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

[bushwickbound]

Hi everyone! I'm new on this forum, and I've wondered quite a bit about the being extended to 57th St. How could it terminate there, since the F runs on the same track? Does it quickly use the crossover to pull in or pull out of the station? Even doing this I think would be better than having the run to Queensbridge. Trains only terminated there because it was basically a "dead end" station at the time, waiting for the tunnel connector to be completed to connect to the rest of the Queens Blvd Line. In fact, I think that the MTA should have made Queensbridge-21st St an island platform station with tail tracks on the end to make it easier to make the Queens Super Express the MTA proposed. Just my 2¢.

 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[GojiMet86]

Hi everyone! I'm new on this forum, and I've wondered quite a bit about the being extended to 57th St. How could it terminate there, since the F runs on the same track? Does it quickly use the crossover to pull in or pull out of the station? Even doing this I think would be better than having the run to Queensbridge. Trains only terminated there because it was basically a "dead end" station at the time, waiting for the tunnel connector to be completed to connect to the rest of the Queens Blvd Line. In fact, I think that the MTA should have made Queensbridge-21st St an island platform station with tail tracks on the end to make it easier to make the Queens Super Express the MTA proposed. Just my 2¢.

 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

 

I am not fond of terminating the at either 57th Street or Queensbridge.

 

But, when it has terminated at 57th Street, it does pull out quickly. This can really only happen on the weekends.

[bushwickbound]

I am not fond of terminating the at either 57th Street or Queensbridge.

 

But, when it has terminated at 57th Street, it does pull out quickly. This can really only happen on the weekends.

I agree. You're right, it only happens on the weekends when it's needed. These stations were not made with the intention to be regular terminals.

 

Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk

[Wallyhorse]

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

 

I’m for the plan:

 

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

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

 

1 path = 1 bullet

Confusion level: 0%

Agree except I would have the of course 24/7.  If people get confused by that, then that's on them.

 

The idea is that unless you want to extend the and to 179 at practically all times other than overnights, you can't send too many extra trains on QB due to the well-documented conga line on QB.  That's I divert a few trains (as ) to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

 

In a perfect world, I would have the and all go to 179 because I think Court Square is going to be a disaster during the shutdown.  On paper, their plan my work, but I don't trust it to work in practice. 

[CenSin]

Agree except I would have the of course 24/7.  If people get confused by that, then that's on them.

 

The idea is that unless you want to extend the and to 179 at practically all times other than overnights, you can't send too many extra trains on QB due to the well-documented conga line on QB.  That's I divert a few trains (as ) to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

 

In a perfect world, I would have the and all go to 179 because I think Court Square is going to be a disaster during the shutdown.  On paper, their plan my work, but I don't trust it to work in practice. 

I only agree to such an arrangement to avoid confusion. If there is confusion, it’s a no-go. Of course, the running on weekdays as an addition isn’t confusion; it’s piss-poor service. How many trains can you actually fit into the flow of other trains? Not much.

[B46 via Utica]

Agree except I would have the of course 24/7.  If people get confused by that, then that's on them.

The idea is that unless you want to extend the and to 179 at practically all times other than overnights, you can't send too many extra trains on QB due to the well-documented conga line on QB.  That's I divert a few trains (as ) to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.

In a perfect world, I would have the and all go to 179 because I think Court Square is going to be a disaster during the shutdown.  On paper, their plan my work, but I don't trust it to work in practice.

 

I think the , and going to 179 st is a little much because one of congestion problems and two because your going to be making each and every one of those lines unreliable.

[Wallyhorse]

I only agree to such an arrangement to avoid confusion. If there is confusion, it’s a no-go. Of course, the running on weekdays as an addition isn’t confusion; it’s piss-poor service. How many trains can you actually fit into the flow of other trains? Not much.

As noted before, this would be a MAX of 5 TPH on weekdays and actually would have more service on weekends when it would be 6-9 TPH,  During the week, this would be a supplement to the , on weekends, the main line.

[Around the Horn]

As noted before, this would be a MAX of 5 TPH on weekdays and actually would have more service on weekends when it would be 6-9 TPH,  During the week, this would be a supplement to the , on weekends, the main line.

