Full 14th St Shutdown Cancelled

[itmaybeokay]

On 1/18/2019 at 5:00 PM, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Disregard the research that Columbia University has conducted for a moment. Have you conducted comparable research for a dissertation to support the implied notion that you are qualified to make such a judgment?

I haven't, and I'm not. I study electrical engineering, not mechanical engineering or civil engineering. But I did speak with people more knowledgeable than me about the plan, with friends who are civil engineers, and I also know those involved in the study a bit and know they wouldn't stake their reputations on a flawed study that would have consequences for tens of millions of people. 

But, that's kind of my point - If i'm not qualified to say the plan checks out, who on the board - mta board or this messageboard - is truly qualified to say it's flawed. Until the publishing of the peer-reviewed studies I know we're all typing away at, perhaps what we're all sharing is opinion. 

On 1/18/2019 at 5:00 PM, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Also, the words "dihydrogen monoxide" are rarely used in place of "water" in contemporary society.

Correct. Chemically that's at best a "non-standard" name for H2O and at worst, it's just plain wrong. The term is generally used in science education to encourage students to think critically, and to illustrate how fear of a substance can easily be mustered. I was using it to illustrate what I felt the reaction to silica dust was. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody

On 1/18/2019 at 5:00 PM, AlgorithmOfTruth said:

Excuse the oppositional tone of my post, but using flowery language in an attempt to convince others that you're knowledgeable and competent in a particular subject is nothing short of pretentious.

Whereas you remain entitled to your opinion, I'd contend that It was far from my intention to evince undeserved credentials through ornate oh god I'm doing it again

I wasn't trying to use big words so I'd sound smart, I kind of just write that way. Ergo, not the first time I've been called pretentious. Not gonna defend myself on that one, but for whatever it's worth, I wasn't trying to talk down to anyone here. 

 

Anyway, the engineers - the deans of the engineering depts here and at cornell, went so far as to write an op ed further explaining the plan and responding to some of the uh, notes. It may be worth a read. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/l-train-tunnel-shutdown.html

[RR503]

37 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

I haven't, and I'm not. I study electrical engineering, not mechanical engineering or civil engineering. But I did speak with people more knowledgeable than me about the plan, with friends who are civil engineers, and I also know those involved in the study a bit and know they wouldn't stake their reputations on a flawed study that would have consequences for tens of millions of people. 

But, that's kind of my point - If i'm not qualified to say the plan checks out, who on the board - mta board or this messageboard - is truly qualified to say it's flawed. Until the publishing of the peer-reviewed studies I know we're all typing away at, perhaps what we're all sharing is opinion. 

Correct. Chemically that's at best a "non-standard" name for H2O and at worst, it's just plain wrong. The term is generally used in science education to encourage students to think critically, and to illustrate how fear of a substance can easily be mustered. I was using it to illustrate what I felt the reaction to silica dust was. Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrogen_monoxide_parody

Whereas you remain entitled to your opinion, I'd contend that It was far from my intention to evince undeserved credentials through ornate oh god I'm doing it again

I wasn't trying to use big words so I'd sound smart, I kind of just write that way. Ergo, not the first time I've been called pretentious. Not gonna defend myself on that one, but for whatever it's worth, I wasn't trying to talk down to anyone here. 

 

Anyway, the engineers - the deans of the engineering depts here and at cornell, went so far as to write an op ed further explaining the plan and responding to some of the uh, notes. It may be worth a read. 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/l-train-tunnel-shutdown.html

I agree that pretty much no one here is credentialed to speak authoritatively about the viability of this plan. But I do believe that we can raise questions. In that vein, that editorial answers none. 

It says: 

Quote

We are aware that our proposal is a unique approach to the tunnel restoration. Some have referred to it as a “patch job” — but nothing could be further from the truth.

And then offers little in substantiation beyond the already-known details that occupy the rest of the article. Given that it was last Tuesday (article published Thurs) that the consulting engineers themselves said that this plan would be less lasting, I would have loved for them to address that issue head on, either conceding the point, and outlining the disruptiveness of future maintenance, or telling us why their plan was workable, not simply that it was workable. Allowing the public — and peers — to engage with the nitty gritty of the assumptions and conclusions would have leant this process infinitely more credibility.

