Jump to content

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


Lance

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
9 hours ago, Calvin said:

Giving a notice: Today is the last day (M) trains will head over along the Second Av line to 96 St on the (Q).  

The connection from Broadway on the (G) to either Hewes St or Lorimer St on the (J)(M) will go on until May 31st. 

The latter connection should be permanent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Calvin said:

Giving a notice: Today is the last day (M) trains will head over along the Second Av line to 96 St on the (Q).  

The connection from Broadway on the (G) to either Hewes St or Lorimer St on the (J)(M) will go on until May 31st. 

Personally, I would have made the (M) to 96th/2nd or 145th/8th on weekends a permanent change, mainly so it serves 6th Avenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, EvilMonologue said:

Is there any real reason why they don't? Same with providing a transfer with the (C) and (G) lines with Atlantic Av. Is it a revenue thing? Does it really cost them that much?

They claim they will lose too much money.

See this: http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/G_LineReview_7_10_13.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Union Tpke said:

They claim they will lose too much money.

See this: http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/G_LineReview_7_10_13.pdf

I feel like the (MTA) needs to update the (G) Line Review because a lot has changed with the (G) Line between 2013 and the present day. If anything, we can all agree on the following:

- (G) Trains need to be lengthened to at least 480'. Preferably, it should use 8 car R-160's or R-179's for the upcoming CBTC upgrades, and for compatibility with Queens Blvd CBTC just in case an (F) Train needs to be rerouted. 

- Build a Hewes Street/Broadway Transfer should be a serious consideration given its success during the (L) Project. (A Union Avenue station along the (J) and (M) to consolidate Hewes Street and Loimer Street would be more preferable though I'm not trying to get ahead of myself). 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I feel like the (MTA) needs to update the (G) Line Review because a lot has changed with the (G) Line between 2013 and the present day. If anything, we can all agree on the following:

- (G) Trains need to be lengthened to at least 480'. Preferably, it should use 8 car R-160's or R-179's for the upcoming CBTC upgrades, and for compatibility with Queens Blvd CBTC just in case an (F) Train needs to be rerouted. 

- Build a Hewes Street/Broadway Transfer should be a serious consideration given its success during the (L) Project. (A Union Avenue station along the (J) and (M) to consolidate Hewes Street and Loimer Street would be more preferable though I'm not trying to get ahead of myself). 

 

They never reviewed any lines other than the A/C, F, G, and L, and you want them to go back to the G?

They said they might do one for the R after SAS, but never did end up doing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

They never reviewed any lines other than the A/C, F, G, and L, and you want them to go back to the G?

They said they might do one for the R after SAS, but never did end up doing it.

Just to update it, that's it. 

Well that's unfortunate, the (R) is a line that's in need of improvement. Arguably, more than any other line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

They claim they will lose too much money.

See this: http://web.mta.info/nyct/service/G_LineReview_7_10_13.pdf

The revenue loss is severe because the way the (MTA) does OOS transfers is quite open ended - swipe in literally anywhere, then get a free transfer at the OOS transfer station.

Once OMNY comes around, I think they could make the OOS transfers a bit more closed in. Let's give Atlantic Av as an example: within fare control, have a "tap-out" scanner, with a big sign saying "Tap here to get a free out of system transfer at Lafayette Av (C) or Fulton St (G)" (with a map showing how to get to those stations). Then, the user gets 30 minutes after tapping out to tap in at the transfer station, so that the system can't be abused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, P3F said:

The revenue loss is severe because the way the (MTA) does OOS transfers is quite open ended - swipe in literally anywhere, then get a free transfer at the OOS transfer station.

Once OMNY comes around, I think they could make the OOS transfers a bit more closed in. Let's give Atlantic Av as an example: within fare control, have a "tap-out" scanner, with a big sign saying "Tap here to get a free out of system transfer at Lafayette Av (C) or Fulton St (G)" (with a map showing how to get to those stations). Then, the user gets 30 minutes after tapping out to tap in at the transfer station, so that the system can't be abused.

