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.
Lance

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

Recommended Posts

I actually suggested running a (V) to/from Canarsie to Queens Plaza or 71st Ave during the shutdown back when the MTA first announced it. But current space constraints on the 6th Ave local tracks would mean the (V) could only run on a very limited basis during rush hours and middays which would limit its usefulness. And the (M) line in Bushwick/Ridgewood will need the boost in service more so that it can absorb the displaced (L) riders who board in the middle stretch of that line.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's that 10 MPH limit because of the track condition, design or maybe because of entering and leaving an ATO zone?

There was service there before for some years and I'm sure it's role in that junction was intended for revenue service. Couldn't some upgrades to the track pull that limit up a tad? Super elevation adjustments etc? Is this radius as tight some other further west? Alabama? Cypress?

Just curious.

something happened earlier this week that caused service to truncate to Myrtle - Wyckoff Av's. Not sure if it's related.

 

When I was on the (J) earlier this September, I noticed half done paint jobs on those flyover track hulls. It could be that they're still making finishing touches.

I was under the impression it was for the (L) shutdown. I just looked up the (M) reconstruction project didn't think about it duh! I think the service plan was for that and not the tunnel shut down honestly.

Not a half baked idea though. The (M) can continue to serve Bushwick and now East NY as the viaduct gets torn down. I don't think they plan to refurbish the structure. Likely why they're asking some tenants to move as it may get messy.

 

I do recall that they're working on the viaduct as a precursor in preparing for the (L) shutdown. Spare stock will bring the (G)(M) and even the (C) to 10-car sets.

I actually suggested running a (V) to/from Canarsie to Queens Plaza or 71st Ave during the shutdown back when the MTA first announced it. But current space constraints on the 6th Ave local tracks would mean the (V) could only run on a very limited basis during rush hours and middays which would limit its usefulness. And the (M) line in Bushwick/Ridgewood will need the boost in service more so that it can absorb the displaced (L) riders who board in the middle stretch of that line.

they could return the (M) to its Bay Parkway terminus. Those express tracks on the West End are currently disused. They could hitch the (V) at Queens Plaza and bring the (G) back to Queens Boulevard.

 

And once the (L) shutdown is underway the extra cars can supplement (F) and (G) service. The (F) would be able to go full express btwn Jay Street & Kings Hwy while the (G) accomodates local riders.

 

This is assuming work on Culver Line station renewals is complete. Some (F) provide PT service to Kings Hwy so why not pass that to the (G)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually suggested running a (V) to/from Canarsie to Queens Plaza or 71st Ave during the shutdown back when the MTA first announced it. But current space constraints on the 6th Ave local tracks would mean the (V) could only run on a very limited basis during rush hours and middays which would limit its usefulness. And the (M) line in Bushwick/Ridgewood will need the boost in service more so that it can absorb the displaced (L) riders who board in the middle stretch of that line.

Like I did initially with my idea of re-routing the (C) to Canarsie and running between there and 168 while truncating the (L) to between Broadway Junction and Lorimer or Bedford Avenue before realizing it would be too many trains as was well noted.

 

Still think if you do anything with the (M) it's to split it into (M) and (T) with the (M) on weekdays as it is now and the (T) 24/7 (5TPH weekdays, 3TPH late nights and 6-9TPH Sat-Sun) to 96th/2nd, starting as soon as the (M) goes back to Metropolitan after the work on the Myrtle EL (what's left of that) is complete in 2018.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It's like a few of you guys have taken the MTA's "as few variants of terminals per line as possible" logic of late to the opposite end where every terminal variant must have a different designation. Sometimes, it really doesn't matter or it can't be avoided. Case in point, it would be a much easier sell to riders if a couple of (M) trains ran to/from 96 Street instead of 71 Avenue as opposed to inventing a brand new line with absolutely abysmal headways. You can't apply railroad logic to subway operations. No one is going to wait 15+ minutes for this so-called 6th Avenue T train. In fact those trains will likely run empty out of 96 Street because three (Q) trains have already picked up all the passengers. People generally don't plan their schedules around specific intervals like they do with Metro-North or the LIRR. If riders see the next T train won't arrive for 15 minutes or so, they'll still hop on the (Q) and change at Herald Sq for the (M).

