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.
Sign in to follow this  
RR503

L shutdown M issues (Voice article)

Recommended Posts

Finally the media has been made aware of this. 

From the Village Voice: 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

https://www.villagevoice.com/2018/05/17/the-l-train-shutdown-scenario-just-got-a-whole-lot-worse/

The L Train Shutdown Scenario Just Got a Whole Lot Worse

The Williamsburg Bridge can only carry three more trains an hour to Manhattan, and that’s not going to be enough to get everyone to work

by AARON GORDON

MAY 17, 2018

A J train departs Marcy Avenue onto the “S” curve heading toward the Williamsburg Bridge. By forcing trains to slow down, the curve limits the bridge’s capacity to 24 trains per hour.DAVID "DEE" DELGADO FOR THE VILLAGE VOICE

The picture of just how bad the L train shutdown will be for commuters is getting a little bit clearer. And it’s looking even worse.

A key to the latest problem was raised during Wednesday night’s L train shutdown town hall meeting in Williamsburg, when a speaker named Sunny Ng stepped up to the microphone and asked what many current L riders have wondered: “I have concerns about how many more trains can fit on the Williamsburg Bridge.”

At first, NYC Transit president Andy Byford didn’t offer a specific number. “Rest assured, our intention is to utilize the J/M/Z lines,” he said. “We intend to use them to the max.” But another audience member shouted, “How many?! HOW MANY?” and Byford passed the question to Peter Cafiero, chief of operations planning, who relented: 24 trains per hour can travel over the Williamsburg Bridge.

But 24 trains per hour, it turns out, is the absolute best-case scenario. “They can only achieve that if everything runs perfectly,” a source familiar with the planning told the Voice, on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their job.

Sunny Ng, an L line commuter, expressed his concerns during the MTA’s tunnel reconstruction town hall Wednesday night at the Progress High School in Williamsburg.DAVID "DEE" DELGADO FOR VILLAGE VOICE

MTA planning documents obtained by the Voice note that “operational strategies [are] needed to maximize throughput,” which could include stationing extra trains along the route to slot in if a train is delayed or goes out of service, plus ensuring that train operators know the route perfectly and achieve the absolute maximum speed allowable under the current signal system.

Yet these same planning documents show that even 24 trains per hour, if achieved, represents an increase of only three trains per hour over the current schedule. That’s enough to carry approximately 6,000 more riders per hour than currently possible. The L train, for comparison, carries almost four times that, or 24,100 riders per hour, across the East River. Considering the MTA expects a large proportion of displaced L riders — up to 80 percent by their estimates — to opt for subway alternatives, and a large portion of those riders to opt for the J/M/Z, it’s not clear how the J/M/Z can possibly carry all the riders that will be crowding its platforms.

The problem stems from a stretch of the J/M/Z tracks between the Marcy Avenue and Essex Street stations on either side of the Williamsburg Bridge. Because the track has “S” curves on each side, trains must slow down to ensure they don’t derail. Even if the speed limit on the bridge were raised from the current 25 miles per hour, traffic jams would still form at the curves, much like when a car driver guns the engine in the middle of a city block, then slows again when getting to a red light.

NYCT President Andy Byford speaks to the press during Wednesday’s tunnel town hall.DAVID "DEE" DELGADO FOR VILLAGE VOICE

Unfortunately, there aren’t any other lines with extra capacity to pick up the slack. There are currently twenty L trains running under the East River per hour; during the shutdown, there will be the three extra J/M trains from Brooklyn, plus two more 7 trains (assuming its new signaling system is finished by year’s end despite being two years behind schedule) and three more M trains from Queens — but also two fewer R trains, in order to accommodate the extra M trains (the lines share track in Queens). The MTA will also be lengthening C trains, as MTA chairman Joe Lhota promised when he announced the Subway Action Plan in July, adding the equivalent of one and a half trains per hour. That comes to 12.5 fewer trains total, an overall reduction in capacity of approximately 25,000 riders per hour.

