Jump to content

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


Lance

Recommended Posts

Quote

Could an East River Pontoon Bridge Save Us From the L-pocalypse?

pontoon1.jpg

...

However, a recently launched project is floating another unusual solution to the impending L-pocalypse: a pontoon bridge. L-ternative Bridge, created by New Yorker Parker Shinn, touts the pontoon bridge as a cheap, quick-to-assemble option that would alleviate some of the difficulties posed by the shutdown of the Canarsie Tube.

Shinn hopes that his design, created with the help of a naval architect and a civil engineer, will garner enough public support to attract the attention and backing of the MTA and other city officials, according to a release.

The project’s website states that the East River pontoon bridge “would be capable of supporting two lanes for bus traffic and two walking/bike paths.” In addition, they claim that construction would only take 6-8 months and could be “completely covered” by a toll of $1. The bridge would be made up of 37 deck barges, each 90 feet in length and held in place with 3,500 pound anchors to prevent the bridge from being swept away.

...

L-ternative’s plan also includes an overpass to be built over FDR Drive that would allow buses and pedestrians to pass underneath to avoid traffic jams, and even includes a 240-foot drawbridge, which would allow ship traffic to pass through at scheduled intervals– just hopefully not during peak hours.

 

I'm down.

http://bedfordandbowery.com/2018/02/could-an-east-river-pontoon-bridge-save-us-from-the-l-pocalypse/

Edited by kosciusko
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 12:49 PM, Jsunflyguy said:


The way to do it for non single track is to put the (L) on the local track, have the (J) go up the middle track a B'way (J3) and cross back to the local.  The L then relays on J3 south of B'Jct. You can squeeze 6tph that way. Whether thats enough, or effective I can't say. But it does have the appeal of not having everyone ride to Myrtle and jump ship.

That would have to be the way to it. But think of how much switching would be required, both for the (J)(Z) to pass through at Broadway Jct and for the shuttle (L) to relay (you’re just about halfway to Chauncey St by the time you can reverse). But with (presumably) increased (J)(Z) service during the shutdown, all that switching would likely cause delays to both services.

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2018 at 7:03 PM, Wallyhorse said:

As one who actually grew up on the Upper East Side, I don't think so at all.  There will be those that to me will want this (T) that I would be running between Metropolitan and 96th/2nd that would give SAS riders a 6th Avenue option at all times.  A lot of them, especially in bad weather who work in Rockerfeller Plaza would want to be able to take such a (T) there because many such would then be able to take that line from whichever station they get on at and not have to be outside at all other than between their home and the station they get on that.  That would be a BIG thing for many that live on the UES and actually work inside Rockerfeller Center.  

And yes, I do think the political clout is there.  The UES has a ton of it from what I remember and they are not afraid to use it.

Ah yes, “from what I remember.” You see, that’s exactly it. From what you remember. Just because that’s the way it was then, doesn’t always mean that’s still the way it is now. I seem to recall from a previous post either here or on Subchat, you saying you moved to Philadelphia in the 1990s. This city has changed quite a bit in all that time and it seems to me whatever clout the UES had historically has become diluted over the years. Since you repeatedly insist that they have the clout and aren’t afraid to use it, then perhaps you could show some proof of how they do that. Today...as in this day and age. Don’t talk to me about what UES residents and pols did 25-30 years ago and definitely don’t mention what they did 50 or 100 years ago. Because none of that is relevant to this thread.

17 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

Some are going to want the direct one-seat ride and NOT have to worry about a transfer to the (F).  Plus the (M) or (T) in this scenario would be FAR less crowded than the (F) would be.  

Too bad so sad for them! Let them transfer like the rest of us have to! What makes them so much more entitled to have a one seat ride over anyone else in this city? Especially during this shutdown? If we should be using any connecting tracks to be doing any one seat rides during this shutdown, it should be for (L) riders below Broadway Junction. I know that’s the part of the (L) with the lowest ridership, but they’ve got much more to lose during the shutdown than do the “politically connected” Upper East Side riders, whose (4)(5)(6) and (Q) service will not be affected one iota during this shutdown. Now if you were to suggest running a (V) or ( K ) train to/from Canarsie via the (J) line from Broadway Junction to Essex, then via the (F) from Broadway-Lafayette to Lex-63rd, then via the (Q) to 96th and 2nd, as a way of relieving the anticipated crowding that will occur at Broadway Junction and Myrtle-Wyckoff, then I can get on board with that. But adding an extra 6th Ave ( T ) local service to serve as a glorified Uber for “politically connected” Upper East Siders? No, sorry, can’t do it. Definitely not after the (L) resumes operation between Brooklyn and Manhattan after the shutdown. And quite frankly, I’m not sure UES riders will either. Why? Because as of now, the current plan calls for the (M) to serve 2nd Ave only during weekends. There are currently no plans to run the (M) to from 2nd Ave on Monday through Friday, and so far, no one has said "boo" about it. They are planning to run extra (M) service during the shutdown, but so far, nothing about it going to the UES on weekdays. Don't you think a bunch of folks who supposedly have a "ton of" politically clout and "are not afraid to use it" would already be making noise about that? Moreover, if their clout was so great, then don't you think they would have pushed for a 6th Ave-to-2nd Ave local train back when the 2nd Ave Subway first opened?

