (L) would terminate at Bedford Av, then at that station, a special 14 St (S) would operate between 8 Av and Bedford Av. Is this the best plan? No. But it can keep those straphangers that want to complain some service to work with. Another thing that could happen is extending the (M), as mentioned here. If 2 Av opens in time, 96 St MIGHT be a possible terminal for the (M) believe it or not. if not, the (M) extends to the QBL and can go to Queens Plaza or Forest Hills. If none of these solutions could work, then the absolute best thing to do at this point is switch up the (M) and (F) lines between Rockefeller and Jackson Heights, even though there may be some complaints about some riders losing express service on 63rd st. This switch up could give 24/7 service on the (M) between Forest hills and Middle Village. I believe the 63rd/53rd switch up would be the best option because 1. There would be a lot less confusion with riders using the line, 2. If there ever is a weekend go on QBL, the (M) would be impacted minimally and could just terminate at 21 st and still give Williamsburg riders the service they need.

I wonder how the MTA will solve this one, because it's not the (R), where you can easily split a line or reroute it temporary.

Interesting...

 

But personally I would have no service in Manhattan along 14th st....they should use the opportunity to build the station exits and possibly improvements to the 8th Av terminal, like some tail tracks.

 

There should be station exits/entrances at Avenue A and at 2nd Av built. 

 

 

Switching the M and F might actually be a brilliant idea--(M via 63rd and F via 53rd)

 

But I think a simple partial solution would be sending the (G) back to Queens......think about it--the transfer at Queens Plaza could justify this.

 

179th would have to see action--terminate all the locals there since Continental can't handle them.

 

So in short, G back to QB, brown M to Broad st, M train (Or V train or whatever letter) via 63rd QB local. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly think it's ridiculous that they're saying NOW after ALL of the SHUTDOWNS that have occurred on the (L) over a series of years, that NOW they have to do this work.  I have friends that live along the (L) and I don't understand for the life of me why this work wasn't considered when they were running the (L) in sections for so long?  Going back almost 10 years now, I can remember the (L) being a line of patchwork and how much of a PITA it was to commute with the (L), so yes, considering what they've been through, they should be complaining.  Now of course the (MTA) isn't responsible for Sandy, but at the same time, they knew about this AFTER Sandy, so why wait almost 4 years later instead of putting this out there so that the best option could be chosen earlier??  Another example of TERRIBLE planning by the (MTA).

What would have change if a plan was chosen earlier? The task is the task even worst would have been if (L) service was never restored after Sandy! As for the shutdown's the line was updated to CBTC over the last 10 years you know that (7) riders are about to feel that this year. In fact the reason the line was back up and running as fast was because the new  equipment wasn't as susceptible to salt water. How would you handle this issue? Your the  (MTA) now!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would have change if a plan was chosen earlier? The task is the task even worst would have been if (L) service was never restored after Sandy! As for the shutdown's the line was updated to CBTC over the last 10 years you know that (7) riders are about to feel that this year. In fact the reason the line was back up and running as fast was because the new  equipment wasn't as susceptible to salt water. How would you handle this issue? Your the  (MTA) now!?

I didn't say anything about choosing a plan earlier.  I said getting this out earlier so that there was more time to discuss a plan.  Two very different things... Since this will affect several communities, it makes sense to have a dialogue with said communities and then come to consensus on what works best.  Unfortunately now they don't have much time to discuss anything with the communities and will just go with what they feel best works for the (MTA), which is rather arrogant considering the fact that they knew for at least a few years now that this work would eventually have to be done, so why wait until now to mention this to the public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't say anything about choosing a plan earlier.  I said getting this out earlier so that there was more time to discuss a plan.  Two very different things... Since this will affect several communities, it makes sense to have a dialogue with said communities and then come to consensus on what works best.  Unfortunately now they don't have much time to discuss anything with the communities and will just go with what they feel best works for the (MTA), which is rather arrogant considering the fact that they knew for at least a few years now that this work would eventually have to be done, so why wait until now to mention this to the public?