 

Also remember, the primary reason for the additional (M) trains is to provide alternate service during the 14th Street tunnel shutdown. The fact that 2nd Avenue benefits at all is coincidental. 96 Street is the closest terminal for the (M) where it can still serve midtown. Having this service run as rerouted (M) trains allows them to be extras for 2nd Avenue without any permanence. It also allows Transit to let the trains run light to Rockefeller Center if necessary as opposed to abandoning an interval if it's a completely different line.

 

2) Where are you getting the cars for this additional (M) service from for that kind of service expansion right now? The idea is that the additional cars for expanded (M) train service would come from the reduction in (L) service during the tunnel closure. Right now, the East is pretty much maxed out as is with its car fleet.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I did initially with my idea of re-routing the (C) to Canarsie and running between there and 168 while truncating the (L) to between Broadway Junction and Lorimer or Bedford Avenue before realizing it would be too many trains as was well noted.

 

Still think if you do anything with the (M) it's to split it into (M) and (T) with the (M) on weekdays as it is now and the (T) 24/7 (5TPH weekdays, 3TPH late nights and 6-9TPH Sat-Sun) to 96th/2nd, starting as soon as the (M) goes back to Metropolitan after the work on the Myrtle EL (what's left of that) is complete in 2018.  

(C) to Canarsie? I have, to be honest, I admire your creativity even in the face of people shooting your idea's down (Gatlin gun style) you keep on going. Have to respect that. But with that said in my opinion I think you're missing the operation dimension even tho technically this route is route is possible what would do to mitigate the increased risk of possible malfunction with switching? What about risk of delays with other services that now share trackage and spill over there?  Just curious did you plan for that? Creativity is awesome we need more people that think outside the box or how to maximize what's in the box. Starting creative is a plus but at some point, you have to switch to technical or a logical process. Left brain right brain AC/DC become a M8 unit hahaha. (Abit of train humor)  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason why the (M) can't just terminate at 57 St? Let's look at how  (L) riders transfer to other lines, and how the (M) would replace the transfers:

  • Lexington Ave Line @ Union Sq: Use Bleecker St
  • 7 Ave Line @ 14 St - 6 Ave: Still use 14 St - 6 Ave
  • 8 Ave Line @ 14 St - 8 Ave: Use West 4 St
  • Broadway Line: The (M) basically runs 1 block away
  • Second Ave Line @ Union Sq: Use Herald Sq
Edited by Caelestor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a reason why the (M) can't just terminate at 57 St?

Wouldn't that block oncoming traffic on the (F) seem's kind of intensive for anything besides late night.

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) It's like a few of you guys have taken the MTA's "as few variants of terminals per line as possible" logic of late to the opposite end where every terminal variant must have a different designation. Sometimes, it really doesn't matter or it can't be avoided. Case in point, it would be a much easier sell to riders if a couple of (M) trains ran to/from 96 Street instead of 71 Avenue as opposed to inventing a brand new line with absolutely abysmal headways. You can't apply railroad logic to subway operations. No one is going to wait 15+ minutes for this so-called 6th Avenue T train. In fact those trains will likely run empty out of 96 Street because three (Q) trains have already picked up all the passengers. People generally don't plan their schedules around specific intervals like they do with Metro-North or the LIRR. If riders see the next T train won't arrive for 15 minutes or so, they'll still hop on the (Q) and change at Herald Sq for the (M).

 

Also remember, the primary reason for the additional (M) trains is to provide alternate service during the 14th Street tunnel shutdown. The fact that 2nd Avenue benefits at all is coincidental. 96 Street is the closest terminal for the (M) where it can still serve midtown. Having this service run as rerouted (M) trains allows them to be extras for 2nd Avenue without any permanence. It also allows Transit to let the trains run light to Rockefeller Center if necessary as opposed to abandoning an interval if it's a completely different line.

 

2) Where are you getting the cars for this additional (M) service from for that kind of service expansion right now? The idea is that the additional cars for expanded (M) train service would come from the reduction in (L) service during the tunnel closure. Right now, the East is pretty much maxed out as is with its car fleet.

Two words: Political Clout.

