Jump to content

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


Lance

Recommended Posts

Far better (and easier than the plan they once had, to reconfigure the area between Prince and Canal, to swap the express and local for the bridge and tunnel. That was when they had for the most part shelved Phase 3 and 4, so this would be SAS' direct access to downtown; but they then had to promise to do the whole line to get the final funding to begin the first phases, and so that idea was dropped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 hours ago, Eric B said:

They need to complete the flying junction there. The local trackways actually don't lead to 60th St.; they lead to the proposed uptown line like the express originally did before being realigned to 63rd St.; and 60th St. is a "wye" between express and local (which is why you can get to 60th St. from the express as well as local).
So northbound, the local trackway is crossed by the 63rd. St. tie-in, so that you could just lay the tracks and build a merge. (a concrete room built on the trackway would have to be moved). It's southbound where it would be more difficult, as the local trackway is moving away from the 63rd St. lead, and there are structural columns in the way.

But I think I did hear they were looking at this, and it's something they should do.

6 hours ago, W4ST said:

That could allow them to send Broadway Local trains to SAS and Broadway express trains to Astoria, which would be good because after SAS Phase 3, more Broadway trains will be needed going to Astoria than Second Avenue, and Broadway Express has more demand than Broadway local, due to the Manhattan Bridge.

38 minutes ago, Eric B said:

Far better (and easier than the plan they once had, to reconfigure the area between Prince and Canal, to swap the express and local for the bridge and tunnel. That was when they had for the most part shelved Phase 3 and 4, so this would be SAS' direct access to downtown; but they then had to promise to do the whole line to get the final funding to begin the first phases, and so that idea was dropped.

And guess what? Everyone is happy. There’s direct access to lower Manhattan for the Upper East Side, and there’s Manhattan express service for Astoria, and Flushing is connected to Koreatown, Chinatown and 8 Avenue—skipping most of the irrelevant stations in between. There’s even the possibility of mixing things up with express and local service to both 2 Avenue and Astoria!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2018 at 3:55 PM, Eric B said:

They need to complete the flying junction there. The local trackways actually don't lead to 60th St.; they lead to the proposed uptown line like the express originally did before being realigned to 63rd St.; and 60th St. is a "wye" between express and local (which is why you can get to 60th St. from the express as well as local).
So northbound, the local trackway is crossed by the 63rd. St. tie-in, so that you could just lay the tracks and build a merge. (a concrete room built on the trackway would have to be moved). It's southbound where it would be more difficult, as the local trackway is moving away from the 63rd St. lead, and there are structural columns in the way.

But I think I did hear they were looking at this, and it's something they should do.

 

On 7/7/2018 at 4:11 PM, W4ST said:

That could allow them to send Broadway Local trains to SAS and Broadway express trains to Astoria, which would be good because after SAS Phase 3, more Broadway trains will be needed going to Astoria than Second Avenue, and Broadway Express has more demand than Broadway local, due to the Manhattan Bridge.

But why? Where is the need for both Broadway express and local service to 2nd Ave? Or the need for both local and express service to Astoria? The Broadway express (N) doesn’t get you to  57th, 42nd or 34th streets any faster than the local (W) because they’re on the same tracks until 34th St. The time savings to 14th or Canal is very minor (especially to 14th).

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

3 minutes ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

 

But why? Where is the need for both Broadway express and local service to 2nd Ave? Or the need for both local and express service to Astoria? The Broadway express (N) doesn’t get you to  57th, 42nd or 34th streets any faster than the local (W) because they’re on the same tracks until 34th St. The time savings to 14th or Canal is very minor (especially to 14th).

At least as I interpreted it only Broadway Local trains would go to SAS and only Broadway Express trains would go to Astoria. It wouldn't be about time savings, it would be about the merge with the (T). If all Broadway Express trains go to SAS as well as the (T), it is limited to 15 tph because of the (T). If all Broadway Local trains go to SAS, it would be the same, but Broadway Local only needs 15 tph, while Broadway Express needs more due to a higher demand to cross the Manhattan Bridge. Plus, Broadway Local is more flexible due to Whitehall Street.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, W4ST said:

At least as I interpreted it only Broadway Local trains would go to SAS and only Broadway Express trains would go to Astoria. It wouldn't be about time savings, it would be about the merge with the (T). If all Broadway Express trains go to SAS as well as the (T), it is limited to 15 tph because of the (T). If all Broadway Local trains go to SAS, it would be the same, but Broadway Local only needs 15 tph, while Broadway Express needs more due to a higher demand to cross the Manhattan Bridge. Plus, Broadway Local is more flexible due to Whitehall Street.