Except if a shows up so rarely, people are going to be confused. I can see people who just missed their normal train and then see a come in, going "What the heck is the train? I've only ever seen the ..."

[CenSin]

As noted before, this would be a MAX of 5 TPH on weekdays

THAT is the problem! It's only 5 TPH. In reality though, it probably couldn't even do that given the number of merges. When there is a merge, the total track capacity is not 30 TPH, but less. You would have to take away service (which is actually useful) to make a usable .

 

4 TPH is probably the max.

[P3F]

How about... Calling this weekday service the train. Publicly announce that "Some Queens-bound trains will run via the and before ending at 96th Street, and some Brooklyn-bound trains will run via the to Lower East Side - 2nd Avenue, where they end.

 

Most riders wouldn't notice that the two services are separate, since they would have the same designation. Unless they did research or regularly used the at 2nd Avenue, 63rd Street, or SAS, they would have no reason to know that they are different.

 

And then there would be no issues with announcing that the is extended to 96th Street on weekends, since it runs there on weekdays.

 

 

 

 

In all honesty though, I think they will just say that "Due to the train's shutdown, on weekends trains run via the and to 96th Street - 2nd Avenue", forgoing all this weekday craziness.

[Wallyhorse]

Except if a shows up so rarely, people are going to be confused. I can see people who just missed their normal train and then see a come in, going "What the heck is the train? I've only ever seen the ..."

Only if they are going towards 71-Continental (mainly 53rd on 5th-Madison or 3rd-Lexington). 

 

If they are going towards Metropolitan Avenue (southbound), it makes no difference because both lines would run the same route except for the running via the and then north of 47-50 and the running via 53rd.

 

People will adjust.  The only ones who would be that confused by it would be those who really don't pay attention.  

In all honesty though, I think they will just say that "Due to the train's shutdown, on weekends trains run via the and to 96th Street - 2nd Avenue", forgoing all this weekday craziness.

The problem is, you'd have people on the upper east side want the (even at only 5 TPH on weekdays) to run on the SAS at all times.  That is specifically why I do it the way I do, as the UES has a TON of political clout and that plays into this. 

[P3F]

The problem is, you'd have people on the upper east side want the (even at only 5 TPH on weekdays) to run on the SAS at all times.  That is specifically why I do it the way I do, as the UES has a TON of political clout and that plays into this. 

Well then just have your signed up as trains. Since the uses all NTT's, the passengers would not be confused in terms of where the train is going, and it avoids creating a new line.

 

If they do have that political clout, they would likely want the to stay even after the shutdown, while with the extension it would be understood as unnecessary service since the shutdown is over.

[Around the Horn]

Yeah, don't come up with a new letter. Just call it the .

[Kingjunior34]

Yeah, don't come up with a new letter. Just call it the .

I agree people just need to listen and read just send the to 96-2 Av

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

[T to Dyre Avenue]

How about... Calling this weekday service the train. Publicly announce that "Some Queens-bound trains will run via the and before ending at 96th Street, and some Brooklyn-bound trains will run via the to Lower East Side - 2nd Avenue, where they end.

 

Most riders wouldn't notice that the two services are separate, since they would have the same designation. Unless they did research or regularly used the at 2nd Avenue, 63rd Street, or SAS, they would have no reason to know that they are different.

 

And then there would be no issues with announcing that the is extended to 96th Street on weekends, since it runs there on weekdays.

 

 

 

 

In all honesty though, I think they will just say that "Due to the train's shutdown, on weekends trains run via the and to 96th Street - 2nd Avenue", forgoing all this weekday craziness.

Most southbound riders probably wouldn't notice. Northbound riders would be a different story, especially if they happen to be headed for the 53rd St Corridor or Queens Blvd and they find themselves on an train that's not going anywhere near there. It's not quite the same as the in Queens or the rush hour in the Bronx, because in both cases, the branches are in much closer proximity for a smaller portion of their main lines and, especially in the case of the , a much lower number of riders. That's where a different letter for the UES route might come in handy...

Only if they are going towards 71-Continental (mainly 53rd on 5th-Madison or 3rd-Lexington).

If they are going towards Metropolitan Avenue (southbound), it makes no difference because both lines would run the same route except for the T running via the and then north of 47-50 and the running via 53rd.