This figure represents a big problem: It’s more riders than the MTA predicts will seek non-subway alternatives during the shutdown, meaning some number of people — roughly somewhere between 2,000 and 4,000 people per hour*, based on the MTA’s capacity estimates combined with information from the planning documents obtained by the Voice — may not be able to board Manhattan-bound trains during peak periods. But these numbers are very much in flux; the service plans are still being finalized and it’s hard to predict how commuters will react to the shutdown with any precision.

The G, which according to the planning documents currently runs nine trains per hour during peak periods, will add the most capacity of all: three additional trains running the full route, plus three trains per hour running between Court Square and Bedford-Nostrand, where they will short-turn and head back north to Queens — and all G trains will be lengthened to eight cars, double their current length.

This will increase service between Williamsburg/Greenpoint and the E, M, and 7 trains. But it’s important to remember that the G is just a means to an end for displaced L riders; nearly all of them will then be looking to cross the river via another line. So while the G can reasonably cope with the increased capacity, it is the transfer points and the other lines that will not be able to add nearly as much capacity that will suffer the most.

The G line will run more and longer trains during the L train shutdown — including extra shuttle trains between Court Square and Bedford-Nostrand — but those riders will eventually have to transfer to other already-jammed lines to reach Manhattan.DAVID "DEE" DELGADO FOR THE VILLAGE VOICE

“It’s frustrating how secretive NYCT has been with the entire process,” the source lamented to the Voice before the information was revealed publicly at Wednesday’s town hall. “I’m not trying to make the MTA look bad, but the public deserves to know what’s going on.”

During the town hall, Cafiero stated the priority is to run as many M trains as possible, while also accommodating as many J trains as possible over the Williamsburg Bridge. If this holds true, it means the MTA will target fourteen M trains per hour and ten J trains — the most that can run under that 24 train-per-hour limit imposed by the “S” curves.

“It’s pretty much a given that the line will be over guideline,” the source told the Voice, meaning more people will be trying to pack on than the maximum capacity. “I don’t know what to say besides we’re f**ked and it’ll be miserable.”

*The math goes like this: 24,100 riders per hour during rush hours currently cross the East River on the L. The MTA estimates that between 20 and 30 percent of them — between 4,820 and 7,230 — will get to work by buses, bikes, or other non-subway means. Counting the longer C trains, the MTA will be adding the equivalent of 7.5 new trains worth of capacity, enough to accommodate approximately 15,000 passengers. That would leave between 1,870 and 4,280 commuters unable to squeeze onto trains at all.

  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cutting back the (R)? This can only improve service for the (N) and (W), unless the (R)s turn up at 96 Street. Then Broadway is screwed as well by the 14 Street shutdown.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the real question is how in the hell are they going to deal with this?  The de Blasio administration has been completely blasé about the whole thing claiming that they're trying to strike a balance, but if the (MTA) can't accommodate all of these (L) train riders, how are these people supposed to get around? It's clear that there will be hiccups and there's no way that shuttle buses will be able to pick up the slack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So the real question is how in the hell are they going to deal with this?  The de Blasio administration has been completely blasé about the whole thing claiming that they're trying to strike a balance, but if the (MTA) can't accommodate all of these (L) train riders, how are these people supposed to get around? It's clear that there will be hiccups and there's no way that shuttle buses will be able to pick up the slack.

I wonder if it'd make more sense to run a supplemental train back and forth between Essex and Marcy (like that bus that only goes from Allen St to Willy B plaza/Marcy Av) to facilitate transfers to (F) as a capacity booster, since they're not running trains every 1 minute between Myrtle and Essex because of the timers on the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I wonder if it'd make more sense to run a supplemental train back and forth between Essex and Marcy (like that bus that only goes from Allen St to Willy B plaza/Marcy Av) to facilitate transfers to (F) as a capacity booster, since they're not running trains every 1 minute between Myrtle and Essex because of the timers on the bridge.