Oh, ok...now I see what you’re saying. Thank you for elaborating. Yes, that sounds like a workable solution for how to provide Broadway service to/from 2nd Ave once we get to Phase 3 and the (T) train. But both Ditmars Blvd and Astoria Blvd would have to be reconfigured to handle both the (N) and (Q), which would be running at greater frequencies than they did when they last ran together to Astoria (from 2010-16).

But still, this is a long-term idea.

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

On 7/7/2018 at 2:27 PM, Lawrence St said:

They should really take the time to ESI the Manhattan (L) stations while they're working on the tubes.

Said stations were already Renovated in the late 90s (except for 3rd and 6th avenues). The MTA already said 1st Avenue is getting major upgrades with elevators, and other stations will follow with improved tiles and platform edges. 6th Avenue will get elevators much later down the line (along with the (F) platforms).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Has there been thoughts about constructing a temporary island platform on the middle track at Marcy Avenue (maybe even at Lormier St too) to allow for more capacity and a PATH style operation (ie. letting people out on one side having people enter on the other)?

Edited by YankeesPwnMets
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, YankeesPwnMets said:

Has there been thoughts about constructing a temporary island platform on the middle track at Marcy Avenue (maybe even at Lormier St too) to allow for more capacity and a PATH style operation (ie. letting people out on one side having people enter on the other)?

Ah how I wish there was! The *second* the (J)(M)(Z) gap, that platform will become a public safety hazard. Operationally, Spanish sol’n platforms generally increase dwells, but here I think the distribution of crowding would have been a net positive in decreased door surges. Alas...

18 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Honestly, there should be some tracks added at Atlantic Avenue on the (L) and have some rush hour (M) trains end and start there.

For the Canarsie shutdown, that’s kinda unnecessary. Broadway Jct is there for whatever doesn’t fit diverging through Myrtle, and Canarsie will have plenty of cap if you *absolutely* need to use those 5mph flyovers... 

Longer term — and others have talked about this at length — we’re gonna need more terminal capacity beyond Myrtle Wyckoff as (L) ridership originations shift east with the build out of the ENY area. To that end, I think the addition of terminal functionality at Atlantic is absolutely defensible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Honestly, there should be some tracks added at Atlantic Avenue on the (L) and have some rush hour (M) trains end and start there.

That won't do much as the current tracks between the (J) and (L) can only handle 5 mph, and a good portion of (M) riders that use it over the (L) come from the Middle Village branch. The flat junction at Myrtle and the Willy B also limit capacity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

Ok so plan 1:

dudpcxW.png

 

Or Plan 2:

L0o3ETU.png

MyEMsGu.png

Plan 2 costs less money, but I avoided using the middle track space at Myrtle-Wycoff since it would be costly to re-add track there.

The best idea would be to reroute NB (M) trains down a new structure on Lewis Av before having them turn onto the old upper level NB track. Since the (J) switches over to the express prior to the junction, there would no longer be a merging conflict there. If combine this with some timer removals on the Willy B, you should be able to help increase service on the Jamaica line, allowing for the (M) to reach a TPH that will allow it to run to Jamaica-179 (the (E) would be QBL local via 53rd to Forest Hills, (F) would be the QBL express to Parsons-Archer via 63rd, and the (M) would be the QBL express to Jamaica-179 via 63rd). The old NB track would continue to be used during reroutes, but would no longer be used during late nights to turn trains as the (M) would be a full-time line to Jamaica-179th.

Also, what program did you use to edit/create these maps?

Edited by R68OnBroadway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I'm thinking the same, but wouldn't the junction have to be rebuilt 

I like the plans first of all, and second, much of the structure itself was NOT torn down, so it is conceivable to rebuild at least to four tracks at Atlantic Avenue (something I have suggested many times with the idea of actually short-turning some (L) trains there and actually having the option of reviving the old (JJ) or some combo of that and the old (KK) that perhaps could run from Rockaway Parkway to either 71st-Continental or 96th/2nd.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

Ok so plan 1:

 

[images deleted for space reasons]

Or Plan 2:

 

 

Plan 2 costs less money, but I avoided using the middle track space at Myrtle-Wycoff since it would be costly to re-add track there.