People will adjust. The only ones who would be that confused by it would be those who really don't pay attention.

The problem is, you'd have people on the upper east side want the T (even at only 5 TPH on weekdays) to run on the SAS at all times. That is specifically why I do it the way I do, as the UES has a TON of political clout and that plays into this.

 

...but on the other hand, that may be exactly why it's not a great idea to use a different letter. These very same UES riders who would have a direct ride to 6th Ave may see this T service as a completely separate service (especially if it runs 24/7) from the , as opposed to the supplement that you say it's supposed to be. You might also see confusion from weekend/holiday/overnight riders in Middle Village, Ridgewood and Bushwick who, basically, would see their service be given a completely different letter (which was something they didn't want six years ago when they got direct Midtown service).

[Wallyhorse]

Most southbound riders probably wouldn't notice. Northbound riders would be a different story, especially if they happen to be headed for the 53rd St Corridor or Queens Blvd and they find themselves on an train that's not going anywhere near there. It's not quite the same as the in Queens or the rush hour in the Bronx, because in both cases, the branches are in much closer proximity for a smaller portion of their main lines and, especially in the case of the , a much lower number of riders. That's where a different letter for the UES route might come in handy...

...but on the other hand, that may be exactly why it's not a great idea to use a different letter. These very same UES riders who would have a direct ride to 6th Ave may see this T service as a completely separate service (especially if it runs 24/7) from the , as opposed to the supplement that you say it's supposed to be. You might also see confusion from weekend/holiday/overnight riders in Middle Village, Ridgewood and Bushwick who, basically, would see their service be given a completely different letter (which was something they didn't want six years ago when they got direct Midtown service).

It would be made clear this would be a supplemental line to 96th/2nd that I would actually start as soon as the returns to Metropolitan Avenue if possible.  Those on the UES would have to realize these would really be overflow trains assigned a different letter because they are not going to Queens.

 

As for the letter-naming issues, this would be different from 2010 as in this case, the would STILL be the main line on weekdays, but the line would now be just that, a weekday-only line.  The would be the full-time 24/7 service, running from Metropolitan to 96th Street-2nd Avenue even with the unique position of having more service on weekends than weekdays.   

[Trainmaster5]

I'd really like to know if any of our posters are actual residents of the Upper East Side.I've spoken with a few NYCT people in RTO management and they, and I, have some doubts about the ridership base of the SAS (phase 1) after the novelty has worn off. The AM rush ridership base is a given as well as the anticipated siphoning of some of the local ridership. Would there be a sustained ridership base between the AM and PM rush? After the PM rush ? Maybe someone like Tee Low could chime in with his yellow cab background (more recent than mine). My co-workers and I feel that if the SAS was constructed as an East Side line from north to south from the start, without that westward swing by the , it would be much more beneficial in the long run. The people I've spoken with feel that outside of the M-F rush the Yorkville folk from the streets like York Avenue around Gracie Mansion are not subway riders and probably never will be straphangers. They were cab users and Express bus riders back in the day. They pretty much shunned local buses if there were alternatives available. Avoid the" riff-raff" types  The type that hopes there'll never be a Harlem or Bronx extension constructed for that reason. Late night or overnights? Do we have any projections?That's why we think the initial headways are what they are. In RTO we call it carrying "air". Weekend ridership is anyone's guess IMO. How will the ridership compare to the on the West Side, for example ? Just a few questions some of us have. Let's hear your thoughts. Carry on.

Maybe move this to the SAS discussion instead?

[Daniel The Cool]

I'd really like to know if any of our posters are actual residents of the Upper East Side.I've spoken with a few NYCT people in RTO management and they, and I, have some doubts about the ridership base of the SAS (phase 1) after the novelty has worn off. The AM rush ridership base is a given as well as the anticipated siphoning of some of the local ridership. Would there be a sustained ridership base between the AM and PM rush? After the PM rush ? Maybe someone like Tee Low could chime in with his yellow cab background (more recent than mine). My co-workers and I feel that if the SAS was constructed as an East Side line from north to south from the start, without that westward swing by the , it would be much more beneficial in the long run. The people I've spoken with feel that outside of the M-F rush the Yorkville folk from the streets like York Avenue around Gracie Mansion are not subway riders and probably never will be straphangers. They were cab users and Express bus riders back in the day. They pretty much shunned local buses if there were alternatives available. Avoid the" riff-raff" types  The type that hopes there'll never be a Harlem or Bronx extension constructed for that reason. Late night or overnights? Do we have any projections?That's why we think the initial headways are what they are. In RTO we call it carrying "air". Weekend ridership is anyone's guess IMO. How will the ridership compare to the on the West Side, for example ? Just a few questions some of us have. Let's hear your thoughts. Carry on.

