Jump to content

Attention: In order to reply to messages, create topics, have access to other features of the community you must sign up for an account.
Lance

Fix & Fortify - 14th Street Tunnels Closure

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, RR503 said:

I'm honestly surprised that there hasn't been a public announcement of full skip-stop suspension during the shutdown. The agency's own guidelines dictate a minimum diurnal frequency of 6tph on weekdays -- a 10tph (J)(Z) would violate that with 5tph at single-line stops. Unless they are (again) treating the Jamaica line as an *exceptional* piece of trackage, then they need to start playing by their own rules. 

After, yes, there needs to be a full review of the (J) and (Z). Not just of express from Broadway Jct, but also of capital investments. I'm talking 3rd track Alabama-Crescent, re-opening Bowery and Canal's J1 platforms to relieve crowding, a new platform at Essex in the old trolley terminal, curve easement at Marcy, etc, etc, etc. 

After the shutdown, I agree it may be time to seriously consider re-opening the abandoned platforms at Canal and Bowery.  Obviously, those platforms would need the same work the in-use platforms got during the 1990s-early 2000s, but it is likely now worth it given the increasing population in the area.

Not as sure about a rebuild of Essex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

After the shutdown, I agree it may be time to seriously consider re-opening the abandoned platforms at Canal and Bowery.  Obviously, those platforms would need the same work the in-use platforms got during the 1990s-early 2000s, but it is likely now worth it given the increasing population in the area.

Not as sure about a rebuild of Essex.

The platforms are too narrow, and the station is a bottleneck.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Union Tpke said:

The platforms are too narrow, and the station is a bottleneck.

They also need to consider extending the (M) to Chambers on the weekends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lawrence St said:

They also need to consider extending the (M) to Chambers on the weekends.

If anything, I would not be surprised if the (M) going to 96th/2nd on weekends is made permanent and even expanded to all times similar to my (M) / (T) split that I proposed (where the 96th/2nd trains are (T) and that becomes the 24/7 line, a supplemental line to the Queens Boulevard (M) on weekdays and the main line on weekends). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Curve easement at Marcy would also help the (M) and if they were to ever split the (R) in the future due to reliability concerns, a new platform at Essex would make for a good terminal for the southern portion...

Exactly! In DreamWorld, the north (R) would go to Euclid via a new tunnel, but I digress... 

6 hours ago, Union Tpke said:

This is exactly what I have thought of. In addition, Myrtle Junction needs to be grade-separated, old entrances should be reopened, a new Union Avenue stop should be built, and express stops at 121st and Woodhaven should be added.

I think entrance reopenings need to be made a much larger component of policy than they are today. Not only do they (sometimes significantly) reduce commute times, but they also enhance pedestrian flow and safety -- I'd much rather have people walking under an intersection than across it, where they must face the risks of traffic.

Of course, larger stations need to be properly secured in their own right, and there needs to be fare payment equipment available for all of this, but in the context of NYC subway investments, entrances are a practically free way of making incremental improvements to passenger experience. With you on the other stuff, BTW

6 hours ago, Wallyhorse said:

After the shutdown, I agree it may be time to seriously consider re-opening the abandoned platforms at Canal and Bowery.  Obviously, those platforms would need the same work the in-use platforms got during the 1990s-early 2000s, but it is likely now worth it given the increasing population in the area.

Not as sure about a rebuild of Essex.

Rebuilding Essex not only allows you to enhance terminal function and reduce crowding as @Around the Horn and @Union Turnpike noted, but it also could allow for easing of the pre-station curve. Building a new south track in the trolley terminal would allow an island platform to be installed between it and the current south track. That track, in turn, would become a terminal track, while the current terminal track would become the north track. You've thus eliminated the worst of the speed-limiting curvature coming off of the bridge, et voila, you have faster, more frequent trains serving a better-designed station. When I get a chance, I'll draw this all up in illustrator and post... 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 10:28 PM, Mysterious2train said:

A new bus route, the L5, will run rush hours only between Utica Avenue (3)(4) and the B42 terminal in Canarsie Pier, along Remsen Av, Flatlands Av and Rockaway Pkwy, to provide additional service to Canarsie during the shutdown.

http://www.mta.info/press-release/nyc-transit/mta-bring-additional-temporary-bus-route-fully-ada-compliant-subway

 

Interesting that they quoted four locally elected officials speaking favorably about  this bus service. I haven’t seen or heard any opposition to it or any pols calling for a train service from Canarsie to Manhattan via Broadway Junction (like the short-lived (JJ) service Wallyhorse mentioned up thread). Given how much lower ridership on the (L) is between Canarsie and Broadway Junction, perhaps an additional bus service will be able to do the job. 

22 hours ago, JeremiahC99 said:

This is a god idea, but why every 20 minutes during rush hours only? Wouldn't it be more feasible to have it run every 15 minutes from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM 7 days a week to attract additional passengers?

