Jump to content

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


Lance

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Censin,

 

Don't you think it would be confusing if passengers see the (V) again? They'll think it's going to Forest Hills, unless you do this:

 

Have the (M) run to 96th Street at all times except late nights when it will short turn at Myrtle Avenue. On weekdays it will run via 6th Avenue local, on weekends it run via 6th Avenue express.

 

Have the (V) run rush hours only to Forest Hills from Second Avenue temp to reduce the confusion between 96th Street bound (M) trains and Forest Hills bound (V) trains.

 

NOTE: The (V) would operate internally as part of the (M), NOT as part of the (F).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censin,

 

Don't you think it would be confusing if passengers see the (V) again? They'll think it's going to Forest Hills, unless you do this:

 

Have the (M) run to 96th Street at all times except late nights when it will short turn at Myrtle Avenue. On weekdays it will run via 6th Avenue local, on weekends it run via 6th Avenue express.

 

Have the (V) run rush hours only to Forest Hills from Second Avenue temp to reduce the confusion between 96th Street bound (M) trains and Forest Hills bound (V) trains.

 

NOTE: The (V) would operate internally as part of the (M), NOT as part of the (F).

In a personal survey of teens, a lot of them don’t even remember the (V) or (W). Some were shocked that there was a (W)! The (V) has been gone for quite a while—enough to reassign it without problems. Keep in mind that the (B)(C)(D)(Q)(M) have all been reassigned within the last 2 decades.

 

If maximum simplicity is desired, a (V) to 96 Street and no changes to the (M) is optimal. Anything else adds complexity.

Or simply run the (M) full-route 24/7.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Censin,

Don't you think it would be confusing if passengers see the V again? They'll think it's going to Forest Hills, unless you do this:

Have the M run to 96th Street at all times except late nights when it will short turn at Myrtle Avenue. On weekdays it will run via 6th Avenue local, on weekends it run via 6th Avenue express.

Have the V run rush hours only to Forest Hills from Second Avenue temp to reduce the confusion between 96th Street bound M trains and Forest Hills bound V trains.

NOTE: The V would operate internally as part of the M, NOT as part of the F.

So what train will replace the (V) during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the (R) train during those hours. And you've got the (V) trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the (L), so the (V) trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded (M) trains and nearly-empty (V) trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The (M) has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it?

 

And why make the (V) operate internally as part of the (M) if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the (M), then it has to use the same trains the (M) uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the (M) because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a (V) service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains.

 

In a personal survey of teens, a lot of them don’t even remember the V or W.

If maximum simplicity is desired, a V to 96 Street and no changes to the M is optimal. Anything else adds complexity.Or simply run the M full-route 24/7.

That's what I think would make the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound (M) riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the (M) as a QB local. Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

So what train will replace the (V) during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the (R) train during those hours. And you've got the (V) trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the (L), so the (V) trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded (M) trains and nearly-empty (V) trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The (M) has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it?

 

And why make the (V) operate internally as part of the (M) if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the (M), then it has to use the same trains the (M) uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the (M) because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a (V) service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains.

 

That really makes the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound (M) riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the (M) as a QB local.

They could pull an (N) and call them (Q) trains via Myrtle and 6 Avenues...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They could pull an (N) and call them (Q) trains via Myrtle and 6 Avenues...

 

LMAO thats a bit of a stretch... The (Q) via Sea Beach thing works because the (N) and (Q) share the Manhattan trunk. A (Q) on 6 Av, let alone Myrtle is much much more confusing. There's also the issue of having both 8 car and 10 car "Q" trains at the same stop...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what train will replace the (V) during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the (R) train during those hours. And you've got the (V) trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the (L), so the (V) trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded (M) trains and nearly-empty (V) trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The (M) has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it?

 

And why make the (V) operate internally as part of the (M) if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the (M), then it has to use the same trains the (M) uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the (M) because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a (V) service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains.

 

That's what I think would make the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound (M) riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the (M) as a QB local.

And this is exactly why when I made my proposals for such previously, I did so splitting the (M) into the (M) and (T) with the (M) operating as it does now and the (T) going to 96th/2nd, both from Metropolitan Avenue (with the (T) being a supplement to the (M) during the week and the sole line late nights and weekends). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And this is exactly why when I made my proposals for such previously, I did so splitting the (M) into the (M) and (T) with the (M) operating as it does now and the (T) going to 96th/2nd, both from Metropolitan Avenue (with the (T) being a supplement to the (M) during the week and the sole line late nights and weekends). 

Not this again...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what train will replace the (V) during weekday midday and evening hours? Ridership at Queens Blvd local stations certainly warrants more than just the (R) train during those hours. And you've got the (V) trains turning at 2nd Ave, where they're not needed. The point of running the extra service is to compensate for the loss of the (L), so the (V) trains would be needed in Brooklyn. Otherwise, you'll have super-crowded (M) trains and nearly-empty (V) trains. What would be the point of that? Because it certainly won't be to minimize confusion. The (M) has been the secondary QB local for seven years now. People are used to it. Why change it?

 

And why make the (V) operate internally as part of the (M) if it's not going to run to/from Metropolitan Ave? If it's part of the (M), then it has to use the same trains the (M) uses, which are 8-car trains of R160s. They run 8-car trains on the (M) because its Brooklyn and Ridgewood/Middle Village stations can't fit 10-car trains. It would be a wasteful to run 4-car R160 sets on a (V) service that only goes to/from 2nd Ave, because all stations from there to Forest Hills can hold 10-car R160 trains.