The MTA’s plan was known to be viable because it had worked before. The burden of evidence and analysis was thus on this team, and as of yet, they have yet to deliver convincingly/transparently. 

[itmaybeokay]

22 minutes ago, RR503 said:

I agree that pretty much no one here is credentialed to speak authoritatively about the viability of this plan. But I do believe that we can raise questions. In that vein, that editorial answers none. 

It says: 

And then offers little in substantiation beyond the already-known details that occupy the rest of the article. Given that it was last Tuesday (article published Thurs) that the consulting engineers themselves said that this plan would be less lasting, I would have loved for them to address that issue head on, either conceding the point, and outlining the disruptiveness of future maintenance, or telling us why their plan was workable, not simply that it was workable. Allowing the public — and peers — to engage with the nitty gritty of the assumptions and conclusions would have leant this process infinitely more credibility.

The MTA’s plan was known to be viable because it had worked before. The burden of evidence and analysis was thus on this team, and as of yet, they have yet to deliver convincingly/transparently. 

Fair point - we've all seen this though right? I didn't see it linked. Still somewhat cursory but it does have a fair bit of detail. 

http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/Canarsie - Board Presentation 011519 1120 FINAL.pdf

 

 

[RR503]

10 minutes ago, itmaybeokay said:

Fair point - we've all seen this though right? I didn't see it linked. Still somewhat cursory but it does have a fair bit of detail. 

http://web.mta.info/mta/news/books/docs/Canarsie - Board Presentation 011519 1120 FINAL.pdf

Yes. The discussion of these slides was where consultants admitted the new solution wouldn’t be as lasting. 

I again didn’t see this presentation, though, as more than a more detailed description of work. I was looking for feasibility analyses, a true empirical pro/con eval, etc. That simply wasn’t there. 

[Italianstallion]

Today the agenda for tomorrow's Board meeting was posted on mta.info. There is no agenda item regarding the L-train project.

[RR503]

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/01/23/exclusive-cuomos-l-train-plan-still-has-lots-of-pain/ 

Quote

Gov. Cuomo’s proposal to repair the L train’s Canarsie Tunnel isn’t so painless after all — in fact, the MTA may entirely shut some platforms for extended periods to control crowds waiting for slow trains.

The governor got the “L-Yeah!” headline from both the Daily News and the Post after his announcement earlier this month that he would replace the MTA’s plan to entirely eliminate L service between Brooklyn and Manhattan for 15 months with a “nights and weekends,” one-tube closure fix that would maintain service, albeit on a less-frequent basis.

But Streetsblog has obtained a draft MTA memo that reveals the nuts-and-bolts behind the Cuomo plan — and it isn’t as pretty as the tabloid headlines made it sound.

On weekends, as previously announced, there will be 20-minute gaps between trains, up from four minutes. But the memo — “Potential L Tunnel Weekend and Late Night Service Plan With One-Track Closure” — reveals additional pain as well:

Stations at First and Third avenues will likely be reconfigured to exit-only. (“That’s just abysmal for the East Village,” said Jon Orcutt, the spokesman for TransitCenter.)

There will be no new inter-borough bus route because such a bus will no longer be “time competitive” if the city eliminates the HOV-3 requirement on the Williamsburg Bridge, as it is expected to do.

There will be no additional ferry service.

The overnight plan includes the same 20-minute gaps in train service, plus the following difficulties for riders:

There will be no additional L shuttle service.

There will be no increase in normal G service.

There will be the aforementioned need for “metering” at L platforms at Union Square, Third Avenue, First Avenue and Bedford Avenue. If the monitoring of station crowds reveals a danger, the MTA would temporarily restrict access to the platforms.

There will be no new bus service along 14th Street, between the boroughs, or in Brooklyn.