I agree they should start a dialogue without a doubt. Wasn't the plan made public last year along with the bid? Also this isn't happening for at least a year and half is that not time enough to get a plan together? I could see if this was 6 months out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree they should start a dialogue without a doubt. Wasn't the plan made public last year along with the bid? Also this isn't happening for at least a year and half is that not time enough to get a plan together? I could see if this was 6 months out.

Perhaps it could be, but I would be curious to see what sort of meetings the (MTA) is planning with community boards on this issue, or are they just going to decide on their own?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting...

 

But personally I would have no service in Manhattan along 14th st....they should use the opportunity to build the station exits and possibly improvements to the 8th Av terminal, like some tail tracks.

 

There should be station exits/entrances at Avenue A and at 2nd Av built.

 

 

Switching the M and F might actually be a brilliant idea--(M via 63rd and F via 53rd)

 

But I think a simple partial solution would be sending the (G) back to Queens......think about it--the transfer at Queens Plaza could justify this.

 

179th would have to see action--terminate all the locals there since Continental can't handle them.

 

So in short, G back to QB, brown M to Broad st, M train (Or V train or whatever letter) via 63rd QB local.

We already know the deal with Jamaica and all that. A (G) extension is highly unlikely, although it is beneficial for it to return to QBL. If the TA desides to do the (F) and (M) swap, riders using Court Sq and the QBL local are forced to use 3+ transfers.

The 14 St shuttle I could see possibly happening, likely using one track between Union Sq and Brooklyn. But it may be wise to close that section of for rehabilitation. If that happens, there should at least be a form of nonstop shuttle bus between Marcy Av and Bedford Av.

Hell, the shuttle bus can even be a B39 extension with free transfers to the (J)(M)(Z) and the M14 bus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already know the deal with Jamaica and all that. A (G) extension is highly unlikely, although it is beneficial for it to return to QBL. If the TA desides to do the (F) and (M) swap, riders using Court Sq and the QBL local are forced to use 3+ transfers.

The 14 St shuttle I could see possibly happening, likely using one track between Union Sq and Brooklyn. But it may be wise to close that section of for rehabilitation. If that happens, there should at least be a form of nonstop shuttle bus between Marcy Av and Bedford Av.

Hell, the shuttle bus can even be a B39 extension with free transfers to the (J)(M)(Z) and the M14 bus.

 

We know the deal, but that deal needs to change....

 

I don't see the 3+ transfers....can you explain that?

 

At Court Sq, you'd have the E and F, like old times. At QP, the R and G. The M would join at 36th st as a local. So yes, there'd be three locals and would all terminate at 179th since Continental can't handle them. 

 

Bottom line, if the L is cut off from Manhattan, people will take the G--lots more people. Might as well give them an option other than Court Square--it's already packed as it is. Conditions might become dangerous....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know the deal, but that deal needs to change....

 

I don't see the 3+ transfers....can you explain that?

If the (M) goes to 63rd St, there will be no local at Court Sq. If there is no (G) extension, riders from the crosstown using the QBL local would have to take the (E)(F) to the plaza, the heights, or the hills and take another transfer to the (M)(R). That's what I mean with the 3+ transfers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally believe that the best option here is to hopefully hinge on the SAS being operational to some degree. If they can at least get signals installed on time, they can turn trains at 72nd St so that Forest Hills won't be flooded by an increase in (M) service.

This is where not having that third track at 72nd for short-turns bites the (MTA).

 

What could be done there since 57th/6th would not really be viable as an (M) terminal on weekends and CBTC work may prevent the (M) from going on QB (whether to 179 or 71-Continental) on weekends is this: 

 

Create a new "Orange (T) " that would on weekdays be a supplement to the (M) that runs as many trains per hour that can fit onto the 6th Avenue local tracks.  While on weekdays the (M) would run its normal route as usual on Queens Boulevard, this new "Orange (T) " would be a 24/7 line, going from Metropolitan Avenue to 96th/2nd in addition to the (Q) (as this work won't start until likely after the SAS officially opens) and replace the (M) as the full-time weekend/late night line along Broadway-Brooklyn.

 

That to me might be the work-around for the lack of (L) service to Manhattan that at least takes some pressure off other lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm like others have said previously in this post, this overhaul of the Canarsie tubes is just going to be just dreadful. 

