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

[officiallyliam]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The part where they consider shortening platforms to accommodate those trains lmao. 

Most importantly, Cranberry only has about 3tph capacity nb during the AM rush. Will a 3tph service when people want to travel actually be that helpful? And seriously, is transferring *that* hard? 

Oh, they've thought of that.

They've included a handy graphic on the proposal website that shows quite clearly there's no capacity to run trains past WTC between 8 and 9 am on weekdays.

http://www.rethinkstudio.org/l-train-alternative/

[T to Dyre Avenue]

It’s like even they themselves are admitting their proposal isn’t feasible. If their own graphic shows little available capacity for extra  service in the Cranberry St Tunnel - and none at all from 8-9 AM - then what good is that? 

At least the Williamsburg Bridge has some available capacity for extra rush hour service. How effective it will be remains to be seen.

Edited April 5, 2018 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Lawrence St]

Where exatcly are the displaced R143's from the going? Some are saying the and others say the .

Edited April 5, 2018 by Lawrence St

[Coney Island Av]

11 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Where exatcly are the displaced R142's from the going? Some are saying the and others say the .

R142  ???  

NVM...

Edited April 5, 2018 by Coney Island Av

[BreeddekalbL]

13 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Where exatcly are the displaced R143's from the going? Some are saying the and others say the .

Did he just Say R142'S  

i think you mean 143's

[MysteriousBtrain]

Either way, it's obvious where the R143s are going to run........

[VIP]

25 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Where exatcly are the displaced R143's from the going? Some are saying the and others say the .

Obviously the  the FOAMERS want to see R143  trains but that’s unlikely as an R46 popping up on the  ! 

[Lawrence St]

12 minutes ago, BreeddekalbL said:

Did he just Say R142'S  

i think you mean 143's

IT WAS TYPO, WE GET IT

[Lance]

Can't be wrong here. The sharks will eat you alive.

Seriously though, I think the 143s will likely stay at East New York for  line service. That way they won't have to send the cars on a journey if an  set needs to get swapped out.

[biGC323232]

16 hours ago, Lance said:

Can't be wrong here. The sharks will eat you alive.

Seriously though, I think the 143s will likely stay at East New York for  line service. That way they won't have to send the cars on a journey if an  set needs to get swapped out.

....I agree R143s gonna go on the  and  service....They been running there for a few years now...

[the7train]

I really wanna see how the PSD experiment goes on 3rd Av

[Lawrence St]

While the Manhattan portion of the is closed, they really should extend those tracks at 8th Av to create extra storage space.

But about the , I was thinking why not have extra trains operating via Crosstown, signed up as trains? These trips would be the short turn trips that end at Avenue X, Kings Hwy and Church.

Those loss of trips on 6th Av can allow more trains to be squeezed on there.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Lawrence St

[Lance]

If these trips via Crosstown are being pulled from the existing schedule, that's a definite no-sell. The bulk of Culver and Queens Blvd riders, especially those on the eastern end of the line, are looking for Manhattan service. Run those trains via the line and most riders will bail at Queens Plaza or Bergen St. In fact, even if these are additional trips that will not impact the existing schedule, I don't see them being all that popular outside of the Crosstown line. The majority of the Canarsie shutdown Crosstown ridership will come from the actual Crosstown line, not from the other two connecting lines. Running these quasi- trains from 179 Street to someplace on the Culver line seems like a waste to me.

As for extending the tail tracks at 8 Avenue, this is yet another missed opportunity Transit is blowing.

Edited April 9, 2018 by Lance

[Lawrence St]

34 minutes ago, Lance said:

If these trips via Crosstown are being pulled from the existing schedule, that's a definite no-sell. The bulk of Culver and Queens Blvd riders, especially those on the eastern end of the line, are looking for Manhattan service. Run those trains via the line and most riders will bail at Queens Plaza or Bergen St. In fact, even if these are additional trips that will not impact the existing schedule, I don't see them being all that popular outside of the Crosstown line. The majority of the Canarsie shutdown Crosstown ridership will come from the actual Crosstown line, not from the other two connecting lines. Running these quasi- trains from 179 Street to someplace on the Culver line seems like a waste to me.

As for extending the tail tracks at 8 Avenue, this is yet another missed opportunity Transit is blowing.

While your right on that part, I came up with this idea as a way to increase service on Crosstown without clogging up Church Av or Court Square, as well as allow extra space on 6th Av for the . While your right, most people would bail, it still keeps the same level of service on QBL and Culver while bennefitting riders with extra trips.

[S78 via Hylan]

2 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

While your right on that part, I came up with this idea as a way to increase service on Crosstown without clogging up Church Av or Court Square, as well as allow extra space on 6th Av for the . While your right, most people would bail, it still keeps the same level of service on QBL and Culver while bennefitting riders with extra trips.

It’s also pointless as the  will be expanded to full length trains to accommodate the additional riders.

Edited April 9, 2018 by S78 via Hylan

[Jemorie]

9 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

While the Manhattan portion of the is closed, they really should extend those tracks at 8th Av to create extra storage space.

But about the , I was thinking why not have extra trains operating via Crosstown, signed up as trains? These trips would be the short turn trips that end at Avenue X, Kings Hwy and Church.

Those loss of trips on 6th Av can allow more trains to be squeezed on there.

During rush hours, the 6th Avenue local tracks see 15  trains an hour and 10  trains an hour and yet you going all extra... 