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

If they did that, then Queens Blvd would only have the (R) for local service and the 53rd St tunnel line, including Court Sq would only have the (E), which would be downright intolerable with all the displaced (L) riders transferring from the (G) if the (M) isn’t there. And we’d have merging delays at both Prince and 34th again, because presumably the (N) would be local in Manhattan full time and the (Q) running in Queens and local up to 34th St. And SAS riders would be stuck with 8-car (M) trains 24/7 for 15-18 months, however more frequent they would be running versus the full length (Q). They won’t be so keen on that one seat ride to Rockefeller Center after all, not with shorter trains. Frankly, I hope it really is nothing more than an unfounded rumor, because all I can really see here is even more anger over an unreliable subway and more bad PR for the MTA - and Cuomo - if this is more than just a rumor. 

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

Why Can’t they just route some (G) ‘s to manhattan via the (F) line?! Terminate the (G) at 57th Street... or 96st/2 Avenue. This way the (M) doesn’t have to go up there and cause gaps in Queens Boulevard local service. And of course the other (G) ‘s to Court Square.

Edited by VIP
Split the G line into two different terminals
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

At the risk of sounding like a mod, let’s not let this rumor get out of hand. The last thing we need are people creating rumors and endless proposals of what they think should run where. 

Agreed. We really don't need to do that. Though I still feel like the MTA's current proposal is a bit short on details.

7 hours ago, VIP said:

Why Can’t they just route some (G) ‘s to manhattan via the (F) line?! Terminate the (G) at 57th Street... or 96st/2 Avenue. This way the (M) doesn’t have to go up there and cause gaps in Queens Boulevard local service. And of course the other (G) ‘s to Court Square.

How would this possibly help displaced (L) riders? The (F) in Brooklyn is nowhere near the (L). Basically, these would be (F) trains going to 57th or the Upper East Side, places that aren’t going to be directly affected by the closure of the (L) tunnel. Why even call them (G) trains?

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

9 hours ago, S78 via Hylan said:

At the risk of sounding like a mod, let’s not let this rumor get out of hand. The last thing we need are people creating rumors and endless proposals of what they think should run where. 

Agreed. We have plenty of ideas threads. I'd like to keep this one based on what will most likely run during the closure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Around the Horn said:

Just a random thought looking at some of the MTA crowding analysis, how hard would it be to add additional (G) short turns between Bedford-Nostrand and Court Sq, there fore not having to make some (F) trains go express on Culver?

They already have 2 or 3 turning at Bedford Nostrand during the shutdown. I’d say the most you’d want would be 6 (maybe 7 if they learn to have T/Os waiting to take the train back out). 

That said, I’d rather that they work on making 18th Avenue into the (G) terminal. That’d solve the Church issue forever, and allow riders south of Bedford to partake in the additional service. And to make 18th a functional terminal, all that’s necessary is a single crossover. That’s what, one or two weekends of work? 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RR503 said:

They already have 2 or 3 turning at Bedford Nostrand during the shutdown. I’d say the most you’d want would be 6 (maybe 7 if they learn to have T/Os waiting to take the train back out). 

That said, I’d rather that they work on making 18th Avenue into the (G) terminal. That’d solve the Church issue forever, and allow riders south of Bedford to partake in the additional service. And to make 18th a functional terminal, all that’s necessary is a single crossover. That’s what, one or two weekends of work? 

Making 18 Av the (G) terminal is a bad idea from an operational perspective because it would be similar to the Broadway Jct operation on the (M) currently and Whitehall St on the (W) (or how Smith-9 Sts was as a terminal for the (G) until 2009)

you would realistically only be able to turn only 6 TPH at this station, so you would need a second terminal to have the (G) alternate between the two termini

Edited by darkstar8983
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, darkstar8983 said:

Making 18 Av the (G) terminal is a bad idea from an operational perspective because it would be similar to the Broadway Jct operation on the (M) currently and Whitehall St on the (W) 

you would realistically only be able to turn only 6 TPH

He did say a new crossover will be built closer to 18th itself. So the (G) will be fine turning at 18 Av, since capacity will be boosted once the necessary switches are added. Not just that, since 18 Av is aboveground, it allows cars from the (G) to rest outside. 