Maybe move this to the SAS discussion instead?

Actually alot of people who lives along York Avenue does use the Subway alot today. Plus they don't really have express buses there anymore since 2010. 

[Wallyhorse]

I'd really like to know if any of our posters are actual residents of the Upper East Side.I've spoken with a few NYCT people in RTO management and they, and I, have some doubts about the ridership base of the SAS (phase 1) after the novelty has worn off. The AM rush ridership base is a given as well as the anticipated siphoning of some of the local ridership. Would there be a sustained ridership base between the AM and PM rush? After the PM rush ? Maybe someone like Tee Low could chime in with his yellow cab background (more recent than mine). My co-workers and I feel that if the SAS was constructed as an East Side line from north to south from the start, without that westward swing by the , it would be much more beneficial in the long run. The people I've spoken with feel that outside of the M-F rush the Yorkville folk from the streets like York Avenue around Gracie Mansion are not subway riders and probably never will be straphangers. They were cab users and Express bus riders back in the day. They pretty much shunned local buses if there were alternatives available. Avoid the" riff-raff" types  The type that hopes there'll never be a Harlem or Bronx extension constructed for that reason. Late night or overnights? Do we have any projections?That's why we think the initial headways are what they are. In RTO we call it carrying "air". Weekend ridership is anyone's guess IMO. How will the ridership compare to the on the West Side, for example ? Just a few questions some of us have. Let's hear your thoughts. Carry on.

Maybe move this to the SAS discussion instead?

I grew up on the UES, and back in the day, it was true many used to use the express bus to Wall Street (and I did that as well sometimes coming back when I was doing messenger work in lower Manhattan).  For many, it was (and still is) a considerable walk to the subway, which was the main reason for it (some buildings on York Avenue for instances had their own shuttles to the subway on Lexington).  It had much more to do with that and little to do with avoiding the "riff-raff" of the subways (that especially in the early 1980s was far worse than it would be just a few years later).  

 

Now of course, the is the most overcrowded line in the system and is going to get what I think will be MAJOR relief from the , especially from those who currently transfer to the or from the at Lexington-60th Street OR Union Square.  You have an entirely different generation living there now, many of whom don't remember how bad the system was in the 1970s and early '80s and don't remember the crime-ridden days.  Adding a 6th Avenue option (in this case an "Orange ") as soon as the returns to Metropolitan Avenue after that work is finished (even if its only 5 TPH on weekdays) I think will be very important independent of the shutdown.  

[RailRunRob]

I'd really like to know if any of our posters are actual residents of the Upper East Side.I've spoken with a few NYCT people in RTO management and they, and I, have some doubts about the ridership base of the SAS (phase 1) after the novelty has worn off. The AM rush ridership base is a given as well as the anticipated siphoning of some of the local ridership. Would there be a sustained ridership base between the AM and PM rush? After the PM rush ? Maybe someone like Tee Low could chime in with his yellow cab background (more recent than mine). My co-workers and I feel that if the SAS was constructed as an East Side line from north to south from the start, without that westward swing by the , it would be much more beneficial in the long run. The people I've spoken with feel that outside of the M-F rush the Yorkville folk from the streets like York Avenue around Gracie Mansion are not subway riders and probably never will be straphangers. They were cab users and Express bus riders back in the day. They pretty much shunned local buses if there were alternatives available. Avoid the" riff-raff" types  The type that hopes there'll never be a Harlem or Bronx extension constructed for that reason. Late night or overnights? Do we have any projections?That's why we think the initial headways are what they are. In RTO we call it carrying "air". Weekend ridership is anyone's guess IMO. How will the ridership compare to the on the West Side, for example ? Just a few questions some of us have. Let's hear your thoughts. Carry on.