You can squeeze in 5 more trains an hour on the  to make the 6th Avenue local tracks see a train every 2 minutes (30 trains an hour total). But remember you cannot ever physically run a train more than 2 minutes apart in general.

[Lance]

23 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

While your right on that part, I came up with this idea as a way to increase service on Crosstown without clogging up Church Av or Court Square, as well as allow extra space on 6th Av for the . While your right, most people would bail, it still keeps the same level of service on QBL and Culver while bennefitting riders with extra trips.

I was under the assumption these would be extra trips that would not affect the existing trips via 6th Avenue. It appears I was wrong since looking back at this, the Queens Blvd express tracks cannot handle any more trains than the current maximum, which makes this an even worse idea. Sure, you're giving Crosstown more service during the Canarsie closure, which would be a boon to displaced riders, but it cannot be done at the expense of normal line riders looking for Manhattan service. Let's say you take three of the normal trains and run them via Crosstown. All of those riders who hopped on these diverted trains will bail at Queens Plaza for the or trains, both of which will be extra crowded with displaced riders taking the as a rail bridge of sorts. You don't want to exacerbate the already expected overcrowding problem with diverted trains that serve little purpose.

16 hours ago, Jemorie said:

During rush hours, the 6th Avenue local tracks see 15  trains an hour and 10  trains an hour and yet you going all extra... 

You can squeeze in 5 more trains an hour on the  to make the 6th Avenue local tracks see a train every 2 minutes (30 trains an hour total). But remember you cannot ever physically run a train more than 2 minutes apart in general.

Forget about 6th Avenue. As I mentioned above, Queen Blvd is already maxed out, so any of this proposed service would have to be at the expense of normal riders. I actually forgot about that tidbit.

[Jemorie]

^I know. I was just pointing out his false statement about the  not being able to run more frequent on its entire line in either one or both directions because of the 4-minute rush hour headways on the  line, even though the  for a fact can run more frequent as stated in my response to him.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jemorie

[Wallyhorse]

7 hours ago, Lance said:

I was under the assumption these would be extra trips that would not affect the existing trips via 6th Avenue. It appears I was wrong since looking back at this, the Queens Blvd express tracks cannot handle any more trains than the current maximum, which makes this an even worse idea. Sure, you're giving Crosstown more service during the Canarsie closure, which would be a boon to displaced riders, but it cannot be done at the expense of normal line riders looking for Manhattan service. Let's say you take three of the normal trains and run them via Crosstown. All of those riders who hopped on these diverted trains will bail at Queens Plaza for the or trains, both of which will be extra crowded with displaced riders taking the as a rail bridge of sorts. You don't want to exacerbate the already expected overcrowding problem with diverted trains that serve little purpose.

Forget about 6th Avenue. As I mentioned above, Queen Blvd is already maxed out, so any of this proposed service would have to be at the expense of normal riders. I actually forgot about that tidbit.

And this is why I would be adding an OOS transfer between Fulton Street on the and Atlantic-Barclays on the   and encourage those looking in particular for lower Manhattan to take the the other way to Downtown Brooklyn and go to Barclays for the other lines to take pressure of Court Square that I continue to think will be a disaster.  

[RR503]

The service plan for 6th Ave and Crosstown for the shutdown is as follows:

 14tph -- 3 exp Jay to Church to relieve runny nose effect at Church. 

 13tph -- some may go to 179, though has not been decided. 

 15tph Court Square to Bedford Nostrand, 12tph BN to Church with some possibly extended to 18th. 

This provides adequate service to crosstown, QB, 6th and Myrtle without causing undue delays anywhere. Hope this clears things up. 

[Union Tpke]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

The service plan for 6th Ave and Crosstown for the shutdown is as follows:

 14tph -- 3 exp Jay to Church to relieve runny nose effect at Church. 

 13tph -- some may go to 179, though has not been decided. 

 15tph Court Square to Bedford Nostrand, 12tph BN to Church with some possibly extended to 18th. 

This provides adequate service to crosstown, QB, 6th and Myrtle without causing undue delays anywhere. Hope this clears things up. 

Where have you heard about the Ms from 179th. Are those the ones heading to layup on Hillside?

[RR503]

13 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

Where have you heard about the Ms from 179th. Are those the ones heading to layup on Hillside?

Yes. I’ve heard that folks at OP are worried about what 10tph of service and 13tph of will do to Forest Hills. I heard that they were throwing around extending a few  trips to 179 just to give FHills a chance to decongest. Again, I don’t know how likely this is — just an idea that I’ve heard is being thrown around. Everything else listed seems pretty set in stone though. 

[kosciusko]

15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

worried about what 10tph of service and 13tph of will do to Forest Hills.

[Jemorie]

3 hours ago, RR503 said:

The service plan for 6th Ave and Crosstown for the shutdown is as follows:

 14tph -- 3 exp Jay to Church to relieve runny nose effect at Church. 

 13tph -- some may go to 179, though has not been decided. 

 15tph Court Square to Bedford Nostrand, 12tph BN to Church with some possibly extended to 18th. 

This provides adequate service to crosstown, QB, 6th and Myrtle without causing undue delays anywhere. Hope this clears things up. 

Wouldn't the 6 minute headways be enough rather than 4 minute headways on the  though?

[bobtehpanda]

7 minutes ago, Jemorie said:

Wouldn't the 6 minute headways be enough rather than 4 minute headways on the  though?

This plan keeps everything more or less the same TPH, which makes it really easy to schedule trains.

If the is every 4 minutes and the is every six it's very hard to schedule even intervals between trains.