 

Just some thoughts on what I've read so far;

 

1. Although a (G) extension would definitely prove beneficial, I doubt the MTA is going to extend it any further than Court Square. It just doesn't have a sufficient number of train sets with only 52 R68A's running during the AM Rush Hour... unless they can bump up the number of cars to around 72 (AM Rush Hour Fleet in 2000 when service ran between 71 Av and Smith-9 Sts) or higher, but that'll most likely require cars from other lines and I'm not sure if there's flexibility for that.

 

2. An (F) and (M) line swap between 53 & 63 Sts sounds... interesting, but I'm not sure if that'll actually work. The (F) was removed from 53 St to redistribute passenger loads by offering a local alternative along 53 St to relieve (E) & Queens Blvd Express crowding, but as a frequent rider at the Lexington Av-53 St station, everyone jams onto the (E) because it's an express service which leave a considerably less crowded (M) so a swap may actually work out... if the MTA is willing to make the (M) more than a weekday supplemental service. It would be nice to see the MTA test the waters with this idea. 

 

3. Keeping 1 tube open on the (L) doesn't sound that appealing in my opinion. That'll limit the number tph (trains per hour) between Bedford Av and 1 Av leaving a less frequent and highly overcrowded Shuttle service. If a Shuttle service is slated then it should run exclusively in Manhattan. The MTA should just shut down both Canarsie tubes. Kind of like killing two birds with one stone kind of deal.

 

4. The MTA should provide a free transfer between Broadway (G) and Lorimer St (J)(M) while the tubes are in repair. I know the MTA isn't interested in making this a permanent transfer but in instances like in 1999 when the Williamsburg Bridge was closed and when the (G) was cut off north of Nassau Street in the summer of 2014 a transfer was offered and said transfer should be offered until (L) is back to normal.

 

5. I think (L) riders shouldn't be encouraged to transfer at Court Sq because of crowding issues.

 

6. (G)(J)(Z) services would need some considerable bumping up, I'm just not sure whats going to happen with the (M) because of capacity issues on Queens Blvd. Possibly an (M) branch to Chambers St would do some justice. Broad St is too over loaded during rush hours with too many trains turning around leaving my 8am train stuck in a tunnel every morning between Fulton and Broad Street in the morning for 2-5 mins.

 

7. Personally the riders should be encouraged to follow these commutes;

 

-Midtown and 14 St customers should transfer at Myrtle-Wyckoff for the (M) as it provides a direct connection to 14 St and a 14 St Shuttle if one is slated to run.

 

-Lower Manhattan should connect to the (G) at Lorimer St/Metropolitan Av and transfer at Broadway to connect to the (J) at Lorimer St (Peak Direction Rush Hour commuters  (M) to Marcy Av for  (J)).

 

8. Lastly I know I'm no expert, but I think these are practical scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the (M) goes to 63rd St, there will be no local at Court Sq. If there is no (G) extension, riders from the crosstown using the QBL local would have to take the (E)(F) to the plaza, the heights, or the hills and take another transfer to the (M)(R). That's what I mean with the 3+ transfers.

 

I am saying that the G extension should be done in conjunction with the swap....this setup worked fine for a very long time. Back in the day, when I needed the local, I simply got off at Queens Plaza and waited for the G or R train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm like others have said previously in this post, this overhaul of the Canarsie tubes is just going to be just dreadful. 

 

Just some thoughts on what I've read so far;

 

1. Although a (G) extension would definitely prove beneficial, I doubt the MTA is going to extend it any further than Court Square. It just doesn't have a sufficient number of train sets with only 52 R68A's running during the AM Rush Hour... unless they can bump up the number of cars to around 72 (AM Rush Hour Fleet in 2000 when service ran between 71 Av and Smith-9 Sts) or higher, but that'll most likely require cars from other lines and I'm not sure if there's flexibility for that.