That would probably not work as it could further clog up the area.

Another thing: Why won't the MTA suggest some people take the B39? Traffic on the bridge would be low enough for it to operate faster, and if you could extend the line to the Broadway lines you could attract some people if they wanted to transfer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, R68OnBroadway said:

Another thing: Why won't the MTA suggest some people take the B39? Traffic on the bridge would be low enough for it to operate faster, and if you could extend the line to the Broadway lines you could attract some people if they wanted to transfer.

I wouldn't be surprised if the B39 is simply absorbed into the shuttle bus system; there's no need to have the bus just over the bridge, as Bridge Plaza doesn't do much to help (L) riders.

5 hours ago, CenSin said:

Cutting back the (R)? This can only improve service for the (N) and (W), unless the (R)s turn up at 96 Street. Then Broadway is screwed as well by the 14 Street shutdown.

The fact that the (R) - the line perhaps most-beleaguered by its abysmal frequencies - is being dragged into the Canarsie shutdown mess shows that even a transit crisis on the scale of the shutdown isn't enough to get the MTA to think outside of the box. The reason for the cutback is that the combined (M) and (R) frequencies will overload the Forest Hills terminal; I fail to see, though, why riders on 4th Avenue, whose service is bad enough as is, need to suffer. If it weren't for the MTA's primitive fumigation rituals, Forest Hills would be more than capable of handling more than 20 tph.

But even if Forest Hills can't handle it, what's stopping them from extending the handful of extra (M)s to 179th? Or running more (W)s up 4th Avenue in the morning to compensate for the loss of two trains an hour? And at the end of the day, what's really stopping them from using this as a perfect time to clean up timer restrictions on the bridge? Yes, the capacity is capped somewhat by the curvature on either end of the bridge, but making it so trains didn't have to slow down before they're even halfway across the bridge would help. And for what it's worth, the curves are sharp, but the fact that e/b trains basically come to a stop before entering Marcy at the timer there is wholly unnecessary.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Via Garibaldi 8 said:

So the real question is how in the hell are they going to deal with this?  The de Blasio administration has been completely blasé about the whole thing claiming that they're trying to strike a balance, but if the (MTA) can't accommodate all of these (L) train riders, how are these people supposed to get around? It's clear that there will be hiccups and there's no way that shuttle buses will be able to pick up the slack.

This is one reason why I would have ALL (G) service run the full route to Church (forcing some (F) trains to express) with the idea of encouraging people as much as possible to take the (G) the other way to Fulton Street for the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) at Atlantic-Barclays with a new OOS transfer and the (A)(C) at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  Court Square to me is going to prove to be a disaster unless you encourage people as much as possible to take the (G) south and avoid the mess at Court Square. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Wallyhorse said:

This is one reason why I would have ALL (G) service run the full route to Church (forcing some (F) trains to express) with the idea of encouraging people as much as possible to take the (G) the other way to Fulton Street for the (2)(3)(4)(5)(B)(D)(N)(Q)(R) at Atlantic-Barclays with a new OOS transfer and the (A)(C) at Hoyt-Schermerhorn.  Court Square to me is going to prove to be a disaster unless you encourage people as much as possible to take the (G) south and avoid the mess at Court Square. 

What is to be gained with this? The majority of (L) riders will go north to Queens on the (G); the majority of people at Culver local stops want the (F). They're already forcing some (F) service to go express to allow 12 tph to terminate at Church Avenue. It's mainly people going to Lower Manhattan who will use the (A)(C) connection at Hoyt, and for what its worth, the platforms there aren't exactly wide either, so asking more people to switch there isn't the best idea. On top of that, the (A) and (C) will be plenty crowded pulling in to Hoyt with riders coming from Broadway Junction.