 

The Upper East Side has some of the biggest political clout and if the (M) is going to 96th-2nd during the (L) shutdown, those constituents likely will want it there at all times.  That's why the split into (M) and (T), piling in as many (T) 's as possible within the constraints of the weekday setup and more trains on weekends when that is the main line.

 

And as for cars, as the R179s come on line, if necessary you keep the R32s and R42s to accommodate the additional trains needed for this (T) service that I would be looking to begin in 2018 as soon as the (M) returns to Metropolitan. 

 

I was reminded of that level of clout when I originally suggested the (M) go to 96th-2nd as the weekend and late night terminal only.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two words: Political Clout.

 

The Upper East Side has some of the biggest political clout and if the (M) is going to 96th-2nd during the (L) shutdown, those constituents likely will want it there at all times. That's why the split into (M) and (T), piling in as many (T) 's as possible within the constraints of the weekday setup and more trains on weekends when that is the main line.

 

And as for cars, as the R179s come on line, if necessary you keep the R32s and R42s to accommodate the additional trains needed for this (T) service that I would be looking to begin in 2018 as soon as the (M) returns to Metropolitan.

 

I was reminded of that level of clout when I originally suggested the (M) go to 96th-2nd as the weekend and late night terminal only.

The (T) is not coming back until Phase 3 is finished dude. That will probably take place in another 20 years I hate to say. Construction here takes forever and I'm hoping phase 2 is completed in a shorter time, since they technically have most of the tunnels already carved out and the tracks go to 105th streets. But dude if the MTA is planning to increase (M) service, I could see one of two things happening which by the way has no (T) in it.

1st- I can see the (MTA) reducing the amount of (R) service altogether on the Queens Blvd line while turning several trains at Eastside 96th-2nd Ave. The reason for reducing (R) service is because Forest Hills is not an effective terminal unless it's over the weekend when the (R) is alone on 10 minute headways. If you left both services running to Forest Hills, trains would be heavily backed up trying to turn around since they also clean the trains at 71 Ave. Either something gets cut back or extended to Jamaica 179th.

#2- The extra M's go to 96th which can work since the switches are there.

What I don't really see happening is it terminating at Queens Plaza since it would block (E) service behind it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The (T) is not coming back until Phase 3 is finished dude. That will probably take place in another 20 years I hate to say. Construction here takes forever and I'm hoping phase 2 is completed in a shorter time, since they technically have most of the tunnels already carved out and the tracks go to 105th streets. But dude if the MTA is planning to increase (M) service, I could see one of two things happening which by the way has no (T) in it.

1st- I can see the (MTA) reducing the amount of (R) service altogether on the Queens Blvd line while turning several trains at Eastside 96th-2nd Ave. The reason for reducing (R) service is because Forest Hills is not an effective terminal unless it's over the weekend when the (R) is alone on 10 minute headways. If you left both services running to Forest Hills, trains would be heavily backed up trying to turn around since they also clean the trains at 71 Ave. Either something gets cut back or extended to Jamaica 179th.

#2- The extra M's go to 96th which can work since the switches are there.

What I don't really see happening is it terminating at Queens Plaza since it would block (E) service behind it.

You underestimate the political clout of the UES.  They have waited forever for SAS service, and the (L) shutdown provides an opportunity to give the SAS 6th Avenue service due to the constraints of 71st-Continental (which is why I also previously suggested having the (G)(M) and (R) all go to 179 so the (G) gets to Queens Plaza plus the OOS transfers at Fulton-Atlantic-Barclays between the G and the 2/3/4/5/B/D/N/Q/R as I think Court Square is a disaster waiting to happen).  If you send the (M) to 96th-2nd on weekends and late nights during the (L) shutdown, they have the clout to want that service be at all times even after that ends and extract it, which is why I do the (M) / (T) split (since as you said it will be at least 20 years before Phase 3 is built and they can use another letter, or even go back to double letters when that service finally did start).  The (M) or (T) to 96th-2nd provides UES riders with a 6th avenue option plus additional trains to the west side overall.

