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.
Sign in to follow this  
Union Tpke

Fixing the L Train and Managing the Shutdown A Community Consensus Proposal

Recommended Posts

Here is the report.

 

There are some things that I like:

  • ​They propose a free transfer between Broadway on the G and Hewes on the J M.
  • They suggest that closed entrance be reopened.

What I don't like:

  • The implementation of platform screen doors.
  • Widening the Union Square platform. I am not sure if it could be done in 18 months, it would be really expensive.
  • It suggested having M trains turn at 21st–Queensbridge. That is so dumb. F trains run frequently, every 4 minutes during peak hours. The F has a long route and is prone to delays. It already merges with the E, M and G. Another merge would make it worse. Fumigating at 21st Street would delay service. You can't really increase M service. The limit on Sixth Avenue is 25 TPH. The F has 15, and the M can only be increased by one TPH.
  • They also want to increase A and C service. The Cranberry Tubes are maxed out at 26 TPH. These people don't know what they are talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the Cranberry tubes run 30TPH when the (E) was going to Brooklyn?

 

Also, PSDs on the (L) are fine since the (L) basically only runs NTTs now, all of which have the same basic door configuration. That and the (7) are basically the only lines where PSD installation is actually feasible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report has good recommendations--much of which have been spoken about in the forums here at one time or the other.

 

I like the idea of having the LIRR absorb passengers, but it won't be enough to make room for the L passengers.

 

I like the idea of bus lanes and SBS routes and ferries, but they won't be enough.

 

Ultimately, most of the burden would fall on the G and J/M lines....in an ideal world I would have Hewes and Lorimer Sts demolished and build a new station at Union Av physically connecting the lines and do this before the L train shutdown.

 

You double M service--have a brown M going to Chambers and the other to 71st st. You have extra G train service from Court Sq to Bedford Nostrand.

 

If these things are done, 80-85% of this issue would be solved without anything else done. It'll take the subway to solve the problem left by the subway....the other modes of transportation are simply inferior here.

 

How long would it take to build a new elevated station? Would the cost of building one outweigh all the money spent on alternatives?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts:

The idea of building a new (J)(M)(Z) station at Union Avenue that can essentially replace TWO other stations (Hewes and Lorimer) with a full-time transfer to the (G).) has been suggested before and as long as there are entrances near where both current stations are it would work.

As noted before with the (M), actually beginning as soon as (M) service resumes on Metropolitan after THAT section shutdown in 2018 (and well ahead of the January 2019 (L) shutdown), I would split the (M) into (M) and (T) as follows:

Weekdays: (M) runs as it does now to 71-Continental, (T) runs usually 5 TPH between Metropolitan and 96th Street-2nd Avenue as a supplement to the (M) along Broadway-Brooklyn and 6th Avenue

Late Nights and Weekends: (T) becomes the 24/7 line, running 3 TPH late nights and 6-9 TPH weekend days between Metropolitan and 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

 

This has the side benefit of giving SAS riders 6th Avenue service as well as doubling service along the SAS late nights and weekends in the one part of Manhattan that likely needs such.  

 

As for reviving the Brown (M), what I would do there (provided there is enough capacity) is perhaps create a Brown (K) that would run with the (L) between Canarsie and Atlantic Avenue, then run via the flyover and Broadway-Brooklyn line to at least Broad Street with (J).  Otherwise, splitting the (M) into (M) and (T) services would take priority. 
 

Edited by Wallyhorse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a new Union Avenue station. It should be 615 feet to accommodate 10 car trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You double M service--have a brown M going to Chambers and the other to 71st st. You have extra G train service from Court Sq to Bedford Nostrand.

I've said to phase this in by making the CTL-BWJ service (during the  (L) shutdown) the  (V), which would then take the current  (M) alignment when that work is finished, and then  (brownM) would resume the Nassau alignment, so both could then run at the same time, and when the (L) work finished, they could run at different times (V) weekdays,  (brownM) weekends).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only way I see this working is this , Start some (J)   service from Myrtle-broadway since the bulk of the people will be at Marcy and Essex delancey Start some (M) at Marcy stop so it can accommodate rush hour crowds at Marcy and delancey. Run (J)(Z)(M) trains on a 3-4 minute frequency between Myrtle and Manhattan anyone agree with this ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said to phase this in by making the CTL-BWJ service (during the  (L) shutdown) the  (V), which would then take the current  (M) alignment when that work is finished, and then  (brownM) would resume the Nassau alignment, so both could then run at the same time, and when the (L) work finished, they could run at different times (V) weekdays,  (brownM) weekends).

Brilliant. That takes care of the squabble over letter assignments and doesn’t overload letters with double-meanings over the course of a week while providing the necessary service boost that functionally substitutes for the (L).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts:

 

The idea of building a new JMZ station at Union Avenue that can essentially replace TWO other stations (Hewes and Lorimer) with a full-time transfer to the G.) has been suggested before and as long as there are entrances near where both current stations are it would work.