 

That's what I think would make the most sense, especially because the most likely place for confusion would be with northbound (M) riders who find out their train isn't going to the 53rd St stations or the QB line. They're used to the (M) as a QB local.

So then tell me, how are you going to run both the (M) AND (V) on Myrtle Avenue with the (J) and (Z) already running at full TPH? Not just that, what about 6th Avenue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So then tell me, how are you going to run both the (M) AND (V) on Myrtle Avenue with the (J) and (Z) already running at full TPH? Not just that, what about 6th Avenue?

The MTA are the ones calling for increasing both (J) and (M) service, so you'll have to ask them how they will manage it. I would assume that would include the (Z) during the hour(s) it runs and any additional (M) (or (V)) trains. Same goes for 6th Ave with the (F), the current (M) and any added (M) (or (V)) trains. They're also planning to run the (J) and (Z) local between Myrtle and Marcy during the shutdown, so the capacity must be there.

 

With the (J) and (Z) on a combined 12 tph for the one hour skip/stop runs during each rush hour plus the 8-9 tph the (M) runs, you would think there would be some spare capacity for extra service. I would think 6th Ave would be a bit more difficult, given that the (F) runs 14-15 tph during the rush, but the MTA seems confident that they can fit some additional (M) trains.

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is room on all three major lines the (M) travels on for additional service. At the height of the rush hour, approximately 23 trains run down 6th Avenue every hour, with 17 on Queens Blvd and 18 on the shared stretch of Jamaica. The biggest hurdle will be along the Williamsburg Bridge if I'm not mistaken, but everywhere else, it should be fine as long as the rails don't go tits up for any reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is room on all three major lines the (M) travels on for additional service. At the height of the rush hour, approximately 23 trains run down 6th Avenue every hour, with 17 on Queens Blvd and 18 on the shared stretch of Jamaica. The biggest hurdle will be along the Williamsburg Bridge if I'm not mistaken, but everywhere else, it should be fine as long as the rails don't go tits up for any reason.

Do the (J) and (Z) really run 10 tph?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is room on all three major lines the (M) travels on for additional service. At the height of the rush hour, approximately 23 trains run down 6th Avenue every hour, with 17 on Queens Blvd and 18 on the shared stretch of Jamaica. The biggest hurdle will be along the Williamsburg Bridge if I'm not mistaken, but everywhere else, it should be fine as long as the rails don't go tits up for any reason.

If that's the case then they can add more of everything.  The whole corridor sucks in terms of frequencies and how often trains come.  The (F) runs in packs, and so does just about everything else, which means uneven crowds and long waits after those bunched up trains come.  

Edited by Via Garibaldi 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do the (J) and (Z) really run 10 tph?

At that time, each (J) is 5 minutes behind the next (Z) so you got a combined 12 tph there. Now if you count them individually, each (J) is 10 mins behind the next (J) so you got a whopping 6 tph individually.

 

If you're waiting at a (J) only or (Z) only stop when both are running, headways actually DECREASE during that period

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the case then they can add more of everything.  The whole corridor sucks in terms of frequencies and how often trains come.  The (F) runs in packs, and so does just about everything else, which means uneven crowds and long waits after those bunched up trains come.  

 

Can the Willy B handle more trains? I was under the impression that due to the cabling issues on the bridge that there was a hard limit on how many trains could run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can the Willy B handle more trains? I was under the impression that due to the cabling issues on the bridge that there was a hard limit on how many trains could run.

I have heard that 24 trains per hour is the limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I wonder if it is possible to have a shuttle bus running from Bedford Av directly to midtown via the tunnel. At least people who transfer from uptown to the (L) now could use that, and relief the stress for (M) and the 14th street shuttle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

¿Qué? You want to run buses through the East River Canarsie tunnels? The same ones that will be closed full-time for reconstruction and rehabilitation, those tunnels? I thought I heard everything, but yet again, my assumptions are proven wrong. Ignoring the logistical and impractical obstacles preventing road traffic from using rail tunnels, those tunnels will be out of service for all but construction equipment. That was the trade off for shortening the timescale for the project - absolutely no service west of Bedford Av and the whole project can be done in 18 months as opposed to the original three year time frame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

¿Qué? You want to run buses through the East River Canarsie tunnels? The same ones that will be closed full-time for reconstruction and rehabilitation, those tunnels? I thought I heard everything, but yet again, my assumptions are proven wrong. Ignoring the logistical and impractical obstacles preventing road traffic from using rail tunnels, those tunnels will be out of service for all but construction equipment. That was the trade off for shortening the timescale for the project - absolutely no service west of Bedford Av and the whole project can be done in 18 months as opposed to the original three year time frame.

I actually though I was reading that wrong, but no...we have found someone worse then Wallyhorse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if it is possible to have a shuttle bus running from Bedford Av directly to midtown via the tunnel. At least people who transfer from uptown to the (L) now could use that, and relief the stress for (M) and the 14th street shuttle.

Which tunnel?  You mean the Battery Tunnel?  

¿Qué? You want to run buses through the East River Canarsie tunnels? The same ones that will be closed full-time for reconstruction and rehabilitation, those tunnels? I thought I heard everything, but yet again, my assumptions are proven wrong. Ignoring the logistical and impractical obstacles preventing road traffic from using rail tunnels, those tunnels will be out of service for all but construction equipment. That was the trade off for shortening the timescale for the project - absolutely no service west of Bedford Av and the whole project can be done in 18 months as opposed to the original three year time frame.

I know some of my stuff is not well received, but unless he means the Battery Tunnel this is WAY worse than any ideas I have ever come up with. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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