 

Agree totally on QP not being a suitable terminal (outside of perhaps late nights).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You underestimate the political clout of the UES.  They have waited forever for SAS service, and the (L) shutdown provides an opportunity to give the SAS 6th Avenue service due to the constraints of 71st-Continental (which is why I also previously suggested having the (G)(M) and (R) all go to 179 so the (G) gets to Queens Plaza plus the OOS transfers at Fulton-Atlantic-Barclays between the G and the 2/3/4/5/B/D/N/Q/R as I think Court Square is a disaster waiting to happen).  If you send the (M) to 96th-2nd on weekends and late nights during the (L) shutdown, they have the clout to want that service be at all times even after that ends and extract it, which is why I do the (M) / (T) split (since as you said it will be at least 20 years before Phase 3 is built and they can use another letter, or even go back to double letters when that service finally did start).  The (M) or (T) to 96th-2nd provides UES riders with a 6th avenue option plus additional trains to the west side overall.

 

Agree totally on QP not being a suitable terminal (outside of perhaps late nights).

People can just take the (F) and transfer to the (Q) at Lex-63. The (F) and (Q) are reliable most of the time and the (M) doesn't need any changes. Reducing the amount of (R) trains would be hell at Lower Manhattan, Barclays and Bay Ridge. There is no use for a free transfer from Fulton to Barclays. That's a long distance, plus not a lot of people are going to take the (G) anywhere besides Broadway/Metropolitan Ave.

Edited by Cone E Island

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Construction here takes forever and I'm hoping phase 2 is completed in a shorter time, since they technically have most of the tunnels already carved out and the tracks go to 105th streets.

 

I've heard that the unnecessary 125th Street station (including the turn leading up to it) accounts for the bulk of the cost. This is why I'm pushing for Phase 2 to reach Third Avenue–149th Street in the Bronx instead. Not because it would be cheaper, mind you, but because it would be a more beneficial and meaningful use of the funds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard that the unnecessary 125th Street station (including the turn leading up to it) accounts for the bulk of the cost. This is why I'm pushing for Phase 2 to reach Third Avenue–149th Street in the Bronx instead. Not because it would be cheaper, mind you, but because it would be a more beneficial and meaningful use of the funds.

1,100 ft vs 1.25 miles that's a hard sell when money is a factor. What are your Pro/Con's again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1,100 ft vs 1.25 miles that's a hard sell when money is a factor. What are your Pro/Con's again?

 

Wouldn't it be cheaper because you don't have to build a 90 degree curve and underpin a two-level subway station and a railroad viaduct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be cheaper because you don't have to build a 90 degree curve and underpin a two-level subway station and a railroad viaduct?

But now you have a underwater crossing and underpinning for two subway lines anyways. And over a mile of buildings and housing that might be a factor with much more things that might go wrong. Seems more of a headache. What's geology for the area in Harlem that's a major factor as well. 63rd and Lex some like a very similar situation can hear the expresses from the Lex rumble pass. Two level under pin They were able to do a 90° as well between that and 72nd. Depth and geology what are the current plans in the current conditions. They've done this before.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But now you have a underwater crossing and underpinning for two subway lines anyways. And over a mile of buildings and housing that might be a factor with much more things that might go wrong. Seems more of a headache. What's geology for the area in Harlem that's a major factor as well. 63rd and Lex some like a very similar situation can hear the expresses from the Lex rumble pass. Two level under pin They were able to do a 90° as well between that and 72nd. Depth and geology what are the current plans in the current conditions. They've done this before.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Posted my response in the SAS thread.

Edited by Wallyhorse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But now you have a underwater crossing and underpinning for two subway lines anyways. And over a mile of buildings and housing that might be a factor with much more things that might go wrong. Seems more of a headache. What's geology for the area in Harlem that's a major factor as well. 63rd and Lex some like a very similar situation can hear the expresses from the Lex rumble pass. Two level under pin They were able to do a 90° as well between that and 72nd. Depth and geology what are the current plans in the current conditions. They've done this before.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

 

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that (partially) already built in the 70's?

 

In any rate, I personally feel that the 125th & Lex station is as useful as the Jubilee Line's abandoned Charing Cross platform, now that it crosses the Thames into East London. I feel that building this station with the long term goal of service to the Bronx would lead to the same result, so why not get under the river now and avoid wasting money on that curve?

Edited by Around the Horn
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that (partially) already built in the 70's?