I don't love these proposals. Beyond the uselessness of terminating throughput that could go down Jamaica at Atlantic, the proposed terminal would cause hella merging delays what with (M)s having to cross (L) tracks both to and from the terminal. Likewise, the installation of the middle track on Myrtle serves no purpose here. You aren't adding terminal functionality and aren't mitigating the flat junction. Much like the pre-1948 iteration, this is just linear train storage.

3 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

The best idea would be to reroute NB (M) trains down a new structure on Lewis Av before having them turn onto the old upper level NB track. Since the (J) switches over to the express prior to the junction, there would no longer be a merging conflict there. If combine this with some timer removals on the Willy B, you should be able to help increase service on the Jamaica line, allowing for the (M) to reach a TPH that will allow it to run to Jamaica-179 (the (E) would be QBL local via 53rd to Forest Hills, (F) would be the QBL express to Parsons-Archer via 63rd, and the (M) would be the QBL express to Jamaica-179 via 63rd). The old NB track would continue to be used during reroutes, but would no longer be used during late nights to turn trains as the (M) would be a full-time line to Jamaica-179th.

I agree with the Lewis proposal, but why would you want to make the (M) the main service on QB Exp? It's limited to 8 cars... In fact, I'd posit that without platform extensions on the BMT Eastern Division or deinterlining of the Chrystie St Cut, the deinterlining of QB is inadvisable for reduction of exp capacity reasons. 

Back to Atlantic, though.

As I said before, any throughput extractable from W'burg and not needed on Myrtle should be sent down Jamaica -- that corridor needs the service infinitely more than lower Canarsie. That said, Rock Pkwy is not a long-term terminal solution for the (L) if we are to run more than ~12tph beyond Myrtle Wyckoff -- something that will be necessary with the upzoning of ENY/Bushwick and traction-power related throughput improvements on the (L) in general. To this end, it is imperative that Atlantic be converted to some sort of terminal, so the (L) can serve the eastward-shifted ridership needs of the future. So, I give you this (apologies for the weird positioning and my not showing the (L) level of Broadway Jct -- this part of a larger proposal track map that is focused on the Jamaica Line)

P3aFHLD.jpg

This configuration (provided good switch speeds) would allow significant relay capacity to be realized at Atlantic, while creating a minimum of merging and preserving the Jamaica Line and ENY yard connections. From left, the arrows go to:

-Bway Jct (L) s/b track

-Bway Jct (L) n/b track 

-ENY yard 

-ENY yard

-ENY yard 

Edited by RR503
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I don't love these proposals. Beyond the uselessness of terminating throughput that could go down Jamaica at Atlantic, the proposed terminal would cause hella merging delays what with (M)s having to cross (L) tracks both to and from the terminal. Likewise, the installation of the middle track on Myrtle serves no purpose here. You aren't adding terminal functionality and aren't mitigating the flat junction. Much like the pre-1948 iteration, this is just linear train storage.

I agree with the Lewis proposal, but why would you want to make the (M) the main service on QB Exp? It's limited to 8 cars... In fact, I'd posit that without platform extensions on the BMT Eastern Division or deinterlining of the Chrystie St Cut, the deinterlining of QB is inadvisable for reduction of exp capacity reasons. 

Back to Atlantic, though.

As I said before, any throughput extractable from W'burg and not needed on Myrtle should be sent down Jamaica -- that corridor needs the service infinitely more than lower Canarsie. That said, Rock Pkwy is not a long-term terminal solution for the (L) if we are to run more than ~12tph beyond Myrtle Wyckoff -- something that will be necessary with the upzoning of ENY/Bushwick and traction-power related throughput improvements on the (L) in general. To this end, it is imperative that Atlantic be converted to some sort of terminal, so the (L) can serve the eastward-shifted ridership needs of the future. So, I give you this (apologies for the weird positioning and my not showing the (L) level of Broadway Jct -- this part of a larger proposal track map that is focused on the Jamaica Line)

P3aFHLD.jpg

This configuration (provided good switch speeds) would allow significant relay capacity to be realized at Atlantic, while creating a minimum of merging and preserving the Jamaica Line and ENY yard connections. From left, the arrows go to:

-Bway Jct (L) s/b track

-Bway Jct (L) n/b track 

-ENY yard 

-ENY yard

-ENY yard 

That's literally the point of plan 2. Myrtle-Wycoff needs to become a part time terminal for the (M) and having a relay track can make that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lawrence St said:

That's literally the point of plan 2. Myrtle-Wycoff needs to become a part time terminal for the (M) and having a relay track can make that happen.