As for the switch installment, I would cut the (F) back to Church for 1-2 weekends, while free shuttle buses run to Coney. 

And the (W) train terminating at Whitehall can simply be solved by extending it to Bay Pkwy on the (N) at all times. But the (W) only runs 6 TPH not because of capacity, it's due to the fact that there isn't enough equipment since it's shared with the (N). If TPH was increased, then we could send the (W) to Brooklyn. As for Broadway Jct, that's only temporary, and the (M) will be running normally in only 2 months from now. The switches are farther away from the station, as they're located closer to Chauncey St, which is the reason why capacity is constricted at the terminus. Now for the (G) 18 Av extension- yes, today, capacity would be limited. But as mentioned earlier, necessary switches would be added so the (G) can terminate at 18th efficiently. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Just a random thought looking at some of the MTA crowding analysis, how hard would it be to add additional (G) short turns between Bedford-Nostrand and Court Sq, there fore not having to make some (F) trains go express on Culver?

It's very likely that there will be some short turns. Likely running at 3 TPH. Combined with a 12 TPH full route frequency, you get a 15 TPH service between Bedford-Nostrand and Court Square.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, darkstar8983 said:

Making 18 Av the (G) terminal is a bad idea from an operational perspective because it would be similar to the Broadway Jct operation on the (M) currently and Whitehall St on the (W) (or how Smith-9 Sts was as a terminal for the (G) until 2009)

you would realistically only be able to turn only 6 TPH at this station, so you would need a second terminal to have the (G) alternate between the two termini

Whitehall had 10 tph (R) turning when Montague was down. Sure, that wasn’t the most efficient of operations, but it worked all the same. With new, well placed high speed switches surrounded by tangent track, 18th should be able to do at least that much. And if you place those switches especially well, you’d be able to keep a (G) waiting to terminate out of the way of s/b (F)s. That’d be quite nice to have, as not only would the fumigation issue at Church be eliminated, but also you’d be all but guaranteed to not have cascading terminal congestion issues at all, given that at least one (G) could ‘hide’ out of the way of (F) traffic. 

A good investment, IMO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Whitehall had 10 tph (R) turning when Montague was down. Sure, that wasn’t the most efficient of operations, but it worked all the same. With new, well placed high speed switches surrounded by tangent track, 18th should be able to do at least that much. And if you place those switches especially well, you’d be able to keep a (G) waiting to terminate out of the way of s/b (F)s. That’d be quite nice to have, as not only would the fumigation issue at Church be eliminated, but also you’d be all but guaranteed to not have cascading terminal congestion issues at all, given that at least one (G) could ‘hide’ out of the way of (F) traffic. 

A good investment, IMO

Any high-speed switches there are going to be a tight fit. They are double the length of regular switches.

Edited by CenSin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, CenSin said:

Any high-speed switches there are going to be a tight fit. They are double the length of regular switches.

From the north end of 18th to the south end of Ditmas you have about 1500 feet of straight track to work with. Thus, I see no reason why you couldn’t put a D 25 between the middle and n/b local directly north of the station. That’ll take you 200-300 feet at most, and create a simple yet efficient terminal for the (G) at low cost. You’d obviously remove the now-redundant switch near Ditmas as a part of this. 

Keep in mind they did this at both ends of 74th (those switches are signed for 25) with no ill effects. I see absolutely no reason why it couldn’t be done here. 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Just a random thought looking at some of the MTA crowding analysis, how hard would it be to add additional (G) short turns between Bedford-Nostrand and Court Sq, there fore not having to make some (F) trains go express on Culver?

I would not do that because I want all trains hitting Fulton and Hoyt-Schermerhorn as I want to be encouraging riders as much as possible to take the (G) the other way from Bedford towards the other stations (and in Fulton, a new OOS transfer to the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) at Atlantic-Barclays in order to prevent Court Square from becoming a disaster.  Short of having the (G)(M) and (R) all go to 179 so people can make transfers at Queens Plaza to the (R) along with the (N) and (W) at Queensboro Plaza (via another new OOS transfer), I see Court Square becoming overused and dangerously overcrowded.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RR503 said:

From the north end of 18th to the south end of Ditmas you have about 1500 feet of straight track to work with. Thus, I see no reason why you couldn’t put a D 25 between the middle and n/b local directly north of the station. That’ll take you 200-300 feet at most, and create a simple yet efficient terminal for the (G) at low cost. You’d obviously remove the now-redundant switch near Ditmas as a part of this. 

Keep in mind they did this at both ends of 74th (those switches are signed for 25) with no ill effects. I see absolutely no reason why it couldn’t be done here. 

The switches will fit (not arguing that), but is there enough of a buffer zone for a pocket track to be viable? Knowing the MTA to be safety-crazed, would they allow another train to be so close to the switch while another crosses up ahead?

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.