 

As noted before with the M, actually beginning as soon as M service resumes on Metropolitan after THAT section shutdown in 2018 (and well ahead of the January 2019  L shutdown), I would split the M into M and T as follows:

 

Weekdays: M runs as it does now to 71-Continental, T runs usually 5 TPH between Metropolitan and 96th Street-2nd Avenue as a supplement to the M along Broadway-Brooklyn and 6th Avenue

 

Late Nights and Weekends: T becomes the 24/7 line, running 3 TPH late nights and 6-9 TPH weekend days between Metropolitan and 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

 

This has the side benefit of giving SAS riders 6th Avenue service as well as doubling service along the SAS late nights and weekends in the one part of Manhattan that likely needs such.  

 

As for reviving the Brown M, what I would do there (provided there is enough capacity) is perhaps create a Brown K that would run with the L between Canarsie and Atlantic Avenue, then run via the flyover and Broadway-Brooklyn line to at least Broad Street with J.  Otherwise, splitting the M into M and T services would take priority. 

 

the main thing problem about your proposal is adding in a low-frequency line, something that commuters will not trust. While ignoring the fact that 6th Av can't handle anything more, you can't really give "6th Av service to SAS", when you're only giving it a train every 15 minutes. Also 6th Av is close to Broadway most of the time, so people would def opt for the frequent (Q) in most situations. 

Moreover, you're also saying that the T will have more service over weekends than rush hours, which wouldn't be logical either...

 

and finally about your brown (K), who is going to use this line? Canarsies are probably going to take the (L) for anything above 14th St, and the (A) for Downtown lol. just saying.

 

simply I think the most that could be done is the reinstation of the M to Downtown, maybe called the brown (S) or smth that runs to Broad St. Make Canal St a more attractive transfer option I guess. Even this is a generous change i'd say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the main thing problem about your proposal is adding in a low-frequency line, something that commuters will not trust. While ignoring the fact that 6th Av can't handle anything more, you can't really give "6th Av service to SAS", when you're only giving it a train every 15 minutes. Also 6th Av is close to Broadway most of the time, so people would def opt for the frequent (Q) in most situations. 

Moreover, you're also saying that the T will have more service over weekends than rush hours, which wouldn't be logical either...

 

and finally about your brown (K), who is going to use this line? Canarsies are probably going to take the (L) for anything above 14th St, and the (A) for Downtown lol. just saying.

 

simply I think the most that could be done is the reinstation of the M to Downtown, maybe called the brown (S) or smth that runs to Broad St. Make Canal St a more attractive transfer option I guess. Even this is a generous change i'd say.

The problem is, (M) service is going to have to be increased one way or the other during the (L) shutdown. 

 

Unless you were to extend the (G)(M) and (R) all to 179, you have a potential recipe for disaster at Court Square and because of already-known issues with 71-Continental and QB in general, it's difficult to add any additional QB service, especially since one problem at Queens Plaza if you try to terminate any (M) trains there and you could have a major backup on the (E)

 

The (T) I propose for this would be mainly to supplement the (M) on weekdays, but it would also be a 24/7 line that actually would have more service on weekends than during the week (when on weekends it would replace the (M) entirely) running to 96th Street and 2nd Avenue.  96th and 2nd just happens to be the easiest place to terminate this particular line, it's mainly a bonus for those on the SAS for whom the Broadway line is the main line.  The main idea was for the (L) shutdown but if it helps supplement other things long-term, then it's worth starting as soon as the (M) returns to its main route to get people used to it before the (L) shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for reviving the Brown (M), what I would do there (provided there is enough capacity) is perhaps create a Brown (K) that would run with the (L) between Canarsie and Atlantic Avenue, then run via the flyover and Broadway-Brooklyn line to at least Broad Street with (J).

 

 

So, you have the 75px-NYCS-bull-trans-K-NSE_svg.png for this service.

 

I've said to phase this in by making the CTL-BWJ service (during the  (L) shutdown) the  (V), which would then take the current  (M) alignment when that work is finished, and then  (brownM) would resume the Nassau alignment, so both could then run at the same time, and when the (L) work finished, they could run at different times (V) weekdays,  (brownM) weekends).

 

And the (brownM) and (V) for these services.

 

Funny, when taken out of the context of the (L) shutdown, most people scoffed at the prospect of the (M) ever being split into the (brownM) and (V) again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Funny, when taken out of the context of the (L) shutdown, most people scoffed at the prospect of the (M) ever being split into the (brownM) and (V) again.

Still, considering the Canarsie shutdown, it won't be split. The (M) will be vital during the (L) shutdown because most (L) riders will be either transferring to it at Myrtle-Wyckoff or indirectly via the (G) at Lorimer St and transfering to the (M) at Court Square or Lorimer Street (at Broadway).