 

2. An (F) and (M) line swap between 53 & 63 Sts sounds... interesting, but I'm not sure if that'll actually work. The (F) was removed from 53 St to redistribute passenger loads by offering a local alternative along 53 St to relieve (E) & Queens Blvd Express crowding, but as a frequent rider at the Lexington Av-53 St station, everyone jams onto the (E) because it's an express service which leave a considerably less crowded (M) so a swap may actually work out... if the MTA is willing to make the (M) more than a weekday supplemental service. It would be nice to see the MTA test the waters with this idea. 

 

3. Keeping 1 tube open on the (L) doesn't sound that appealing in my opinion. That'll limit the number tph (trains per hour) between Bedford Av and 1 Av leaving a less frequent and highly overcrowded Shuttle service. If a Shuttle service is slated then it should run exclusively in Manhattan. The MTA should just shut down both Canarsie tubes. Kind of like killing two birds with one stone kind of deal.

 

4. The MTA should provide a free transfer between Broadway (G) and Lorimer St (J)(M) while the tubes are in repair. I know the MTA isn't interested in making this a permanent transfer but in instances like in 1999 when the Williamsburg Bridge was closed and when the (G) was cut off north of Nassau Street in the summer of 2014 a transfer was offered and said transfer should be offered until (L) is back to normal.

 

5. I think (L) riders shouldn't be encouraged to transfer at Court Sq because of crowding issues.

 

6. (G)(J)(Z) services would need some considerable bumping up, I'm just not sure whats going to happen with the (M) because of capacity issues on Queens Blvd. Possibly an (M) branch to Chambers St would do some justice. Broad St is too over loaded during rush hours with too many trains turning around leaving my 8am train stuck in a tunnel every morning between Fulton and Broad Street in the morning for 2-5 mins.

 

7. Personally the riders should be encouraged to follow these commutes;

 

-Midtown and 14 St customers should transfer at Myrtle-Wyckoff for the (M) as it provides a direct connection to 14 St and a 14 St Shuttle if one is slated to run.

 

-Lower Manhattan should connect to the (G) at Lorimer St/Metropolitan Av and transfer at Broadway to connect to the (J) at Lorimer St (Peak Direction Rush Hour commuters  (M) to Marcy Av for  (J)).

 

8. Lastly I know I'm no expert, but I think these are practical scenarios. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

1. Fair enough, but I personally think it will be a disaster if they don't.

If the G terminates at Court Square, they'll get off at Court Square. Can that station handle the extra passengers? It's crowded enough as it is.

 

This will mean more delays and screw up QB further,and delay the M train, sending ripple effects back to Williamsburg and Bushwick. 

 

2. You nailed it....I ride into 53rd st as well, and TBH, it might be the same or even worse than when the F came through. It amazes me---they touted this 63rd st tunnel like it was going to solve the issues on the express track, but I really don't see much difference. Then the MTA creates this M/V train that interferes with BOTH express trains, rather than creating a bypass line. 

 

3. Agreed. They need to take the time to add more entrances to stations and fix 8th avenue.....

 

4. No doubt. 

 

5. Yup. but this goes back to #1-- if that's where the G terminates, then that's where they'll go. If you get into Queens Plaza with and E, F and R trains there, many will transfer there and you'll have more even distribution of passengers.

 

You might have to do something where peak direction G trains SKIP Court Square--sounds extreme, but I don't want to see people getting killed or injured--the crowding situation is really bad there.....

 

6. No doubt--two branches of M trains.

 

7. Fair. 

 

8. Practical, yes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: transfer (G) to (J)(M) at Lorimer:

Call me crazy, but I think this could be an alternative scenario similar to that of PATHs with Sandy's closure of Hoboken Terminal which meant beefed up 126 buses

 

I was thinking the same could be done with beefed up B39 service to Delancey St/Essex St If there was a connection to the M15 SBS. That way there could be a way back to the (L) train along 1st/3rd Ave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re: transfer (G) to (J)(M) at Lorimer:

Call me crazy, but I think this could be an alternative scenario similar to that of PATHs with Sandy's closure of Hoboken Terminal which meant beefed up 126 buses

 

I was thinking the same could be done with beefed up B39 service to Delancey St/Essex St If there was a connection to the M15 SBS. That way there could be a way back to the (L) train along 1st/3rd Ave

lol... The (MTA) doesn't want any beefed up B39 service. Would be funny though if they did it.

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.