At least at Court Square, you have two ways into Manhattan, and some spare capacity on Manhattan-bound (M) trains - especially since (M) service is getting a boost. While making that transfer is a pain, walking from Fulton (G) to Atlantic Terminal is farther than a lot of people seem to realize - about 5 to 6 minutes. Nobody's going to do that walk daily, especially not in bad weather. The MTA's current (G) plan is one of the shutdown contingencies I think they've done correctly.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

What is to be gained with this? The majority of (L) riders will go north to Queens on the (G); the majority of people at Culver local stops want the (F). They're already forcing some (F) service to go express to allow 12 tph to terminate at Church Avenue. It's mainly people going to Lower Manhattan who will use the (A)(C) connection at Hoyt, and for what its worth, the platforms there aren't exactly wide either, so asking more people to switch there isn't the best idea. On top of that, the (A) and (C) will be plenty crowded pulling in to Hoyt with riders coming from Broadway Junction.

At least at Court Square, you have two ways into Manhattan, and some spare capacity on Manhattan-bound (M) trains - especially since (M) service is getting a boost. While making that transfer is a pain, walking from Fulton (G) to Atlantic Terminal is farther than a lot of people seem to realize - about 5 to 6 minutes. Nobody's going to do that walk daily, especially not in bad weather. The MTA's current (G) plan is one of the shutdown contingencies I think they've done correctly.

I thought there were only 8-9 (M) trains operating via Queens Blvd to Manhattan? Why can't they increase it to 14 (Even with the reduction in the (R) service?) Last I recall, the (E)(F) used to run into Manhattan 30 trains per hour via 53 St before the (F) was rerouted via 63 St. The extra capacity can be taken up by the (M). As for the (R) train commuters, you'll just have to bite the bullet - low ridership line anyways, and more riders should be encouraged to take the (F) over the (E) to have a bit of wiggle room on the (E)

 

I personally plan to use the (G) to the (7) , backtrack to Queensboro Plaza and use the (N)(W) into Manhattan (which is not in all a bad option for those going to stations 49 St, 57 St-7 Av, 5 Av-59 St and Lexington Av. The (7) does not come completely full into Court Square because many commuters get off for the (N) at Queensboro Plaza, so these statistics that are posted in earlier posts are also a bit inaccurate. 

 

The (C) can accommodate the ridership of 2 (L) trains just by lengthening its trains, while if you could squeeze one more (C) train thru, that makes it 3 trains. 

The OOS transfer at Fulton St to Barclays Center could be a real potential starter, if the MTA could draft up statistics that show that it would be faster than waiting for (A)(C) trains to pass them by too full to get on, considering the large transit options and the advertising that could say "better than waiting on the platform for 5-6 trains to pass you"

The (J)(Z) are also not consistently packed to the gills, so a few riders could be accommodated on those routes to Lower Manhattan (maybe +1 train's worth of passengers per hour)

The (M) should get as much a boost as possible to 14TPH (+5 trains from Marcy Av)

The (M) from 71 Av to Manhattan should also be boosted to 14TPH (+6 trains from Court Square)

Edited by darkstar8983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, darkstar8983 said:

I thought there were only 8-9 (M) trains operating via Queens Blvd to Manhattan? Why can't they increase it to 14 (Even with the reduction in the (R) service?) Last I recall, the (E)(F) used to run into Manhattan 30 trains per hour via 53 St before the (F) was rerouted via 63 St. The extra capacity can be taken up by the (M). As for the (R) train commuters, you'll just have to bite the bullet - low ridership line anyways, and more riders should be encouraged to take the (F) over the (E) to have a bit of wiggle room on the (E)

 