Both there are some pluses for riders:

On weekends:

There will be service on the M line along the Second Avenue line on the Upper East Side. The train doesn’t currently go there, but can be sent along that route so that it can turn around without affecting other lines, a source said.

Service on the G train will run every eight minutes instead of every 10 minutes.

There will be out-of-station MetroCard transfers between the Broadway stop on the G and the Hewes Street and Lorimer Street stops on the J and M lines. There will be similar free transfers between the Junius Street stop on the 3 train and the Livonia Avenue stop on the L.

The MTA will provide additional service on the M14 bus to reduce waits from 12 minutes to 10 minutes. (Reminder: Under the original shutdown plan, 14th Street was slated to become a bus-only route.)

There will be a bus shuttle from the L station at Bedford Avenue to the J and M station at Marcy Avenue

And on the overnights, service will increase along the 7 train, but that improvement had already been announced.

All in all, a wholly unsurprising move from the MTA/Cuomo complex. 

[Lawrence St]

15 minutes ago, RR503 said:

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/01/23/exclusive-cuomos-l-train-plan-still-has-lots-of-pain/ 

All in all, a wholly unsurprising move from the MTA/Cuomo complex. 

So no M14 SBS?

[NoHacksJustKhaks]

39 minutes ago, RR503 said:

All in all, a wholly unsurprising move from the MTA/Cuomo complex. 

In a way, it’s nice to know that, while our “great shōgun” Andrew Cuomo continues to receive praise and support throughout all these dystopic endeavors he leads. The agency can barely get this new shaky plan ironed out that he solely caused and forced into action. This is punishment for riders that’ll certainly last for years, astonishing.

[LGA Link N Train]

18 hours ago, RR503 said:

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/01/23/exclusive-cuomos-l-train-plan-still-has-lots-of-pain/ 

All in all, a wholly unsurprising move from the MTA/Cuomo complex. 

What funny was that I was reading an Article relating to the train Shutdown being canceled last night while scrolling around Twitter. I don't remember the name of it but somewhere in it, the article said that Cuomo's engineers stated that a full shutdown would've been advantageous. 

17 hours ago, Lawrence St said:

So no M14 SBS?

Most Likely not, which is rather disappointing.

[Trainmaster5]

So I'm scrolling through the TV channels last night and I busted out laughing at 4am. Eureka , I've seen a new solution to the problem.  Call the Flex seal guy right away. Heck,  everyone else has a plan.😀

[B35 via Church]

1 hour ago, Trainmaster5 said:

So I'm scrolling through the TV channels last night and I busted out laughing at 4am. Eureka , I've seen a new solution to the problem.  Call the Flex seal guy right away. Heck,  everyone else has a plan.😀

Who needs an "as seen on TV" product when we can continue to see & experience enough defectibility from this agency?

 

 

 

.......on second thought, at least you can return the Flex Seal shit BACK if it's not to your liking & approval !!!

[Wallyhorse]

7 minutes ago, B35 via Church said:

Who needs an "as seen on TV" product when we can continue to see & experience enough defectibility from this agency?

.......on second thought, at least you can return the Flex Seal shit BACK if it's not to your liking & approval !!!

I don't see them being able to mass-produce the Flex Seal on the level the would need for this project. 

[Union Tpke]

There will be the aforementioned need for “metering” at L platforms at Union Square, Third Avenue, First Avenue and Bedford Avenue. If the monitoring of station crowds reveals a danger, the MTA would temporarily restrict access to the platforms.

I knew it!

[Bay Ridge Express]

2 hours ago, Trainmaster5 said:

So I'm scrolling through the TV channels last night and I busted out laughing at 4am. Eureka , I've seen a new solution to the problem.  Call the Flex seal guy right away. Heck,  everyone else has a plan.😀

Cuomo's "experts" didn't think of this one, did they...? 😳

[Wallyhorse]

15 hours ago, Bay Ridge Express said:

Cuomo's "experts" didn't think of this one, did they...? 😳

But would the makers be able to make enough of it for such a mass operation?

It would be the ultimate test of Flex Seal for sure!