 

In any rate, I personally feel that the 125th & Lex station is as useful as the Jubilee Line's abandoned Charing Cross platform, now that it crosses the Thames into East London. I feel that building this station with the long term goal of service to the Bronx would lead to the same result, so why not get under the river now and avoid wasting money on that curve?

110th to 120th Is the only segments I know that was done in the 1970s. But either way this would be used Lex or the Bronx. Logically you have a valid point I don't know politics to work logically for the most point and very few people within its ranks think long-term. You almost have to give-and-take to get things done to push a transit agenda somebody's going to want something in return. I need an extension to the Bronx! I'm probably going to have to throw in some Real estate options up zoning the area. You know the routine no one is giving something for nothing. Getting into urban planning this is probably going to be a frustrating aspect of the job. 125th just seems like it's going to be easier to get pushed through. They just re-zoned the area a few years ago there's like a high-rise going up on 125th and Park its political move more than likely. I remember TM5 saying something like that I believe him. Attach the extension to some major projects and plans in the South Bronx and you might be able to get it done. I don't see it any other way.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using NYC Transit Forums mobile app

Edited by RailRunRob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing this back on topic, I prefer the (M) to run to 71 Av full time once the closure begins.

 

Pros:

-No confusion with multiple terminals

-Gives Queens Blvd two locals seven days a week

 

Cons:

-You might have a line of trains waiting to terminate at Continental, but it shouldn't it that big of an issue with both lines running with 10 minute intervals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bringing this back on topic, I prefer the (M) to run to 71 Av full time once the closure begins.

 

Pros:

-No confusion with multiple terminals

-Gives Queens Blvd two locals seven days a week

 

Cons:

-You might have a line of trains waiting to terminate at Continental, but it shouldn't it that big of an issue with both lines running with 10 minute intervals.

 

You can't do that because of the CBTC work on weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't do that because of the CBTC work on weekends.

I'm aware of the CBTC work, but they could always hold off on it for some of those weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any rate, I personally feel that the 125th & Lex station is as useful as the Jubilee Line's abandoned Charing Cross platform, now that it crosses the Thames into East London. I feel that building this station with the long term goal of service to the Bronx would lead to the same result, so why not get under the river now and avoid wasting money on that curve?

I can agree here, but there is the (Q) terminating at 125th & Lex if a Bronx extension were to ever happen. 

 

One word on why they can't get it under the river; money. 

Edited by TheNewYorkElevated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please keep all off-topic posts out of this thread. This thread is explicitly for discussing the upcoming 14th Street tunnel closure, and nothing else. Thanks for your compliance.

 

Bringing this back on topic, I prefer the (M) to run to 71 Av full time once the closure begins.

Pros:
-No confusion with multiple terminals
-Gives Queens Blvd two locals seven days a week

Cons:
-You might have a line of trains waiting to terminate at Continental, but it shouldn't it that big of an issue with both lines running with 10 minute intervals.

I agree with you there in terms of reducing overall confusion. However, I doubt the TA wants to delay the work involved with CBTC installation until late 2020. Also, keep in mind the (M) will likely be boosted from it's normal ten minute headways in 2019 to compensate for the loss of Manhattan (L) service. That's why most people here, myself included, believe the (M) will likely terminate somewhere away from the Queens Blvd line during off-hours throughout the duration of the tunnel closure. Fitting expanded (M) service on top of the normal (R) on Queens Blvd during the closure while in the midst of CBTC-related work will likely not work.

 

While 57 Street remains an option, 96 Street provides a terminal without the side effect of terminating trains delaying through service. It's an unavoidable situation, but it's the most likely one to come out of this project. There's no need for special T trains that run completely strange headways or a complete rearrangement of the B-Division to fit random ideas way out of left field.

 

On that subject, Wallyhorse, we heard you the first time. Repeated posts that say practically the same thing are not necessary. Subsequent posts in this regard are subject to deletion without explanation. But I will touch upon this oft-mentioned claim of clout. If the Upper East Side had all this clout and pull for additional service via 2nd Avenue, why would they settle for a so-called T train that runs abysmal headways during peak periods, the time when most people in that area would actually use the subway? Just some food for thought...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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