That's the plan. The (M) will run 14 tph, up from its current 10; combined with the 10 (J)(Z) trains an hour, there will be a total of 24 tph over the bridge, which is the upper limit.  The (R) service reduction is because Forest Hills is annoyingly capped at 20 tph, so the (M) increase must be cut from the (R). Telling (R) riders to bite the bullet over this is exactly the attitude we should not be adopting over this - while the (R) has lower ridership on Queens Blvd, which will be made up by the (M), the same cannot be said for the 4th Avenue stops in Brooklyn. Remember that while service levels will remain the same on QBL before and during the shutdown, Broadway and 4th Avenue are seeing a net service cut. Why should they? There's plenty of ridership there, and they already put up with low frequency all day long. The increase for the (M) is needed and justified, but cutting frequencies on 4th Avenue and Broadway is not.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

That's the plan. The (M) will run 14 tph, up from its current 10; combined with the 10 (J)(Z) trains an hour, there will be a total of 24 tph over the bridge, which is the upper limit.  The (R) service reduction is because Forest Hills is annoyingly capped at 20 tph, so the (M) increase must be cut from the (R). Telling (R) riders to bite the bullet over this is exactly the attitude we should not be adopting over this - while the (R) has lower ridership on Queens Blvd, which will be made up by the (M), the same cannot be said for the 4th Avenue stops in Brooklyn. Remember that while service levels will remain the same on QBL before and during the shutdown, Broadway and 4th Avenue are seeing a net service cut. Why should they? There's plenty of ridership there, and they already put up with low frequency all day long. The increase for the (M) is needed and justified, but cutting frequencies on 4th Avenue and Broadway is not.

I meant the cutback from the (R) should be on Queens Boulevard because there is extra room on those trains. The (R) trains to be cut would have to end at 96 St- 2 Av, coming from 4 Av, and yes this will cause a delay along Broadway but it’s better than trying to fumigate at Queensboro Plaza, delaying the (N) or sending it to Astoria to clog up Ditmars Blvd and it’s inefficient terminal setup 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the true limitation I imagine is when the (M)(R) come from Manhattan to 71 Av, for the fumigation. So they could in theory position extra (M) trains straight from the yard to enter service at 71 Av without the reduction of the (R) train. 

 

Long story short, it is complicated to position the (M) trains where they will truly be needed without a reduction of any route. I think A solution could be drafted up with some complicated logistics but that would probably be a long manuscript several hundred pages long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

That's the plan. The (M) will run 14 tph, up from its current 10; combined with the 10 (J)(Z) trains an hour, there will be a total of 24 tph over the bridge, which is the upper limit.  The (R) service reduction is because Forest Hills is annoyingly capped at 20 tph, so the (M) increase must be cut from the (R). Telling (R) riders to bite the bullet over this is exactly the attitude we should not be adopting over this - while the (R) has lower ridership on Queens Blvd, which will be made up by the (M), the same cannot be said for the 4th Avenue stops in Brooklyn. Remember that while service levels will remain the same on QBL before and during the shutdown, Broadway and 4th Avenue are seeing a net service cut. Why should they? There's plenty of ridership there, and they already put up with low frequency all day long. The increase for the (M) is needed and justified, but cutting frequencies on 4th Avenue and Broadway is not.

Agreed. This is a terrible plan. I find it hard to believe it’s the best they can do. It will result in only 6 (R) tph and only 5 tph at (J)-only and (Z)-only stops in Queens and East New York. Transit really seems to be taking (J) and (R) line riders for granted. I guess Transit doesn’t have a problem with 12-minute rush hour headways at the “skipped” stops on the (J) line. And the (R)? First they lose their “extra” service (the (brownM)) in 2010. Now there’s the possibility that they’re going to have even less service because Transit is recommending to cut service on the (R) to make for additional (M) service in Queens. What would they do to make up for this proposed cut in (R) service, extend the (J) and (Z) to South Brooklyn, lol? Perhaps they should...