I have to agree. While (L) ridership on between Canarsie and Broadway Junction is much lower than in Bushwick and Williamsburg, I’d like to think it’s enough to warrant a more frequent L5 bus running longer throughout the day. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Interesting that they quoted four locally elected officials speaking favorably about  this bus service. I haven’t seen or heard any opposition to it or any pols calling for a train service from Canarsie to Manhattan via Broadway Junction (like the short-lived (JJ) service Wallyhorse mentioned up thread). Given how much lower ridership on the (L) is between Canarsie and Broadway Junction, perhaps an additional bus service will be able to do the job. 

It's been 50 years since revenue service last ran from Canarsie down Broadway in Brooklyn, right? I wouldn't expect any area politicians to know about such a service or advocate for it. I would hope none of them oppose this additional bus service. 

Edited by Mysterious2train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2018 at 7:01 PM, RR503 said:

Rebuilding Essex not only allows you to enhance terminal function and reduce crowding as @Around the Horn and @Union Turnpike noted, but it also could allow for easing of the pre-station curve. Building a new south track in the trolley terminal would allow an island platform to be installed between it and the current south track. That track, in turn, would become a terminal track, while the current terminal track would become the north track. You've thus eliminated the worst of the speed-limiting curvature coming off of the bridge, et voila, you have faster, more frequent trains serving a better-designed station. When I get a chance, I'll draw this all up in illustrator and post... 

I'm very interested to see your drawing, when its finished...

What I would do is build the new south track, keep the northern track and widen the existing island (with the new island being the same width). The existing south track would become the middle, terminating track. The existing side platform would abandoned except for the section between the Norfolk Street entrance and the (F) staircase.

Of course none of this addresses the fact that the Williamsburg Bridge should ideally have three tracks.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Of course none of this addresses the fact that the Williamsburg Bridge should ideally have three tracks.

I like this idea but it would mean that not only will the Williamsburg bridge would have to be rebuilt, but it could also mean that you may no longer allow the automobile to operate on it anymore, closing off the bridge so that only Trucks, Buses, Trains and Human traffic can use it. Also, such a project could take up to 5 years or more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LaGuardia Link N Tra said:

I like this idea but it would mean that not only will the Williamsburg bridge would have to be rebuilt, but it could also mean that you may no longer allow the automobile to operate on it anymore, closing off the bridge so that only Trucks, Buses, Trains and Human traffic can use it. Also, such a project could take up to 5 years or more. 

What we should do is remove some of those timers on the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Around the Horn said:

Of course none of this addresses the fact that the Williamsburg Bridge should ideally have three tracks.

It'd be easier to build a single track tunnel under the river connecting the middle tracks at Essex and Marcy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally think we should just go for a new tunnel to eliminate the slow bridge an curve; here is an idea I had a while ago for a new tunnel:

The (J)(M)(Z)  would be removed from the Williamsburg Bridge and would be rerouted via a new East River tunnel. Rather than curve to the WillyB like it does today, the (J)(M)(Z) will continue down Broadway as a 3-tracked El until South 6th St. From here the line will curve to the north side of S 6th and descend underground by Wythe Av. This would require removing Berry between South 5th and South 6th as well as demolishing all the buildings between the WillyB and South 6th and between Bedford and Wythe. From here the line will be a three-tracked tunnel. After crossing the East River, there will be an express station at Columbia/Broome to allow for a cross-platform transfer in both directions. After this, the line will curve back onto Delancey and connect to the current tracks just before Essex. Provided that new switches are added by Delancey/Essex and Bowery and that Myrtle is rebuilt, this would remove the WillyB bottleneck, speed up the East River crossing, and allow for the (J)(Z) and (M) to be de-interlined in the peak direction.     

NOTE: Marcy would become a "local" stop as a result of this change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 8:17 PM, R68OnBroadway said:

I personally think we should just go for a new tunnel to eliminate the slow bridge an curve; here is an idea I had a while ago for a new tunnel:

The (J)(M)(Z)  would be removed from the Williamsburg Bridge and would be rerouted via a new East River tunnel. Rather than curve to the WillyB like it does today, the (J)(M)(Z) will continue down Broadway as a 3-tracked El until South 6th St. From here the line will curve to the north side of S 6th and descend underground by Wythe Av. This would require removing Berry between South 5th and South 6th as well as demolishing all the buildings between the WillyB and South 6th and between Bedford and Wythe. From here the line will be a three-tracked tunnel. After crossing the East River, there will be an express station at Columbia/Broome to allow for a cross-platform transfer in both directions. After this, the line will curve back onto Delancey and connect to the current tracks just before Essex. Provided that new switches are added by Delancey/Essex and Bowery and that Myrtle is rebuilt, this would remove the WillyB bottleneck, speed up the East River crossing, and allow for the (J)(Z) and (M) to be de-interlined in the peak direction.     

NOTE: Marcy would become a "local" stop as a result of this change.

That I would do with at the same time lengthening Essex to allow for 600-foot trains (as well as the new station in this) as part of a longer-term plan to lengthen ALL stations to 600 feet in the Eastern Division over time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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