Why/what good does that do? The capacity limit on Myrtle is not imposed by the terminal at Metro — it’s the flat junction at Broadway. Why don’t you fix that first? Remember Metro once handled the Myrtle El runs as well as the (M) 

I also think that combining a turnback terminal with through running train service will lead to an operational disaster. Third track provisions lead right up to Seneca, so if you *must* have terminal functionality on Myrtle aside from the Metro terminal, then why don’t you add a relay track there... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, RR503 said:

Why/what good does that do? The capacity limit on Myrtle is not imposed by the terminal at Metro — it’s the flat junction at Broadway. Why don’t you fix that first? Remember Metro once handled the Myrtle El runs as well as the (M) 

I also think that combining a turnback terminal with through running train service will lead to an operational disaster. Third track provisions lead right up to Seneca, so if you *must* have terminal functionality on Myrtle aside from the Metro terminal, then why don’t you add a relay track there... 

There is no real need to fix the flat junction at Myrtle Ave because there's another solution: instead of using the flat junction and further delaying trains, additional (M) trains should be running towards Broadway Junction since the stations along that stretch are expected to see significant ridership increases (the (J)(Z) are also running local for this reason). The stops between Myrtle Ave and Broadway Junction already have more ridership than those along the Myrtle Ave branch, so the ridership is warranted.

Even after the (L) shutdown, if the (M) keeps some of its increased service, the additional trains should originate and terminate at Broadway Junction, which is a bigger destination than Middle Village ever will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Caelestor said:

There is no real need to fix the flat junction at Myrtle Ave because there's another solution: instead of using the flat junction and further delaying trains, additional (M) trains should be running towards Broadway Junction since the stations along that stretch are expected to see significant ridership increases (the (J)(Z) are also running local for this reason). The stops between Myrtle Ave and Broadway Junction already have more ridership than those along the Myrtle Ave branch, so the ridership is warranted.

Even after the (L) shutdown, if the (M) keeps some of its increased service, the additional trains should originate and terminate at Broadway Junction, which is a bigger destination than Middle Village ever will be.

Broadway Junction can't handle that many trains to turn around, which is why I said Atlantic Av or Rockaway Park would be better as a terminal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Caelestor said:

Even after the (L) shutdown, if the (M) keeps some of its increased service, the additional trains should originate and terminate at Broadway Junction, which is a bigger destination than Middle Village ever will be.

I don’t see a need for that. It’d be better to just boost service on the (J).

Edited by S78 via Hylan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Caelestor said:

There is no real need to fix the flat junction at Myrtle Ave because there's another solution: instead of using the flat junction and further delaying trains, additional (M) trains should be running towards Broadway Junction since the stations along that stretch are expected to see significant ridership increases (the (J)(Z) are also running local for this reason). The stops between Myrtle Ave and Broadway Junction already have more ridership than those along the Myrtle Ave branch, so the ridership is warranted.

Even after the (L) shutdown, if the (M) keeps some of its increased service, the additional trains should originate and terminate at Broadway Junction, which is a bigger destination than Middle Village ever will be.

We should be fixing the junction now before we have problems later, especially considering how long the MTA takes with anything. You talk about the (J)(Z) stops are and will see ridership increases, but the junction limits capacity on them as well. Considering that the (L) is not getting less crowded anytime soon, and that areas between Ridgewood and ENY are getting increasingly more gentrified, we need to get rid of that bottleneck to help siphon riders off the (L) , serve the areas near the (M) better, and provide more service on the Jamaica line to make it no longer be a glorified elevated bus. We could even make get some riders off the (E) if we show them (J)(Z) service isn't asinine anymore. 

 

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.