2 hours ago, darkstar8983 said:

I meant the cutback from the (R) should be on Queens Boulevard because there is extra room on those trains. The (R) trains to be cut would have to end at 96 St- 2 Av, coming from 4 Av, and yes this will cause a delay along Broadway but it’s better than trying to fumigate at Queensboro Plaza, delaying the (N) or sending it to Astoria to clog up Ditmars Blvd and it’s inefficient terminal setup 

Even so, only 6 (R) tph in Queens with the rest having to cross over to the express tracks to get to 96th and 2nd? It’s going to completely screw up service on the Broadway Line in Manhattan, even more so than when the (N) ran local via the Bridge full time from 2010-16. And while I don’t think sending the balance of (R) service to Astoria alongside the (N) and (W) or fumigating at Queensboro Plaza are the answers, I can honestly say that having 40 percent of rush hour (R) trains cross from the local to the express tracks at 57th while (N) trains cross from the express to the local tracks at 34th is a recipe for disaster, especially if any kind of mechanical, signal or investigation-related delays occur. You know they will.

But really, was extending just the extra (M) trains to 179th not an option? Wouldn’t that be so much simpler?

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, R68OnBroadway said:

I would just extend both lines to 179- sure ridership may be lower but 179th is built better to be a terminal.

We need to change the way we look at 179th. Yes, theoretically it has higher capacity than Forest Hills, but it's not a magical place. 179th's capacity is not as unlimited as many people seem to think it is. You have a two-track upper level relay for the expresses, and a two-track lower relay for the locals - the same as Forest Hills. Fumigation is still going to limit the potential capacity. Terminating both locals at 179th will be exactly the same as at Forest Hills, the only difference being you've just made two very long routes - the (M), and especially the (R) - longer for no reason.

2 hours ago, Vtrain said:

Why can't they terminate some additional M trains at Queens Plaza so some R trains don't get cutback on Queens Blvd, this would mean that riders that get on at Court Sq/23 St would have empiter trains with some G trains terminating at Queens Plaza. 

Terminating (M) trains will get in the way of (E) trains at Queens Plaza, because of fumigation. Since it's being talked about, let's talk about how to fix the issue of fumigation delays. Right now, at relay terminals, the train crew must manually check the train for any remaining passengers before the train enters the relay. While this can be relatively painless, it only takes a few stragglers on board to cause delay, which of course is exacerbated at busy terminals like Bowling Green or Forest Hills. Fumigation is important for safety, as Transit rightfully doesn't want their crews meeting any unsavory or violent individuals while they change ends in the relay. But there should be a fix for fumigation; it's silly that we can't use Forest Hills (and, therefore the QB local) to its full potential because of this.

What if the T/O for the Manhattan-bound run boarded their train at the back of the northbound platform at Forest Hills? Then, when the train stops in the relay, the northbound operator can simply take over instantly from the southbound operator and move the train out of the relay without anyone leaving the cab. Conductors can change on the s/b platform as usual, and the n/b operator disembarks there as well. Without crews needed to leave the cab, the need to check the train should be obviated.

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

What would they do to make up for this proposed cut in (R) service, extend the (J) and (Z) to South Brooklyn, lol? Perhaps they should...

No need for this - just send some more (W)s from Brooklyn in the morning, and into Brooklyn in the evening.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

We need to change the way we look at 179th. Yes, theoretically it has higher capacity than Forest Hills, but it's not a magical place. 179th's capacity is not as unlimited as many people seem to think it is. You have a two-track upper level relay for the expresses, and a two-track lower relay for the locals - the same as Forest Hills. Fumigation is still going to limit the potential capacity. Terminating both locals at 179th will be exactly the same as at Forest Hills, the only difference being you've just made two very long routes - the (M), and especially the (R) - longer for no reason.