 

In fact, the (MTA) has already made it clear in community meetings that the (M) will run 24/7 between Metropolitan Av and Midtown (the only question is where it will terminate on the northern end; 96 St and Forest Hills are among the terminals under consideration.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(M) to Forest Hills on weekdays and to 96 St on weekends and late nights 

Or as I would do it, a split of (M) and (T) with the (M) operating as it does now to 71-Continental and the (T) operating 24/7 to 96th-2nd Avenue (the (T) in this would be overflow (M) trains on weekdays at 5 TPH while when its the line from Metropolitan late nights would be 3 TPH and weekends would be 6-9 TPH as needed).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for reviving the Brown (M), what I would do there (provided there is enough capacity) is perhaps create a Brown (K) that would run with the (L) between Canarsie and Atlantic Avenue, then run via the flyover and Broadway-Brooklyn line to at least Broad Street with (J).  Otherwise, splitting the (M) into (M) and (T) services would take priority.

 

Honestly I see the Brown K benefitting very few people. And you certainly wouldn't be able to run it in addition to your proposed M/T service. There simply isn't enough track capacity on the Broadway el for all that service. It would benefit far more (L) riders in Canarsie and East New York to run a direct service from Canarsie to Midtown Manhattan. Maybe bring back the (V) for this specific service and run it in addition to the (M) so displaced riders from all reaches of the (L) can have easier access to Manhattan from 14th St on up. No need to reinstate the old (brownM).
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the report.

 

There are some things that I like:

 

  • ​They propose a free transfer between Broadway on the G and Hewes on the J M.
  • They suggest that closed entrance be reopened.
What I don't like:

  • The implementation of platform screen doors.
  • Widening the Union Square platform. I am not sure if it could be done in 18 months, it would be really expensive.
  • It suggested having M trains turn at 21st–Queensbridge. That is so dumb. F trains run frequently, every 4 minutes during peak hours. The F has a long route and is prone to delays. It already merges with the E, M and G. Another merge would make it worse. Fumigating at 21st Street would delay service. You can't really increase M service. The limit on Sixth Avenue is 25 TPH. The F has 15, and the M can only be increased by one TPH.
  • They also want to increase A and C service. The Cranberry Tubes are maxed out at 26 TPH. These people don't know what they are talking about.
Agree about the RPA's (A) / (C) and (M) suggestions. The (A) and (C) merging at both Canal and Hoyt/Schermerhorn put a limit on how many trains can run through Cranberry and on either line. As for the (M), yes, turning trains at 21st/Queensbridge is completely ridiculous. That would delay the much more frequent (F) train in both directions. It would make far better sense to turn the extra (M) trains at Queens Plaza on the middle track just east of the station. At least then, there would be more service available on the much busier 53rd St Corridor and at 23rd St/Court Sq, where there will be lots of displaced (L) riders arriving via the (G).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree about the RPA's (A) / (C) and (M) suggestions. The (A) and (C) merging at both Canal and Hoyt/Schermerhorn put a limit on how many trains can run through Cranberry and on either line. As for the (M), yes, turning trains at 21st/Queensbridge is completely ridiculous. That would delay the much more frequent (F) train in both directions. It would make far better sense to turn the extra (M) trains at Queens Plaza on the middle track just east of the station. At least then, there would be more service available on the much busier 53rd St Corridor and at 23rd St/Court Sq, where there will be lots of displaced (L) riders arriving via the (G).

The (M) fumigating at Queens Plaza would delay the (E) train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but if the (M) turned at 21st/Queensbridge, it would delay the (F). In fact, that would be worse because there are only the two through tracks at that station.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but if the (M) turned at 21st/Queensbridge, it would delay the (F). In fact, that would be worse because there are only the two through tracks at that station.

Queensbridge being a bad terminal does not make Queens Plaza a good terminal. The (M) should be sent to 96th Street if the intent is to not cause heavy delays on existing service.

Edited by P3F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queensbridge being a bad terminal does not make Queens Plaza a good terminal. The (M) should be sent to 96th Street if the intent is to not cause heavy delays on existing service.

I didn't say Queens Plaza was a good terminal. I said Queensbridge would be a worse place to turn any extra (M) trains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Queensbridge being a bad terminal does not make Queens Plaza a good terminal. The (M) should be sent to 96th Street if the intent is to not cause heavy delays on existing service.

Exactly, as I would do it, with the (M) split as noted before into (M) and (T) (M as it is now, T to 96th/2nd at all times). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have repeated that idea numerious times. Each time, we tell you how harmful it is and yet you keep repeating it...

It’s actually a better idea than sending the (M) to 96 Street and not calling it a (T). That, in turn, is better than sending it to 21 Street–Queensbridge.

 

I’m for the plan:

 

(M) as it is now on weekdays, but higher frequency to serve Court Square at its northern end

(T) 96 Street to Middle Village–Metropolitan Avenue during weekends and overnight hours with no service on weekdays.

 

1 path = 1 bullet

Confusion level: 0%

Edited by CenSin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have repeated that idea numerious times. Each time, we tell you how harmful it is and yet you keep repeating it...

If I knew where this guy lived, I'd send him the perfect Christmas/Hanukkah/Festivus gift, a broken record. At this point, I'm not even annoyed anymore.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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