That would be a good way of doing it and cut down on abuse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like that idea.  It would need to be clearly signed or people would forget to tap out and then get angry when they have to pay an extra fare.  There are other places where such a transfer could be useful like 207th Street on the (A) and (1), Queens Plaza and Queensboro Plaza, and 21st Street and Hunterspoint Avenue.  These are areas where I don't think the cost of building an in-system transfer is justified, but it would expand the usefulness of the system to have the out of system transfer.  There are still 2 areas where I think there should be an in-system transfer, like Hewes/Lorimer and Broadway, and Junius Street and Livonia Avenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, P3F said:

The revenue loss is severe because the way the (MTA) does OOS transfers is quite open ended - swipe in literally anywhere, then get a free transfer at the OOS transfer station.

Once OMNY comes around, I think they could make the OOS transfers a bit more closed in. Let's give Atlantic Av as an example: within fare control, have a "tap-out" scanner, with a big sign saying "Tap here to get a free out of system transfer at Lafayette Av (C) or Fulton St (G)" (with a map showing how to get to those stations). Then, the user gets 30 minutes after tapping out to tap in at the transfer station, so that the system can't be abused.

Just like the pink readers in London.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/27/2020 at 9:22 AM, Wallyhorse said:

Personally, I would have made the (M) to 96th/2nd or 145th/8th on weekends a permanent change, mainly so it serves 6th Avenue.

I wish they would keep that service alive somehow. That one seat ride came so in handy and I’ve noticed that trains would have lots of people on them through Midtown. I noticed according to the MTA’s statistics ridership increased decently at every single stop the (M) stops at along 6th Ave. I know a lot of those people were former (L) train riders but I’m sure this encouraged other people to ride the (M). The (D) and the (F) are simply not enough, and the (F) can be so infrequent as it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6th Avenue is the only Manhattan trunk line that doesn't run 3 services on weekends, so it definitely makes sense to have the (M) go further into Manhattan on weekends.  The question is does 2nd Ave need the extra service?  While I don't think 2nd Ave desperately needs more weekend service, it could be beneficial since the (Q) has to serve the line alone.  On weekdays there are select (N) and (R) trains.  It would be better if the (M) could just terminate at 57th Street or 47th-50th, so 2nd Avenue is the only logical place to send it.  145th and 8th would mean there's 4 services on CPW which I don't think they want.  If CPW needs more service, then weekend (C) service can be increased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Collin said:

6th Avenue is the only Manhattan trunk line that doesn't run 3 services on weekends, so it definitely makes sense to have the (M) go further into Manhattan on weekends.  The question is does 2nd Ave need the extra service?  While I don't think 2nd Ave desperately needs more weekend service, it could be beneficial since the (Q) has to serve the line alone.  On weekdays there are select (N) and (R) trains.  It would be better if the (M) could just terminate at 57th Street or 47th-50th, so 2nd Avenue is the only logical place to send it.  145th and 8th would mean there's 4 services on CPW which I don't think they want.  If CPW needs more service, then weekend (C) service can be increased.

On CPW they need to make the (D) local on the weekends. The (C) by itself is just a pain sometimes to take. It’s annoying missing a train on CPW (on the weekends) because you are guaranteed to wait 12-15 minutes for a train that will be crowded. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Collin said:

6th Avenue is the only Manhattan trunk line that doesn't run 3 services on weekends, so it definitely makes sense to have the (M) go further into Manhattan on weekends.  The question is does 2nd Ave need the extra service?  While I don't think 2nd Ave desperately needs more weekend service, it could be beneficial since the (Q) has to serve the line alone.  On weekdays there are select (N) and (R) trains.  It would be better if the (M) could just terminate at 57th Street or 47th-50th, so 2nd Avenue is the only logical place to send it.  145th and 8th would mean there's 4 services on CPW which I don't think they want.  If CPW needs more service, then weekend (C) service can be increased.

If 57th St was made as a 4 track terminal like 57th St-7th Av, it would've made a great terminal for the (M) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/3/2020 at 3:07 AM, Lawrence St said:

If 57th St was made as a 4 track terminal like 57th St-7th Av, it would've made a great terminal for the (M) .

I don't think 57th-6th was ever intended to be a long-term terminal.  The lengthy delays in getting 63rd Street done were why that happened.

Edited by Wallyhorse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

I don't think 57th-6th was ever intended to be a long-term terminal.  The lengthy delays in getting 63rd Street done were why that happened.

It was initially a short-term terminal for additional Sixth Avenue service through the Chrystie Street Connection and the new Sixth Avenue express tracks. Before the extension to 57th was built, there was a provision in the tunnel for a northward expansion.

Edited by Union Tpke
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.