Terminating (M) trains will get in the way of (E) trains at Queens Plaza, because of fumigation. Since it's being talked about, let's talk about how to fix the issue of fumigation delays. Right now, at relay terminals, the train crew must manually check the train for any remaining passengers before the train enters the relay. While this can be relatively painless, it only takes a few stragglers on board to cause delay, which of course is exacerbated at busy terminals like Bowling Green or Forest Hills. Fumigation is important for safety, as Transit rightfully doesn't want their crews meeting any unsavory or violent individuals while they change ends in the relay. But there should be a fix for fumigation; it's silly that we can't use Forest Hills (and, therefore the QB local) to its full potential because of this.

What if the T/O for the Manhattan-bound run boarded their train at the back of the northbound platform at Forest Hills? Then, when the train stops in the relay, the northbound operator can simply take over instantly from the southbound operator and move the train out of the relay without anyone leaving the cab. Conductors can change on the s/b platform as usual, and the n/b operator disembarks there as well. Without crews needed to leave the cab, the need to check the train should be obviated.

No need for this - just send some more (W)s from Brooklyn in the morning, and into Brooklyn in the evening.

I wasn’t being fully serious about the (J)(Z), but if Transit is suggesting a cut to (R) service (and not a small one at that), then all options should be on the table here. Indeed, if they do implement said cut, then they’ll need to run more (W) trains anyway (in Manhattan at least) to make up for the less-frequent (R)

And I fully agree that Transit needs to revamp its fumigation policies because they are just one of the things contributing to the slowdown in service systemwide. 

Edited by T to Dyre Avenue
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, N6 Limited said:

What about swapping the (R) and the (W)'s northern terminal during the shut down?

The (R) loses its yard access which is why the (R) has its current routing. 

 

I don’t think 4th Ave totally has to lose out on its (R) service. The (W) could always be extended to down 4th Ave and when it ‘s at Astoria it usually switches over to the (N) anyways. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, officiallyliam said:

What if the T/O for the Manhattan-bound run boarded their train at the back of the northbound platform at Forest Hills? Then, when the train stops in the relay, the northbound operator can simply take over instantly from the southbound operator and move the train out of the relay without anyone leaving the cab. Conductors can change on the s/b platform as usual, and the n/b operator disembarks there as well. Without crews needed to leave the cab, the need to check the train should be obviated.

This has been the rule since 2014, however since they are so disgustingly ridiculous with their discipline, a lot of people still check and supervision still has the station cleaners trying to remove people from the train. It’s supposed to be like every other stop and then the conductor is supposed to say “the next stop is Forest Hills-71st Ave on the Manhattan bound platform, stand clear of the closing doors” and the doors should be closed in 10 seconds like every other stop. Also the dispatchers don’t always tell the crew if your train has another operator in the back so until you know for sure you still have to check your train. The only time it should take longer is if it’s going to the yard but that’s not what’s being done. 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vtrain said:

Also, what about LIRR Hunterspoint Av riders, they seem to miss this out, they are going to have to deal with the L train riders that are going to use the #7 train.

Miss this out? Miss what out......

They're the same commuters that are piling onto (7) trains that are already packed to the freakin gills, long before trains ever hit Hunters point av...... Their nice little shortcut to the East side (as opposed to taking Penn trains & doubling back on the (7) or the (S) to get to GCT) will still exist..... I can understand not wanting to be bothered with Penn station itself, but for me to worry about LIRR riders being affected by the (L) shutdown? Laughable.

How many daily trains does the LIRR even run in/out of Hunterspoint, again? How many total (L) trains in the course of a day will end up being stymied, again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

And I fully agree that Transit needs to revamp its fumigation policies because they are just one of the things contributing to the slowdown in service systemwide. 

Agreed. If that train is returning back to service immediately after relaying at 71 Avenue, there should not be any reason for a full fumigation process. We need to start treating these relay points less like Bowling Green where the train may idle for an indeterminate amount of time and more Brooklyn Bridge where trains are actually returning back in service.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lance said:

Agreed. If that train is returning back to service immediately after relaying at 71 Avenue, there should not be any reason for a full fumigation process. We need to start treating these relay points less like Bowling Green where the train may idle for an indeterminate amount of time and more Brooklyn Bridge where trains are actually returning back in service.