Maybe move this to the SAS discussion instead?

Don't really have a UES prospective. But you do make a point and raise questions from a transit planning POV.  There saying 200K for Phase 1.

 

What would that do to help the Lex? You're still a million plus a day. You're still running the same amount of Trains and at first, glance shifting the weight to another part of the Lex.

Where are people traveling to from the UES? Lower Manhattan seems likely on the matrix so are the SAS riders getting back on the Lex below 14th? Or is the pulling some weight there? As I'm looking at the math if the full SAS isn't completed or at least Phase 3 what is the project doing to expand bandwidth just seems more like shifting weight around and perception. They have to commit and see this, though.  Where's the value if they don't? 

[bobtehpanda]

I'd really like to know if any of our posters are actual residents of the Upper East Side.I've spoken with a few NYCT people in RTO management and they, and I, have some doubts about the ridership base of the SAS (phase 1) after the novelty has worn off. The AM rush ridership base is a given as well as the anticipated siphoning of some of the local ridership. Would there be a sustained ridership base between the AM and PM rush? After the PM rush ? Maybe someone like Tee Low could chime in with his yellow cab background (more recent than mine). My co-workers and I feel that if the SAS was constructed as an East Side line from north to south from the start, without that westward swing by the , it would be much more beneficial in the long run. The people I've spoken with feel that outside of the M-F rush the Yorkville folk from the streets like York Avenue around Gracie Mansion are not subway riders and probably never will be straphangers. They were cab users and Express bus riders back in the day. They pretty much shunned local buses if there were alternatives available. Avoid the" riff-raff" types  The type that hopes there'll never be a Harlem or Bronx extension constructed for that reason. Late night or overnights? Do we have any projections?That's why we think the initial headways are what they are. In RTO we call it carrying "air". Weekend ridership is anyone's guess IMO. How will the ridership compare to the on the West Side, for example ? Just a few questions some of us have. Let's hear your thoughts. Carry on.

Maybe move this to the SAS discussion instead?

 

It is true that most riders on the SAS will not be new riders or riders switching modes; most people will be either shortening walks to the Lex, switching from the M15, trying to avoid the busy transfer at Lex/59, or looking for easy access to 6th Av. The MTA admits as much in its FEIS.

 

These were the initial ridership projections in the 2004 FEIS. It's unclear whether or not these would pan out, but transit project ridership projections tend to low-ball and subway ridership has risen far faster than anyone thought it would since then.

[RailRunRob]

It is true that most riders on the SAS will not be new riders or riders switching modes; most people will be either shortening walks to the Lex, switching from the M15, trying to avoid the busy transfer at Lex/59, or looking for easy access to 6th Av. The MTA admits as much in its FEIS.

 

These were the initial ridership projections in the 2004 FEIS. It's unclear whether or not these would pan out, but transit project ridership projections tend to low-ball and subway ridership has risen far faster than anyone thought it would since then.

Do you have a link to the full FEIS? I haven't read through. You do have point with the rise in ridership this report is almost 13 years old in all fairness.

[itmaybeokay]

This is an outlandish and possibly infeasible idea, but it strikes me that G/M/R to 179 could actually work if you made no stops between 71 and 179. Basically you'd call the service as terminating at 71st but instead of fumigating the thing there, you'd run it to 179 and reverse. Or fumigate it there and go back to the yard. Plenty of room to do so. Hell, turn at parsons. 

 

ASSUMING there's enough space on D2 clear of the switch after 71 - and shy of the switch at 75 for a train to loiter and wait for the F to clear. The criss-cross operation could slow things down, but I think it has the potential to work. Who knows. Probably not. 

 

They're probably just going to make the G 8 cars long, give a free transfer to the J/Z/M and tell everyone to deal with the crowded trains. 

[bobtehpanda]

Do you have a link to the full FEIS? I haven't read through. You do have point with the rise in ridership this report is almost 13 years old in all fairness.

 

The FEIS is available here on the MTA's website. I would strongly advise against reading the whole thing, since it's thousands of pages long.

[RailRunRob]

The FEIS is available here on the MTA's website. I would strongly advise against reading the whole thing, since it's thousands of pages long.

Much appreciated I see wanted to see what their ridership models were.