Speaking of Fumigation process at Forest HIlls, It's Actually quite horrendous. ESPECIALLY during the hours of 3-8PM. Trains get bunched up from 63 Drive or before that, and it makes NO Sense. Want good flexible service? Send 2 or 3 (M)'s to Jamaica-179 Street and DON'T fumigate unless a train is going to the yards. If that was the case, then maybe Forest Hills could handle more than 20 TPH.

Back on topic. 

(G)(J) and (M) service needs to improve. 

Timers on the Williamsburg bridges need to go.

B39 needs better service and be a part of the shuttle bus system. 

 

Edited by LGA Link N train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The smartest move would have been to send those 3 train from Canarsie as (L) to broad. Canarsiein just wanna get to the city once seat that better then going through Bway Junction Utilize Fulton center to the max.

Edited by Kanarsie Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Agreed. This is a terrible plan. I find it hard to believe it’s the best they can do. It will result in only 6 (R) tph and only 5 tph at (J)-only and (Z)-only stops in Queens and East New York. Transit really seems to be taking (J) and (R) line riders for granted. I guess Transit doesn’t have a problem with 12-minute rush hour headways at the “skipped” stops on the (J) line. And the (R)? First they lose their “extra” service (the (brownM)) in 2010. Now there’s the possibility that they’re going to have even less service because Transit is recommending to cut service on the (R) to make for additional (M) service in Queens. What would they do to make up for this proposed cut in (R) service, extend the (J) and (Z) to South Brooklyn, lol? Perhaps they should...

Even so, only 6 (R) tph in Queens with the rest having to cross over to the express tracks to get to 96th and 2nd? It’s going to completely screw up service on the Broadway Line in Manhattan, even more so than when the (N) ran local via the Bridge full time from 2010-16. And while I don’t think sending the balance of (R) service to Astoria alongside the (N) and (W) or fumigating at Queensboro Plaza are the answers, I can honestly say that having 40 percent of rush hour (R) trains cross from the local to the express tracks at 57th while (N) trains cross from the express to the local tracks at 34th is a recipe for disaster, especially if any kind of mechanical, signal or investigation-related delays occur. You know they will.

But really, was extending just the extra (M) trains to 179th not an option? Wouldn’t that be so much simpler?

Could they perhaps run a few (J)(Z) trains from Jamaica Center to Broadway Junction? They could terminate at Broadway Junction on the normal track and then move into the middle track and turn back. That could recover a bit of TPH for those areas. People could then switch to the (A)(C) from these trains.

Edited by W4ST

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2018 at 9:36 AM, officiallyliam said:

That's the plan. The (M) will run 14 tph, up from its current 10; combined with the 10 (J)(Z) trains an hour, there will be a total of 24 tph over the bridge, which is the upper limit.  The (R) service reduction is because Forest Hills is annoyingly capped at 20 tph, so the (M) increase must be cut from the (R). Telling (R) riders to bite the bullet over this is exactly the attitude we should not be adopting over this - while the (R) has lower ridership on Queens Blvd, which will be made up by the (M), the same cannot be said for the 4th Avenue stops in Brooklyn. Remember that while service levels will remain the same on QBL before and during the shutdown, Broadway and 4th Avenue are seeing a net service cut. Why should they? There's plenty of ridership there, and they already put up with low frequency all day long. The increase for the (M) is needed and justified, but cutting frequencies on 4th Avenue and Broadway is not.

And this is why the extra (M) trains I would add would be run as (T) and run to 96th Street-2nd Avenue.  This way, the (R) stays at normal levels while most regular (M) riders still get what they need (with again, those on the (G) asked to go the other way south and connect to the (M) on the Broadway-Brooklyn side or at Fulton or Hoyt-Schermerhorn for Manhattan options as much as possible). 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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